Featured Sincerity

Here is the crux of your error. This statment assumes that true repentance and faith is possible apart from regenerative grace. Our position is that it is not possible apart from regenerative grace. Indeed, repentance and faith is merely the other side of regeneration just as faith is the other inseparable side of repentance.

You really mean, it only by His prevenient grace that enables the will to choose against or for God and Satan. The actual choice has nothing to do with God's grace as both God and Satan are reduced to mere cheer leaders on the sideline hoping that man WILL DO their bidding. Hence, man's will is the determinate cause of salvation not the grace of God as the grace of God merely permits a NEUTRAL state.

You are admitting that his grace has nothing to do with repentance but only with choosing to save those who repent. Thus you are denying repentance is a gift of God and must be a gift of God as it is inseparable from faith which you admit is a gift of God. Thus you are inconsistent. Repentance is CHANGE of mind, will and desires and if that is a gift of grace then it is a reality or it has never been given at all.

First, the PROMISE of the gospel is salvation of the repentant and thus it "is a given" due to the immutable nature of God who cannot lie.

Second, it is not somehow deserved because it cannot originate with man but is the gift of God that is the essence of the manifestation of regeneration which is the supernatural CHANGE of mind, will and desires - "Turn us O God and we will be turned."

Third, Election is "TO" this very concept of salvation and thus it is not deserved but it is the inescapable consequence which is salvation.

 

Salvation still was chosen to be given in a way that humans can relate to. That way is belief. We know if we believe.
It's not a matter of pride - too many get hung up on the differences in language then and now. Boasting and pride did not hold the same meaning in the sense we use those words today.
It seems rather silly to let it become a matter of contention to call believing a "work" when it's really the only way we can relate to how we know we have been delivered. Wouldn't it be more productive to focus on helping people understand who our Savior is and what he did instead? It seems the rest would fall into place. A sincere believer will not resist that. One who does not believe will be drawn to the arguments and semantics instead of wanting to focus on learning more and growing, one would think.
Does that make sense? I'm feeling a bit unfocused as I try to express what's going on in my mind right now, so I hope that came out in a logical way.

 

So, supply a better definition. Boasting of knowing God and his glory is clearly permissible and encouraged by God, but what does boasting mean according to YOUR definition? If Webster's is mistaken then provide a better definition. Simple request.

 

Of course it assumes it. That is our view. I'm talking about whether faith and repentance within our view is necessarily meritorious, so why wouldn't I represent faith and repentance from our perspective?

Follow me. If I assume your view then I accept that faith and repentance are necessary results of regeneration. In this case, are faith and repentance meritorious works produced by regenerative grace? Or is salvation completely and fully merited by Christ, and faith and repentance merely fruits of that salvific working?

Likewise, if I assume my view then we accept that faith and repentance are free responses of morally accountable people, created by God to be RESPONSIBLE. But does faith and repentance being free moral choices make them necessarily meritorious? No, and I have made the case for why that is true a few dozen times now.

You are presuming God's grace is deserved or merited or owed to those who believe apart from irresistible means, which is unfounded.

Look at it this way. If someone killed everyone you loved and then asked you for forgiveness, would their asking merit your forgiveness? Yes or no? Would their request for forgiveness merit you giving them all your money and possessions too? Yes or no? If you're being objectively honest I think you'd have to answer both of these question with a negative, thus it begs the question as to why you presume it would be otherwise with God, who chooses not only to forgive those who ask, but also chooses to give them riches beyond measure...not because their request EARNED such graciousness, but ONLY because He IS Gracious.

 

I can see where the problem exists in our discussion. You choose to use the word "merit" whereas we are speaking of grounds for "boasting." Obviously, it is impossible for sinners to merit the righteousness of Christ or any gift of grace but the issue is whether your view of repentance and faith provides any grounds for boasting by men? Anything OF MAN is grounds for boasting by man. We beleive Your view provides man with grounds for boasting as your view of prevenient grace provides nothing more than choice which can be for rejection as much as acceptance. Hence, the ultimate determination is wholly OF MAN.

Of course repentance and faith is no more meritorious in your view as it is in the view of Rome. However, regardless what you or Rome claims does not make it so. Therefore, we are correct in challenging that claim regardless how often you make it. We are not challenging that you claim it any more than we would challenge that Rome's makes the same claim.

The issue is not what you claim but what it is regardless of your claim. By your own admission all that God can claim for credit is to provide a NEUTRAL atmosphere but the ultimate decision is wholly OF MAN. In direct contrast we would claim it is not OF MAN but that "it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE" and that is something you would never claim. We would claim that 'my people will be willing in the day of HIS POWER" but that is something you would never claim and yet these are Biblical expressions. If the former expression is true of those already children of God, then how much more of becoming children of God?

I think the issue is over your defintion and meaning of "meritorious." We use the biblical term "boast" not "meritorious." Anything OF MAN is grounds for boasting by men and your position clearly teaches that the determinate choice is ALL OF MAN.

Again, we would make our argument on the basis of "boast" as no sinner can possibly "merit" salvation. HOwever, that does not prevent men from boasting and if faith is "OF MAN" than it is grounds for boasting whether it is meritorious or not. The issue is grounds for boasting in 1 Cor. 1:29-31; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:27; 4:2.

 

THANK YOU for finally acknowledging at least that much. Man's faith doesn't merit what we get from God. Man's repentance doesn't deserve eternal bliss in heaven with him. Ok, finally we can move past that point.... shew!

If you boast about the characteristic that God graces then you don't have that characteristic. Humility is like holiness, if you think you got it, you probably don't. If someone is boasting about their humiliation, brokenness, sin and repentance for those things then they have what is referred to as 'false humility.'

I know you hate the Prodigal Son analogy, but again it fits. Can you think of a single reason the son would want to boast about coming home from the pig sty in shame and disgrace to beg for a job after squandering his father's money? The only thing he'd want to boast about it the grace of his daddy.

Then you either don't understand our view or you don't understand what one feels like who has been broken and humbled by sin, because if you knew either I promise you would never make this accusation.

 

Knowing God is a "personal achievement' for which God tells us to boast in, unless you have an alternative definition of what boasting entails?

 

Whooooa! First I never said it was "man's" faith or "man's" repentance. Second, you forget that God's veracity is at stake as it is God that promised eternal life to those who repent and believe in the gospel and He cannot lie. Hence, true repentance and faith cannot be separated from God's grace in salvation. The reason it cannot be merited is because true repentance and faith is God produced in man rather than man produced. Therefore, it is not "man's" faith or repentance but "God's" repentance and faith produced in man by a creative act of God.

You just did boast in it! You said it was "man's" repentance and faith rather than God's gift and God produced repentance and faith in man. Hence, you gave man the credit rather than God.

What I hate is your abuse of it. You are perverting the Lord's intent behind that parable and His intent was never to prove the source of repentance. His intent is to prove that there is no salvation without repentance. So your are abusing this parable instead of honoring Christ's intent behind this parable.

No one is denying your sincerity! No one denies the sincerity of Rome! However, you are sincerely wrong. Your doctrine gives fallen man the decisive credit for his own salvation and must as your doctrine demands that man's will alone must be entirely free from any influence (including his own fallen nature, God or Satan) and thus man's will ALONE makes the decisive difference between heaven and hell.

 

THANK YOU!!!!:thumbs:

 

Give a definition for boasting that makes God's statement, "...boast about this: that he understands and knows me..." acceptable to you.

 

I see why. To do so would put you at odds with the words of God Himself and you know it. I'm going to do what God told me to do and boast in understanding and knowing Him!

You can keep your head in the sand and pretend boasting doesn't mean what it means.

 

I'll leave you with the words of God, "...boast about this: that he understands and knows me..."

I'm sorry you don't want to listen to Him.