Sufficient vs Necessary

[guuila]

By the FACT that God has given everything to mankind in order to be able to come to faith, proves that God's grace IS sufficient to save.

Right. As long as... man does his part. Which means you believe it's sufficient to save AFTER a person is justified. But not sufficient to bring a person to saving faith, which is the entire point of this discussion. Answer this question: In Free Grace theology, is grace sufficient to infallibly bring a person to saving faith in Jesus Christ? Yes or no?

btw, while you may think your view is "wondrous" and all, what about those in hell who weren't chosen by God to bring them to repentance and faith. That would provide them with the excuse that God didn't choose them.

Is it a valid excuse? My four year old comes up with excuses for stuff all the time. Doesn't make them valid.

I have no idea what "bootstraps" means or why it was brought into the discussion.

Not my problem. Google it.

Since you at least acknowledge the FG view that God has already given man what is necessary to come to faith, the rest of your claim is meaningless and totally irrelevant.

If God has to "give something" to man to make salvation possible, grace very much depends on whether man "does something" with what God gave him. If God only makes salvation possible, whether or not a person is saved doesn't ONLY depend on God... it very much depends on the person since God only made it possible. Thus, grace is necessary in your view, but not sufficient to bring a person to saving faith.

Maybe we should bring in "strings", as in "puppets on a string".

Or clay in the potter's hands. I prefer Biblical analogies.

Seems Calvinists are allergic to the idea of free will.

Haha. I guess I'll tell you AGAIN. We are not "allergic" to the idea of free will. We believe in the compatibilistic kind. Hopefully I don't have to dismantle your straw man again.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Maybe you should back up a bit in the text:

No reason to, which will be obvious soon:

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? - ESV Version

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? - NIV version

Again - your argument is with Paul not Calvinists.

Since the Greek word "katartizo" in v.22 doesn't include the idea of "make" or "made", your comments are irrelevant and totally miss the point.

As I said earlier - your view is unique to your position.

This is what I said, and your comments are dodging:
Hardly. The point is that RT gives hell dwellers an excuse for being there: they weren't chosen for heaven. Or were they but they refused? Or something else. Since you don't agree with my view, WHY not?

We all know that there are sinners in heaven and hell. What's the difference if not who was chosen by God for heaven? And if you say "grace", then you'll only be agreeing with my view, because such grace chooses who will go to heaven, and we all know that RT teaches that God chooses who will believe, etc. So, RT does give hell dwellers an excuse.
Why ignore the foundational doctrine of RT; election? Because of the way RT defines election, that in itself gives hell dwellers an excuse.

Can you show me another synergist that has come to this conclusion?

First, why should I know what synergists think? I'm not one of them. I'm a monergist, but according to the correct definition, not the RT one.

If not - it is indicative of someone who does not understand Calvinism.

I've given many opportunities for Calvinists to correct me if my understanding of Calvinism is wrong. Yet none have done that.

No one in hell has an excuse for being there

Correct. But the doctrine of election as taught by RT GIVES an excuse; they weren't chosen for heaven. Why do Calvinists try to shy away from their own theology? I'm really amazed by that.

Seems that Calvinists would embrace the FACT that their theology gives hell dwellers an excuse. Because RT election DOES give an excuse for those not in heaven.

since all those who are there love their sin and the things of this world more than Christ.

This isn't why people are in hell. Is there a verse that support this claim?

That is an element of RT that they teach from scripture (John 1 for example) that you are missing completely. If you love your sin and you are in hell then that is the reason you are there.

Please cite the exact verses that SAY what you claim.

Any one not in hell is in heaven by the grace of God through faith in His son.

That's my view, yet, I'm not RT. So there is obviously more that you're not wanting to admit. Or, are you now admitting that people are in heaven because of faith, and NOT because of election? If you think it includes election, then your statement wasn't completely accurate. I await your answer.

They are in hell because they loved darkness more than they loved thelight.

Please provide the verse that teaches that. I've never heard that from anyone, including Calvinists.

They will have no excuse.

Correct. Because they AREN'T there because they weren't chosen. They are there because they rejected God's free gift. Do you agree with this?

I said this:
#1 RT believes that all whom God chose for salvation will go to heaven. Right?
#2 RT believes that those not chosen all go to hell. Right?
and your response was this:
"Yes to one - but no to two."

OK, if #2 is no, then you are admitting that election isn't the issue in why people are in hell. But RT claims that ONLY the elect go to heaven, because Christ died ONLY for the elect, and God chose who would believe (the elect).

Seems your theology needs some more work. To get the kinks out.

RT teaches that all mankind is destined to hell. We are destined to hell because we love sin and hate God.

If that is true, why are some of these God-haters who love sin going to heaven? The answer from RT is this: BECAUSE they were CHOSEN for heaven. Right? Once again affirming my charge that RT gives people in hell an excuse.

Those in hell loved their sin and hate God. All who hate God, break His commandments, take desire in wicked and evil things go to hell.

Since all mankind is destined for hell, according to your statement, what is the difference between those in hell and those in heaven? The ONLY difference is that God chose those in heaven. This cannot be denied.

That's all of us - except for those who are elected for salvation who receive grace.

Right. Which is my point exactly: those going to heaven were elected or CHOSEN. The rest were NOT chosen, which gives them an excuse. For the life of me, I cannot understand why RT does not see the point that their view of election GIVES an excuse for those in hell.

 

[nobdysfool]

Since I rejected and refuted what was claimed to be my view, I have refuted your claim here.

Easy to claim that one has done something. Quite another to actually have done it. It hasn't been done. Period.

I've explained WHY it is. But it seems Calvinists aren't understanding the explanation. By the FACT that God has given everything to mankind in order to be able to come to faith, proves that God's grace IS sufficient to save.

It has been explained why you THINK it is. As in any interpretation, opinions vary. But the real agenda here is to make Calvinists look bad.

Please show me from Scripture where my error here is. Just making claims doesn't prove anything.

That cuts both ways. Time and again, we have offered proof that there are errors in your interpretation, but you dismiss them. To then claim that no answer has been given is just plain false. There is no answer that would be accepted coming from a Calvinist, as has been amply demonstrated on this and many other threads. So the request for correction rings a bit hollow.

RT cannot prove that man cannot come to faith apart from regeneration. The claim is not true.

It has been proven, but for some reason, it is refused. It is not a false claim. Just a claim that you refuse to accept.

It's not "wondrous", but maybe delirious. There aren't any verses that support this claim. I don't know why Calvinism doesn't understand that God created mankind with all that is necessary to understand His promises and the freedom to either accept or reject His promises. That is what the Bible teaches.

Salvation (however attained) is not wondrous? Are you sure you want to be on record as saying that?

btw, while you may think your view is "wondrous" and all, what about those in hell who weren't chosen by God to bring them to repentance and faith. That would provide them with the excuse that God didn't choose them. Once again affirming my claim that RT provides an excuse for hell dwellers, by your doctrine of election.

Can't let that old trope die? I don't see what the big deal is about an "excuse" for hell-dwellers. Of what benefit is it to them? Will it get them out of Hell? Will it provide any measure of comfort? Or will it simply anger them all the more, thereby providing additional reason for why they should be there?

I have no idea what "bootstraps" means or why it was brought into the discussion.

Seriously? You've never heard the term "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps"?

Since you at least acknowledge the FG view that God has already given man what is necessary to come to faith, the rest of your claim is meaningless and totally irrelevant.

Dismissive much?

Maybe we should bring in "strings", as in "puppets on a string".

Maybe you should stop goading with false tropes and insulting references, which you know full well are false.

Seems Calvinists are allergic to the idea of free will.

Or maybe someone is allergic to the idea of a truly Sovereign God...

 

[FreeGrace2]

John says in chapter 3 that God's wrath remains on unbelievers. You're teaching that God's wrath has been propitiated toward unbelievers because of Christ.

No, I'm NOT teaching that. Seems you've confused wrath with propitiation. Propitation doesn't deal with wrath. Instead, it deals with satisfying His justice by the payment of the sin debt. Sin still occurs, and God's wrath is still directed at sin.

If God's wrath is appeased against a person, it no longer remains on them. Hope that clears up your confusion.

Actually, I do hope that your confusion has been cleared up. If my view is incorrect, please show me HOW and WHY it is, from Scripture.

I said this:
Please provide evidence that I "force" any word 100% of the time. This is a challenge. If evidence isn't provided to back up this claim, it will demonstrate the fallaciousness of said claim.
And you responded with this:
"1 John 2:2. You think world means 100% of humanity."

I asked for evidence that I have "forced" ANY word 100% of the time to mean only one thing. Your reponse FAILED to do that. Yes, I am convinced that "whole world" in 1 Jn 2:2 does mean everyone in humanity. The "not only ours" refers to believers, and "whole world" means everyone.

iow, John was teaching that Christ not only the propitiation for believer's sins, but for the sins of the whole world. The RT "explanation" falls flat.

I'll PROVE that I don't force "world" to mean everyone in humanity. Rom 1:8 is such proof. Paul was referring to the known world at that time. Certainly he couldn't have been referring to everyone in humanity by that statement:

Rom 1:8 - First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

First, he could only be speaking of THAT time frame, not all of human history. That alone removes any idea that "world" could mean all of humanity.

Second, he knew nothing about humans in the western hemisphere. So, at least 2 solid reasons why "world" in Rom 1:8 CANNOT mean "all of humanity".

If God's wrath against me is appeased, it is removed. It is satisfied.

It wasn't God's wrath that Christ' propitiation removed. It was the penalty of sin. The debt of sin. That what was removed. Continued confusion.

Justice demands God's wrath. Not sure why you're trying to separate the two.

Because they aren't related. Justice has nothing to do with wrath. Where is wrath expressed in our judicial system, which is based on Judeo-Christian principles?

Reality: justice DEMANDS payment, not wrath.

Amen. All sins were atoned for, and God's wrath propitiated against me.

Not true. All sins were atoned for, yes. But Propitiation is NOT about God's wrath. There isn't anything in Scripture to back up that.

Uh huh. Looks like you forgot you're talking to a Calvinist.

That'll be the day!

I believe man is more depraved than you do, but thanks for the info.

No, RT simply fails to properly understand what depraved really means. That's all.

But, to clarify about this "more than you do" claim:

#1 I believe that God's love toward mankind is much more than you do.
#2 I believe that God's grace toward mankind is much more than you do.
#3 I believe that Christ's propitiation is much more than you do.
#4 I believe the scope of Christ's death is much more than you do.

So, next time, think about who really does believe "more than" the other.

I never said it did.

Good, there is agreement between us. Does that make me RT or does it make you Free Grace?

If God's justice is satisfied for Bob, and God sends Bob to hell anyway, God is unjust.

Because of the misunderstanding of principles. Because God's justice has been satisfied, that frees God to extend grace to mankind. If Christ hadn't paid the debt, God would NOT extend grace to anyone. That's WHY Christ went to the cross.

Beg the question much? You're basically saying, "They don't have eternal life because they don't have eternal life."

Not even close. They don't have eternal life because they rejected the gift. That isn't anything close to your charge.

The reason they go to hell is because they are guilty of sin that was not atoned for.

Except there are no verses that SAY what you're claiming. I have provided evidence for WHY people are "cast into the lake of fire". Their names are not found in the Book of Life. That is the ONLY reason. NOT sin.

But, please, if there are verses that refute my view and support yours, please provide them.

I said this:
Col 1:12-
giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

What does "qualified us" mean to you in this verse?

And this is your repy to that:

May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. (Colossians 1:11-12 ESV)

Who is "you" Paul is talking to? Oh yeah... context!

To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: (Colossians 1:2 ESV)

The Father qualified the saints at Colossae. Well, that was fun.

I note that there was NO answer to my question. Why the dodge?

Yes, Paul was addressing believers. But that doesn't answer the question of HOW one is qualified to share in the inheritance? Just saying that they are believers doesn't answer the question and doesn't even address the issue.

Do you disagree that one must have eternal life in order to live with God eternally? Yes or no?

If you agree, then there is no need for argumentation. If you disagree, then please provide support for your conclusion. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's sufficient in that no works are required.

How does this answer my question? Instead of anwering my question, what I get is either extraneous comments or another question. Please quit dodging questions.

This is what I said:
Right. And I explained already that God has already given everything necessary for man to believe in His promise of eternal life. So His grace is sufficient for anyone to come to faith. Can you refute that from Scripture?

Can you refute that from Scripture? If you can, please do. But if you can't, then admit it.

Right.

Thanks for the affirmation on being right.

In your view, it's necessary for grace to be accepted.

No, that is another misrepresentation of my view. Grace all by itself is sufficient. To be saved requires faith. That is Biblical. Want some proof?

So, grace ALONE isn't sufficient.

Nope. Not even close. We are saved by grace. Through faith. It's all sufficient. God has done everything. But the Bible does NOT teach that God provides the faith of believing. If it does, where can I find it?

Every a regiment that you make affirms this. I'm not sure why you keep pretending that it doesn't.

Even trying to figure in a huge type, I have no idea what you mean by "every a regiment". Please clarify.

And, please explain to me what you think I am pretending that doesn't exist.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Right. As long as... man does his part.

Nope. Why the effort to keep trying to insert something false into my view?

To believe or receive the gift isn't a "part" man plays. By "part" means effort, as in works. There are no works. Therefore, no "part" to play. I hope this helps in better understanding my view. Or at least, an attempt to understand it.

Which means you believe it's sufficient to save AFTER a person is justified.

Huh? Where do you get that? Please clearly explain why you think that is my view. No one is justified BEFORE faith. The Bible is very clear about that. So, your view of my view has been refuted again. I would think one would finally get tired of being refuted so much.

But not sufficient to bring a person to saving faith, which is the entire point of this discussion.

I've already explained all this. God has already given everything necesssary to mankind to come to saving faith. I know RT rejects that, but I've proven it from Scripture, which the RT seem only to ignore.

Answer this question: In Free Grace theology, is grace sufficient to infallibly bring a person to saving faith in Jesus Christ? Yes or no?

How about a "please"?

Yes, is the answer. It is. But that doesn't mean grace forces (RT view) anyone to believe. I've already given a number of verses that specifically SAY that men reject God's grace.

Is it a valid excuse? My four year old comes up with excuses for stuff all the time. Doesn't make them valid.

The excuse created by the RT doctrine of election is NOT valid, just as those excuses that your 4 y/o comes up with aren't valid.

The point which RT seems to want to distance themselves from, is that the RT doctrine of election does GIVE those in hell the excuse that they weren't chosen. Simple as that.

Either admit it or deny the RT doctrine of election. Note I didn's say the "doctrine of election", which is Biblical. But the RT doctrine isn't.

Not my problem. Google it.

I didn't bring it up. I found it in one of your posts. And you claim it isn't your problem? Suggesting that you don't know what it means?

If God has to "give something" to man to make salvation possible, grace very much depends on whether man "does something" with what God gave him.

Why deny what the Bible teaches? When God created mankind, all that is necessary to come to faith was givden to man. Why is that so offensive to you? RT has no problem believing that God "gives" regeneration to man and then the gift of saving faith to man BEFORE He gives the free gift of eternal life. So, what's the problem with God giving anything to man?

btw, no need to insert that sneaky "possible" into the conversation. With God, all things are possible. Do you believe that?

If God only makes salvation possible, whether or not a person is saved doesn't ONLY depend on God... it very much depends on the person since God only made it possible.

The error here is in the word "possible". God makes it REAL, not possible. So no need to keep inserting the word "possible" into the discussion.

When Christ purchased eternal life, that is a real gift, not a possible gift. And available to everyone. That is not difficult to understand.

Thus, grace is necessary in your view, but not sufficient to bring a person to saving faith.

Thus, another example of failing to comprehend my view. What I can't determine is whether it is on purpose or not.

God has aleady given everything necessary for man to come to saving faith. But man is able to reject grace. Would you like all the verses I gave hammster on this subject?

Or clay in the potter's hands. I prefer Biblical analogies.

Except potter and clay isn't about coming to faith or not. For coming to faith, the RT view is quite close to "strings" and puppets. God pulls the strings and man believes.

If that is not the RT view, please explain HOW it is not. Because I know that RT claims that God regenerates in order for the elect to believe, and even gives faith to the elect.

Haha. I guess I'll tell you AGAIN. We are not "allergic" to the idea of free will. We believe in the compatibilistic kind. Hopefully I don't have to dismantle your straw man again.

Can you in a few words explain the difference between compatibilistic and autonomous? I view free will to be nothing more than freedom of choice, so I don't know which category that would fit into.

If you think autonomous free will means the "power" to change weather, or things normally thought of as out of our control, that would be quite wrong.

Anyway, I eagerly await your explanation of the difference.

Oh, and please don't provide some link to a long winded article. Just boil it down in your own words. That way, I'll know you really do understand what you claim.

 

[Hammster]

How does this answer my question? Instead of anwering my question, what I get is either extraneous comments or another question. Please quit dodging questions.

This is what I said:
Right. And I explained already that God has already given everything necessary for man to believe in His promise of eternal life. So His grace is sufficient for anyone to come to faith. Can you refute that from Scripture?

Can you refute that from Scripture? If you can, please do. But if you can't, then admit it.


Thanks for the affirmation on being right.


No, that is another misrepresentation of my view. Grace all by itself is sufficient. To be saved requires faith. That is Biblical. Want some proof?


Nope. Not even close. We are saved by grace. Through faith. It's all sufficient. God has done everything. But the Bible does NOT teach that God provides the faith of believing. If it does, where can I find it?


Even trying to figure in a huge type, I have no idea what you mean by "every a regiment". Please clarify.

And, please explain to me what you think I am pretending that doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to refute your argument about how one is saved. That's been done ad nauseum. I'm just demonstrating that in your view, grace isn't sufficient to be saved. One must first believe in order to be born again. So in your view, while grace is extremely important and necessary, belief logically precedes regeneration. That means that grace is insufficient, in and of itself, to save anyone.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Easy to claim that one has done something. Quite another to actually have done it. It hasn't been done. Period.

Hm, I recall our President saying "period" after a couple of huge promises, and that didn't work out so well for him. I'd be careful about using that word.

Again, I refuted what was charged as my view. That IS refutation of the charge. Your claim here is just that; words. Nothing to back it up.

It has been explained why you THINK it is. As in any interpretation, opinions vary. But the real agenda here is to make Calvinists look bad.

No, I haven't had to do anything to do that. RT theology does that all by itself. All I've done is ask for verses that SAY what RT claims. And the FACT that RT cannot provide verses that SAY what it claims makes RT look bad.

That cuts both ways. Time and again, we have offered proof that there are errors in your interpretation, but you dismiss them.

This is what I requested:
Please show me from Scripture where my error here is. Just making claims doesn't prove anything

Your response fails to prove anything. What I have refuted is all the misunderstandings and misrepresentations and mischaracterizations of my view.

To then claim that no answer has been given is just plain false. There is no answer that would be accepted coming from a Calvinist, as has been amply demonstrated on this and many other threads. So the request for correction rings a bit hollow.

Another dodge to refute me.

It has been proven, but for some reason, it is refused.

Because the RT claim that regeneration precedes salvation has NOT been proved. Why RT thinks it has continues to amaze me.

It is not a false claim. Just a claim that you refuse to accept

There are NO verses that SAY that regeneration precedes faith. It's claimed by RT because that's the logical conclusion of its theology. Nothing more.

Salvation (however attained) is not wondrous?

Of course salvation is wondrous. But the RT view that God chooses who will believe, regenerates unbelievers so they will believe and then gives them the faith, before he saves them cannot be found in Scripture. The RT view is not wondrous. It's in error.

Can't let that old trope die? I don't see what the big deal is about an "excuse" for hell-dwellers.

Finally!! A Calvinist who is OK with the theology that gives hell dwellers an excuse. Thanks. The other brothers seem to have an issue with the charge.

Of what benefit is it to them? Will it get them out of Hell? Will it provide any measure of comfort? Or will it simply anger them all the more, thereby providing additional reason for why they should be there?

Who cares the effect? That's certainly not the point. The point remains, which you seem rather comfortable with, is that RT theology does give them an excuse. It isn't valid, because RT theology isn't valid.

Seriously? You've never heard the term "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps"?

Of course I have. But what does that phrase have to do with the issue at hand. I never said I didn't understand the phrase. I said I didn't understand what it had to do with the convervation. Can you provide an explanation?

Maybe you should stop goading with false tropes and insulting references, which you know full well are false.

I was trying to make a better analogy than "bootstraps".

If the analogy to strings and puppets doesn't fit RT, please explain HOW so.

What I have learned from RT is that God chooses who will believe, and then regenerates them and gives them the gift of faith so they will believe, and then saves them. How is that not pulling strings?

Or maybe someone is allergic to the idea of a truly Sovereign God...

Not me. He is totally sovereign. He created everything. But He doesn't micromanage His creation as RT teaches. iow, He doesn't determine everything that occurs. That just isn't true. But He does allow what occurs. There is a huge difference, which is one of the reasons I'm not a Calvinist.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm not trying to refute your argument about how one is saved. That's been done ad nauseum. I'm just demonstrating that in your view, grace isn't sufficient to be saved.

No, all that you've done is ignore my explanation and continue to make untrue statements. I can't determine whether my view isn't being understood, or that it isn't something that you want to understand. Either way, grace IS sufficient to save. And I've given ample support for that. If it hasn't been understood, then there's nothing more that can be done.

One must first believe in order to be born again. So in your view, while grace is extremely important and necessary, belief logically precedes regeneration. That means that grace is insufficient, in and of itself, to save anyone.

No it doesn't mean that at all. Making that claim doesn't make the claim true.

The FACT that keeps getting missed is that the ability to believe has been given to mankind. RT hasn't proven otherwise. Oh, yes, many claims to the contrary, but no evidence from Scripture.

I gave a number of verses that SAY that man rejects God. That would include God's grace. I don't recall any response from you regarding those verses.

 

[Hammster]

No, all that you've done is ignore my explanation and continue to make untrue statements. I can't determine whether my view isn't being understood, or that it isn't something that you want to understand. Either way, grace IS sufficient to save. And I've given ample support for that. If it hasn't been understood, then there's nothing more that can be done.


No it doesn't mean that at all. Making that claim doesn't make the claim true.

The FACT that keeps getting missed is that the ability to believe has been given to mankind. RT hasn't proven otherwise. Oh, yes, many claims to the contrary, but no evidence from Scripture.

I gave a number of verses that SAY that man rejects God. That would include God's grace. I don't recall any response from you regarding those verses.

Do you believe that someone can be born again without first believing?

 

[guuila]

Nope. Why the effort to keep trying to insert something false into my view?

I don't need to insert anything. It's already full of falsehood.

To believe or receive the gift isn't a "part" man plays. By "part" means effort, as in works. There are no works. Therefore, no "part" to play. I hope this helps in better understanding my view. Or at least, an attempt to understand it.

I never equated "part" with works. Nice straw man though.

I would think one would finally get tired of being refuted so much.

Yet, here you are... being refuted again.

I've already explained all this. God has already given everything necesssary to mankind to come to saving faith. I know RT rejects that, but I've proven it from Scripture, which the RT seem only to ignore.

So God gives you the tools and then leaves it up to you to use them. Gotcha.

The excuse created by the RT doctrine of election is NOT valid, just as those excuses that your 4 y/o comes up with aren't valid.

So if you agree that it wouldn't be a valid excuse (assuming Calvinism is true) why on earth do you keep using this argument? We both agree the excuse is invalid.

The point which RT seems to want to distance themselves from, is that the RT doctrine of election does GIVE those in hell the excuse that they weren't chosen. Simple as that.

Which would be an invalid excuse, as you just admitted.

Either admit it or deny the RT doctrine of election. Note I didn's say the "doctrine of election", which is Biblical. But the RT doctrine isn't.

I admit the doctrine of election. Oh noes!

I didn't bring it up. I found it in one of your posts. And you claim it isn't your problem? Suggesting that you don't know what it means?

Google it.

Why deny what the Bible teaches? When God created mankind, all that is necessary to come to faith was givden to man. Why is that so offensive to you?

Error is offensive.

I simply don't have the energy nor desire to read the rest. Just a quick glance was enough to show me it's the usual "stuff".

Kind regards,

Griff

 

[FreeGrace2]

Do you believe that someone can be born again without first believing?

Of course not. Why would anyone think that? What verse teaches that?

Being born again means having new life. Why would God give new life to any unbeliever?

Also, having new life means being saved, because new life is eternal life. And only believers have eternal life.

Are there any unbelievers that have been given eternal life? Evidence?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't need to insert anything. It's already full of falsehood.

Really? The claim is made, but where's the evidence? Please be specific, and provide verses that back up your evidence. Thanks.

I never equated "part" with works. Nice straw man though.

Sure you did. If not, why then did you mention "man's part"? As if man contributes something in order for God to keep His promise to save? So, yes, you certainly did, whether or not that is realized.

Yet, here you are... being refuted again.

Really? In this post? Where, specifically can I find any refutation of my view?

So God gives you the tools and then leaves it up to you to use them. Gotcha.

Tools? Is that what I said? No, that is not what I said. Why use words that I don't use? Is that being intellectually honest? Or not? It would be nice to use the words I use. For being accurate about my view.

God graced man with the ability to understand the gospel promise and the freedom to accept or reject it.

If you can actually refute that, please do. I'm quite interested in how you'll accomplish that.

So if you agree that it wouldn't be a valid excuse (assuming Calvinism is true) why on earth do you keep using this argument? We both agree the excuse is invalid.

No, you've misunderstood again. IF Calvinism were true, it WOULD BE A VALID EXCUSE,whether or not RT recognizes that.

The ONLY reason it isn't a valid excuse is because Calvinism is not true. Thank God!

I said this:
The point which RT seems to want to distance themselves from, is that the RT doctrine of election does GIVE those in hell the excuse that they weren't chosen. Simple as that.
To which you responded with this:

Which would be an invalid excuse, as you just admitted.

Why do you keep trying to distance yourself from the FOUNDATION of RT theology, that being the RT version of election?

If my statement is not correct, How so? Please provide a clear explanation of HOW and WHY it is incorrect, if it is.

The very teaching of RT election provides an excuse for those in hell; that being, they weren't chosen. Simple as that.

I admit the doctrine of election.

What you admit to is the RT version of it, not the real doctrine.

Google it.

So, you can't explain why you brought up "bootstraps" in your post?? I don't need to google it. I know what it means, but I don't know why you brought it up, and it seems there is a huge reluctance on your part to explain why it was brought up.

Error is offensive.

Yes, sir! That's how I feel about it.

Here is what I posted:
Why deny what the Bible teaches? When God created mankind, all that is necessary to come to faith was given to man. Why is that so offensive to you?
And your answer offered zero explanation, just more claims. No support, no nothing. Would be possible to actually provide some explanation for your drive-by comments?

I do understand that you view my statement as offensive. But how so? Please refute it from Scripture, if that is possible.

I simply don't have the energy nor desire to read the rest. Just a quick glance was enough to show me it's the usual "stuff".

What I see here is just another dodge of issues that can't be answered from your theology. At the beginning of your post, this was said:
"Yet, here you are... being refuted again.
yet, there was none of it in this post.

Plus, I've asked for refutation of several of my statements in my response to your post. I'm awaiting that refutation.

 

[Hammster]

Of course not.

Thanks. Then you believe that grace is necessary to save, but not sufficient. I'm not sure why you keep trying to pretend that you believe otherwise.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thanks. Then you believe that grace is necessary to save, but not sufficient.

That is incorrect, and I've made it very clear. I'm sorry that it isn't clear to you.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to pretend that you believe otherwise.

I'm not sure why my view still isn't clear to you. Unintended or intended?

Or, probably that we understand the words differently.

 

[Hammster]

That is incorrect, and I've made it very clear. I'm sorry that it isn't clear to you.


I'm not sure why my view still isn't clear to you. Unintended or intended?

Or, probably that we understand the words differently.

If you believe that a man cannot be born again without believing first, then belief is necessary to be born again. You've affirmed this.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If you believe that a man cannot be born again without believing first, then belief is necessary to be born again. You've affirmed this.

Can the opposite be shown from Scripture? That man is born again before he can believe? I'd appreciate it very much.

 

[Hammster]

Can the opposite be shown from Scripture? That man is born again before he can believe? I'd appreciate it very much.

It doesn't matter. That's not the subject of the OP. The point of the OP is that IF your view is right, grace is not sufficient for a man to be born again, although it is most necessary. You have said that a man must (necessity) believe first. If there are two necessary things, then neither is sufficient.

 

[shturt678s]

I'm not trying to refute your argument about how one is saved. That's been done ad nauseum. I'm just demonstrating that in your view, grace isn't sufficient to be saved. One must first believe in order to be born again. So in your view, while grace is extremely important and necessary, belief logically precedes regeneration. That means that grace is insufficient, in and of itself, to save anyone.

Regarding grace's objective side, absolutely more than sufficient, ie, I think there is a misunderstanding regarding FG2's view?

Old Jack that agapes agreeing to agree

 

[Hammster]

Regarding grace's objective side, absolutely more than sufficient, ie, I think there is a misunderstanding regarding FG2's view?

Old Jack that agapes agreeing to agree

He believes that both grace and belief are necessary components for one to be born again. I don't think I've misunderstood that.