First of all, we must make clear ,what both Clark and you fail to make clear. That is, the presuppositional perspective it is coming from. We will see in a moment why that is necessary. He is Wesleyan/ Arminianist. The above statements are true and Reformed theology is in agreement with them. However as we go farther, and not until the very end, do we see that he, while acquiescing to their truthfulness, is reinterpreting their clear meaning. It is extremely subtle. That is why when he gets to his conclusion, people often take off their critical thinking hats and just agree.
Here he throws mud into the waters by appealing to something few people can follow or bother to check, but accept as truth because someone who can present Greek as though he really knows what he is saying, must know what he is saying. (It is also a subtle appeal to his own authority.) But is it true that because τουτο, (this salvation) is neuter gender the relative "this" being in neuter gender, cannot stand for πιστις, (faith) because it is in the feminine gender? Therefore the entire sentence prior to "faith" is the antecedent. (Which, even if that is the case both grace and faith are gifts. But he is going to find a way around that.) See if it makes any more sense than the above.
As to the question I posted "But is it true----" I don't really know. I find it irrelevant in any case, just a tool that is used to arrive at that which one wants it to arrive. I am not even a novice in the Greek language and I have no idea where Clark lands on that. What I do know from searches on the ancient Greek language is that it is not as simple as is stated by Clark, or as you have used it.
Here Clark inserts his presuppositions without identifying them. He makes the statement that grace enables us to believe and gives us the power to believe and by implication, reject what we believe, by disassociating it from "faith", yet using the word "faith." Is there any logic to that statement? We cannot both believe and not believe the same thing at the same time, and scripture, most often in Christ's own voice, tells us that it is believing that gives eternal life. Neither does the scripture ever say that grace is the power to believe. It quite simply says that it is by grace that any are saved and they are saved through faith. It is a gift. I have shown you before, have always had it ignored, that pisteos (faith) in the NT primarily denotes a conviction or belief in the truth of something, often with the implication of trust and reliance. Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. (From Strong's Greek Concordance) So where did Clark's knowledge of Greek go in this regard? The faith necessary for salvation is given to us by God and at that point it becomes ours. We actually have it sealed within us.
Here Clark makes an appeal to his own opinion of what Reformed theology teaches. And a straw man one at that. The conclusion of faith being a gift given to us by God is not that God is believing for us. It is really us who are believing, but we did not get there on our own or simply because God's saving is grace. Clark begins by declaring the truthfulness of Eph 2: 8, announcing that we must never say our faith is a work. And that is very accurate and free willies follow it as though it was itself scripture. They never say it, they deny it to a person's face. And yet, by the end of his writing, Clark has made it nothing but a work. If the faith to believe originates in us, it is us who contribute to our salvation.
Clark then goes off on an unrelated but highly distracting tangent that is given no biblical support and truthfully, because it has none.
Appeal again to his own authority. Where does the word of God say that though?
