Sufficient vs Necessary

[Hammster]

And it's all grace, right? You're not making your point.

The problem is that RT rejects that God created mankind with the ability to understand the gospel, and the freedom to accept or reject it. With that mindset, it is impossible to have a real discussion. The roadblock is just too high.

Actually, the point has been made. In RT, God regenerates a person apart from belief. That makes grace sufficient because it does not depend on man to do anything first.

Your view, man must act. That makes grace necessary.

 

[Hammster]

Huh? According to RT, God did provide the act of believing, but only to the chosen ones. Your statement surprises me.

God doesn't provide the act of believing in RT. But if He did provide the act of believing as you seem to think He does, then everyone would be saved. That's universalism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So what your saying then is that all the verses leading up to verse 22 are irrelevant.

No, I never said that or implied that. My point was that "katartizo" does not mean "made" or "make", which was the point of the post.

Nice.

Not so nice.

I asked this:
Why ignore the foundational doctrine of RT; election? Because of the way RT defines election, that in itself gives hell dwellers an excuse.
And you responded with this:

I feel like I have answered the question adequately - so I'm not going to rehash it.

Actually, you have ignored the fact that RT election gives an excuse for the non-chosen.

No friend - if you don't believe in election then you are a synergist since you believe that man must participate in his own salvation by an act of his own freewill.

I do believe in election, just not the RT variety. Election is not about being chosen for salvation, but being chosen for special privilege and service. And I can prove that definition from the ISBE by citing the 6 categories described as being chosen:
#1 Jesus Christ - obviously not about being chosen for salvation
#2 angels - no evidence that angels are "saved", or chosen to be saved
#3 national Israel - included everyone, and obviously not everyone was saved
#4 NT believers - they are already saved
#5 12 disciples, one of which was a devil (Jn 6:70). Obviousy not about salvation.
#5 Paul's ministry to the Gentiles - Acts 9:15.

Second, my act of believing is not a "participation" in my own salvation. The gift of eternal life (salvation) is complete before I believe to receive. It is simply an error to make that claim.

Yet, all 6 categories fit the definition from the ISBE perfectly.

I hate to break it to you - but you are a synergist. I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.

I have news for you. I am not a synergist. On another thread I cited the definition of "synergist" from Monergism and denied that view.

I said this:
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.
And you responded with this:

Question - have I not said that faith is a gift from God?

That doesn't answer my question. Are you now admitting that people are in heaven and not because of election?

Romans 3:10-19 - Also I was mistaken when I wrote John 1 - I meant John 3:19-20.
No - see John 3:19-20 again.

I don't see how these verses support your claim. I had asked this:
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?
Do you agree?

I said this:
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.
And you responded with this:

I never denied it.

That is my point. But most Calvinists have tried to distance themselves from that fact that the only difference is who is chosen.

Well - maybe when you can understand that a person who believes that they must participate in their salvation by their own free will is a synergist you can understand RT a little better.

I wish I could get you to understnad that I didn't participate in my salvation. God required faith for salvation.

btw, another RT poster stated this just today: "Yes, faith in Christ is mandatory for salvation, but praise God, He provided me what is necessary for salvation." What God provided is the ability to comprehend the gospel and the freedom to either accept or reject the gift of eternal life.

This is exactly what I believe, yet he is RT and I am not. And he vigorously disagrees with me on nearly everything.

What's the difference? Very small, actually. He thinks that God directly gave him a gift of saving faith, which presumably is the result of being regenerated first. Which the Bible doesn't teach.

My view is that God created man with the ability to understand the gospel and the freedom to accept or reject the gift.

Sadly, the difference is really small, but unfortunately creates a huge split between the 2 views.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Job + family + this great forum, ie, you're doing better than me.

I'm an old man and just overkill to the extreme Bible thumper 24/7 except when taking others to their appointments, and etc, ie, doesn't make my view any more valid than anyone's elses nor righteous.

Old Jack

Jack, a view is valid IF there are verses that actually say what the view claims.

Just old FG.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, the point has been made. In RT, God regenerates a person apart from belief.

Why are there no verses that actually says that? That's how to make your point. Quote a verse or two that really SAYS what you claim.

That makes grace sufficient because it does not depend on man to do anything first.

Why charge that my view depends on man for salvation? That's equal to saying that one's act of faith "helps" God to save the believer.

Your view, man must act. That makes grace necessary.

No, what you don't like is what God requires. It's God's plan to promise eternal life to those who believe. That means that God has self obligated Himself.

Do you agree or disagree that what God promises self obligates Him?

This is what was stated just today by another RT: "Yes, faith in Christ is mandatory for salvation, but praise God, He provided me what is necessary for salvation."

The only difference is that in his view, God provides what the person neither wanted nor asked for, while in my view, God gave everyone the ability to comprehend His promises and the freedom to accept or reject the free gift.

If (since) you disagree, please refute this from Scripture, if that is possible.

 

[FreeGrace2]

God doesn't provide the act of believing in RT.

Please elaborate because all of the RT types claim that faith is a gift. Men believe because God gave them that gift. So your statement misaligns with those statements.

But if He did provide the act of believing as you seem to think He does, then everyone would be saved. That's universalism.

I didn't say that God provides the act of believing. He provided the ability to comprehend the promise of the gospel and the freedom to acdept or reject the free gift. Do you see the difference?

Your statement also misaligns with the RT teaching that God chooses who will believe. Since RT is very selective on who will believe, obviously not everyone would be saved. Your conclusion isn't substantiated.

 

[AndOne]

No, I never said that or implied that. My point was that "katartizo" does not mean "made" or "make", which was the point of the post.

Actually when you disregarded my point that the verses right before vs 22 do say "make" and "made" you strongly and violently implied it.

I asked this:
Why ignore the foundational doctrine of RT; election? Because of the way RT defines election, that in itself gives hell dwellers an excuse.
And you responded with this:

Actually, you have ignored the fact that RT election gives an excuse for the non-chosen.

No - I do believe I specifically said that those in hell are there because they love their sin. See Romans 3:10-20 and John 3:19-20.

Second, my act of believing is not a "participation" in my own salvation. The gift of eternal life (salvation) is complete before I believe to receive. It is simply an error to make that claim.

That's not monergism though. The gift of salvation being complete is not the issue. You believe that after God provides the gift you still are saying that you must "believe to receive." If you are doing that of your own freewill and not by God's choosing then you believe in synergism and are a synergist!

I have news for you. I am not a synergist. On another thread I cited the definition of "synergist" from Monergism and denied that view.

I have news for you - you are a synergist. Sorry but its true. You are saying that you have to believe to be saved - and if you don't believe that faith is an always effective gift of God then you are participating of your own freewill with God to receive salvation. That's synergism.

I said this:
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.

Faith is a gift of God - given to the elect. That's how it works. It's pretty simple and there is nothing I'm trying to hide.

btw, another RT poster stated this just today: "Yes, faith in Christ is mandatory for salvation, but praise God, He provided me what is necessary for salvation." What God provided is the ability to comprehend the gospel and the freedom to either accept or reject the gift of eternal life.

This is exactly what I believe, yet he is RT and I am not. And he vigorously disagrees with me on nearly everything.

The fundamental difference between what he believes and what you believe is that he believes that when God gives the gift of faith it is always effective. When you are given the gift - you will believe. You believe that you can accept or reject the gift. Guess what - that's synergism!

My view is that God created man with the ability to understand the gospel and the freedom to accept or reject the gift.

This view is in direct opposition to the beginning of Romans 3.

 

[Hammster]

Please elaborate because all of the RT types claim that faith is a gift. Men believe because God gave them that gift. So your statement misaligns with those statements.


I didn't say that God provides the act of believing. He provided the ability to comprehend the promise of the gospel and the freedom to acdept or reject the free gift. Do you see the difference?

Your statement also misaligns with the RT teaching that God chooses who will believe. Since RT is very selective on who will believe, obviously not everyone would be saved. Your conclusion isn't substantiated.

FreeGrace2 "From the charges that you keep leveling, yes, you do still misunderstand my view. The act of believing is an action that God has provided to everyone, so the charge is false."

 

[shturt678s]

Jack, a view is valid IF there are verses that actually say what the view claims.

Just old FG.

I could have had the 'big one,' ie, agree to agree! :o

Made my eve, ie, thank you,

Old Jack

 

[shturt678s]

Well - one thing is for certain, brother - none of us are experts - which is why we are posting on CF and not theologians in some seminary somewhere...

 

[guuila]

And that is ok.

What I'm looking for, though, is for someone who disagrees to actually refute from Scripture my views. To just disagree doesn't mean a lot.

I'm as interested as you are of being aligned with truth. The idea of being on the wrong side of anything theological really bothers me. So I look to Scripture for truth. And I've shared what I have found. I have more verses that actually SAY what I believe than RT does. And I recall someone admitting that RT theology doesn't come so much from specific statements as it does from inference.

Now, that's a big admission.

But I don't need inference when I have verses that actually SAY what I believe.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[guuila]

Well, I'm glad it has been shown that in synergism and Free Grace theology, grace is not sufficient to bring a person to saving faith in Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, the sinner can reject this grace in these systems. Therefore, while grace is necessary and helpful, it doesn't actually do anything unless the sinner first makes a free will decision to believe. Then and only then is grace sufficient to save a person.

 

[cygnusx1]

And it's all grace, right? You're not making your point.

The problem is that RT rejects that God created mankind with the ability to understand the gospel, and the freedom to accept or reject it. With that mindset, it is impossible to have a real discussion. The roadblock is just too high.

False ! Man was not created in the condition post fall , is the fall of no significance to you ? Then why need a saviour ?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually when you disregarded my point that the verses right before vs 22 do say "make" and "made" you strongly and violently implied it.

I implied nothing at all. As I recall, your claim was that God "made" certain ones for destruction, or words to that effect. My point is that 9:22 says nothing of the sort. "Katartizo" doesn't allow that claim. The words "make" and "made" before v.22 have nothing to do with katartizo in v.22.

No - I do believe I specifically said that those in hell are there because they love their sin. See Romans 3:10-20 and John 3:19-20.[/QUOTE]
None of those verses teach that "those who love their sin go to hell". People are cast into the lake of fire because their names are NOT written in the book of life. That's the reason. They don't have eternal life.

That's not monergism though.

I've already cited the definition of synergism from a monergist website and rejected that view, so I'm not a synergist. When I shared that site and definition on CF, the response from the RT posters was this: "well, that's not OUR definition". I guess if one wants to change the goal posts, they can argue anything they want.

For me, synergism is helping God to save me. Meaning He needs my help. If you want to define synergism as God saving only those who believe from their own heart, then go ahead, but that is exactly what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not teach that man's faith helps God in any way.

The gift of salvation being complete is not the issue.

Maybe not for you, but for me, it is THE issue. My reception of the gift in no way "helps" God. Just as any receiver of any gift cannot boast, "look what I helped the giver give me!", so there is no way anyone can boast that their faith helped God give me the gift of salvation.

You believe that after God provides the gift you still are saying that you must "believe to receive."

Not sure what is meant here. The gift is received when one believes, per Jn 1:12 and Gal 3:26. iow, God provides the gift to believers.

If you are doing that of your own freewill and not by God's choosing then you believe in synergism and are a synergist!

With respect, nonsense. God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27) and has revealed Himself to mankind (Rom 1:19-20) so that no one has an excuse for not recognizing Him as Creator and being thankful, AND God created mankind with a conscience with which to know right from wrong (Rom 2:14-15). Because of all this, God has given to mankind everything necessary to come to faith. iow, everyone is able to come to faith.

So, God created mankind with the ability to believe and the freedom to eiether accept or reject His promise of eternal life (1 Jn 2:25).

Since you disagree with my view, can you refute it with Scripture?

I have news for you - you are a synergist.

And I have news for you - you are quite wrong. As I've fully explained. But since your view is based on erroneous ideas, I understand your view.

You are saying that you have to believe to be saved

Actually, I am saying what the apostle Paul specifically told a jailer who asked him what he MUST DO to be saved: "believe (aorist-in a point in time) and you will be (future tense) be saved."

Why do you disagree with Paul? Your argument is with the Bible, not me.

- and if you don't believe that faith is an always effective gift of God then you are participating of your own freewill with God to receive salvation. That's synergism.

If you can prove that "faith is always an effective gift of God", then I will believe it. But not until. I've given you ample Scripture that supports my view that God created mankind with everything necessary to come to faith freely. You have not proven your view from Scripture.

Faith is a gift of God - given to the elect. That's how it works.

If it does, there should be some very clear verses about that. What are they?

It's pretty simple and there is nothing I'm trying to hide.

OK. If it is that simple, please provide the verses that say what you claim. I've given you ample verses that support my view. Can you?

The fundamental difference between what he believes and what you believe is that he believes that when God gives the gift of faith it is always effective. When you are given the gift - you will believe.

Correct. That is the difference. And I haven't found any verses that support that view. If there are any, please share them so I can adjust my view to line up with Scripture. So far, I believe I am lined up with Scripture, from the verses I've shared with you that support my view.

You believe that you can accept or reject the gift. Guess what - that's synergism!

Guess what!! That's what the Bible teaches. So you are calling the Bible a synergist!

To be honest, I'm not impressed with the definitions from RT. Since some on this forum have rejected the definition of synergism from a monergist website, it is clear that most of these discussions/arguments stem from having differing understandings of words.

Here's a great site that explains the problem with RT and its "definitions".
CALVINISM: A Closer Look By Daniel Gracely » Evangelicals, Calvinism, and why no one’s answering the Problem of Evil. I highly recommend ch 3 and 4 for detailed info.

I said this:
My view is that God created man with the ability to understand the gospel and the freedom to accept or reject the gift.
And you responded with this:

This view is in direct opposition to the beginning of Romans 3.

If that is true, please provide a detailed reason WHY it is. I don't believe you. And I have given you solid verses that support my view. So, while you're at it, in addition to showing me where in Rom 3 my view is refuted, you will need to take each of the verses I've shared and exegete them to show why I've misunderstood them.

To refute my view, one must SHOW how it is wrong from Scripture. iow, find verses that SAY the opposite to what my view is. If that is possible, then I will obviously have to change my view. But not until.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 "From the charges that you keep leveling, yes, you do still misunderstand my view. The act of believing is an action that God has provided to everyone, so the charge is false."

I will clarify. God has created mankind with everything necessary to come to faith. Does He provide the act of believing? No. But He provided everything man needs in order to believe.

The act of believing is the acceptance of the free gift of eternal life. Or, to say it another way, it is believing the promise of God: Jn 6:40.

If that can be refuted from Scripture, please proceed. Keep in mind that a refutation is accomplished not by simply claiming things, or disagreeing, but quoting verses that SAY the opposite of my views.

My views are based what I read in the Bible. And I don't find verses that SAY what RT claims. It's that simple. When someone does find verses that actually SAYS what RT claims, then it's pretty obvious that I'll have to change my view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thanks for your opinion.

You are always welcome to have my opinion. Especially since my opinion is based on what Scripture says.

 

[guuila]

I will clarify. God has created mankind with everything necessary to come to faith. Does He provide the act of believing? No. But He provided everything man needs in order to believe.

So God gives man what he needs, and then the rest is up to man. Synergism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, I'm glad it has been shown that in synergism and Free Grace theology, grace is not sufficient to bring a person to saving faith in Jesus Christ.

It's rather sad that you're glad, since it hasn't been shown that. But thanks for your opinion.

At the end of the day, the sinner can reject this grace in these systems.

Where in the Bible is found the doctrine of irresistible grace?

Therefore, while grace is necessary and helpful, it doesn't actually do anything unless the sinner first makes a free will decision to believe.

The huge error here is in the phrase "unless the finner FIRST makes…"

There is nothing "first" about any sinner. Seems RT likes to mischaracterize opposing views. God has already made the "first" move. In fact, He's done everything FOR the sinner to accept. So when a sinner does accept the free gift, it is totally intellectually dishonest to insinuate that the sinner "makes the the first move". In fact, when a sinner accepts the gift, that is the FINAL step or move. God requires that step from the sinner, not that it "helps" Him in any way. It's just His plan.

Can my view be refuted from Scripture that SAYS the opposite of what I believe? Be my guest.

Then and only then is grace sufficient to save a person.

Erroneous conclusion from faulty data.

Why RT believes that God chooses who will believe is a mystery. Because the Bible does not teach that, or anything close to that.

I don't accept what the Bible doesn't teach.

 

[guuila]

There is nothing "first" about any sinner. Seems RT likes to mischaracterize opposing views. God has already made the "first" move.

Okay. So the sinner makes the second move. Then God responds. Synergism.

Can my view be refuted from Scripture that SAYS the opposite of what I believe? Be my guest.

Sure. Just go back and read any post on CF directed to you. Done.

Erroneous conclusion from faulty data.

I'm glad you finally agree! So are you going to change your views?

Why RT believes that God chooses who will believe is a mystery. Because the Bible does not teach that, or anything close to that.

Can you predict who will believe?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
And it's all grace, right? You're not making your point.

The problem is that RT rejects that God created mankind with the ability to understand the gospel, and the freedom to accept or reject it. With that mindset, it is impossible to have a real discussion. The roadblock is just too high.
And you responded with this:

False !

Would it be possible to be a bit (lots) more explanatory here? These quick drive-by quips don't help anyone. If false, then WHY? Please elaborate. If there are any verses that refute my views, please share.

Man was not created in the condition post fall , is the fall of no significance to you ? Then why need a saviour ?

The fall of man is very significant. I have no idea why the question is even asked. But I don't understand your initial statement "Man was not cfeated in the condition post fall". What condition is being referred to?

I KNOW from Scripture that God created mankind (not Adam) to seek Him. Acts 17:26-27 says so. So please elaborate on this "condition" you mention.

We need a Savior because Adam corrupted the human race by his sin. Mankind is born dead in sins. Separated from God and unable to fix that separation.

I'd say that's pretty significant and WHY man needs a Savior.

Your question, though, is quite baffling. I'm not sure that my posts are being understood at all for that kind of question.