Consistent or Alternating Faith in Ephesians 1-2?

In our last article we examined the “kind” of faith coupled with regeneration in Ephesians 2:8. We saw that, based on the analogy of faith and the context of the Ephesian letter, the faith under consideration is a gift from God (v.19) mediated through the proclamation of the gospel (v.13). Unless we approach the text with anti-means prejudices (eisegesis), this is what the context suggests. Essentially, there are two possibilities as to how the concept of faith progresses in the first two chapters of this letter. Faith is mentioned in chapter 1, verses 12-13, then in v. 19, and lastly in verse 8 of the second chapter. Consider the following progressions, and ask yourself which one is most feasible.

ANTI-MEANS POSITION:

1. EPH. 1:12-13 – unnecessary evangelical faith for eternal salvation
2. EPH. 1:19 - necessary seed faith for eternal salvation
3. EPH. 2:8 - necessary seed faith for eternal salvation

MEANS POSITION:

1. EPH. 1:12-13 – necessary evangelical faith for eternal salvation
2. EPH. 1:19 - necessary evangelical faith for eternal salvation
3. EPH. 2:8 - necessary evangelical faith for eternal salvation

These are the two structures by which the subject of faith must be seen as developing as determined by the two opposing systems of means and anti-means. Since many of those within the Primitive Baptist ranks are opposed to the idea of means, there are few alternatives (NOTE: we shall show the latest invention of Eph. 2:8 in our next article) but to accept the first position. Since both gospel and human instrumentality are involved it must be declared that the faith under consideration in v.12-13 is an unnecessary thing for eternal salvation and must be somehow construed to fit under the umbrella of conditional time salvation. Despite the lack of any contextual persuasion, since verse 19 speaks of faith as wrought by God’s power (and not by any man, as they falsely presume the means position holds) it has to be presumed that Paul is now referring to a different “kind” of faith than the one just mentioned moments before. It is “this” faith of verse 19, and not that of v.12-13, which Paul has under consideration when he mentions the subject again in Ephesians 2:8.

On the other hand, the means position has the advantage of being consistent throughout. Seeing no inconsistency in something being of the Lord and wrought through some form of instrumentality He has ordained, it does not assume that the faith must alternate between unnecessary evangelical and necessary seed faith in the span of seven verses. Rather, they are one and the same. In its favor, it has loads of biblical examples in which something was “of the Lord”, but wrought “through” some ordained medium. Therefore, having first mentioned evangelical faith in v.12-13 within the surrounding context of eternal salvation, this “kind” of faith pervades through what follows.

So the question, therefore, which our moderns must ask themselves is which position is honest? Which one is established by adhering to proper rules of interpretation, and remains in harmony with the context?

Or, put yourselves in the shoes of the early Ephesians. Can it possibly be imagined they wore the hat of conditional time salvation and thought that Paul alternated between kinds of faith, when there is nothing in the context to suggest such?