Sufficient vs Necessary

[guuila]

The point is that God is pleased with faith (heb 11:6); those who believe His promise of eternal life (1 Jn 2:25). And being so, He is pleased to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21).

In other words, in Free Grace theology God makes the first move, man makes the second move, and then God acts by saving the person. That's how it works in synergism too. Glad we finally got this resolved.

 

[Hammster]

Hm, I said this:
btw, since you disagree with my view, can it be refuted from Scripture that actually SAYS the opposite of what I believe?
and you aren't sure. Then why do you argue for what you aren't sure about? I don't understand that. I argue from what I have found in Scripture. I don't argue about what I can't find in Scripture.

At least we know that you aren't sure about being able to refute my view.


The point is that God is pleased with faith (heb 11:6); those who believe His promise of eternal life (1 Jn 2:25). And being so, He is pleased to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21).

So by God's grace, everyone has faith. And that faith pleases God, even though everyone isn't saved by that faith. A strange theology you have there.

 

[Skala]

So by God's grace, everyone has faith. And that faith pleases God, even though everyone isn't saved by that faith. A strange theology you have there.

That is quite strange, yes.

 

[guuila]

Well, that was fun.

 

[Skala]

Well, that was fun.

And strange.

 

[guuila]

And strange.

Indeed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I can't seem to get past your inconsistencies.

Please elucidate. I have no idea what you're referring to.

Either belief is an act of grace, or it's an ability given to everyone as an act of creation. You've tried to claim both. Let me know when you've sorted it out.

Belief is an action. Placing one's faith in something/someone. I believe everyone has the ability to believe things. That ability comes from God, which is grace. What is inconsistent with this?

 

[FreeGrace2]

If belief is covered by grace, then everyone should believe. We know that's not the case.

Because it's not the case. Belief is an action. The ability to believe is grace. They are different, but it seems not at all clear to you.

Having the ability to believe doesn't mean everyone will believe. Many strong people have the ability to kill with their hands. That doesn't logically conclude that they will.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So by God's grace, everyone has faith.

Why do you believe this? It isn't true. If everyone "has faith", then everyone is a believer, which we know is not the case. Your statements are quite baffling.

And that faith pleases God, even though everyone isn't saved by that faith. A strange theology you have there.

No, what is strange is your misrepresentation of my view. By a long mile.

When a person puts their faith in Christ, that pleases God. Is that clear, or should I provide more clarity?

And everyone who puts their faith in Christ for eternal life IS saved. Every one of them. Does this need more clarity?

It seems to me that there is no attempt on your part to understand my view at all, but rather, to misrepresent my view. Baffling.

 

[cygnusx1]

Please elucidate. I have no idea what you're referring to.


Belief is an action. Placing one's faith in something/someone. I believe everyone has the ability to believe things. That ability comes from God, which is grace. What is inconsistent with this?

The inconsistency is that you believe Christs death saved none , it merely reconciled God in a none saving way , making merely a possiblity for man to be saved by his own faith (works) .

 

[cygnusx1]

The reason they go to hell is not for lack of being chosen, but because they are guilty for their sins.

Election puts nobody in hell, in merely rescues from hell people that would go there otherwise. Election is all about putting people in heaven, not putting people in hell.

Sin puts people in hell.

Election has nothing to do with why people go to hell, but everything to do with why people DON'T go to hell.

Absolutely Skala , trying to make , as some do , the responsibility for damnation on Gods kindness in electing some has to be the worst twisting of salvation by Grace yet , reminds me of those indignant in the parable ! They clearly thought some injustice had been done because they were paid what was agreed while those others were favoured with an unexpected reward .

 

[janxharris]

The reason they go to hell is not for lack of being chosen, but because they are guilty for their sins.

Election puts nobody in hell, in merely rescues from hell people that would go there otherwise. Election is all about putting people in heaven, not putting people in hell.

Sin puts people in hell.

Election has nothing to do with why people go to hell, but everything to do with why people DON'T go to hell.

In your argument there is only one thing that differentiates between those that receive eternal life and those that do not, and that is 'election'. Both those 'elected' and those who are not 'elected' are in rebellion against God, so no difference there. Since your theology does not allow foreknowledge then the 'electing' is without regard to the events of a person's life. You say the reason they go to hell is because they are guilty of sin, but that is the proximate cause - the ultimate cause - the root behind the continued rebellion - is in not being 'chosen'.

I cannot help but think that your argument is grist for the atheist's mill. Can you not see that this does immense damage to God's reputation?

In effect, you are holding men responsible for their original sin which they cannot atone for. Only Christ's death can atone, but even this is limited to the 'elect' under Calvinism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The inconsistency is that you believe Christs death saved none , it merely reconciled God in a none saving way , making merely a possiblity for man to be saved by his own faith (works) .

This is totally fallacious. I have been very vocal about the FACT that one's own believing does NOT save them. Please understand this. The entire statement is false and does NOT represent my view in the slightest.

If Christ's death did save anyone, please provide the verse that says so. People are saved through faith. Maybe that isn't very clear to some.

And reconciliation doesn't equal salvation either. Reconciliation occurred when Christ paid the sin debt and removed the sin barrier between God and man so that God's justice, which is perfect, was freed to extend grace and mercy to man. Apart from the removal of the sin barrier, God's justice could not grant grace or mercy to mankind. The debt had to be paid.

If any of this can be refuted from Scripture, please proceed.

 

[Hammster]

In your argument there is only one thing that differentiates between those that receive eternal life and those that do not, and that is 'election'. Both those 'elected' and those who are not 'elected' are in rebellion against God, so no difference there. Since your theology does not allow foreknowledge then the 'electing' is without regard to the events of a person's life. You say the reason they go to hell is because they are guilty of sin, but that is the proximate cause - the ultimate cause - the root behind the continued rebellion - is in not being 'chosen'.

I cannot help but think that your argument is grist for the atheist's mill. Can you not see that this does immense damage to God's reputation?

In effect, you are holding men responsible for their original sin which they cannot atone for. Only Christ's death can atone, but even this is limited to the 'elect' under Calvinism.

If God never elected anyone, where would everyone end up? And why?

 

[Hammster]

This is totally fallacious. I have been very vocal about the FACT that one's own believing does NOT save them. Please understand this. The entire statement is false and does NOT represent my view in the slightest.

If Christ's death did save anyone, please provide the verse that says so. People are saved through faith. Maybe that isn't very clear to some.

And reconciliation doesn't equal salvation either. Reconciliation occurred when Christ paid the sin debt and removed the sin barrier between God and man so that God's justice, which is perfect, was freed to extend grace and mercy to man. Apart from the removal of the sin barrier, God's justice could not grant grace or mercy to mankind. The debt had to be paid.

If any of this can be refuted from Scripture, please proceed.

More Pelagianism on display.

 

[janxharris]

If God never elected anyone, where would everyone end up? And why?

I'm not sure this makes sense. Genuine belief in God results in one's adoption as a son and the giving of eternal life. You are positing what if God did not predestine such as this?

Could you explain or rephrase?

 

[janxharris]

More Pelagianism on display.

Where? Pelagianism is the belief that man can come to God through his own efforts - FG2 does not believe that.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not sure this makes sense. Genuine belief in God results in one's adoption as a son and the giving of eternal life. You are positing what if God did not predestine such as this?

Could you explain or rephrase?

Sorry. I did assume my worldview.

If God never sent His son, where would everyone end up, and why?

 

[Hammster]

Where? Pelagianism is the belief that man can come to God through his own efforts - FG2 does not believe that.

Actually, he does. He just disguises it by calling God's providence in creation "grace".

 

[janxharris]

Sorry. I did assume my worldview.

If God never sent His son, where would everyone end up, and why?

Eternally separated from God.
Nobody can fulfill the law.