Sufficient vs. Necessary

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Shelb5 said:
The difference?

Are you asking what the difference is between "brunt" and "all?"

This might help: Merriam-Webster.

Brunt - the principal force, shock, or stress (as of an attack); the greater part.

All - the whole amount or quantity of; as much as possible; every member or individual component of; the whole number or sum of.

That help?

Have I been portraying your theology incorrectly? Let me know if I am.

I will.

1# So she can have a better understanding of where you are coming from with your questions and 2# I am not allowed to give what our view is in here, besides Photini has the same view as I, I suspect.

Michelle, my point is that if you want to understand where I'm coming from, ask.

God bless

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

geocajun said:
Reformed Protestants believe that grace cannot be resisted and thus is always effective.

Once again this is an inaccurate representation of the reformed view. Reformed Protestants believe that God gives us the desire to submit to His grace so we do, willingly, of our own free will. Our desires are transformed into godly desires by His grace.

God bless

Benedicta00 · Sep 10, 2003

Reformationist said:
Once again this is an inaccurate representation of the reformed view. Reformed Protestants believe that God gives us the desire to submit to His grace so we do, willingly, of our own free will. Our desires are transformed into godly desires by His grace.

God bless

But your choice to accept that desire is irresistible, right?

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Shelb5 said:
I do not think he was saying that.

I think he is saying that Jesus sufficiently opened up the gates to heaven for all of mankind to enter into. I think he is saying that just because the gates were opened and Jesus death was enough to do that, that does not mean all will enter through that gate.

I must be speaking a different language. I thought the question was very clear. Going by what you're saying above, Jesus' death was not enough to save or justify anyone. According to you, all His death did was make salvation possible. Salvation is not actual until we do something.

Now, what seems to be causing all the confusion here is why do you seem to think if Christ opened up the gate to heaven that it was incomplete work if all souls do not enter in?

Michelle, you and I have had this conversation more times than I can remember. You're not really interested in my answer or you would have paid more attention the last 20 times I gave it and you'd remember it now. If you wish to have an image of Christ that He desired for something to come to pass, i.e., the salvation of all those who won't be saved, then feel free. I would much rather believe that Christ accomplishes exactly what He sets out to accomplish. I'm curious how you can believe anything that the Lord promised if you don't even believe He can accomplish His desire to save all mankind.

I mean I know the reformed view, but what I do not know is why do reformers think this way? Why is his work NOT sufficient if all souls are not saved?

LOL! Michelle, save us both some time and go look up the word "sufficient."

God bless

Benedicta00 · Sep 10, 2003

Reformationist said:
Are you asking what the difference is between "brunt" and "all?"

This might help: Merriam-Webster.

Brunt - the principal force, shock, or stress (as of an attack); the greater part.

All - the whole amount or quantity of; as much as possible; every member or individual component of; the whole number or sum of.

That help?

Okay, Christ bore all of God's wrath for the sins that the elect have committed and will ever commit. Is that better?

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Photini said:
It's the reformed view I'm trying to learn more about.

Great. I'm more than happy to share it with you. As a reformed Christian I'm probably a bit better suited to do so than your average Catholic.

I'm not in here to expound on what I believe, but to learn what it is the reformed and Protestant views are....(I used to be a Protestant, but never studied much about the doctrinal aspects until recently). I'm not debating, but asking questions. And I am very grateful for your patience and forebearance with me!!

Again, I'm more than happy to share my beliefs with you. I just don't think it wise for those who aren't reformed Christians to try to explain the reformed view because more often than not they do so inaccurately.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

God bless

Benedicta00 · Sep 10, 2003

Reformationist said:
I must be speaking a different language. I thought the question was very clear. Going by what you're saying above, Jesus' death was not enough to save or justify anyone. According to you, all His death did was make salvation possible. Salvation is not actual until we do something.

How so?

His death was sufficient to save everyone do you disagree that what he did on the cross was not enough to save mankind? Do you think in addition to what Christ did something else is needed in order for mankind to be saved? Like irritable grace?

Michelle, you and I have had this conversation more times than I can remember. You're not really interested in my answer or you would have paid more attention the last 20 times I gave it and you'd remember it now. If you wish to have an image of Christ that He desired for something to come to pass, i.e., the salvation of all those who won't be saved, then feel free. I would much rather believe that Christ accomplishes exactly what He sets out to accomplish. I'm curious how you can believe anything that the Lord promised if you don't even believe He can accomplish His desire to save all mankind.

He desired to reconcile us back to God and did he or did he not do that?

LOL! Michelle, save us both some time and go look up the word "sufficient."

God bless

Why look it up, you gave it to us, it says enough to accomplish a end, Jesus accomplished a end, he opened up the gates of heaven as where before they were closed, do you disagree that he opened up the gates of heaven?

And if he opened up the gates of heaven, why is that not enough to save a person? It seems to me it is.

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Photini said:
What about "God is love" (1 John 4:8) as a definition and not a description of God. And also "for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." (Matt 5:45)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Yes, God is love. Yes, He dispenses His grace, in some form, upon all people. Neither of these verses imply that God deals with all people the same. Neither of these verses imply that God gives the same measure of grace to His elect as to those who aren't. In fact, Scripture is very clear that He deals with people differently. Look at the difference between God's dealings with Pharaoh and Moses, or Paul and Pontius Pilate.

What I am struggling with is that for God to 'hate" and be angry and full of wrath towards sinners, then before man sinned, God was not angry. And therefore, after Christ's satisfaction of the divine anger, God is no longer angry. So then, God changes, and it is the action of man that causes the change. I just don't understand the wrath of God in the same way as the reformed theology teaches.

Prior to the Fall God and man were in full fellowship. Christ did not satisfy the wrath of God against all people. If He did the all people would be reconciled to God. This is not the case obviously.

God bless

Photini · Sep 10, 2003

....sorry you guys, i went back and corrected a previous post of mine...i didn't think before i posted (which is not uncommon of me)....i fully realise that we cannot "define" God. my humble apologies.

geocajun · Sep 10, 2003

Reformationist said:
Once again this is an inaccurate representation of the reformed view. Reformed Protestants believe that God gives us the desire to submit to His grace so we do, willingly, of our own free will. Our desires are transformed into godly desires by His grace.

God bless

So you do think that Gods grace can be resisted?
if so, this is reformed, reformed view.

Photini · Sep 10, 2003

thanks Don, for answering my questions. You've been most patient.

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Shelb5 said:
But your choice to accept that desire is irresistible, right?

No. I have a choice. It's just that, by the grace of God, my desire is to be an obedient servant of God. There is an important theological difference between moral ability and natural ability. All people have the natural ability to make choices. Unregenerate people do not have the moral ability to accept Christ because they never desire to do so. When God regenerates us He gives us the desire to be obedient to God. He gives us the desire to serve God. So, that's what we do. Of course the battle between our new, regenerate nature and our old, fleshly, fallen nature continues to rage, but, by the power of the indwelling of God and the grace He bestows we shall become more than conquerors.

God bless

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Shelb5 said:
Okay, Christ bore all of God's wrath for the sins that the elect have committed and will ever commit. Is that better?

Yup.

Benedicta00 · Sep 10, 2003

Reformationist said:
No. I have a choice. It's just that, by the grace of God, my desire is to be an obedient servant of God. There is an important theological difference between moral ability and natural ability. All people have the natural ability to make choices. Unregenerate people do not have the moral ability to accept Christ because they never desire to do so. When God regenerates us He gives us the desire to be obedient to God. He gives us the desire to serve God. So, that's what we do. Of course the battle between our new, regenerate nature and our old, fleshly, fallen nature continues to rage, but, by the power of the indwelling of God and the grace He bestows we shall become more than conquerors.

God bless

Don,

When I tell you I undersatnd the view, I undersatnd the view and I undersatnd the view.

When God chose to save you, could you have turned him down, yes or no?

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Shelb5 said:
How so?

Michelle, you just said that His death opened the gates but just because the gates are opened doesn't make us saved. If all His death did was make salvation a possibility then it wasn't sufficient to get us through the gate. We had to go through the gate.

His death was sufficient to save everyone do you disagree that what he did on the cross was not enough to save mankind? Do you think in addition to what Christ did something else is needed in order for mankind to be saved? Like irritable grace?

You are the most exhausting person to talk to. For the cheap seats...YOU are the one saying something else is needed. YOU are the one saying that we need to "walk through the gate" for it to be made manifest. YOU are the one saying that all His death accomplished was the opening of the gates.

Here, let's do this in a very straightforward manner. Did His death get you through the gate or did you have to accept His death to get through the gate?

He desired to reconcile us back to God and did he or did he not do that?

All whom God desired to reconcile to Himself are reconciled by the death of Jesus. That is not everyone because God did not desire all to be reconciled to Himself. Had He desired that all be reconciled to Him then all would be reconciled to Him and by virtue of that reconciliation all would be at peace with God and all would go to Heaven.

Why look it up, you gave it to us, it says enough to accomplish a end, Jesus accomplished a end, he opened up the gates of heaven as where before they were closed, do you disagree that he opened up the gates of heaven?

The disagreement isn't about whether He opened the gates of Heaven. The disagreement, at least between you and I, is whether that's all He accomplished by dying.

And if he opened up the gates of heaven, why is that not enough to save a person? It seems to me it is.

Umm...we've got only two choices. If Christ's righteous work of "opening the gates of Heaven" is enough to save someone then it's enough to save everyone and so everyone will be saved. If it, by itself, is not enough to save a person, then something else must be done.

Now, you say that we must accept His work so it's clear that you think His work alone isn't enough. It must be accompanied by your acquiescence, right?

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

geocajun said:
So you do think that Gods grace can be resisted?

Absolutely. I do not think the purpose of God can be thwarted but I know for a fact that even Christians often resist the grace of God.

if so, this is reformed, reformed view.

Or just maybe you don't know what the reformed view really is. That's a possibility.

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Photini said:
thanks Don, for answering my questions. You've been most patient.

The pleasure is all mine. This rings with the sound of finality. I hope I haven't driven you off.

God bless

Reformationist · Sep 10, 2003

Shelb5 said:
Don,

When I tell you I undersatnd the view, I undersatnd the view and I undersatnd the view.

Huh? Sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here.

When God chose to save you, could you have turned him down, yes or no?

Yes.

The necessary follow up questions to that are these:

Would you have turned Him down? Absolutely not.

Why not? Because He gave me a new heart that desires to serve Him.

God bless

geocajun · Sep 10, 2003

Reformationist said:
No. I have a choice. It's just that, by the grace of God, my desire is to be an obedient servant of God.

oh ok.. So you have free will, only you can only choose one thing because your desire is controlled apart from you, by God.
its just to bad that doesn't make any sense...

Thank goodness that Pope Innocent X condemed as heritical Cornelius Jansen who said "In the condition of fallen nature interior grace is never resisted."

Of course, that was just Jansenist theology, not reformed, reformed theology.

The Council of Trent declared against the reformers:
"If any one says that man's free will, moved and awakened by God, does in no manner co-operate when it assents to God, Who excites and calls it, thereby disposing and preparing itself to receive the grace of justification; and that it cannot dissent if it wishes, but that, like some inanimate thing, it does nothing whatever, and only remains passive, let him be anathema.
(bolded for emphasis)

The reason this was declared by the Council of Trent, is that the Reformers of the day held it to be true.
it was not todays more progressive protestant theology.

Photini · Sep 10, 2003

Reformationist said:
.

Umm...we've got only two choices. If Christ's righteous work of "opening the gates of Heaven" is enough to save someone then it's enough to save everyone and so everyone will be saved. If it, by itself, is not enough to save a person, then something else must be done.

QUOTE]

Only two choices? What happens if you disagree with both of these?

Sufficient vs. Necessary

Was Christ's death sufficient or necessary but not sufficient to render us just?

Sufficient

Necessary but not sufficient

Both

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Well-Known Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Well-Known Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Well-Known Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Gone.

Priest of the holy smackrament

Gone.

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Well-Known Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Priest of the holy smackrament

Gone.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency