Gospel perverted

[steaver]

Gal 1:6¶I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


If we add conditions to the grace that has been given us (begun in the Spirit) are we guilty of this sin of perverting the gospel of Christ?

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Do you consider Rom 2:7 "Perseverance" or Matt 18 on "forgiveness" to be "conditions that pervert grace"?

 

[steaver]

Do you consider Rom 2:7 "Perseverance" or Matt 18 on "forgiveness" to be "conditions that pervert grace"?

Perserverance and forgiveness are attributes of grace afforded by the Holy Spirit. They cannot be conditions of salvation for...

Rom 11:6And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Grace or works that save. It cannot be both.

:jesus:

 

[annsni]

Gal 1:6¶I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


If we add conditions to the grace that has been given us (begun in the Spirit) are we guilty of this sin of perverting the gospel of Christ?

:jesus:

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Perserverance and forgiveness are attributes of grace afforded by the Holy Spirit. They cannot be conditions of salvation for...

Rom 11:6And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Grace or works that save. It cannot be both.

HP: Steaver, you, just as DHK and many others, are preaching a necessitated gospel whose end is nothing short of fatalism. In your attempts to elevate God or your brand of grace, you destroy the very essence of not only our makeup but the elements a Sovereign God has chosen to place on the gift of salvation for men. Your motivation appears on the surface to be good, but the results are nothing short of a perversion of the truth.

Either man has a will and as such is the creator of his intents and as such is a responsible creature, or determinism and fatalism rules. If salvation is all of God, (with no distinction noted between grounds and conditions of salvation) God then is the Sole Cause and as such is the determiner of all outcomes, both to sin as well as those that He chooses to save, making God the author of all sin. You cannot escape the absurdity of the ends of your argument nor keep from painting a horrible blight in the character of a Holy and Just God by such a necessitated fatalistic system of thought.

God grants forgiveness, but not without the participation of mans free will. Forgiveness will not happen until man voluntarily confesses and repents. The actions of man in no wise necessitates a meritorious work as you falsely claim, any more than the fulfilling of any other stated condition mandates a meritorious work in the receiving of any other gift. The illustration of a pardon and the implied conditions that are evident in granting a just pardon, shows clearly to any open to the truth the reality of that fact.

Gifts can and do often carry conditions ‘without which’ they will not be gained or kept. Conditions in no way ‘merit’ anything as you falsely assert, but rather are rightfully seen as issues thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ NOT ‘that for the sake of’ as again you clearly but in error assert.

If you are looking for a perversion of the gospel, look no further than the necessitated and fatalistic system of thought you are presenting as the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Why is the necessitated gospel Steaver and other are presenting a perversion of the truth? One issue is that it destroys the meaning of grace and turns grace into mere justice.

Grace is unmerited favor. It is showing favor where favor is not earned or deserved. If man is born into a state where no other possibility exist but to sin and that continually due to ones nature, how is it grace for God to save one from such a necessitated state as He creates them in? Justice would demand that if man is to be held responsible for the state he was born into, that an escape from that fate would be demanded by justice, not grace. How is offering man a way out of his necessitated predicament, one forced on man by the hand of God Himself in creating man as a sinner, (if the doctrine of original sin is correct) seen as ‘grace?’

Only as man is seen as a responsible agent, one personally responsible for ones sinful condition, having had the opportunity to obey God’s command, but having refused to do so, is grace seen in a true light.

Make no mistake. The necessitated system of thought presented by Steaver, DHK, and others destroys the true meaning of grace, and reduces (perverts) God's grace to mere justice.

 

[DHK]

Make no mistake. The necessitated system of thought presented by Steaver, DHK, and others destroys the true meaning of grace, and reduces (perverts) God's grace to mere justice.

Grace and works do not mix. See Romans 11:6 already quoted.
BTW, I would like you to quote that verse and then explain it.

Do you mean to say that if a criminal is doomed to prison for the rest of his life for an act of crime that he has done, or a hefty fine that the judge knows and he knows he will never be able to pay, and someone comes and loves him enough and is rich enough to pay that fine on his behalf that he can go free, that that act of grace would pervert grace, as you have said? How is that? That is grace. He didn't deserve to go free. But someone loved him enough to pay the penalty for his crime. Someone took the loss upon himself.
Now the prisoner had a choice. He had to accept the payment and say to the judge I am guilty. Here is the payment for the crime I have done, and accept the payment paid on behalf of him.
Or the prisoner could self-righteously say: No, I refuse your gift. I am a good man. I don't deserve to be here. I can make it on my own.
You know he would be a fool to do such a thing. His "works" whatever they would be would never get him out of that prison. His sentence is for life. He either admits his guilt, takes the gift by faith that the man is true to his word, by faith that the judge will let him go upon payment of the money, or he like a fool refuses it and accepts a horrible punishment.

God offers a free gift of eternal salvation. You either accept it by faith, or refuse it and spend eternity in hell. That is the choice every man has.
Our justice system is based on Biblical principles to a great extent.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Do you mean to say that if a criminal is doomed to prison for the rest of his life for an act of crime that he has done, or a hefty fine that the judge knows and he knows he will never be able to pay, and someone comes and loves him enough and is rich enough to pay that fine on his behalf that he can go free, that that act of grace would pervert grace, as you have said? How is that?

HP: But DHK, your theology makes a man the sinner he is due to NO FAULT OF HIS OWN, but rather by a necessitated nature that ‘causes’ him to sin. That is entirely different than the illustration you give above where the criminal is doomed for ‘an act of crime that he has done.’

Why are we sinners and such condemned by God??? Is it because we are born that way or because of the sins we have committed? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say sin is necessitated yet say it is the results of choice. That is a stark contradiction. If no other possibility exist but to sin, choice is a chimera.

 

[Trotter]

Man is a sinner by his nature, and yet he freely chooses to sin. Even when man tries not to sin he does so anyway. Why? Because we are fallen and finite.

Salvation is the work of God. There is nothing man can do to save himself other than to accept the salvation offered to him by God through Jesus Christ. This salvation is grace, pure and simple... man has not, and cannot, do anything to merit it.

How, then, is this a perversion of salvation? What can man do to "earn" his part in it? Live the Law? Keep the Law's sabbath? Eat kosher? Observe the feasts? Animal sacrifices? Israel had all of these, and yet did not have salvation.

A gospel of works is no gospel at all.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Trotter: Man is a sinner by his nature, and yet he freely chooses to sin.

HP: That is nothing short of a contradictory statement. If the cause of man’s sin is his nature, and his nature determines his sin, man no more freely chooses sin than a baby freely chooses his skin color or the color of their hair. If it is a necessitated trait, no choice involved. Choice involves choosing between two or more alternatives Trotter. If there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent, no choice is possible.
The 'freely chosen' choice you speak of is a chimera without the least truth in it.

 

[Trotter]

No contradiction at all, HP. You pulled it out of context. The full quote is, "Man is a sinner by his nature, and yet he freely chooses to sin. Even when man tries not to sin he does so anyway. Why? Because we are fallen and finite." [emphasis added]

Man is fallen. All of us are in sin, like it or not. Even the best we can ever do falls short of God's standard. As Isaiah said, our righteousness is as filthy rags in the eyes of the Lord.

This does not excuse us before the Lord, however. He remains his own measuring stick by which we are measured. God is holy and just and cannot accept anything that is not completely holy and pure. Man will never, and can never, be holy and pure on his own. We are completely incapable of it.

That's where Jesus comes in. He stepped into our existence to offer us His righteousness in exchange for our sin. It is through Him, and Him alone, that we can be made holy and pure. We are still us, but Christ's righteousness is imputed to our account so that God sees Jesus' righteousness instead of our sin.

What part of that is too hard to understand?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Trotter, freedom, if it exists, must lie in the will being able to choose between two or more alternatives. If the will can only choose sin, no freedom exists. The relationship between the will and the intent ans subsequent action is one of necessity, NOT one of freedom. One can ONLY do as one wills. If one wills in one way, but acts in another, that is living proof that the will has changed its mind and has chosen a different end.

It is a clearly stated notion of a commonly accepted system of thought, commonly denoted as Calvinism, that one is ‘free to do as one wills.’ That again is a false statement, although it sounds plausible on the outside. It assumes that the relationship between the doing and the will itself is one of freedom, but that is completely false. Again, one can ONLY do as he wills. The relationship that lies between the will and the chosen intent or subsequent action is one of necessity, not freedom. For that reason, the statement that ‘one is free to do as one wills’ is a Calvinistic sophism without the slightest bit of freedom to it.

 

[grahame]

HP: But DHK, your theology makes a man the sinner he is due to NO FAULT OF HIS OWN, but rather by a necessitated nature that ‘causes’ him to sin. That is entirely different than the illustration you give above where the criminal is doomed for ‘an act of crime that he has done.’

Why are we sinners and such condemned by God??? Is it because we are born that way or because of the sins we have committed? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say sin is necessitated yet say it is the results of choice. That is a stark contradiction. If no other possibility exist but to sin, choice is a chimera.

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault ? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:19-21)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Grahame, is salvation the direct subject of the verses in question??

 

[steaver]

Why is the necessitated gospel Steaver and other are presenting a perversion of the truth? One issue is that it destroys the meaning of grace and turns grace into mere justice.

Grace is unmerited favor. It is showing favor where favor is not earned or deserved. If man is born into a state where no other possibility exist but to sin and that continually due to ones nature, how is it grace for God to save one from such a necessitated state as He creates them in? Justice would demand that if man is to be held responsible for the state he was born into, that an escape from that fate would be demanded by justice, not grace. How is offering man a way out of his necessitated predicament, one forced on man by the hand of God Himself in creating man as a sinner, (if the doctrine of original sin is correct) seen as ‘grace?’

Only as man is seen as a responsible agent, one personally responsible for ones sinful condition, having had the opportunity to obey God’s command, but having refused to do so, is grace seen in a true light.

Make no mistake. The necessitated system of thought presented by Steaver, DHK, and others destroys the true meaning of grace, and reduces (perverts) God's grace to mere justice.

Can you explain for us why in the known history of mankind not one person created by God has ever been able to reject sin? Not one? If your pov had any merit there would be at least one person who was able to resist sin.

What you complain about being a "necessitated system of thought" is exactly what your thought leads to, you simply begin at the first "personal sin" while I begin with Adam's cursed blood as outlined in Romans 5.

Either way, both models proves a person incapable of resisting sin.

Only as man is seen as a responsible agent, one personally responsible for ones sinful condition, having had the opportunity to obey God’s command, but having refused to do so, is grace seen in a true light.

Every person having had the "opportunity to obey" yet every person fails. Where is the choice? You want us to believe that it is possible for man to obey without Jesus Christ yet there is not one example in the history of mankind that tells us it is possible. Not one.

You want us to believe that God has created mankind with the ability to choose sinlessness, yet not one has been able to succeed. Scientist would conclude your pov an unproven theory. In theory, your pov would allow the possibility for sinlessness. Yet after billions if not trillions of tested examples we find that there is not one found able to resist sin. Yet you would conclude that it is still possble.

If man is born into a state where no other possibility exist but to sin and that continually due to ones nature, how is it grace for God to save one from such a necessitated state as He creates them in?

Your very own theory has been historically proven an impossibility (with trillions of examples taken). Give us one example were a created human being succeeded in resisting sin. Your pov is foolishness, you know that it is impossible for one to understand sin and remain sinless. Even if you begin at "understanding" instead of "birth" no other possibility exist but to sin and that continually.

And the scriptures are fulfilled which say, "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".

It is impossible to NOT sin, so where is this choice you speak of? What evidence is found in the historical record to support your theory?

:jesus:

 

[DHK]

HP: But DHK, your theology makes a man the sinner he is due to NO FAULT OF HIS OWN, but rather by a necessitated nature that ‘causes’ him to sin. That is entirely different than the illustration you give above where the criminal is doomed for ‘an act of crime that he has done.’

Why are we sinners and such condemned by God??? Is it because we are born that way or because of the sins we have committed? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say sin is necessitated yet say it is the results of choice. That is a stark contradiction. If no other possibility exist but to sin, choice is a chimera.

Why are you confused? The fact that man is born a sinner has no bearing on salvation. He still must choose by faith to trust Christ. If he rejects Christ he will end up in Hell. The fact that he is born a sinner has no bearing on this question. It is a red herring brought in. Why are you going off on another tangent? Salvation is by grace through faith.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The fact that man is born a sinner has no bearing on salvation.

HP: It most certainly has a profound effect upon the issue of grace verses justice.

DHK: He still must choose by faith to trust Christ. If he rejects Christ he will end up in Hell.

HP: Your so-called choice is nothing more than the necessitated results of God’s election DHK. There is not an ounce of real choice in your remarks. You deny any and all conditions to salvation, “all is of God,” remember???

DHK: The fact that he is born a sinner has no bearing on this question.
It is a red herring brought in. Why are you going off on another tangent? Salvation is by grace through faith.

HP: You wouldn’t know a red herring from a mackerel. You indeed make the offer of salvation a matter of justice not grace. If man had no other choice than to be a sinner, which original sin clearly implies, justice, not grace, would demand God offer salvation if He was going to punish the sinner for a state he had nothing to do with. The ‘grace’ you espouse is nothing more than a product of pure necessity and the ‘choice’ you speak of is a chimera.

Tell us how or why man making a choice determines ones salvation or the rejection thereof when salvation is again according to you, ‘all of God.’ If choice determines who will be saved, then just admit it is not all of God but involves man’s choice as well.

How was it that you believe in election? Tell us DHK, what does election consist of? Does the possibility exist that one could be elected and not choose salvations offer? Could one not elected decide to choose God’s offer?? Tell us again of the ‘choice’ you speak of in relation to the election you say you hold in.

 

[DHK]

HP: It most certainly has a profound effect upon the issue of grace verses justice.

It makes no difference. Christ said: "I have come to seek and to save the lost." Let's concentrate on that.
BTW, I await your answer to the challenge given by Steaver.
Where are those in the world that do not sin. If they don't have a sin nature or the propensity to sin, why then do they sin? Surely somewhere in this world there should be some that are walking around sinless for they don't have a sin nature--a propensity to sin. Where are they? You don't have an answer for the hard questions do you?
For all have sinned. Hmmm, is there a reason for that?

HP: Your so-called choice is nothing more than the necessitated results of God’s election DHK. There is not an ounce of real choice in your remarks. You deny any and all conditions to salvation, “all is of God,” remember???

I am not the Calvinist here, remember? You don't know what I believe concerning election, so don't pretend to know, or it will simply be a false accusation once again. Live and learn.
You (ie. anyone), chooses: Either reject or receive Christ as Saviour. It is a choice a person makes. God does not force any person to be saved. The "elect" are not robots. Those that are saved are saved by their own choice.
Salvation is all of God. How can you not understand that. When Christ cried out "It is finished," that is what he meant. Salvation is finished; there is nothing more to be done. What it doesn't say in John 19:30 is: "It is finished by me and HP". That is what you seem to think. Salvation is all of God, not all of HP or even part by HP. Who do you think you are as to be so arrogant to have a part in providing salvation for mankind. No, salvation is all of God, how could it be anything else?
Please explain to all, what part in paying the penalty for all the sins of the world did HP pay? I want to know, and I am sure others would like to know as well. You say "it is not all of God," therefore what part did you play?

HP: You wouldn’t know a red herring from a mackerel. You indeed make the offer of salvation a matter of justice not grace.

Nope, not me. It is all of grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--Only grace is involved. No works of so-called justice. Just grace and grace alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--All of grace to be accepted by faith; all of grace nevertheless.

If man had no other choice than to be a sinner, which original sin clearly implies, justice, not grace, would demand God offer salvation if He was going to punish the sinner for a state he had nothing to do with. The ‘grace’ you espouse is nothing more than a product of pure necessity and the ‘choice’ you speak of is a chimera.

Even if there was no original sin, man would sin anyway. This is proven through Adam and Eve in the Garden, and also by those that remain unsaved in the Millennial Kingdom and at the end of the thousand years will rise up following Satan against Christ.
The biggest sin a man can commit is rejection of Jesus Christ. People do that with or without a sin nature. The grace of God is extended and they reject it. Your red herring of original sin has nothing to do with the grace of God extended to man, and the responsibility of man to accept it.

Tell us how or why man making a choice determines ones salvation or the rejection thereof when salvation is again according to you, ‘all of God.’ If choice determines who will be saved, then just admit it is not all of God but involves man’s choice as well.

My father gave me a car. It was his grace; his love; his kindness. I could have spit in his face and said: "I can make it on my own; I don't need you." But I gladly accepted "by faith" his gift. It was my choice whether to accept it or not. I did not let my pride get in my way. I am glad for his love. I appreciate it very much. He appreciates the fact that I receive and am receptive of his love toward me.

The same is true of our Father in heaven. He has sacrificed. His love is always directed toward his creation. That love has no conditions attached. The offer of salvation is free. He simply wants his creation to reach out by faith and accept it. Be thankful and show appreciation. There are no conditions. It is a gift. It is also a choice. Receive it or reject it.

How was it that you believe in election? Tell us DHK, what does election consist of? Does the possibility exist that one could be elected and not choose salvations offer? Could one not elected decide to choose God’s offer?? Tell us again of the ‘choice’ you speak of in relation to the election you say you hold in.

Just to keep you hanging in the air I am not going to divulge my beliefs on election to you right now. You already mislabel me as a Calvinist. Why confuse you and give you more fodder. No thanks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

​

Quote:
HP: Your so-called choice is nothing more than the necessitated results of God’s election DHK. There is not an ounce of real choice in your remarks. You deny any and all conditions to salvation, “all is of God,” remember???

DHK: I am not the Calvinist here, remember? You don't know what I believe concerning election, so don't pretend to know, or it will simply be a false accusation once again. Live and learn.

HP: It doesn’t matter what you desire others to call you, and by the way you are not being honest when you say I called you a Calvinist as you did in a former post. Even in the post I wrote you that you ‘edited’ I stated said clearly “I am not calling you a Calvinist” then you turned around and flat out lied after editing out the evidence and said I did. Your credibility with this reader is at about nada. Determinism is determinism what ever banner it flies under and is a system of necessity. You call it whatsoever you so desire.

Why avoid simple straight forward questions? If you do not believe in election, say so, and if you do explain what you mean by the term. You have said you believe in election and then refuse to clarify what you mean by it. If you refuse to divulge your true sentiments concerning it, any misunderstandings are your own fault, not that of another.

DHK: You (ie. anyone), chooses: Either reject or receive Christ as Saviour.

HP: Choosing involves an act of the will, An act of the will is precisely what any work consists of. Let me use the same logic on you that you use on me. So you think it is you and God that provide salvation? Your choice has nothing to do with salvation for it is 'all of God.' Either it is all of God or it is all of God and DHK’s choice. Which is it DHK? Can one elected to salvation choose not to accept, or can one not elected choose to reject a salvation elected by God? Tell us again of this so-called ‘choice’ man has, you that have said clearly you believe in election. Tell us again that it is all of God, …. but must include DHK’s choice. Tell us again you do not believe in conditions yet tell us we must ‘choose to be saved.’ You contradict yourself at every turn DHK. If choosing is not a condition, choosing does not involve a choice. Try showing some agreement between your statements for a change.
:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

HP: Your so-called choice is nothing more than the necessitated results of God’s election DHK. There is not an ounce of real choice in your remarks. You deny any and all conditions to salvation, “all is of God,” remember???

If it isn't all of God, why don't you tell me what part you play in it? Did you atone or help atone for our sins as well?
If you never made a choice, then no choice is by default rejection. I hope you can see that. Now, if you can agree with that, then you need to take the Scriptural admonition and "Examine yourself to see whether or not you are in the faith." You logic has put you in that position.

HP: It doesn’t matter what you desire others to call you, and by the way you are not being honest when you say I called you a Calvinist as you did in a former post. Even in the post I wrote you that you ‘edited’ I stated said clearly “I am not calling you a Calvinist” then you turned around and flat out lied after editing out the evidence and said I did. Your credibility with this reader is at about nada. Determinism is determinism what ever banner it flies under and is a system of necessity. You call it whatsoever you so desire.

I don't believe in determinism. I haven't told you what I believe concerning election, and for good reason. I am not a Calvinist and I don't believe you know what a Calvinist is.

What I have told you before is that the Bible teaches election. If the Bible teaches election, then what are you going to do about it?
I am still awaiting your answer on that. I didn't tell you my take on election. I simply said the Bible teaches election. If the Bible teaches election, what are you going to do about it--deny it? Here is some proof for you:

Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


So the Bible clearly speaks of election. You either believe it or you don't.

Why avoid simple straight forward questions? If you do not believe in election, say so, and if you do explain what you mean by the term. You have said you believe in election and then refuse to clarify what you mean by it. If you refuse to divulge your true sentiments concerning it, any misunderstandings are your own fault, not that of another.

I am not going to start a discussion on election with you when you can't even understand a very simple concept such as original sin.
And now you are telling me you can't understand how a man can have free will. There is no way that I would start a discussion with you on election.

HP: Choosing involves an act of the will, An act of the will is precisely what any work consists of. Let me use the same logic on you that you use on me. So you think it is you and God that provide salvation? Your choice has nothing to do with salvation for it is 'all of God.' Either it is all of God or it is all of God and DHK’s choice. Which is it DHK? Can one elected to salvation choose not to accept, or can one not elected choose to reject a salvation elected by God? Tell us again of this so-called ‘choice’ man has, you that have said clearly you believe in election. Tell us again that it is all of God, …. but must include DHK’s choice. Tell us again you do not believe in conditions yet tell us we must ‘choose to be saved.’ You contradict yourself at every turn DHK. If choosing is not a condition, choosing does not involve a choice. Try showing some agreement between your statements for a change.
:thumbs:

I don't contradict myself. I don't answer the gibberish you just wrote because it is not worth it. And for that reason I don't discuss election with you. If you don't want to choose salvation then by default you have rejected it, and must live with that choice. God knows ahead of time what choice you will make, but does not force you to make it. It is that simple.