The last petal fell into place

[asterisktom]

My statement isn't that the atonement is meaningless, but that it's effects or that which is does have no effect until it is received by faith, NEVER prior to it.

OK, I would agree with that. I guess I mixed you up with someone else and saw more of his response (I forget who it was at this point)

Let me pass on the other points on your post for now, I'm getting ready to go somewhere. But I do want to ask you about your "I disagree". Do you mean to say that there is a verse in the NT that has "provision" in it used in a salvation sense? Could you tell me what it is?

 

[asterisktom]

If I may interject, I think most of us would concede that some measure of grace preceded our faith. Wasn't is by grace that God sent us the apostles, the scripture, the gospel and the church? Maybe that would be "common grace," but nevertheless it is grace. Shouldn't the discussion be whether or not this grace is effectual (irresistible) or not?

A real quick comment before I go. Whenever I speak of grace I mean what you meant call salvation grace. I do not see prevenient grace in the bible (or common grace) so when I say grace I am not even thinking of that.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that point.

 

[Skandelon]

A real quick comment before I go. Whenever I speak of grace I mean what you meant call salvation grace. I do not see prevenient grace in the bible (or common grace) so when I say grace I am not even thinking of that.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that point.

I understand, but out of curiosity what do you refer to God's sending of the apostles, the scripture, the gospel? Is that not an act of grace for him to send those?

 

[Winman]

If faith were a requirement for Grace then Grace would not be unmerited favor!

Yes, it is. You cannot grasp that faith is not a work even though the scriptures specifically say that.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Why is this verse impossible for Cals and DoGs to understand? It says to him the worketh not BUT BELIEVETH. Paul is contrasting works and faith, they are the exact opposite of each other.

Believing someone is not a work. Believing will cause a person to work, but it is not a work itself.

I have given the example of skydiving. When you skydive, you trust or believe the parachute will get you to the ground safely.

Now, see if you can get this, you will not jump out of the airplane unless you first believe the parachute will get you to the ground safely. Yes, jumping out and actually putting your life in the hands of the parachute is a work, but it is a work that was brought about because you first believed. There is no way you are going to jump out of that plane if you believe the parachute to be defective.

Do you understand? Faith or believing is an attitude. It is not a work. But when you believe it will prompt you to action.

Another example, you are in a crowded theater. Suddenly someone jumps up and screams "fire! fire! get out!". Now it's going to be real easy to determine if a person believes this or not. The ones who believe will jump up and run for the exits, the ones who do not will stay in their seats. But believing came first. The ones who believed the warning to be truthful and sincere are the ones that are going to run for the exits. So faith will move a person to action, but faith itself is not an action.

When you hear God's word, you either believe it or not. If you believe God's word that Jesus is the Son of God who died for you and will save you if you call on him, then of course you will call on him. The prayer or call doesn't save you, it is the belief that caused you to pray to Jesus that saves you. And really, it is not even that faith that saves you, it is Jesus that saves. We have no power to save ourselves. But when we come to Jesus in faith and dependence, then he saves us, he has all the power, we have nothing.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Do you see the part I highlighted? Paul is asking how anyone can call on Jesus if they do not first believe on him. If a person does not believe the scriptures that Jesus is the Son of God that can save them, then they are not going to call on him. The calling is an action that follows faith.

Faith is not a work, it is an attitude about God. If we do not believe God's word, then we call him a liar.

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

The record is the scriptures. Without the scriptures none of us would know who the true God is and the salvation offered through Jesus. But whoever does not believe in Jesus does not believe the scriptures and calls God a liar. Do you really believe God is going to give his grace to someone who is calling him a liar? No way. This is why we must first have faith in God before we can please him. It is not a work, but it is an attitude about God, whether he is truthful or a liar. It is a judgment on our part.

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.

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

From Genesis 1 to Revelations 22 the scriptures are about Jesus. Jesus is the word of God.

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

[grahame]

Chosen, not saved. Though God might not reveal at all times those whom He will eventually save as He did with some, however that does not mean those whom He revealed as His chosen vessels were saved from birth.


All men who will be saved are chosen by God to be saved. It is not this fact that is disputed, but the nature of how God presumably chose whom He did.

I'm not trying to be contentious here, but it is nevertheless an interesting concept, for we read this of John the Baptist in Lukes gospel chapter 1 and verse 15

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Can an unsaved person be filled with the Spirit? Just a thought. I am of the same mind as you as regards being chosen by God. But the verse is still there and begs the question?

 

[annsni]

All men who will be saved are chosen by God to be saved. It is not this fact that is disputed, but the nature of how God presumably chose whom He did.

For those who believe that God chooses those who choose Him, is that really God choosing? Additionally, did God see Saul and say, "Wow - Saul is really going to do a lot of great things for me after he comes to know me, so I will choose Him." That makes NO sense in light of what truly happened, does it?

 

[grahame]

For those who believe that God chooses those who choose Him, is that really God choosing? Additionally, did God see Saul and say, "Wow - Saul is really going to do a lot of great things for me after he comes to know me, so I will choose Him." That makes NO sense in light of what truly happened, does it?

Yes, if God relied upon those He forsaw would believe then He would be waiting forever, for none would choose God, for we are told that the carnal mind is at enmity with God. If God did not choose the elect then no one would be saved.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
If faith were a requirement for Grace then Grace would not be unmerited favor!

Yes, it is. You cannot grasp that faith is not a work even though the scriptures specifically say that.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Why is this verse impossible for Cals and DoGs to understand? It says to him the worketh not BUT BELIEVETH. Paul is contrasting works and faith, they are the exact opposite of each other.

Winman

It is you who have difficulty grasping the truth of Scripture.

I have never said that faith is a work but if faith proceeds Grace then Grace is not an unmerited favor.

I have given the example of skydiving. When you skydive, you trust or believe the parachute will get you to the ground safely.

The above statement demonstrates your problem Winman. You cannot grasp the truth that whatever causes you to jump out of a plane has nothing to do with the Faith that is a gift of GOD.

Salvation is a supernatural event wrought by GOD. You and your fellow Freewillers want to make it a natural event. You are presented with certain Scriptural facts and through the exercise of your natural freewill you use your natural ability to believe or disbelieve, thereby either affirming or denying these Scriptural facts! Strange! GOD seems nowhere to be found in your Freewiller soteriology. I believe that is the fancy name for the Doctrine of Salvation.

 

[zrs6v4]

I understand, but out of curiosity what do you refer to God's sending of the apostles, the scripture, the gospel? Is that not an act of grace for him to send those?

I think the issue is that the bible doesn't speak of those as grace. Many argue that the word "grace" in Scripture is only used toward the elect (I haven't searched it). So with that said it is liked to be kept only used for salvation to them and not loosely. I had an instructor who liked to use the word common goodness rather than common grace. He said the doctrine of common grace is not necessary.

 

[zrs6v4]

Are they born saved?

I of course hold limited atonement, although I ran into a kink in this logic as well.

Are you familiar with the "double jeopardy" theory?
It basically states that if Jesus died for all mankind at once and took all sins away then what do people go to hell for? If a person goes to hell and pays for sins, then wouldn't that be unjust if Jesus paid for them as well. At this point people will either than to turn away from a universal finished atonement and hold limited atonement, or say that People only go to hell for rejecting the gospel.

I then asked myself the same question- Why was I condemned before I trusted Christ if Christ already paid for my sin before that? this was your question. This is where I have heard it said (unbiblical) that the elect are really always saved but faith is the point it is realized (maybe a hyper view). It is a hard thought because my logic says that in God's eyes I have always been elect even before the creation, but at the same time it plays out in time. I cant avoid that once I was not His and now I am, so I was separate from God at one point while yet God knew He was going to have mercy on me at the exact time He did. mind boggling :smilewinkgrin:

I still believe that Jesus finished the work then and died for only the elect, but it is a very hard thing to understand and maybe because Jesus did leave time to go to the Father. It is simple in the sense that if someone does not repent and dies he/we can know that he was not atoned for and died in all of his sins including rejecting the gospel if he heard it.

 

[asterisktom]

I understand, but out of curiosity what do you refer to God's sending of the apostles, the scripture, the gospel? Is that not an act of grace for him to send those?

That is an act of mercy and goodness, for sure, but grace is something more definite than that, I believe. Do you have a verse that calls those actions - the actions themselves - acts of grace? I can't think of any.

 

[Skandelon]

That is an act of mercy and goodness, for sure, but grace is something more definite than that, I believe. Do you have a verse that calls those actions - the actions themselves - acts of grace? I can't think of any.

No, I just remember the term "common grace" being used a lot in theology class in reference to that which is from God and common to all man.

In your view must grace be irresistible/effectual for it to be classified as "grace?" If so, why?

 

[webdog]

"For by grace are you saved through faith." The salvation is through faith, not the grace.

Salvation is not grace? "By grace through faith" is taken as salvation as a whole. God will not save someone apart from faith (God's grace)

 

[Robert Snow]

If faith were a requirement for Grace then Grace would not be unmerited favor!

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom. 4:16

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

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

It is always faith that accepts the grace God has offered. We receive it of our own freewill in order to be saved.

It is strange why the Calvinists twist the Scripture to fit their own man-made doctrine. Why not just believe what God has said in the bible. No need to pervert the Gospel of Grace!

 

[Skandelon]

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom. 4:16

:thumbsup: Great passage. I hadn't thought of that one. I don't know how scripture could be anymore clear with regard to faith being a precondition of saving grace.

 

[gb93433]

At the precise moment when someone has perfect theology let us know because we will no longer need God.

 

[Skandelon]

At the precise moment when someone has perfect theology let us know because we will no longer need God.

Jesus had perfect theology.

 

[asterisktom]

:thumbsup: Great passage. I hadn't thought of that one. I don't know how scripture could be anymore clear with regard to faith being a precondition of saving grace.

Anyone can take an isolated passage - and in the above case downplaying the context - and come to an unwarranted conclusion. The better tack to take would be to go down the list of "grace" and "faith" verses (verses where the words appears) and then come to a conclusion. This is a study I did and could see clearly that God's grace was the first operator in our salvation, faith following after.

 

[Skandelon]

Anyone can take an isolated passage - and in the above case downplaying the context - and come to an unwarranted conclusion. The better tack to take would be to go down the list of "grace" and "faith" verses (verses where the words appears) and then come to a conclusion. This is a study I did and could see clearly that God's grace was the first operator in our salvation, faith following after.

Actually, if you go back to Robert's post you will see that he listed all the texts in reference to saving grace and faith. I just did a search of the NIV and I didn't see any that he didn't list. Are there others?

Also, would you mind explaining how the context of this verse negates that grace comes through faith?

 

[OldRegular]

:thumbsup: Great passage. I hadn't thought of that one. I don't know how scripture could be anymore clear with regard to faith being a precondition of saving grace.

Ephesians 2:8 shows you are wrong. We are regenerated solely by the Grace of GOD and then given the gift of Faith.