What is Salvation by Faith?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:
"... dead faith ..."

GE:
An impossible posibility! The 'devil's faith' is not 'saving-faith', but the sure knowledge of hell awaiting. The Faith of Christ is living faith (subjectively) and saving faith Objectively.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Objective, faith is "the Faith of Christ", the Gospel; subjectively, faith is 'our faith', works. That's why there is no salvation by faith; only through faith "by grace only" ("only", as Luther added the word in the phrase, 'by faith only').

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: I am not saved by believing; my faith is not what saves me; salvation is not by faith --- the same thing. My believing, my faith, is my doing --although being made possible and real by God; my works even if faith or believing, cannot and will not save -- not me or anyone else.

HP: I will say with some clarification that I agree with some of the points above.

The grounds of salvation is NOT our faith, repentance or anything else we are required to do. The only grounds of salvation is the grace of God. Just the same, it can be rightfully stated that we are indeed saved by faith just as Scripture makes clear, if thought of in a different sense.

Here again we find the distinction in order I have attempted to clarify by the prison illustration, in that faith, repentance, and continued obedience are NOT thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of,’ or as the ‘grounds of salvation,’ but rather are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ or a condition of salvation.

Where I find you to be in error is that you confuse the grounds and conditions of salvation, and wrongfully equate them to be the same thing. They are not the same thing.

Where I find you in absolute agreement with the truth is in that repentance, faith and obedience are indeed the results of acts of the will, and are in a sense works. There again, we are not, cannot, and never will be saved ‘for the sake of’ any of those things, but it is also true that apart from these issues, thought again in the sense of conditions for salvation, or in the sense of ‘not without which,’ no man will find salvation real to their heart.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: Except James is not talking about the same salvation you are. James is talking about a salvation that is only available to an eternally saved person. An unsaved person can not even begin the journey of this salvation until they have trusted Jesus as Savior.

HP: How can one trust in Jesus that is a dead log? You contradict yourself. You tell us that man has nothing to do with their salvation, and then you tell us that man has to believe. You tell us that man is totally dead and cannot repent, or believe, and then you tell us he must do the impossible and trust Jesus. You tell us that God predestines the elect to salvation, and that no one can resist such election, and then you tell us that we cannot be of the elect unless again we do that which you say we cannot do, and exercise our wills to believe.

What we are witnessing is the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism lands its followers in. What you are proposing JJ is laced with absurdities. Who are you trying to confuse with such notions as James is speaking only of the salvation available to the eternally saved individual? According to you the saved were eternally secure from eternity past to eternity future, apart from man’s will being involved in the least concerning election, predestination or eternal security.

How many salvations do you believe there are? Scripture tells us there is only one salvation for the Jew and for the Gentile. Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”
Scripture indeed tells us with absolute knowledge how to be saved by faith, but what you propose it tells you is simply not found in Scripture. You propose that Scripture informs you or others that there can be no that there is no way that JJ or myself, or any other cannot be deceived as to their standing before the Lord, or that if one believes that he cannot cast off that belief in selfish unbelief, and lose ones standing before the Lord. Your suggested beliefs deny what Scripture repeatedly states, and that is that you, JJ, or I HP, can be deceived into believing we have eternal life when in fact we do not, and that the real possibility exist that we may leave our first love and be eteranlly lost.

Scripture indeed contains absolute truth, but where you go wrong is when you make ‘an application’ of absolute Scriptural truth that can only be held by faith, that of absolute knowledge, that cannot be absolute knowledge and remain salvation by faith.

 

[BobRyan]

So, now you're claiming that unsaved people will be at the Judgment Seat of Christ?

BOTH saved AND unsaved -- see Romans 2.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan: God "DRAWS all mankind unto Himself" John 12:32

HP: Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

How do you see this verse saying that God draws all mankind to Himself?

God is drawing all mankind 'unto Christ' in that verse - I conclude that Christ and God are in fact the one Triune God. (God in three persons).


Here we see it again - only this time reported to us by Paul -

BR: God was in Christ "Reconciling the WORLD to Himself" 2Cor 5

HP: I believe I know that you are not a universalist. This verse cannot be understood in any absolute sense or all would be reconciled, when the truth is that all are not reconciled with God in spite of the atonement. I cannot see the point you are making by mentioning this verse.

The verse is clear - God was "reconciling the WORLD" to Himself just as John 12:32 is clear that God is 'drawing ALL mankind to Himself".

But reconciling drawing and 'convicting the world' - is not the same thing as 'zapping their brains and making them be saved' - rather it is the supernatural grace of God for the WHOLE WORLD that ENABLES the whole world to ACCEPT salvation -enabling their WILL so that they CAN choose.

Yet He does not MAKE them choose what He has ENABLED them to choose. This is not universalism BECAUSE God's drawing is part of His act of reconciliation - but in that reconciliation the sinner MUST CHOOSE to accept and ACT where he has been ENABLED by God to act.

If the sinner chooses not to - they remain lost - convicted and 'Without excuse" as Romans 1 states.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BR: In response to that supernatural drawing - sinful depraved mankind is ENABLED to place FAITH in the Gospel, in Christ - to YIELD to the Holy Spirit, repent, confess and and be born-again.

HP: We agree that without the atonement and God’s drawing upon the hearts of sinful man, no man could be reconciled with God. Just the same, when you mention ‘ENABLED’ that genders thoughts of the granting of abilities, which I see as an inaccurate portrayal of the facts.

That is a point where we differ. I hold that the Romans 3 facts that "NONE seek after God" is applicable to all and is true where the "contexdt" is the sinful dipraved nature of man "alone" -- without taking into consideration the supernatural act of God in drawing and enabling man.

Your idea must maintan that all have the gospel presented to them,

No. It maintains the John 16 fact that through the Holy Spirit God is "convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

It maintains the Romans 10 fact of God's witness in nature -

It maintains the Romans 1 fact "that they are without excuse" for the "invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made".

It maintains that God is reaching ALL mankind even when missionaries are not. But it does not maintaint that ALL have access to the Bible or the Gospel story. Hence the truth seen in Romans 2 where the one with NO access to scripture at all "does INSTINCTIVELY the things of the Law of God SHOWING the law of God to be written on the heart' - which is in fact the "new Covenant" promise.

HP said - God certainly provides the way and motivation to entice the will to act with an appropriate response, but if man lacked the abilities to respond, and only some are granted those abilities, How is God not a respecter of persons and again the author of all evil?

If ALL are born depraved with NONE seeking after God - but then God ENABLES ALL and DRAWS ALL -- how is this "God being the author of evil"?

If man cannot do anything other than he does, and that is to sin and that continually from birth, is it not justice that God grant to man the ability to respond and not grace if He is going to punish them for failure to obey?

It was just to tell Adam that death was the result of sin. When Adam chose death - he and all his descendants were doomed. God could have "justly" killed Adam on the spot. No descendants would have "made it"!

But my argument is that God enables ALL - "not just some". So the enabling is just. The choice TO enable is Grace and mercy - the fact that ALL are enabled - is just!

I am not convinced that infants have the ability to master abstract concepts like sin and rebellion. Their 'nature' -- (SinFUL nature) is selfish but they do not understand the drawing of God nor the concept of sin. They NEED a savior at birth and they HAVE one!

HP
Man is created by God. Man does not create himself, therefore his Creator is responsible for his state at birth, not the man.

MAN chose to place MANKIND in and environment of sin and rebllion - not God.

God chose to ALLOW man to live instead of being killed on the spot.

In so doing He chose that sinners - should have children WITH sinFUL natures - the SAME nature as the sinning parent -- is passed on to the child.

Each child is NOT born "as another Adam". They posses both a fallen "Weakened" nature AND a sinFUL nature that DESIRES evil "by nature".

(Some infants are even born as drug addicts becuase of the sins of their parents).

If God is going to punish man for his actions, justice demands that God provide him with the necessary abilities to obey prior to any intents being formed. If we are moral beings, it demands power and abilities of contrary choice be granted to all, without which morality is a chimera.

You seek to prove the point that God GRANTING free will and a non-depraved nature AT BIRTH is BETTER than God GRANTING the supernatural drawing at birth that enables all to choose.

You draw a fine line by reason of a philisophical POV that I do not see supported in scripture.

Quote:
BR: But there is no "Salvation by faithlessness". When we choose to turn from faith - we do not then create a system of "Saved by faithlessness".

HP: Just the same, neither will man be saved apart from faithfulness. When you take man’s will completely out of the equation, you destroy accountability, morality, love or benevolence, sin and selfishness, and all sense of just praise or blame. What you are left with is deterministic fatalism and God as the Author of all intents, sin or otherwise.

I do not take man's will out of the picture. I argue that man's will is ENABLED to act by God who in Eden places "Emnity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent". So ALL are drawn ALL are granted this disposition to reject Satan.

you claim that God did not need to do that since the seed of the woman would be born morally pure as was Adam.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bob Ryan: God "DRAWS all mankind unto Himself" John 12:32

HP: The crux of the issue IMO lies in a handful of questions. I will try and break them down in simple questions so as to be able to concentrate rather than to generalize.

Grace is at the forefront it would appear, both as to the nature of grace and to whom and how it is offered.

It would appear to me that your position is that man is as you say “as a dead log floating down the stream’ lacking all abilities to respond to the message of salvation or even act in an appropriate manner due to original sin. You present grace as God granting enabling abilities to respond to Him, without which no man can do anything but sin and that continually.
To the contrary, I believe that man is a willing rebel totally depraved but not as a direct result of any original sin or Adam’s sin, (although such sin does lend itself as an occasion to sin or an influence to sin,) but rather due to our own personal intents of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. I maintain that according to Scripture sin is not the results of any inability, but rather the results of ‘DIRECT ABILITY,’ of having all needed abilities to act in an obedient fashion, but willfully refusing to will our intents in a benevolent and obedient manner.

Where you see our sins the result of inability, I see sin as a result of ability. Where you see grace as the granting of ability, I see grace as unmerited favor and opportunity to be reconciled in spite of our willful rejection of light granted to us by God and in spite of our willful refusal to utilize the abilities granted to us by God naturally from our youth up.

You see grace as God granting to a dead log the abilities to accept Christ’s atonement and to act appropriately and according to love. I see no need for any special ability to beleive and accept the offer of salvation, and believe that such abilities are natural to every man.

I see the abilities to obey God universally given, and granted to accomadate justice not grace. This is due to the fact that if God is going to praise or blame men, punish or reward them for their intents and subsequent actions, such abilities are demanded by justice, again not specially granted to us by grace.

We would both agree that it is indeed grace for God to provide sinful man a Savior. It is the state of man at birth and the abilities he has or lacks and whether or not such abilities are universally given to accomodate justice, or if in fact they must be graciously granted having not possessed them before, that we would be found to disagree.

How did I do in laying out our differences and agreements? Have I misrepresented your sentiments in any way? If not, I will proceed with a look on the state of man both before and after the fall, to ascertain according to Scripture and reason the state they were birthed into and the abilities and moral state they possessed, and whether or not those abilities are the results of justice or if in fact they are granted to us graciously antecedent to any right action on our part being made possible, including but not limited to, the acceptance of the free gift of salvation.

 

[J. Jump]

HP: How can one trust in Jesus that is a dead log?

It's called the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

You contradict yourself. You tell us that man has nothing to do with their salvation, and then you tell us that man has to believe.

Man has nothing to do with their salvation in that there is nothing they can do to earn it or merit it. I don't say man has to believe that's what the Bible says.

You tell us that man is totally dead and cannot repent, or believe, and then you tell us he must do the impossible and trust Jesus.

Man is spiritually dead in that he can do no act that is capable of pleasing God. It is not impossible to trust Jesus as the Bible declares that is what we must do. If it is required that we believe, then it is possible to believe after the move of the Holy Spirit.

You tell us that God predestines the elect to salvation, and that no one can resist such election, and then you tell us that we cannot be of the elect unless again we do that which you say we cannot do, and exercise our wills to believe.

I don't know where you came up with the idea that I was a Calvinist? I am so far removed from Calvinism it's not even funny.

What we are witnessing is the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism lands its followers in.

Please refer to the previous statement.

What you are proposing JJ is laced with absurdities.

I guess if you want to say that the Bible is laced with absurdities that is between you and God.

Who are you trying to confuse with such notions as James is speaking only of the salvation available to the eternally saved individual?

Uh that would be church tradition that you are talking about when talking about confusion. It is the traditional teaching of the church that has corrupted the actual teaching of the book of James.

The only confusing thing is how people can say that salvation is free in one breath and then ties works into the picture in the next breath becuase that is true contradiction.

According to you the saved were eternally secure from eternity past to eternity future, apart from man’s will being involved in the least concerning election, predestination or eternal security.

Where are you getting this? Please show me some quotes where I am espousing Calvinism. You are not going to be able to find any, because that's not even what I believe. Why are you starting to make things up about me?

How many salvations do you believe there are?

It doesn't matter how many salvations I believe there are. The ONLY thing that matters is what does the Bible say about salvation? And the Bible says that the spirit is saved or remains dead. If the spirit remains dead then that is the only thing that matters for that person is that they are "saved" in that their spirit is made alive.

Once the spirit is made alive then the soul is now in play. The salvation of the soul is a mixture of faith and works.

Then the body will be "saved" so to speak in the future.

Scripture tells us there is only one salvation for the Jew and for the Gentile. Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”

Well you are going to have to find a different Scripture, because that one says there's just One Lord, one faith and one baptism. It doesn't say anything about salvation.

Scripture indeed tells us with absolute knowledge how to be saved by faith, but what you propose it tells you is simply not found in Scripture.

This is an odd statement coming from someone that argues against absolute knowledge at every turn. But even so HP just because you don't see something doesn't make it untrue.

You propose that Scripture informs you or others that there can be no that there is no way that JJ or myself, or any other cannot be deceived as to their standing before the Lord, or that if one believes that he cannot cast off that belief in selfish unbelief, and lose ones standing before the Lord.

I'm not even exactly sure what you are trying to say here. But people can fall away from the faith, sure. But it doesn't have anything to do with their eternal salvation, because that is not a linear event. That is a one-time faith that saves the person forever.

Your belief is that salvation is something that is linear and is not decided until I hold onto my faith up and until I breath my last breath. Scripture doesn't support that view. Scripture says eternal salvation is a one-time event, not a life-long process.

Your suggested beliefs deny what Scripture repeatedly states, and that is that you, JJ, or I HP, can be deceived into believing we have eternal life when in fact we do not, and that the real possibility exist that we may leave our first love and be eteranlly lost.

If you want to continue to believe that then that is fine, but Scripture does not support that view and is far from it. I would be more than willing to visit with you about your proof texts in regard to that belief system if you want to.

Scripture indeed contains absolute truth, but where you go wrong is when you make ‘an application’ of absolute Scriptural truth that can only be held by faith, that of absolute knowledge, that cannot be absolute knowledge and remain salvation by faith.

That doesn't even make sense HP.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: How can one trust in Jesus that is a dead log?

JJ: It's called the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

HP: Have you ever tried to convict a dead log? It is not that easy.

JJ: Man has nothing to do with their salvation in that there is nothing they can do to earn it or merit it. I don't say man has to believe that's what the Bible says.

HP: We TOTALLY agree that there is nothing that man can do to merit or earn ones salvation. Where we disagree is that in one breath you eliminate man’s will from being involved, and in the next breath you say he must believe. The will is involved in believing JJ, and it is also involved in another condition of salvation, i.e. repentance. Neither belief nor repentance is thought of in the sense of earning or merit, but rather in the sense of ‘not without which.’ Just as in the prisoner illustration, repentance in NO way merits or earns a pardon, but neither will a pardon be granted without remorse and repentance. Belief and repentance are indeed works in a sense, but not works in the sense of merit or earning. They both involve the will of man, but are NOT meritorious in nature. They are simply fulfilling the conditions God laid down for man to do. Are they works in the sense of being meritorious? Never! Are they works in the sense of involving the will of man? Absolutely, but again thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not as one would think of something meritorious which is thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of.’

JJ:

Man is spiritually dead in that he can do no act that is capable of pleasing God.

HP: If you are saying that a man that is 'totally unwilling to please God', and you call that 'incapable,' I suppose I would agree. But incapable has the understood meaning of inability, not unwillingness. Scripture presents fallen man as totally capable of obeying God IF he wills.

Listen to God speaking to Cain AFTER the fall, and having parents that were indeed sinners. “Ge 4:6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”
Here God is telling Cain that not only can he do what is right, but that he should rule over temptation and the enemy and not let them take control of his actions. If what you are claiming is true, in that man is incapable of doing right, God is a taskmaster in mandating, upon pain of eternal torment, that they obey Him. God could be seen as nothing short as demanding an impossibility out of man and then punishing man for the failure to do the impossible. How is that not totally unjust and absurd to consider as a demand of a Fair and Just God?

JJ: It is not impossible to trust Jesus as the Bible declares that is what we must do. If it is required that we believe, then it is possible to believe after the move of the Holy Spirit.

HP: Neither is it impossible to obey if that is what God requires us to do. It is also true that once we sin, NOTHING we can do will ever atone for that sin apart form the blood of Christ atoning for it, but that does not indicate in any way that we lack ability to obey, but rather that we lack the ability to atone for past sins.

JJ:The only confusing thing is how people can say that salvation is free in one breath and then ties works into the picture in the next breath becuase that is true contradiction.

HP: Not if one is able to understand the different senses the word ‘works’ is thought of.

 

[EdSutton]

Objective, faith is "the Faith of Christ", the Gospel; subjectively, faith is 'our faith', works. That's why there is no salvation by faith; only through faith "by grace only" ("only", as Luther added the word in the phrase, 'by faith only').

"That's why there is no salvation by faith;" - Gerhard Ebersoehn

47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”
48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” (Lk. 7: 47-50 - NKJV)

40And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him,
41Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight.
42And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. {Lk. 18: 40-42 - KJV [with which agree YLT; HCSB- marg.; (W/H, Tr 1550, TR1894, Cr- ((Aland/Black)), and MT ((Hodges/Farstad)) where all read " η πιστις σου σεσωκεν σε")]}

I dunno'! The way I read this, Jesus sure seemed to think there was "salvation by faith".

As usual, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I'm not willing to tell the Lord Jesus Christ that He was mistaken, here. How about anyone else??

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: I dunno'! The way I read this, Jesus sure seemed to think there was "salvation by faith".

As usual, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I'm not willing to tell the Lord Jesus Christ that He was mistaken, here. How about anyone else??

HP: Salvation is indeed by faith, but faith is not the grounds of salvation. GE so far IMO does not distinguish between conditions of salvation and grounds of salvation, and consequently makes remarks that confuse the two. What I believe him to mean when he states that there is ‘no salvation by faith,’ is that we are not saved ‘for the sake of salvation.” What he fails to exhibit IMO is that we can indeed use the words ‘saved by faith’ in another sense, i.e. thought in the sense of ‘not without which’ as a condition of salvation, and NOT in the sense of ‘that for the sake of‘ in the sense of the grounds of salvation. We can indeed state the truth, just as Jesus did, in that we are indeed 'saved by faith,' IF we only understand the sense in which when spoken is utilized.

I tried to relate this notion in the prison illustration I have posted a couple of times to give clear illustration to this important distinction of senses. Have you read it and do you understand what I am trying to get across?

 

[J. Jump]

Have you ever tried to convict a dead log? It is not that easy.

Nope and that's not my job, nor is it yours so that is kind of pointless. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict, so we should just leave that up to Him and let Him take care of it.

We TOTALLY agree that there is nothing that man can do to merit or earn ones salvation. Where we disagree is that in one breath you eliminate man’s will from being involved, and in the next breath you say he must believe.

Again you misrepresent my beliefs. Please show me one quote that came from me where I say man's will is not involved in salvation. There is not one. Of course man's will is invovled. You can believe if you want to and be saved or you can not believe if you want to and stay dead in trespasses and sin. It is totally up to the individual.

The will is involved in believing JJ

Absolutely! Again I don't know why you are painting me into the Calvinist corner when I have given NO evidence that that is what I believe.

and it is also involved in another condition of salvation, i.e. repentance.

Repentance is not a condition of salvation. If it is then the Bible is a lie. Acts 16:30-31 and Ephesians 2:8-9 say NOTHING about repentance.

Neither belief nor repentance is thought of in the sense of earning or merit, but rather in the sense of ‘not without which.’

Again repentane is not required for eternal salvation. The ONLY thing that is required is that you believe or have faith in the works of Jesus Christ done on your behalf.

Just as in the prisoner illustration, repentance in NO way merits or earns a pardon, but neither will a pardon be granted without remorse and repentance. Belief and repentance are indeed works in a sense, but not works in the sense of merit or earning. They both involve the will of man, but are NOT meritorious in nature. They are simply fulfilling the conditions God laid down for man to do. Are they works in the sense of being meritorious? Never! Are they works in the sense of involving the will of man? Absolutely, but again thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not as one would think of something meritorious which is thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of.’

HP you can make up all kinds of allegorical stories to go along with what you think, but if it doesn't match up with Scripture then it's not right no matter how you present it. Calvinists have all kinds of allegorical stories, but the Bible just doesn't support their beliefs. I am sure there are other false teachings that have allegorical stories to go along with their beliefs as well, but the bottom line is the Bible says that eternal salvation is not by our works, but by the works of Jesus on the cross on our behalf.

If you are saying that a man that is 'totally unwilling to please God', and you call that 'incapable,' I suppose I would agree. But incapable has the understood meaning of inability, not unwillingness. Scripture presents fallen man as totally capable of obeying God IF he wills.

No he really can't because the ONLY work that pleases God is work that He does because man is incapable of producing good works. Even after we are saved it is not us that is working in ourselves, but everything that stands at the judgment seat of Christ as gold, silver and precious stones are going to be works where we died to our self and the Spirit worked in us.

That's what grace is. It is God doing for man what He requires of man and then giving him credit as if he did it himself, but it was really God that did it.

Listen to God speaking to Cain AFTER the fall, and having parents that were indeed sinners. “Ge 4:6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”

Here God is telling Cain that not only can he do what is right, but that he should rule over temptation and the enemy and not let them take control of his actions. If what you are claiming is true, in that man is incapable of doing right, God is a taskmaster in mandating, upon pain of eternal torment, that they obey Him. God could be seen as nothing short as demanding an impossibility out of man and then punishing man for the failure to do the impossible. How is that not totally unjust and absurd to consider as a demand of a Fair and Just God?

You are considering Cain to be an unsaved individual and applying your theology as such. But I don't see any evidence that Cain was an unsaved man when God said these things to him.

After a person is saved they are capable of dying to self and allowing God to work through them if they want to, but unfortunately many times we do not die to self and we quench the work of the Holy Spirit.

Neither is it impossible to obey if that is what God requires us to do.

That's just it. God doesn't require obedience to anything other than believing in His Son for salvation until after we are saved, because He knows it is impossible for man to obey. It's hard enough to obey even as a saved person, much less a spiritually dead person.

Not if one is able to understand the different senses the word ‘works’ is thought of.

Well if you want to continue to believe that way that is between you and God. I don't think Scripture supports it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: That's what grace is. It is God doing for man what He requires of man and then giving him credit as if he did it himself, but it was really God that did it.

HP: If you do not desire to be labeled as Calvinistic, then you are going to have to stop making statements like this. Your statement is as Calvinistic as they come; all of God and none of man.
Then you turn around and try to say that man’s will is involved. Sorry JJ, you can’t have it both ways. If it is all of God , then man’s will is not involved. If man’s will is involved, it is not all of God. What you denote as man’s will is no will at all, for have you already forgotten that it was your very words that stated it was "all of God that did it?"
Which is it JJ? Stand still long enough for one to get a fix on just what you believe instead of trying to claim two contradictory notions as your view at the same time. I desire to represent you fairly, but when you take both sides even in the same post, don’t cry foul when you are labeled “inconsistently Calvinistic.”

 

[J. Jump]

HP I'm sorry, but you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Speaking of God's grace is not Calvinistic. If someone speaks of God's grace is a Cavlinist then everyone is a Calvinist.

How can you call me a Calvinist just because I give a definition of God's grace?

Just because all of the work was done by God and all that He requires you and I to do is believe doesn't mean I am a Calvinist.

God did all the work through His Son Jesus Christ. All that is required of man kind is faith. You can either believe after the Holy Spirit has convicted you or you can turn away from salvation after the Holy Spirit has convicted you.

That is not Calvinism. I don't know a Calvinist around that would agree to what I just said.

The bottom line is you can believe what the Bible says about salvation which is to believe on Jesus and His substitutionary death and shed blood on your behalf a sinner or you can not believe what the Bible has to say about salvation and remain dead in trespasses and sin.

Anything outside of that is not Biblical salvation, but is either adding to or taking away from what Scripture has said on the matter. And that is not Calvinistic, so I think that should take care of that matter.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: How can you call me a Calvinist just because I give a definition of God's grace?

HP: I do not call you a Calvinist because you believe in grace. I say your ideas are decidedly Calvinistic due to the slant you give to the idea of grace.

JJ: Just because all of the work was done by God and all that He requires you and I to do is believe doesn't mean I am a Calvinist.

HP: There you go again with that shell game of ‘believe business.’ If you can recall just one post ago, you stated clearly that it was all of God and none of man. Even the belief performed by man was nothing more than the results of the ‘all of God concept’ you set forth. Man is dead remember? He can do NOTHING according to you to please God without God granting to him the abilities to do it. That includes belief JJ. If it doesn’t are you ready to accept your own admissions in that God does it all. Are you ready to accept the reality that man’s will must of necessity be another cause’ involved in the belief process, and that it is not all of God but of God and man?

You admitted yourself it was really all of God. Here is your quote

JJ: “That's what grace is. It is God doing for man what He requires of man and then giving him credit as if he did it himself, but it was really God that did it.”

HP: So see there, belief is required by God, yet is God according to your own words that does it. If that is not pure unadulterated Calvinistic deterministic fatalistic dogma, the Pope is not a Catholic. You paint man as a helpless puppet, getting credit(???) for that which is done totally apart from any cause of man. This is nothing but double talk. Who’s on first?

JJ: That is not Calvinism. I don't know a Calvinist around that would agree to what I just said.

HP: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it is most likely none other than a duck. Wear the Calvinistic badge you paint for yourself as a badge of honor.......or better yet, reframe the way you paint grace.

 

[J. Jump]

I say your ideas are decidedly Calvinistic due to the slant you give to the idea of grace.

Then you really don't understand the teachings of Calvin very well, because there is not a Calvinist that I know of that would agree with me.

There you go again with that shell game of ‘believe business.’ If you can recall just one post ago, you stated clearly that it was all of God and none of man.

You are REALLY reading into my posts what YOU want to read. Calvinism is not there. I am not a Calvinist and again no Calvinist would even agree with my posts.

All of the WORKS are of God through His Son Jesus Christ. If you think we have to "work" for our salvation then you are teaching against Scripture. But I believe you have stated that we can not earn or merit our salvation, which means that we don't "work" for our salvation.

So the bottom line is you agree with me, but you are trying to twist what I'm saying into Calvinism, when we really are saying the same thing. So I guess if I'm a Calvinist then you are swimming in the same Calvin ocean with me

Even the belief performed by man was nothing more than the results of the ‘all of God concept’ you set forth.

Now you are just plainly making stuff up. I have never said that. The Holy Spirit must convict someone, but it is up to the person whether or not they want to believe or not. God does not force someone to believe.

Man is dead remember? He can do NOTHING according to you to please God without God granting to him the abilities to do it.

Man is spiritually dead. To deny that is to deny Scripture. And yes man can not ACT in accordance with God's will. Man can however believe after He has been convicted of the Holy Spirit.

Are you ready to accept the reality that man’s will must of necessity be another cause’ involved in the belief process, and that it is not all of God but of God and man?

Again I have NEVER not once stated that man's free will is violated by God in the salvation process. I don't understand why you are making these things up.

You admitted yourself it was really all of God. Here is your quote


Quote:
JJ: “That's what grace is. It is God doing for man what He requires of man and then giving him credit as if he did it himself, but it was really God that did it.”

All of the work is done by God. If you are teaching something else then you are teaching contrary to Scripture. It really is that plain and simple.

So see there, belief is required by God, yet is God according to your own words that does it.

Here is where you really fail to show and understanding of what I am talking about.
God requires death and shed blood for the remission of sin. That is the works that Christ did on our behalf. That is God's grace in action. God doing for man what He requires of man and then giving him credit as if he did it himself.
God requires death and shed blood, but He died so that I don't have to, but He gives me credit as if I did. That is God's grace.
You are trying to combine God's grace and faith. Grace and faith are not the same thing.

If that is not pure unadulterated Calvinistic deterministic fatalistic dogma, the Pope is not a Catholic.

Again you are making say what you want it to say, but that is no more Calvinistic than the Pope is Baptist. You just don't understand what I am talking about.

You paint man as a helpless puppet, getting credit(???) for that which is done totally apart from any cause of man. This is nothing but double talk.

No again that is just you not understanding and not even trying to understand what is being said, but just spouting off nonesense as if you do understand.
Man is not a puppet. Man can not act in any way that allows him to earn salvation or deserve salvation. You have even said that yourself. So anything that is worthy of salvation must come from another source. That Source is Jesus Christ and His works while on earth.
Now man can either accept those works on his behalf or he can reject them.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it is most likely none other than a duck.

Then I would suggest you sign up for a biology course and figure out what a duck really is

 

[Hope of Glory]

HP, it seems from your posts that for some reason, you are confusing works and grace and believe.

I fail to understand why people want to pigeonhole everyone into either Calvinism or Arminianism. Both have some of it right and both have some of it wrong. As far as people go, I would prefer to emulate Paul who was neither Calvinist nor Arminian.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: HP, it seems from your posts that for some reason, you are confusing works and grace and believe.

HP: I can see why, from your perspective, you might feel that way. It would seem to me that you and JJ and some others, have no concept of the distinction between ground and conditions of salvation.

HOG: I fail to understand why people want to pigeonhole everyone into either Calvinism or Arminianism.

HP: Augustine, Luther, Calvin and others had a great impact on today’s theological ideas. There are some distinctive notions that indeed do point directly to the beliefs of Calvin and others that deserve the denotation off their authorship or at least their perpetuation of certain ideas indigenous to their belief systems. If a person feels the labels are offensive, they might need to consider examining their doctrinal notions in light of clearly established criteria that denotes them as they are and have been for centuries, and consider moving away from those moorings that attract such labels.

HOG: Both have some of it right and both have some of it wrong. As far as people go, I would prefer to emulate Paul who was neither Calvinist nor Arminian.

HP: Now you are talking my kind of language. I am decidedly not Arminian or Calvinsitic, and do believe my doctrinal beliefs do in fact emulate the clear teachings of Paul and all of Scripture. I hope that does not sound proud or boastful in anyway, for it is not intended to. If I felt I was in error with the Scriptures, I would change my notions to get in line with them. “Let every man be assured in his own mind.”

I will add that I have not arrived theologically, and have high hopes that through our discussions I will indeed draw closer to the truth and to our God.

 

[Hope of Glory]

HP: Augustine, Luther, Calvin and others had a great impact on today’s theological ideas.

So did the founders of the JW's, etc.

I am decidedly not Arminian or Calvinsitic, and do believe my doctrinal beliefs do in fact emulate the clear teachings of Paul and all of Scripture.

Then you need to be careful of accusing others. If you have watched here on the boards, JJ has been accused of being Arminian by Calvinists and Calvinist by Arminians.

It's like I said, both sides have some of it right, just as the Catholics have a few things right, but both also have much of it wrong.

To accuse JJ of being Calvinist means that you are not reading what he's saying, and the way that you make up things and put them in his mouth shows that you assume he is Calvinist, without reason.