For By Grace Are Ye Saved

[Winman]

And many define grace as the "unmerited" favor of God. I used to hold this view myself, but I have been reconsidering this lately.

First, Jesus was full of grace. Was this unmerited??

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus was full of grace. Was this unmerited? I think not.

And go back to Hebrews 11:6 and notice the word "rewarder"

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, I am not arguing for one second that we earn salvation, the scriptures are clear that it is a free gift from God.

But Hebrews 11:6 says a man must believe that God is, and that he is a "rewarder" of those that seek him.

Strong's defines rewarder here as:

1) one who pays wages, a rewarder

Now, I've got to admit, this is a little perplexing to me, and I will have to do more study. But Hebrews 11:6 says we must believe that God rewards those who seek him. In fact, we cannot please him unless we believe this. This is what the verse says. It says we "must believe".

I believe that this means we must see God as good. He is compassionate and merciful. So many believe God to be a tyrant ready to step on us like an insect. But we must believe the scriptures that God loves us despite being sinners, and desires to save us all. We must believe God's promise that he will save all who come to him. We must believe him truthful.

This ought to open up a can of worms, but it is what the scriptures say.

 

[The Archangel]

For is indeed a connector, it is a preposition.

No, it isn't. Perhaps in English it may be a preposition. However in Greek "for" (the word γαρ) is not a conjunction. It is a particle.

The particle here explains and elaborates on the preceding, but it does not qualify it.

Furthermore, the "connection" between the two clauses is based on the idea of the works that are done, not the "all mankind."

Again, grammar and syntax is grammar and syntax and particles are not prepositions.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

And many define grace as the "unmerited" favor of God. I used to hold this view myself, but I have concluded this is wrong.

First, Jesus was full of grace. Was this unmerited??

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus was full of grace. Was this unmerited? I think not.

And go back to Hebrews 11:6 and notice the word "rewarder"

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, I am not arguing for one second that we earn salvation, the scriptures are clear that it is a free gift from God.

But Hebrews 11:6 says a man must believe that God is, and that he is a "rewarder" of those that seek him.

Strong's defines rewarder here as:

1) one who pays wages, a rewarder

Now, I've got to admit, this is a little perplexing to me, and I will have to do more study. But Hebrews 11:6 says we must believe that God rewards those who seek him. In fact, we cannot please him unless we believe this. This is what the verse says. It says we "must believe".

I believe that this means we must see God as good. He is compassionate and merciful. So many believe God to be a tyrant ready to step on us like an insect. But we must believe the scriptures that God loves us despite being sinners, and desires to save us all. We must believe God's promise that he will save all who come to him. We must believe him truthful.

This ought to open up a can of worms, but it is what the scriptures say.

You're dealing with apples and sailboats here.

Jesus is qualitatively different from us. The Bible tells us that the Christian is being made like Him...progressively. The Bible is not telling us that we are currently like Him.

Furthermore, the meaning of of "full of" as in full of grace and truth is probably speaking to Jesus display of God's glory (according to Kittle), not being full of His own grace or His own truth. In other word, Jesus being full of grace and full of truth is a reflection of God's own perfections.

But, again, to compare us to Jesus in this manner is improper.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

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.

The Scripture [John 3:19] said that men, mankind in general, love darkness rather than light. Not the same as total Depravity but perhaps somewhat similar. That being true tell me why some believe and some do not. You have not yet answered that question.

 

[TomVols]

Webdog & DHK, I consider both of y'all friends on this board. Never had a cross word with you and still consider this to be the case. That said, we're going nowhere as you both seem to be more interested in arguing against caricatures rather than discussing substance. Despite what I believe to be fatal flaws in your theological systems, I hold no animositiy towards you all. Each side can point to the other that the opposing viewpoint is from man (be it Calvin, Arminius, etc.) and each holds that the genesis of their system is from Scripture. This merry-go-round can continue ad infinitim ad nasueum.

There is some new ground from Winman. I would charitably advise you to study out the word and concept of grace a little more before we equal out the substantive nature of the grace on Jesus to be the grace on us as His children. And not to sound high hat, but I would go deeper than using Strong's for my exegesis. Not known for being the best on defining words. As they say, Young's isn't young, and Strong's isn't strong :laugh: That said, when I get the opportunity I'd like to do some study as to the words used to describe the grace on Jesus vs on us (notice the Bible says he had fullness of caritos...don't know that this is true of us). Strong's is rather weak on this definition (no shock there); Thayer's is a tad better. Haven't the time right now to pull BAGD or NIDNTT or Kittel's, but maybe later tonight or tomorrow. Couple of funerals going on.

 

[AresMan]

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


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.

Sure, many people love evil and choose it over God. That is not in dispute. You misunderstood the question. The question is WHY do some continue in their love of evil and reject God while others turn from their evil and love God's ways? Merely stating the conundrum again does NOT answer the question of WHY. Just saying in essence "because they do" does not answer WHY. Just saying in essence "because they have 'free will'" does not explain the rationale for WHY the choices are made.

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.

You didn't answer the question. You simply misunderstood it. Stating the problem is not answering the question; it is merely begging the question. You stated sufficient Scriptures that present the conundrum; however, you missed the Scriptures that explain the conundrum.

 

[Amy.G]

That being true tell me why some believe and some do not. You have not yet answered that question.

Why does there have to be an answer to that question? There are lots of questions we cannot answer. Why did God choose to make grass green? Why not pink? I like pink.

I think the Bible gives the best answer. They refuse to submit to Christ because they love their sin.



Here's my "why" questions for Calvinists. Why does God let a person live 70 or 80 years before He regenerates them to believe? Don't tell me because "it glorifies Him". Give me a real answer using scripture.

 

[AresMan]

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.

I already answered this before. Showing an account of people making decisions against God's moral prescription does NOT by any stretch of the imagination prove your notion of libertarian free will.

I also showed that God predicted their wicked actions in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, and that this was also part of God's eternal plan for Jesus to be the King of the Jews and to be born of the kingly lineage of David as God also predicted.

This account is yet another proof of compatibilism.

 

[webdog]

Webdog & DHK, I consider both of y'all friends on this board. Never had a cross word with you and still consider this to be the case. That said, we're going nowhere as you both seem to be more interested in arguing against caricatures rather than discussing substance. Despite what I believe to be fatal flaws in your theological systems, I hold no animositiy towards you all. Each side can point to the other that the opposing viewpoint is from man (be it Calvin, Arminius, etc.) and each holds that the genesis of their system is from Scripture. This merry-go-round can continue ad infinitim ad nasueum.

There is some new ground from Winman. I would charitably advise you to study out the word and concept of grace a little more before we equal out the substantive nature of the grace on Jesus to be the grace on us as His children. And not to sound high hat, but I would go deeper than using Strong's for my exegesis. Not known for being the best on defining words. As they say, Young's isn't young, and Strong's isn't strong :laugh: That said, when I get the opportunity I'd like to do some study as to the words used to describe the grace on Jesus vs on us (notice the Bible says he had fullness of caritos...don't know that this is true of us). Strong's is rather weak on this definition (no shock there); Thayer's is a tad better. Haven't the time right now to pull BAGD or NIDNTT or Kittel's, but maybe later tonight or tomorrow. Couple of funerals going on.

DHK and I are arguing against "caricatures"? Really? Are we the ones who have stated our view makes man responsible for salvation? I do consider you a brother and a friend, but seriously, if there are any "caricature" erecting going on, I would look in the mirror

 

[AresMan]

Why does there have to be an answer to that question? There are lots of questions we cannot answer. Why did God choose to make grass green? Why not pink? I like pink.

I think the Bible gives the best answer. They refuse to submit to Christ because they love their sin.



Here's my "why" questions for Calvinists. Why does God let a person live 70 or 80 years before He regenerates them to believe? Don't tell me because "it glorifies Him". Give me a real answer using scripture.

There is a serious philosophical difficulty in your inquiry.

Those who believe in libertarian free will naturally believe that man is the autonomous creature that makes wicked and righteous decisions "freely." If this is indeed the case, then the explanation for all decisions is possible in an answer that lies in man. Since we are mankind, then, philosophically, one who adheres to libertarian free will must be able to explain the rationale behind these decisions and why, from man's autonomous standpoint, some choose one way while others choose another way.

Those who believe in compatibilist free will believe that God's sovereignty includes the "free will" choices of mankind, and the understanding of the depraved will. A question about why GOD does something is irrelevant apart from what God has revealed about Himself. Since we are not God, then we have no onus to explain God's actions. The question is completely irrelevant and in no way compares to a question to mankind about why mankind makes certain decisions. Mankind philosophically has the capacity to explain mankind. Mankind, however, has neither the capacity nor the philosophical obligation to explain an "external agent" God apart from what He has revealed about Himself.

The correct and only valid answer to your question IS "because 'it glorifies Him'" precisely because that IS what He has revealed about Himself.

 

[Amy.G]

There is a serious philosophical difficulty in your inquiry.

There's a problem alright. You can't answer the question. :laugh:

Those who believe in libertarian free will naturally believe that man is the autonomous creature that makes wicked and righteous decisions "freely." If this is indeed the case, then the explanation for all decisions is possible in an answer that lies in man. Since we are mankind, then, philosophically, one who adheres to libertarian free will must be able to explain the rationale behind these decisions and why, from man's autonomous standpoint, some choose one way while others choose another way.

Those who believe in compatibilist free will believe that God's sovereignty includes the "free will" choices of mankind, and the understanding of the depraved will. A question about why GOD does something is irrelevant apart from what God has revealed about Himself. Since we are not God, then we have no onus to explain God's actions. The question is completely irrelevant and in no way compares to a question to mankind about why mankind makes certain decisions. Mankind philosophically has the capacity to explain mankind. Mankind, however, has neither the capacity nor the philosophical obligation to explain an "external agent" God apart from what He has revealed about Himself.

The correct and only valid answer to your question IS "because 'it glorifies Him'" precisely because that IS what He has revealed about Himself.

Well, if that is the "only" answer then you should be able to back it up with scripture, which I seen none of in your post.

 

[AresMan]

And many define grace as the "unmerited" favor of God. I used to hold this view myself, but I have been reconsidering this lately.

First, Jesus was full of grace. Was this unmerited??

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus was full of grace. Was this unmerited? I think not.

Obviously you are eisegeting here. The statement here about Jesus being "full of grace" is NOT about grace being imputed to Him in the same way that man is a recipient of grace. Jesus, being God is "full of grace" in that He gives divine grace, not that he needs it from an external source. Using this as a proof that grace is NOT "unmerited favor" is seriously grasping for straws.

And go back to Hebrews 11:6 and notice the word "rewarder"

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, I am not arguing for one second that we earn salvation, the scriptures are clear that it is a free gift from God.

But Hebrews 11:6 says a man must believe that God is, and that he is a "rewarder" of those that seek him.

Strong's defines rewarder here as:

1) one who pays wages, a rewarder

Now, I've got to admit, this is a little perplexing to me, and I will have to do more study. But Hebrews 11:6 says we must believe that God rewards those who seek him. In fact, we cannot please him unless we believe this. This is what the verse says. It says we "must believe".

I have already answered this.

First, Romans 3:11 says that no one seeks after God. Therefore, for someone to fulfill Hebrews 11:6b, the Holy Spirit must intervene with an effectual work.

Second, Romans 8:5-9 shows that "they that are in the flesh" cannot please God. Therefore, for someone to fulfill Hebrews 11:6a, the Holy Spirit must perform an effectual work (Romans 8:9).

I believe that this means we must see God as good. He is compassionate and merciful. So many believe God to be a tyrant ready to step on us like an insect.

That's a false caricature of God indeed. However, we should understand that we totally deserve that and that God would be perfectly just and vindicated in doing so. The fact that He does not demonstrates His mercy and grace, NOT our own worth.

But we must believe the scriptures that God loves us despite being sinners, and desires to save us all.

He purposed to save "his people" (Matthew 1:21) and did (Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9:24-28; Romans 11:4-8; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24). He gave His life for His Jewish and Gentile sheep (John 10:15-16). He purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28). He redeemed people out of every tribe and nation (Revelation 5:9-10).

We must believe God's promise that he will save all who come to him. We must believe him truthful.

I agree. I just believe according to Scripture that "all who come to Him" are His people whom He effectually draws unto Himself (John 6:44-45; Romans 8:28-30; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

 

[AresMan]

There's a problem alright. You can't answer the question. :laugh:

The question is completely and unequivocally irrelevant because the Scripture--God's revelation of Himself--does not explain what you are asking. What more do you want?

Well, if that is the "only" answer then you should be able to back it up with scripture, which I seen none of in your post.

The question is completely and unequivocally irrelevant because the Scripture--God's revelation of Himself--does not explain what you are asking. What more do you want?

 

[Amy.G]

The question is completely and unequivocally irrelevant because the Scripture--God's revelation of Himself--does not explain what you are asking. What more do you want?

If scripture does not explain it, why do you believe it?

Calvinists believe God withholds regeneration for 70 or 80 years for some people. Why do they believe that if there is no scriptural support for it?

 

[AresMan]

Why does there have to be an answer to that question? There are lots of questions we cannot answer.

If the answer lies in man, then man "can" answer it.

Why did God choose to make grass green? Why not pink? I like pink.

If the answer lies in God, then only God can answer it. If God does not answer it, then the question is moot. Do you understand?

I think the Bible gives the best answer. They refuse to submit to Christ because they love their sin.

WHY?!

 

[AresMan]

If scripture does not explain it, why do you believe it?

You do realize that Scripture may state a concept without explaining why, right? Scripture says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Scriptures do not "explain" to us why God loved the world. The question might be interesting for philosophers, but the question itself is moot to prove anything argumentative. A question for man to explain the reason for God's actions (when man is not God) is completely irrelevant for argumentative proof for something about which God has not elaborated in His revelation.

What part of this do you not understand?
A question for man to explain man, when the argument is about man is completely relevant.
A question for man to explain God apart from what God has revealed to man about Himself is utterly moot.

Calvinists believe God withholds regeneration for 70 or 80 years for some people. Why do they believe that if there is no scriptural support for it?

The Scriptural support is that God regenerates. Also, we observe that some experience this regeneration unto salvation at different ages of their lives. I do not know why God decided to do it this way because the Scriptures do not explain why God does it this way. Period.

 

[Amy.G]

If the answer lies in God, then only God can answer it. If God does not answer it, then the question is moot. Do you understand?

Yes. I understand it. But others do not understand it. They keep asking why do some receive Christ and some do not. The Bible says they do not because they love their sin. But that answer is not sufficient for them. They keep asking why. The Bible does not give an answer other than "they love their sin". Therefore the answer must lie in God or in the heart of the individual.

Do you understand? :laugh:

But thanks for making my point that some things can't be answered this side of heaven.

 

[OldRegular]

Why does there have to be an answer to that question?

Because he, and you among others, believe that man makes the final and ultimate decision in salvation. Why is that some believe and some don't!

There are lots of questions we cannot answer. Why did God choose to make grass green? Why not pink? I like pink.

What relevance does that question have to matters of salvation?

I think the Bible gives the best answer. They refuse to submit to Christ because they love their sin.

The Bible says that all love sin! Why do some choose to believe and others refuse to believe?

Here's my "why" questions for Calvinists. Why does God let a person live 70 or 80 years before He regenerates them to believe? Don't tell me because "it glorifies Him". Give me a real answer using scripture.

Since it is God who does the choosing and God who regenerates, that question, though perhaps interesting philosophically, really is not relevant. As Scripture says: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [Romans 9:21] And again: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. [Romans 9:15]

I was 34 before God brought me to salvation. I have never wondered why at that age and have never looked back. At that time I did not fully understand the doctrine of Sovereign Grace but I just praise God that He did save me and now I stand in awe that He chose me in Jesus Christ.

 

[AresMan]

Yes. I understand it. But others do not understand it. They keep asking why do some receive Christ and some do not. The Bible says they do not because they love their sin. But that answer is not sufficient for them. They keep asking why. The Bible does not give an answer other than "they love their sin". Therefore the answer must lie in God or in the heart of the individual.

Do you understand? :laugh:

Yes, but the difference between your question and OldRegular's question is monumental. OldRegular's question is about man answering for man. That is possible. Your question is about man answering for God. That is neither possible nor relevant to prove any point.

Man can answer for man, but man cannot answer for God. If you believe in libertarian free will and that it is the attribute in man for making decisions, even regarding salvation, then explain why, according to libertarian free will, that many choose to continue in their sin and reject Christ while some accept Christ and love Him. If the answer to this question lies in man and his will, then man can answer this question.

If you think that man cannot answer this question about man's own will, then you would have to admit that either (1) man's free will is such an inexplicable mystery that man cannot explain his own choices, reducing them to mere arbitration, making him a victim of statistics or randomness; or (2) man's will is compatibilistic with God's sovereign decrees, man's depravity is why everyone rejects Christ on their own, and that the reason some actually accept Christ is because the Holy Spirit sovereignly intervenes on their behalf by changing their will.

 

[Winman]

Yes, but the difference between your question and OldRegular's question is monumental. OldRegular's question is about man answering for man. That is possible. Your question is about man answering for God. That is neither possible nor relevant to prove any point.

Man can answer for man, but man cannot answer for God. If you believe in libertarian free will and that it is the attribute in man for making decisions, even regarding salvation, then explain why, according to libertarian free will, that many choose to continue in their sin and reject Christ while some accept Christ and love Him. If the answer to this question lies in man and his will, then man can answer this question.

If you think that man cannot answer this question about man's own will, then you would have to admit that either (1) man's free will is such an inexplicable mystery that man cannot explain his own choices, reducing them to mere arbitration, making him a victim of statistics or randomness; or (2) man's will is compatibilistic with God's sovereign decrees, man's depravity is why everyone rejects Christ on their own, and that the reason some actually accept Christ is because the Holy Spirit sovereignly intervenes on their behalf by changing their will.

This is such an absurd argument. The question of why some men refuse to come to God and others choose to come to God has been answered from scripture already. God knows the hearts of men, and says some men love darkness, while other do truth.

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.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

These very scriptures disprove the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity. Yes, man is a sinner, we all sin. But God did not curse man's nature in the garden of Eden. Man knows both good and evil, and can choose between the two.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Dagg and other Calvinistic commentators are wrong when they say an unsaved man will always choose against God. I showed the example of Zacchaeus, who did not even know who Jesus was. But surely he saw the crowds that followed Jesus and very likely heard of his miracles. He had a great desire to see who Jesus was and ran ahead of the crowd and climbed a tree being a very short individual. When Jesus called to him he did not rebel but came down quickly and received him joyfully. After spending time with Jesus he came to realize he was the promised Messiah and called him "Lord". And Jesus himself confirmed that he was not saved before saying, "This day is salvation come to this house".

So, when Zacchaeus heard of Jesus, he did not rebel, but sought him out, yet being unsaved.

The young rich ruler came to inquire how to have eternal life while being unsaved. Crowds of thousands followed Jesus.

So, this doctrine of Dagg's and other Calvinists is false and clearly contradicted by much scripture.

And this argument of yours saying we cannot answer why some men rebel against God and others do not is silly. Some men love evil and the pleasures of sin, while some men seek after righteousness.

Matt 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

It is because you have accepted this erroneous doctrine that you cannot conceive that unsaved man knows both good and evil and can freely choose between the two.

Why not accept what the scriptures clearly show and abandon this man-made doctrine?

If Jesus himself says that some men love darkness (and he did), why not just take him at his word? He knows the hearts of men.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

I am quite satisfied with Jesus's answer to this question. I do not need to know man's opinions.