Correction, true saving faith itself is a gift from God(Ephesians 2:8-9, Philippians 1:29, and Romans 12:3. The Scriptures also point out that not all have this faith(2 Thessalonians 3:2).

@@EmV-si1eu I'm sorry, I will try to break this to you gently. Eph 2 does not teach that faith is a gift from God. The Greek language makes this clear based on the gender of the words involved. Check out a good Greek Expository Dictionary if you want to learn the explanation. Then Phil 1:29 says nothing about faith being a gift of God either. It says faith is granted, not given. Check out an English dictionary on this one. And finally Rom 12:3 says nothing about saving faith being given to anyone. It speaks of a "measure of faith that God has assigned" to the believers in Rome. May God help you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

@@thereturn2361 OK, I'll try and break this to you assertively(not harshly) and without perceived condescension. You said that faith is granted, not given. While both 'give' and 'grant' involve transferring or bestowing something, 'give' is more associated with acts of generosity or informal giving, while 'grant' suggests a formal approval or authority in conferring rights, permissions, or privileges. Even though the term "grant" is more formal and suggests a legal or official approval where an authority gives permission or privilege, both have been used interchangeably. For example: The court granted him custody of his kids. OR The court gave him custody of his kids In any case, unless we're going to mince words or play semantics with the essence of what Scripture really conveys, true saving faith is something that is bestowed by God and is not something inherent within us nor is it something we muster up within ourselves. Also, through logical and Scriptural deduction, where we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we have to inevitably conclude based on 2 Thessalonians 3:2 that this faith is not granted to everyone. Going on to your explanation of faith in Romans 12:3, I don't know how you conclude that the faith Paul says "GOD HAS DEALT(granted, given, bestowed) TO EACH ONE" was exclusively referring to the Roman Christians when that exhortation is pertinent to every Christian down the centuries and that same measure of faith is what God used to save each of us. Now, in reference to the gender of Greek words you pointed out in Ephesians 2:8-9 we follow the proper grammatical application to come to the logical and inevitable conclusion. The neuter pronoun "this" may refer to the one of three things: the "grace", the verb "saved" the noun "faith". Some think it refers to "faith" or "grace" because it is the closest in context, but a Greek grammar problem makes this not very possible. The fact that the feminine nouns "faith" or "grace" do not match the neuter pronoun "this". Pronouns in Greek should agree with the the nouns they modify. Therefore "this" cannot refer to "faith" or grace" exclusively. Some want "this" to refer back to the verb "saved" but again the antecedent would be a masculine participle. Since the word "this" is neuter we have to conclude that "this" refers back to the whole process of salvation that Paul just described. The process of being saved by grace through faith is ALL a gift from God. THIS whole package deal is not our own doing so as to eliminate human pride and boasting. Therefore grace is a gift from God, being saved is a gift from God, and faith is a gift from God. All of these parts fall under the neuter pronoun "this". On a personal note I went through some of the host's or creator's other presentations and I happened to notice you stated something to the effect of "Very deceitfully presented"! Being Bible believing Christians I'm sure we all agree on the absolute essentials of the Christian faith. That being said, unless they're teaching outright heresy in regards to the essentials of the faith, I'm not going to tolerate someone slanderously or falsely accusing another Christian of being a lying p.o.s. just because their theological and soteriological views on secondary issues differ from yours. Trust me dude, that's not happening! I don't accuse synergists or Arminians of being intentional decievers just because we disagree on secondary issues. Although I have known of some synergists and monergists both who have implemented textual gymnastics and have created intentional ambiguity when interpreting the Scriptures to match their own theological narrative. With all that being said Mr. @thereturn2361, my real name is Eric and it's been a pleasure dialoging with you. I will keep you and yours in my prayers! May we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ! ✝️♥️🙏

@@EmV-si1eu Thanks for your reply. I find your slanderous false accusation against me quite interesting in light of the fact that you say you are not going to tolerate such a thing. I wouldn't even accuse an unbeliever of being a lying p.o.s. much less a believer. You seem to have a problem understanding what I say. It seems to be a result of your assumptions. Is it correct to say that since you believe that God is the one who grants saving faith, only those he chooses to give this faith to can be saved and all others will be lost?

@@EmV-si1eu I find it quite interesting that you correctly identify the gender of faith, grace, and that (or this). And also, you come to the correct conclusion that, "The fact that the feminine nouns "faith" or "grace" do not match the neuter pronoun "this". Pronouns in Greek should agree with the the nouns they modify. Therefore "this" CANNOT refer to "faith" or grace." (emphasis added) But your end conclusion contradicts what you just said. You conclude, "Therefore grace is a gift from God, being saved is a gift from God, and faith is a gift from God." How in your mind do you hold two contradictory statements to both be true? You try to reconcile the problem by talking about the verb, saved, as being a masculine participle. Perhaps you can share a Greek text that speaks of verbs as having gender. Greek verbs can have tense, mood, voice, person, and number but not gender. The truth remains that faith is not a gift from God in Eph 2:8 as the Greek language makes clear (and of which you confirmed), but being saved is. In Romans, Paul explains how unregenerate sinners can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. (Rom 10:13) They can call upon the name of the Lord because they have come to faith as described in Rom 10:14-17. It does not come from God giving them "saving" faith. Faith comes from hearing the message of Christ. The assumption that Phil 1 and Rom 12 are speaking of God granting or giving "saving" faith is contradictory to Paul's explanation of how faith comes to an unbeliever. Neither Philippians or Romans use the word "saving" in front of faith. That is an unfounded assumption. Romans 12 speaks of God giving believers a "measure of faith." Believers are already saved or they wouldn't be believers. Phi 1:29 speaks of God granting that you believe in him (Christ). Merriam-Webster defines grant as 1) a) to consent to carry out for a person : allow fulfillment of b) to permit as a right, privilege, or favor 2) to bestow or transfer formally and 3) a) to be willing to concede b) to assume to be true. It should be noted that granting something cannot mean strictly only giving something. If we allow scripture to interpret scripture, we must rule out the idea that God is giving saving faith but is more like permitting as a right, privilege, or favor. The proper understanding of Eph 2:8 is that salvation is the gift of God being given by his grace and accessed by our faith in Christ. It is given in grace because we cannot earn it by our works. Paul states in Rom 6:23 that eternal life is a gift of God. May we all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ!

No. Good sir, Peter sinned. And because he sinned, Paul rebuked him. It wasn’t Caphus who was being rebuked. It was Peter, the apostle. This is unanimously agreed between historian scholars, and like minded Christians. Catholics are DESPERATE to try and claim Peter did not sin, as that would mean the so called pope sinned. But Peter did sin in Galatians. This is historically documented.

@@S-dx9go false sir the understanding that the Cephas of Galatians wasn’t Peter the apostle goes back to the early third century by Clement of Alexandria and throughout the ages but was never relevant because this never posed an issue to Christians until the 18th century when well after the Protestant deformation Protestants were DESPERATE to continue to undermine the authority of the Pope to keep people lost in their false gospel. Once you know this the text is more than clear, a simple reading of Galatians 2:7-14 raises these questions but it doesn’t end their as you continue to explore 1 Corinthians; John; the opinion of the fathers etc etc. You obviously don’t know the Bible well enough and haven’t studied church history to understand this claim.

@@S-dx9go first learn the Bible and church history so you can understand the argument.

@@RedWolf5 i do indeed know the church history. It is shown only in catholic church tradition, that Paul was not referring to Peter the disciple but the so called holy apostle Cephas who through oral tradition, is believed to have been Bishop of Iconium. No actual accounts of him have been preserved. It is only desperately and forcefully assumed that he is the one who is mentioned by the apostle Paul but is by no means proven in any way and is in fact highly unlikely. The historical evidence points towards it being Peter the apostle Catholics shamefully commonly refer to as the ‘first pope’.

@@S-dx9go no you have no clue. I wrote a lengthy response before that explains the issue in depth which seems to have been deleted. You obviously don’t have a clue and don’t have the time to rewrite it right now, but trust me you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Beautifully presented deceptively.

You are conflating teachings fir salvation with teachings for discipleship and eternal rewards. They are not the same thing.