For By Grace Are Ye Saved

[DHK]

I was not attacking anyone here. I was showing scripture (Matt 4:4 and Rev 22:18-19) that convinces me personally that the pure, infallible word of God exists and can be known and recognized.

How can you know if you are adding or taking away from God's word unless you know what the exact words of God are? You can't. This is pure and sound logic.

I was simply expressing my own opinion of the scriptures. Archangel argued that Ephesians 1:13 does not really mean what it is easily understood to say.

He is entitled to that opinion, I was just saying that I will never be convinced from this type of argument.

It was Archangel that said:



What does "better translation" mean? He is saying the version I choose to believe (KJV) is inferior. He is making the attack.

So again, they are allowed to tell me I need a "better translation" of scriptures, implying my version is inferior, yet I am accused of attacking him.

Here is a quote from Archangel which shows the root of the problem:

"Being born again" is not a verb, it is a participle and it is passive. So, there is nothing we have done to be born again, according to the Greek. Do I believe we must respond to God's gospel? Yes, absolutely. But that is not what this verse is talking about.

You are taking this verse out of context so as to proof-text your position. You are free to make your case, you just can't do it from this verse.

You seem to be KJVO, from what I gather. Archangel is taking his argument from the Greek, or at least from verb forms that are being used. You are ignoring his argument, and all because your KJV does not reflect what the actual verb in the Greek reflects.

Now the title of this thread is: For By Grace Are Ye Saved

It is not KJVO vs. other translations.
If you want to argue about the KJV go the versions forum.
Otherwise stick to the OP.

 

[Winman]

This is my last word on the subject, and yes, this has gotten us off track.

You seem to be KJVO, from what I gather. Archangel is taking his argument from the Greek, or at least from verb forms that are being used. You are ignoring his argument, and all because your KJV does not reflect what the actual verb in the Greek reflects.

Now the title of this thread is: For By Grace Are Ye Saved

It is not KJVO vs. other translations.
If you want to argue about the KJV go the versions forum.
Otherwise stick to the OP.

Isn't it my right to ignore his argument? That is the very thing he is doing with mine. He said I need a "better translation". So he dismisses the KJV as being inferior to the Greek texts. Why are you only rebuking me?

I am OK with that, he can believe whatever he wants. I am an American through and through, I believe in free speech and that men are entitled to hold their own opinions and beliefs.

When someone tells me that his version of the scriptures is superior to mine (which he implied, and brought up first), then I should be able to comment on his Greek translations. Fair is fair.

 

[DHK]

This is my last word on the subject, and yes, this has gotten us off track.



Isn't it my right to ignore his argument? That is the very thing he is doing with mine. He said I need a "better translation". So he dismisses the KJV as being inferior to the Greek texts. Why are you only rebuking me?

I am OK with that, he can believe whatever he wants. I am an American through and through, I believe in free speech and that men are entitled to hold their own opinions and beliefs.

When someone tells me that his version of the scriptures is superior to mine (which he implied, and brought up first), then I should be able to comment on his Greek translations. Fair is fair.

Comment, yes. But not with the vindictiveness of sending one to Hell. That only is God's prerogative, not yours. You have no right to say his name has been blotted out of the lamb's book of life, and all the other such things you have referred to by means of such Scripture.

 

[AresMan]

And furthermore, the term "Doctrines of Grace" is just another name for Calvinism, you hold basically the same beliefs. That said, not all who call themselves Calvinists hold to the same exact beliefs. There is very little difference between what you believe and Calvinists believe.

No, people say "Doctrines of Grace" when they are trying to refer to the teachings of "the five points" specifically. "Calvinism" can be an ambiguous term that can encompass anything that John Calvin taught. We know that he taught many things that are not part of soteriology, and also taught Infant Baptism. He also seems to get a lot of flack for his involvement in the Servetus execution. These reasons are precisely why those who agree with "the five points" want to clarify what they talking about without using terms that can lead to rabbit trails.

I prefer "Sovereign Grace" first, "Doctrines of Grace" second, and "Reformed Soteriology" third. I also want to distinguish between "Reformed Soteriology" and "Reformed Theology" because the term "Reformed Theology" can include Presbyterian views of infant baptism and covenant theology or other views of amillenialism or preterism. Not all who agree with "Reformed Soteriology" accept these or everything that many Reformers believed (e.g. Reformed Baptists).

An article by Dr. Laurance Vance

"Dr" Lawrence Vance? Better watch your credibility.

 

[AresMan]

This says you are born again before you hear and believe the gospel. But the scriptures say you are born again "by the word of God".

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

No, it does not say that one is born again before one hears the Gospel, if by "hearing" you mean auditory hearing. One must "hear" the Word of God and be exposed to the Gospel message; however, the Holy Spirit must regenerate someone from his deadness in sins for him to believe the Gospel.

This just confirms what I just said, they believe a person is first born again, and only after being born again can they accept the gospel and "come to salvation".

I believe that regeneration and believing the Gospel are chronologically simultaneous; however, regeneration is the logical cause of saving faith. Much like pulling a trigger in a gun releases a bullet "simultaneously" so one who is regenerated immediately acts as one and believes the Gospel. The Holy Spirit does not regenerate people apart from the Word of God and the Gospel.

So, they are in fact saying that a person is born again, but not yet saved. It says the first event "insofar as man himself is aware" is this effectual calling, but a man must first be regenerated or born again to hear and accept the gospel.

No. I believe that regeneration and saving faith unto justification are chronologically simultaneous. The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to regenerate one's heart.

And again, they say faith is a gift and use Ephesians 2:8-9 as a proof text, a verse that has been controversial for centuries.

I believe that the whole package in Ephesians 2:8 is the "gift" of God. "By grace are ye saved through faith" is the gift of God. The gift of God includes the grace, the faith, and the salvation. This is all part of the effectual "calling" in Romans 8:28-30, 1 Corinthians 1:23-24, Hebrews 9:15, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Faith is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23); therefore, this is obviously a different kind of "faith" than flipping a light switch and expecting the circuitry to function as it is designed.
Also, if one is "in the flesh" rather than "in the Spirit" he cannot please God (Rom 8:5-9). Therefore, faith has to be a product of the effectual working of God on behalf of someone. Gospel faith must be something that only someone who has had a nature change can emit.

Gospel faith is a gift in Philippians 1:29.
Repentance is also a gift in Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, and 2 Timothy 2:25.

But even here, they are saying that a man is first born again before he can receive the gift of faith.

True, but I believe that man receives the gift of faith upon being born again.

Therefore, they are also claiming a person is born again without faith, just as Old Regular himself implied:

No, just that the Holy Spirit does not rely upon an autonomous man to meet a prerequisite of faith before He can regenerate (re-birth) him. Where does the Bible say that one must have faith to be "born again" or "regenerated"? And no, a verse that says to have faith to be "saved" does not count. You assume that "regeneration" and "saved" (justification) are essentially synonyms. Prove it.

The Holy Spirit "saved us" through regeneration and renewing:

Tit 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared,
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior;
Tit 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

To be righteous, including exercise the faith of the fruit of the Spirit (which would involve faith in the Gospel), one must be regenerated and have a new nature.

Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh:
Eze 11:20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

You see, Old Regular himself strongly implies that a person does not have to have faith to be born again.

So, this is utterly unscriptural.

Note that he was not saying that someone born again is absent faith, only that faith is not a prerequisite that the Holy Spirit must depend upon the autonomous man to do for Him to regenerate (re-birth) him. He isn't saying that someone can be born again and faith is just an "option."

 

[The Archangel]

Faith is indeed a requirement in being born again (passing from spiritual death to spiritual life).

For once I absolutely agree with you in this statement. I think the Bible clearly shows that faith is required and it is also a requirement that faith be exercised and it is also important where that faith is placed--it must be placed in God (Christ).

The question that separates us is "Where does that faith come from?" Is it something we inherently have or is it something that is granted to us by God's grace?

Of course you know where I stand: It is something granted to us by God's grace--although we must still exercise it.

Being saved and born again are one in the same thing.

Now, I don't agree with this. Mostly because every instance of "Born Again" I can find in the Bible is passive--meaning it is not the subject that acts on himself or herself. By grammatical rule, passive means that the subject is acted on by an outside force. Many cases, in fact, of the passive in the New Testament are called "The Divine Passive" for that very reason--it is something God does.

I would go so far as to agree that once someone has been born again (something God does) that salvation will undoubtedly occur, however later that may come.

I know you don't agree with that, but hey...I think we found one point of agreement and that's progress!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Salty]

for another view of "for by Grace..."

 

[Amy.G]

for another view of "for by Grace..."

:laugh: This thread needed some comedic relief!

 

[Winman]

No, just that the Holy Spirit does not rely upon an autonomous man to meet a prerequisite of faith before He can regenerate (re-birth) him. Where does the Bible say that one must have faith to be "born again" or "regenerated"? And no, a verse that says to have faith to be "saved" does not count. You assume that "regeneration" and "saved" (justification) are essentially synonyms. Prove it.

You do not have access to God's grace without faith.

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

So, you have to have faith to have access into God's grace. The word access here is defined as:

1) the act of bringing to, a moving to
2) access, approach
a) to God, i.e. that relationship with God whereby we are acceptable to him and have assurance that he is favourably disposed towards us

So, a man cannot receive God's grace unless he has faith. A man cannot be born again unless he first has faith.

So this is where the scriptures say you have to have faith to be born again. How can you be born again if you cannot receive God's grace?

 

[OldRegular]

You do not have access to God's grace without faith.

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

So, you have to have faith to have access into God's grace. The word access here is defined as:

1) the act of bringing to, a moving to
2) access, approach
a) to God, i.e. that relationship with God whereby we are acceptable to him and have assurance that he is favourably disposed towards us

So, a man cannot receive God's grace unless he has faith. A man cannot be born again unless he first has faith.

So this is where the scriptures say you have to have faith to be born again. How can you be born again if you cannot receive God's grace?

You are taking the passage out of context!

 

[Winman]

And in James chapter 1 it shows that we are born again by hearing and believeing the word of God.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

The scriptures say God "begat" us with the word of truth. The word begat means:

1) to bring forth
a) from the womb
b) give birth to
2) produce

You cannot be regenerated without the word of God. And of course you must hear the word of God.

The scriptures show in numerous places that we first hear the word of God, then believe it, then are born again.

The scriptures show that you have to have faith and believe God's word for them to work effectually in you. So if you are born again by the word of God (which I have shown several times here), then you must first believe the words of God you hear before they will work in you.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

If we are born again by the word of God (and we are), you must believe the word of God when you hear it to profit you.

And why would we be warned to fear if man has no control over whether he believes or not? If Calvinism is true, a man has no control whatsoever over whether he has the ability to believe. A warning like this would make absolutely no sense if Calvinism is true. And Calvinist's believe in Irresistable Grace, according to them there is no way they could "come short of it" as shown in verse 1.

1 Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

This verse shows that you must believe God's word for it to work effectually in you. This verse goes hand in hand with Heb 4:2 that shows those that heard the gospel, but lacked faith, were not profited by it.

So again, the scriptures say in several places that we are born again by the word of God. So being born again follows first hearing and believeing the word of God.

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

And notice here that the word of God is called seed, just as in the parable of the sower.

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Did Jesus sow the Holy Spirit? No. Did Jesus sow faith? No. Did Jesus sow the word of God? Yes.

And when he finished this parable, he told his disciples to take heed and be careful what they hear, and to those who hear his word more would be given, but to those who do not, that which was given them would be taken away.

Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

Again, a warning like this makes no sense if Irresistable Grace is true. Jesus clearly spoke to his disciples as if they possessed both the ability to hear his word, and the ability to believe it. And they also had the ability not to believe it. Only if they had these abilities does a warning like this make sense.

 

[Winman]

You are taking the passage out of context!

Is that all you can say? Explain how I have misused this scripture if you will please.

 

[OldRegular]

Is that all you can say? Explain how I have misused this scripture if you will please.

Read Romans 5:1. Perhaps someone else will explain it to you. You would not believe anything I say.

I presented a rather long post describing the various things that I believe occur in salvation. Yet you continue to misrepresent what I believe, implying that I am a heretic and do not believe the atonement of Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation. I let it pass at the time and responded by presenting the above mentioned post.

 

[Winman]

Read Romans 5:1. Perhaps someone else will explain it to you. You would not believe anything I say.

I presented a rather long post describing the various things that I believe occur in salvation. Yet you continue to misrepresent what I believe, implying that I am a heretic and do not believe the atonement of Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation. I let it pass at the time and responded by presenting the above mentioned post.

I have not misrepresented you. I have posted your very words. You yourself have shown that you believe Regeneration is the "initial" step in salvation. From how I understand the statement you posted, man is not aware of this change. This regeneration was described as being synonomous with "being born again".

And you yourself said you did not see the requirement of faith for this initial step of being born again.

This is where we disagree. I believe a person first hears the word of God, then believes it, and is afterward regenerated by the Holy Spirit. And I have provided many scriptures to support my view.

As far as Romans 5:2 which I submitted to show that we have access into God's grace by faith, I usually don't do this, but I am going to present Matthew Henry's comments on this very verse. And he was supposedly a Calvinist, although I have seen him stray from the Calvinistic doctrines many times. But note the very last sentences in his comments on Rom 5:2

II. We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, v. 2. This is a further privilege, not only peace, but grace, that is, this favour. Observe, 1. The saints’ happy state. It is a state of grace, God’s loving-kindness to us and our conformity to God; he that hath God’s love and God’s likeness is in a state of grace. Now into this grace we have access prosagoµgeµn—an introduction, which implies that we were not born in this state; we are by nature children of wrath, and the carnal mind is enmity against God; but we are brought into it. We could not have got into it of ourselves, nor have conquered the difficulties in the way, but we have a manuduction, a leading by the hand,—are led into it as blind, or lame, or weak people are led,—are introduced as pardoned offenders,—are introduced by some favourite at court to kiss the king’s hand, as strangers, that are to have audience, are conducted. Prosagoµgeµn escheµkamen—We have had access. He speaks of those that have been already brought out of a state of nature into a state of grace. Paul, in his conversion, had this access; then he was made nigh. Barnabas introduced him to the apostles (Acts 9:27), and there were others that led him by the hand to Damascus (v. 8), but it was Christ that introduced and led him by the hand into this grace. By whom we have access by faith. By Christ as the author and principal agent, by faith as the means of this access. Not by Christ in consideration of any merit or desert of ours, but in consideration of our believing dependence upon him and resignation of ourselves to him

So, you see Matthew Henry himself says we only have access into God's grace "in consideration of our believeing dependence upon him..."

So as you see, I am not making any sort of false argument here.

 

[Winman]

And notice how Matthew Henry describes grace.

This is a further privilege, not only peace, but grace, that is, this favour. Observe, 1. The saints’ happy state. It is a state of grace, God’s loving-kindness to us and our conformity to God; he that hath God’s love and God’s likeness is in a state of grace.

Grace means the favor of God. But the scriptures say we cannot please God without faith, we can not be in his favor or grace unless we first believe he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Now you believe God shows us grace first. And one of the gifts of this grace is faith. But this cannot be so, for we cannot please God without faith, we cannot be in his favor as Matthew Henry rightly describes grace.

Believeing is not a work. It is taking God at his word. Through the scriptures we know of God and of Christ. And if we believe God's word, this pleases him and places us in his favor or grace. To not believe God is to call him a liar, so we could not possibly receive his grace while yet unbelieveing.

1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Do you really believe God would grant grace to someone who is calling him a liar?

But this is what you believe. You believe God gives grace to an unbeliever, someone who is calling him a liar. And that only after he receives this grace can he have the ability to believe.

So, I disagree with this completely.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman's quote of Matthew Henry
II. We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, v. 2. This is a further privilege, not only peace, but grace, that is, this favour. Observe, 1. The saints’ happy state. It is a state of grace, God’s loving-kindness to us and our conformity to God; he that hath God’s love and God’s likeness is in a state of grace. Now into this grace we have access prosagoµgeµn—an introduction, which implies that we were not born in this state; we are by nature children of wrath, and the carnal mind is enmity against God; but we are brought into it. We could not have got into it of ourselves, nor have conquered the difficulties in the way, but we have a manuduction, a leading by the hand,—are led into it as blind, or lame, or weak people are led,—are introduced as pardoned offenders,—are introduced by some favourite at court to kiss the king’s hand, as strangers, that are to have audience, are conducted. Prosagoµgeµn escheµkamen—We have had access. He speaks of those that have been already brought out of a state of nature into a state of grace. Paul, in his conversion, had this access; then he was made nigh. Barnabas introduced him to the apostles (Acts 9:27), and there were others that led him by the hand to Damascus (v. 8), but it was Christ that introduced and led him by the hand into this grace. By whom we have access by faith. By Christ as the author and principal agent, by faith as the means of this access. Not by Christ in consideration of any merit or desert of ours, but in consideration of our believing dependence upon him and resignation of ourselves to him

You need to read more carefully Winman. Romans 5:1 would have shown you that Paul was speaking of those already justified by faith. Henry is also talking of those justified by faith or as he says:
He speaks of those that have been already brought out of a state of nature into a state of grace.

 

[OldRegular]

I have not misrepresented you.

You have misrepresented me and all those who hold to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace. You said that since regeneration was an act of God alone we did not believe that the atoning death of Jesus Christ was necessary. That is a flat out lie and you know it. You simply lost your cool!

 

[Winman]

You need to read more carefully Winman. Romans 5:1 would have shown you that Paul was speaking of those already justified by faith. Henry is also talking of those justified by faith or as he says:
He speaks of those that have been already brought out of a state of nature into a state of grace.

Exactly. They had to have faith to be justified, and they have to have faith to have access into God's graces.

Grace means the favor of God. It means you please God. But you cannot possibly please God or have favor with him unless you first believe (Heb 11:6).

You did not destroy my argument. You confirmed it.

And I did not misrepresent your views. If you are regenerated or born again, you have eternal life. What do you think born again means? And you implied that faith was not necessary for this initial step. I quoted your own very words, how can that be misrepresenting you?

Notice that this New Birth is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. Nothing is said about the requirement of prior faith.

Those are your words. You do not absolutely say faith is not required for the New Birth, but you certainly imply it.

But the scriptures show you have to believe to be born again or regenerated as you call it.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

This verse does not say whosoever is born of God believeth. It says whosoever believeth is born of God. Order matters in scripture.

You cannot be born again apart from believeing that Jesus is the Christ. So faith is absolutely required to be born again. You are justified "by faith" (Rom 5:1), you have access into God's grace "by faith" (Rom 5:2).

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

You have to receive Jesus, which is explained as believeing on his name before God gives you the power (the Holy Spirit) "to become" the sons of God. You note the phrase "to them" in verse 12? Who is that talking about? It is talking about those who received Jesus (past tense). And it is "to them" that God gave power "to become" the sons of God.

This verse is very easy to understand, but you turn it completely around to say that those who are born again receive the power to believe. Nonsense.

We will argue about this forever. The scriptures clearly show numerous times that you must believe to be born again, not as a result of it.

 

[OldRegular]

I quoted your own very words, how can that be misrepresenting you?

You have misrepresented me and all those who hold to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace. You said that those who believe that regeneration is an act of God alone we did not believe that the atoning death of Jesus Christ was necessary. That is a flat out lie and you know it. You simply lost your cool! And that is all I have to say about that!

 

[The Archangel]

Grace means the favor of God. It means you please God.

This is not what grace means. Grace, by definition, is unmerited favor. That means nothing can be done to earn it, be given it, etc. Grace does not come as a result of pleasing God.

Unfortunately, this is a basic theological misunderstanding on your part--and that has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism.

Blessings in your studies of Grace.

The Archangel