Sufficient vs Necessary

[guuila]

I believe my response did answer your question, but since you don't think it did, I'll re-phrase my response. There are NO excuses for those in hell, per the Bible. Rom 1:20 says so.

But, the issue was that the RT view of election GIVES those in hell an excuse, because they weren't CHOSEN.

Is it a valid excuse?

 

[Hammster]

When did I ever claim that grace isn't necessary? Please provide a direct quote or post #, or stop insinuating what I don't believe or claim. Thank you.

I didn't insinuate anything. I showed that you think grace is necessary. But in your view, it's not sufficient. That's the point of the thread.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I LOVE quoting the bible!

Eph 2: faith is a gift
Phil 1:29 faith is a gift
Rom 12:3 faith is a gift
1 John 5:1 faith is the result of the new birth
Rom 8 God gives all spiritual blessings to the person Christ dies for

As usual, none of these (or any other) verses SAY that faith is a gift. In Eph 2:8, the gift is salvation. In Phil 1:29 granting someone something isn't defined or said to be a gift. In Rom 12:3, Paul tell believers (those who have already believed) that God has given them a "measure of faith", not "saving faith", which is the subject at issue. And 1 Jn 5:1 says nothing about faith or gifts.

Your wait is over!

Since none of the verses says anything about faith being a gift, obviously my wait is not over. But since the Bible doesn't speak of saving faith as a gift, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for more verses.

When I'm in a chinese buffet restaurant, and I say "I want some of everything", I don't' mean that I want some of every single material in the universe.

You didn't answer the question. Why you brought up buffet baffles me.

Anyway, your example is full of holes. The context of buffet would clearly define your statement as wanting "some" (limiting amount) of every item on the menu. The universe has nothing to do with your statement.

However, in the proper and REAL context of Heb 2:9, the preceding verses gives us the proper understanding of "all". He quotes from Psa 8 about God placing man over ALL things on earth. So THAT is the context for v.9, not buffets, and not anything that follows v.9.

Just as man was put in charge over ALL things on earth, so Jesus tasted death for ALL. What follows pertains to those who have believed in Him.

Those who are familiar with Scripture ALL know that Jesus died for people, NOT animals, angels, trees, flowers, etc. So when Scripture states that He died for ALL, the only rational and logical conclusion is that He died for ALL people.

So, the context for who Jesus died for is "people", nothing else. And "ALL" means all people.

But since Calvinists come to Heb 2:9 with the pre-conceived notion that He didn't die for all people, but only the elect or any other way you would like to phrase it, great pains are taken to explain it in a way to change the real meaning of what it plainly says.

Jesus died for all people.

If RT was correct, the writer would have followed v.9 with something like this:
v.10 By that, I mean that He died for every one of the elect.

That would have clearly identified what he meant by "all" in v.9. But since he didn't say anything close to that, the context for v.9 is found in v.8 where he used the word "all" 3 times. And began v.9 with a conjunction of contrast, "but". The writer contrasted what God put human in charge of with who Christ died for. And all are described by "all". It's quite clear.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is it a valid excuse?

Please read my answer to the question.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I didn't insinuate anything. I showed that you think grace is necessary. But in your view, it's not sufficient. That's the point of the thread.

That is wrong. The very FACT that God saves anyone proves that His grace is sufficient. And Paul said that God's grace is sufficient (2 Cor 12:9). Apparently my views are still being grossly misunderstood.

But it's not my fault. I've been crystal clear.

 

[cygnusx1]

Do none Calvinists come to scripture with no preconceived views ? Do they not carry baggage ? Are they not destined to argue their own views , notions and opinions ?

 

[Hammster]

That is wrong. The very FACT that God saves anyone proves that His grace is sufficient. And Paul said that God's grace is sufficient (2 Cor 12:9). Apparently my views are still being grossly misunderstood.

But it's not my fault. I've been crystal clear.

"#1 Yes, you need to accept the gift."

You keep commingling the terms. You believe that it's necessary to accept the gift. If a man doesn't accept the gift, then he won't be saved. So, while you see grace as absolutely necessary to be saved (as do I), you don't see it as sufficient, because you also see that it's necessary (need to accept) to accept the gift.

 

[guuila]

Please read my answer to the question.

I did. It was a non-answer.

 

[guuila]

That is wrong. The very FACT that God saves anyone proves that His grace is sufficient. And Paul said that God's grace is sufficient (2 Cor 12:9). Apparently my views are still being grossly misunderstood.

But it's not my fault. I've been crystal clear.

Is God's grace sufficient to infallibly bring you to saving faith?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Do none Calvinists come to scripture with no preconceived views ? Do they not carry baggage ? Are they not destined to argue their own views , notions and opinions ?

#1 yes, they all do
#2 yes, they all do
#3 no, no one is "destined" to argue error. In fact, no one has an excuse for arguing error.

However, to get back on track, the ONLY reason for anyone to ask "everyone of which group?" regarding Heb 2:9 is because that person already doesn't believe that Christ died for everyone. The ONLY reason.

At least the question recognizes that the writer did mean "everyone".

Is there a verse that actually tells us that Christ didn't die for everyone, or ONLY for some/etc?

If not, why would anyone believe that?

 

[shturt678s]

Is God's grace sufficient to infallibly bring you to saving faith?

Finally down to my paygrade: Grace is sufficient objectively, yet grace necessarily needs to be subjectively appropriated.

I think I finally get the point

Thank you for your paitience,

Old Jack

 

[FreeGrace2]

"#1 Yes, you need to accept the gift."

You believe that it's necessary to accept the gift.

So…you don't? How does one get the gift, then?

If a man doesn't accept the gift, then he won't be saved.

That's what the Bible indicates, sure. So, how does one get the gift if not by accepting it? The Bible speaks clearly of receiving it (lambano- Jn 1:12).

So, while you see grace as absolutely necessary to be saved (as do I), you don't see it as sufficient, because you also see that it's necessary (need to accept) to accept the gift.

Way to totally ignore what I posted. Since it is apparent that our understanding of the meaning of words is totally different, there really isn't any reason to continue trying to have a conversation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I did. It was a non-answer.

Im sorry you don't understand my answer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is God's grace sufficient to infallibly bring you to saving faith?

I agree with your answer.

 

[guuila]

Im sorry you don't understand my answer.

Don't beat yourself up too bad. Just try to be less ambiguous in the future.

 

[guuila]

I agree with your answer.

Which is?

 

[Hammster]

So…you don't? How does one get the gift, then?


That's what the Bible indicates, sure. So, how does one get the gift if not by accepting it? The Bible speaks clearly of receiving it (lambano- Jn 1:12).


Way to totally ignore what I posted. Since it is apparent that our understanding of the meaning of words is totally different, there really isn't any reason to continue trying to have a conversation.

I don't know about how you are using words. I just know that by your own postings, you see grace as necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[guuila]

there really isn't any reason to continue trying to have a conversation.

Yet, here you are.

 

[shturt678s]

I don't know about how you are using words. I just know that by your own postings, you see grace as necessary, but not sufficient.

Expounding a little: Grace is sufficient objectively, yet grace necessarily needs to be subjectively appropriated. Grace, ie, by God's necessity, has always had its limits noting Jesus withdrew the sufficiency of God's grace from the Jews then, and us today, by speaking the mysteries of the Kingdom in parables.

Old Jack

 

[AndOne]

Please don't be coy. What is the point that you would like me to deal with?

Please - I was responding to coyness, not being coy. Read the text - the point I'm making should jump right out at you. It says exactly what I believe.

Maybe your view is a misunderstanding.

It's possible - but I am fairly confident in my understanding of Calvinism.

Please explain the difference between the SINNERS going to heaven and the sinners going to hell.

GRACE needs no explanation. Anyone in heaven is there by God's grace alone.

Or, more accurately, "sovereign" grace, right? And isn't that mostly a code word for the RT view of election, that God arbitrarily chooses some for heaven?

I say "arbitrarily" because RT cannot provide any kind of reason WHY God chooses those He chooses. Yet the Bible is clear about WHY He chooses. He chooses to save believers. That is WHY. It's no mystery at all.

Actually he chooses to save believers for His own good pleasure to his glory.

Whether people in hell "need" an excuse or not is not the point here. RT GIVES them an excuse because THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN.

And your answer "grace" does acknowledge that, sort of. Adding "sovereign" would have been more truthful.

If people in hell needing an excuse is not the point then you shouldn't have made it. You have essentially just validated my argument by making such a statement. Thank you for your honesty - and validation.