For By Grace Are Ye Saved

[Winman]

Winman

You believe in the free will of unsaved mankind. When you can present a rational explanation of why some reject salvation and some accept salvation then you may have something. Until that time I will just have to believe in the Sovereign Grace of God in salvation!

I have presented the answer to that question many times, but you refuse to accept it. Jesus himself explained:

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Some men (not all) love evil. They really do. They enjoy sin. Why are drug dealers willing to sell young people harmful drugs that will destroy their minds and bodies, and to murder and kill those who try to stop them? Money. They enjoy the great wealth, that they can live in pleasure and ease. And they hate the word of God because it exposes them and convicts them of their great sin.

I just showed you the story of the rich young ruler. He loved his wealth and pleasure more than God.

This is shown many times in scripture.

2 Thess 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Deut 31:20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant.

Psa 17:10 They are inclosed in their own fat: with their mouth they speak proudly.

Psa 73:3 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.
5 They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.
6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.
7 Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish.
8 They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily.
9 They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.

1 Tim 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

More than any other cause, the desire to be rich and wealthy is what takes men away from God. Men are willing to steal and kill for money, they are willing to cheat their neighbor. Why? Because they love the ease and comfort that money brings, and the pleasure.

Other men rebel against God because of great pride.

Job 35:12 There they cry, but none giveth answer, because of the pride of evil men.

Psa 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.
4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

Old Regular, you have been around longer than me, I am amazed that I have to explain this to you. I think you know quite well that many men love evil and choose it over God because they love the pleasures of sin. I know you know that.

So, don't say I haven't answered this question of yours, I have answered it several times now, but you refuse to accept my answer. These are not my opinions, this is what the scriptures say.

 

[DHK]

Winman

You believe in the free will of unsaved mankind. When you can present a rational explanation of why some reject salvation and some accept salvation then you may have something. Until that time I will just have to believe in the Sovereign Grace of God in salvation!

Have you ever thought that it is God's sovereign grace that gives free will to unsaved mankind. Was Jeffery Dahlmer forced to do the things that he did, or did he do them by choice? Had the Holy Spirit convicted him of his sin would he have had a choice to reject the conviction and drawing of the Holy Spirit? Of course he would have?

Was Stephen speaking a lie when he affirmed that the Holy Spirit can be resisted??

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

 

[TomVols]

Very true, Old Reg.

I don't know how many more times it can be said (well, no more by me...does the phrase "Chasing after the wind" ring a bell? :tongue3: No one denies that people respond to the gospel with repentance and faith. But the crucial difference between what others are saying and what I, Ares, and Old Reg are saying is that we say God is responsible for salvation which is wrought by the Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures. Others are saying that people effectuate their salvation wrought by what they do. It is a God-centered salvation vs a man-centered philosophy. We say salvation is all of God. They say salvation is of man. The difference couldn't be more stark. We affirm wholly the Word of God:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10 ESV)

Amen and amen. To God be the glory!

 

[The Archangel]

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Some men (not all) love evil.

The text does not say "Not all." Men is unqualified.

Now, you have a real problem here and your current line of argument has trapped you in an indefensible position.

1. You claim that the "Men" in John 3:19 is not all men, which the text doesn't say. So you are reading into that passage what you want to see, specifically because of your presuppositions that all men are not radically depraved.

2. You, along with many 4-Point Calvinists and Arminians alike, affirm that Christ died for all men and you chastise us who want to qualify the "all men" to the elect only, stating that it means, contextually, all kinds of men or every kind of man.

So, here you are doing exactly what you accuse the Calvinists of doing. You can have it one way or the other. You cannot switch just when it serves your purposes. This is eisegesis, pure and simple--switching your interpretation of a word or a concept to fit your presupposition, rather than starting with what the texts says.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Very true, Old Reg.

I don't know how many more times it can be said (well, no more by me...does the phrase "Chasing after the wind" ring a bell? :tongue3: No one denies that people respond to the gospel with repentance and faith. But the crucial difference between what others are saying and what I, Ares, and Old Reg are saying is that we say God is responsible for salvation which is wrought by the Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures. Others are saying that people effectuate their salvation wrought by what they do. It is a God-centered salvation vs a man-centered philosophy. We say salvation is all of God. They say salvation is of man. The difference couldn't be more stark. We affirm wholly the Word of God: Amen and amen. To God be the glory!

Tom, you have already erected that strawman, and it has been soundly refuted. I know of NO non cal who doesn't think salvation is all God and who doesn't affirm the Word of God wholly. As a moderator, that kind of vitriolic language is really uncalled for. I'm quite surprised you would stoop that low

 

[TomVols]

Have you ever thought that it is God's sovereign grace that gives free will to unsaved mankind. Was Jeffery Dahlmer forced to do the things that he did, or did he do them by choice? Had the Holy Spirit convicted him of his sin would he have had a choice to reject the conviction and drawing of the Holy Spirit? Of course he would have?

Was Stephen speaking a lie when he affirmed that the Holy Spirit can be resisted??

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

No, Dahmer wasn't forced to do anything. I do not know if he was presented with the Gospel or not, so I can't say he ever rejected something he never heard. But he indeed may have. And no, Stephen wasnt lying (I don't believe the Word of God contains falsehoods...do you?)

And here's the deal: None of this contradicts the sovereign work of God in salvation according to the Scriptures. We have to stop using man's philosophy, thinking we must rationalize things away. Let God's Word be true and human wisdom be the lie that it is (Rom 3:4).

Thanks!

 

[webdog]

The text does not say "Not all." Men is unqualified.

Now, you have a real problem here and your current line of argument has trapped you in an indefensible position.

1. You claim that the "Men" in John 3:19 is not all men, which the text doesn't say. So you are reading into that passage what you want to see, specifically because of your presuppositions that all men are not radically depraved.

2. You, along with many 4-Point Calvinists and Arminians alike, affirm that Christ died for all men and you chastise us who want to qualify the "all men" to the elect only, stating that it means, contextually, all kinds of men or every kind of man.

So, here you are doing exactly what you accuse the Calvinists of doing. You can have it one way or the other. You cannot switch just when it serves your purposes. This is eisegesis, pure and simple--switching your interpretation of a word or a concept to fit your presupposition, rather than starting with what the texts says.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Actually men is qualified in verse 20 with "every one that doeth evil".

 

[Winman]

The text does not say "Not all." Men is unqualified.

Now, you have a real problem here and your current line of argument has trapped you in an indefensible position.

1. You claim that the "Men" in John 3:19 is not all men, which the text doesn't say. So you are reading into that passage what you want to see, specifically because of your presuppositions that all men are not radically depraved.

2. You, along with many 4-Point Calvinists and Arminians alike, affirm that Christ died for all men and you chastise us who want to qualify the "all men" to the elect only, stating that it means, contextually, all kinds of men or every kind of man.

So, here you are doing exactly what you accuse the Calvinists of doing. You can have it one way or the other. You cannot switch just when it serves your purposes. This is eisegesis, pure and simple--switching your interpretation of a word or a concept to fit your presupposition, rather than starting with what the texts says.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Indefensible position? Really? Watch how easy it is to prove you wrong. I shall simply show the very next verse.

John 6:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

So, the Lord was speaking of two groups of men here. Those that love darkness and hate the light. And those who chose to do truth and come to the light.

 

[TomVols]

Web, thanks for the reply, friend. I've yet to see Reformed soteriology (you call it strawman if you wish) debunked. Hasn't happened. And I don't believe I was being vitriolic at all. Go back and read the posts. While occasionally the Arminians give lip service to God at work in salvation, when pressed the bene esse of salvation is claimed to be of human responsibility for the salvific transaction. Deny this if you want, but it's in black and white...or gray and whatever shade your monitor is in :smilewinkgrin:

And please do not misrepresent what was said (others have the market cornered on that). Nowhere did I say y'all didn't believe the word of God. I simply said what I and others affirmed. If you join me in affirming it, good. Many do in fact reject it, but I have not accused anyone of such. You know better than this, friend.

Have a good one!

 

[The Archangel]

Actually men is qualified in verse 20 with "every one that doeth evil".

Grammatically, the men of v. 19 and the "all" or "everyone" of v. 20 are unrelated.

Men in v. 19 is plural noun and "everyone" in v. is a singular adjective. Further, because of the post-positive particle "gar," it is clear that the "everyone" of v. 20 is, in fact, the subject of the following clause, not the qualifier of the previous clause.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

And here's the deal: None of this contradicts the sovereign work of God in salvation according to the Scriptures. We have to stop using man's philosophy, thinking we must rationalize things away. Let God's Word be true and human wisdom be the lie that it is (Rom 3:4).

You always talk about God's sovereignty. I showed you scripture the other day that shows God allows men to make their own choices, even when it is against his will.

1 Sam 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

God had set judges over Israel. But they wanted a king like the nations around them. This displeased both Samuel and the Lord, but the Lord told Samuel to hearken unto the people.

1 Sam 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

In verse 7 God himself says the people have not rejected Samuel, they have rejected the Lord himself "that I should not reign over them". There is God's sovereignty mentioned in scripture from the mouth of God himself.

And notice in verse 18 the Lord says they will cry out because of the king they have "chosen", but God will not hear their cries.

So, this doctrine that man does not have a free will, and that God does not allow unsaved men to exercise their free will is absolutely unscriptural.

 

[The Archangel]

Indefensible position? Really? Watch how easy it is to prove you wrong. I shall simply show the very next verse.

John 6:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

So, the Lord was speaking of two groups of men here. Those that love darkness and hate the light. And those who chose to do truth and come to the light.

Yes, there are two groups. But, there is no causal connection. Jesus is stating things in a matter-of-fact way.

Further, and this is a contextual issue, this discussion is following closely on the heels with Jesus' explanation to Nicodemus that he must be born again. It also follows Jesus explaining being born of water and spirit (which is a clear reference to being regenerated).

But, you still haven't answered why you put "not all men" into your interpretation when, clearly, v. 19 doesn't say that.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

No, Dahmer wasn't forced to do anything. I do not know if he was presented with the Gospel or not, so I can't say he ever rejected something he never heard. But he indeed may have. And no, Stephen wasnt lying (I don't believe the Word of God contains falsehoods...do you?)

Absolutely not. That is why he clearly said that God's grace to man can and continues to be resisted, contrary to the teaching of the Calvinist. Salvation is wholly of God--both Calvinist and non-Calvinist believe that. The accusations that run high on this board that non-Calvinists don't believe that salvation is of God, or is man centered is totally unwarranted. It begins with God and ends with God (unless the Calvinist does not consider the Holy Spirit God).

And here's the deal: None of this contradicts the sovereign work of God in salvation according to the Scriptures. We have to stop using man's philosophy, thinking we must rationalize things away. Let God's Word be true and human wisdom be the lie that it is (Rom 3:4).

There is that accusation again--man's philosophy.
It is not man's philosophy. Let's look at this way. The non-Calvinist can use as much Scripture as the Calvinist can and then throw in the accusation that the Calvinist is using a man-made system of theology drawn up by a man called Calvin. So who's system is a man-made theology? It is better not to throw bricks when you live in a glass house.

I gave Scripture which went unrefuted. Stephen affirms that God's grace can and is resisted. That is what the Scripture teaches contrary to Calvinism. Your answer was simply "it doesn't contradict the sovereign word of God in salvation according to the Scriptures." That is not much of a rebuttal to the Scripture itself is it?

God does not force man to be saved. We are not robots. Regeneration does not precede faith in Christ. One must put their faith in Christ before regeneration/salvation. That faith does not come from God. God never gives spiritual gifts to unsaved man--never. Salvation starts with God, yes. It starts when he is convicted of his sin by the Holy Spirit. Then he must put his faith in Christ, the sacrifice of Christ which he has heard through a gospel message. Then he has the means to be saved--the Word plus the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Those two elements are necessary to be saved/regenerated.

 

[The Archangel]

You always talk about God's sovereignty. I showed you scripture the other day that shows God allows men to make their own choices, even when it is against his will.

1 Sam 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

God had set judges over Israel. But they wanted a king like the nations around them. This displeased both Samuel and the Lord, but the Lord told Samuel to hearken unto the people.

1 Sam 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

In verse 7 God himself says the people have not rejected Samuel, they have rejected the Lord himself "that I should not reign over them". There is God's sovereignty mentioned in scripture from the mouth of God himself.

And notice in verse 18 the Lord says they will cry out because of the king they have "chosen", but God will not hear their cries.

So, this doctrine that man does not have a free will, and that God does not allow unsaved men to exercise their free will is absolutely unscriptural.

You would have us believe that God never planned for Israel to have an earthly king.

God always planned for Israel to have an earthly king--why else would Jacob say of Judah "the scepter will never pass from you?"

This doesn't prove your concept of free will at all. Actually it proves the reformed position: God for-ordains the free actions of sinful man (including the sinful rejection of God as king) to serve His purposes.

Did the men freely reject God? Sure. Did this surprise God? Not in the least. Was Israel's rejection of God as King part of God's overall plan? Absolutely.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Web, thanks for the reply, friend. I've yet to see Reformed soteriology (you call it strawman if you wish) debunked.

It has if you let the truth break through. In addition, if it were as ironclad as you claim, this debate would have ended centuries ago.

And I don't believe I was being vitriolic at all. Go back and read the posts. While occasionally the Arminians give lip service to God at work in salvation, when pressed the bene esse of salvation is claimed to be of human responsibility for the salvific transaction. Deny this if you want, but it's in black and white...or gray and whatever shade your monitor is in

This is what I'm talking about. The exact thing would have to be true for your viewpoint as well. Does God believe for you? If He gives you faith, who uses it? Your "bene esse" of salvation is identical. If you don't think humans can be responsible, they also cannot be accountable.
A

nd please do not misrepresent what was said (others have the market cornered on that). Nowhere did I say y'all didn't believe the word of God. I simply said what I and others affirmed. If you join me in affirming it, good. Many do in fact reject it, but I have not accused anyone of such. You know better than this, friend

..yet you said this...

We say salvation is all of God. They say salvation is of man. The difference couldn't be more stark. We affirm wholly the Word of God:

You sure implied it without coming out and saying it. Saying my view places salvation on man is vitriolic, and I take great offense to it.

 

[Winman]

God does not force man to be saved. We are not robots. Regeneration does not precede faith in Christ. One must put their faith in Christ before regeneration/salvation. That faith does not come from God. God never gives spiritual gifts to unsaved man--never. Salvation starts with God, yes. It starts when he is convicted of his sin by the Holy Spirit. Then he must put his faith in Christ, the sacrifice of Christ which he has heard through a gospel message. Then he has the means to be saved--the Word plus the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Those two elements are necessary to be saved/regenerated.

You are absolutely correct, God does not give spiritual gifts to the unbeliever. This is why a man must first have faith before he can receive God's grace.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

This verse, if rightly analyzed actually disproves the doctrines of Calvinism. Because the grace of God is received "through faith". Therefore, a man must first have faith before he he can receive any spiritual gift or grace from God.

And this is confirmed in Hebrews

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.

Grace means the favor of God. It means he is pleased with you, he looks on you with favor. But God cannot look upon you with favor or grace unless you first have faith.

Calvinists say God gives the unsaved man faith through regeneration. But as DHK said, God does not give spiritual gifts to unsaved men.

No, all men have the ability to believe God's word, and to those who do, to them God gives his grace. Grace is through faith, not the other way around as Calvinism teaches.

 

[webdog]

Grammatically, the men of v. 19 and the "all" or "everyone" of v. 20 are unrelated.

Men in v. 19 is plural noun and "everyone" in v. is a singular adjective. Further, because of the post-positive particle "gar," it is clear that the "everyone" of v. 20 is, in fact, the subject of the following clause, not the qualifier of the previous clause.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I disagree. "For" connects the two. We have to read Scripture in context, not dissect each verse as if it were separate from the surrounding text.

 

[The Archangel]

I disagree. "For" connects the two. We have to read Scripture in context, not dissect each verse as if it were separate from the surrounding text.

You are certainly free to disagree. "For" is not a connector, however. "For" is a particle, had John intended a connection, of the like you are suggesting, he would have used a conjunction.

Context is important, but context doesn't overrule grammar and syntax.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

You are certainly free to disagree. "For" is not a connector, however. "For" is a particle, had John intended a connection, of the like you are suggesting, he would have used a conjunction.

Context is important, but context doesn't overrule grammar and syntax.

Blessings,

The Archangel

For is indeed a connector, it is a preposition.

 

[The Archangel]

Grace means the favor of God. It means he is pleased with you, he looks on you with favor. But God cannot look upon you with favor or grace unless you first have faith.

Wrong. Grace does not mean the favor of God. Grace is unmerited favor. There is a huge difference. You are trying to define grace as a reward for our own faith. That doesn't work. Paul in Romans certainly disagrees with you.

Your presentation and definition of grace would have us believe that God's bestowment of grace upon us is a reward for something we have or something we do. If that is what you think, you are very mistaken.

Your presentation is much more in line with a Roman Catholic understanding of grace.

Grace is not a reward, or it is not grace. Grace is unmerited favor, pure and simple.

Blessings,

The Archangel