Sufficient vs Necessary

[Skala]

I don't understand how Monergists get passed this verse for instance.

Revelation 3:20

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

In that verse, Christ is speaking to the church. It is not an evangelical plea. Please read the verse in context:

Rev 3:14-22
(14) "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.
(15) "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!
(16) So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
(17) For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.
(18) I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.
(19) Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.
(20) Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
(21) The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.
(22) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"

Please note in verse 14 (the intro) and verse 22 (the closing) that these statements are issued to the church, not the unbelieving world. I highlighted verse 19 for you to show that the message is disciplinary in nature, not evangelical. In other words, Christ is disciplining and scolding the church. He says "whom I love, I discipline". that is the reason for the stern words He is uttering to the church.

Or this one
Matthew 7:7

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."

There is nothing in this verse incompatible with reformed teaching. It IS true that if you seek, you will find, and if you knock, it will be opened to you.

The thing is, we know from the rest of scripture that only the elect will actually do those things.

Would You rather have someone love you because they CHOOSE to or because they are forced to love you? Wouldn't forcing someone to love you kinda be like playing with dolls in your bedroom?

You seem to misunderstand the reformed person's understanding of God's love. We dont' believe God forces anyone to love him. What we believe is that nobody by fallen nature loves God or would ever be willing to love Him, because by "nature they are children of wrath, and spiritually dead" (Eph 2). Thus, God graciously "quickens us, when we were dead" (Eph 2). When we were dead, he makes us alive. Being now spiritually alive, we see God's beauty for what it is, and are now willing to come to Him and obey the gospel.

That is why salvation is by grace. It is the result of God's amazing grace in being merciful to us, when He didn't have to be.

If a person is unconscious and dying, and another person resuscitates them and brings them back to life, would you say that that person "forced" the unconscious guy to do something? Not at all. And that's how salvation works. We were dead, and God made us alive. By grace we have been saved (Eph2 )

Why does A Bigger View of God Necessarily mean God Controls more? Does sovereignty really scale that closely with control? < the counter to this would be God holds back his power otherwise we would be blinded by his amazing glory. God took the form of a man with a flesh body. Was he flexing his limitless muscles the hole time in every way conceivable. Just because he is ALL POWERFUL DOES NOT MEAN HE EXERCISES HIS POWER AT FULL IN EVERY DIRECTION ALL THE TIME. I think that maybe God can be all powerful and decide to use that power how he wants to with varying degrees of amplitude and control.

You may not like the idea that God is exhaustively in control, but you can't prove it from scripture. I'm sorry but the Bible is clear that God works all things according to the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:11) No where ins scripture can a person prove that God only controls some things, but not all things.

Instead, we know from scripture that God controls:
The natural realm
The weather
Human history
People
when people are born
when people die
health
wealth
both good and ill come from God
salvation
he hardens and softens hearts
he raises up people for no reason other than to display his power (pharaoh)
people's paths
human plans and accidents
he even controls where the dice lands (prov 16:33)

Please see these Bible verses which speak on God's sovereignty and for proof of the above list :

What Does the Bible Say About God Is In Control?

Verses showing God's Sovereignty, salvific work, and man's nature

The Illusion of a Gentleman Godby Robert Bernecker

Verses showing God's Sovereignty, salvific work, and man's nature

Large List of Scripture Verses Establishing God&#039;s Absolute Sovereignty & Control Over All Things

Does God Control Human Decisions and Actions? — DashHouse.com

Westminster Confession of Faith

I think that the way God exercises his sovereignty is still partially a mystery. I think that Monergism and Synergism might be both wrong or that mans definitions and words are insufficient to explain Gods Power and the intricacies of his sovereignty.

It's not a mystery if the Bible plainly tells us about it. It may be a mystery to someone who hasn't studied it, but it's not a mystery to other people who are willing to take the time to see what the Bible says about it. Please check out those Bible verses

 

[guuila]

No he didn't. Salvation is the gift, per Eph 2:8.

No, I'm getting to the point. Whatever else has been brought up is unnecessary.

I thought I was. The one asking all the questions.

Since you reject the idea that saving faith in Jesus is a gift from God, you have confirmed that God's work isn't to be credited for satisfying the requirement of your justification. You did your part, and then God gets the credit for fulfilling his part of the contract. It's like a business transaction. Glad we finally have this resolved.

Cheers!

 

[Skala]

After all that God effected in you (as in your view, above), is there anything of Skala actually left?

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. (Gal 2:20)

Does that answer your question, Janx?

 

[Skala]

So do I.


#1 Yes, you need to accept the gift.
#2 There is no Scripture that teaches your second claim. None.


#1 Yes, you do.
#2 There is no Scripture that teaches your second claim. None.


#1 Not for salvation. You need faith before God will save you.
#2 There is no Scripture that teaches your second claim. None.

So in the very same post, you simultaneously

1) claim to agree that Christ secured whatever you need to be saved
2) assert there in no scripture that teaches that Christ secured whatever you need to be saved

Classic!

Why did you bother saying "So do I" in the first place if the very next thing you would do is refute that very claim?

 

[Skala]

Since you reject the idea that saving faith in Jesus is a gift from God, you have confirmed that God's work isn't to be credited for satisfying the requirement of your justification. You did your part, and then God gets the credit for fulfilling his part of the contract. It's like a business transaction. Glad we finally have this resolved.

"It was a pleasure doing business with you, God"

 

[janxharris]

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. (Gal 2:20)

Does that answer your question, Janx?

Thanks for your reply, but no, it doesn't.

You wrote:

I believe Christ's death actually secured whatever I need to be saved.
Do I need to accept the gift? Then Christ's death secured my willingness to do that.
Do I need faith? Then Christ's death secured my faith
Do I need regeneration? Then Christ's death secured my regeneration.
The Father elected me for salvation, everything I need for salvation is secured by Christ, and all of those things are applied to me by the Holy Spirit, at the moment of His choosing during my life.
Quite literally, my absolute full and complete salvation is provided by God. He did all of it. Talk about a reason to worship him and be thankful! It is all His gracious work, to save me, which was His plan from eternity past. It's 100% God's work and doing. I didn't even supply the willingness! For without grace, I was unwilling.

I'm curious to know why God is pleased with the faith you have in Him...why He credits you with righteousness...when all along, it is actually the case that there does not seem to be any of Skala involved.

Do you understand why I am nonplussed?

 

[sdowney717]

Thanks for your reply, but no, it doesn't.

You wrote:

I'm curious to know why God is pleased with the faith you have in Him...why He credits you with righteousness...when all along, it is actually the case that there does not seem to be any of Skala involved.

Do you understand why I am nonplussed?

For you are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God.
A corpse, dead, so don't live as if you belong to this world, then you would be a faker, not living for God and heaven.

So technically God says we are dead. Who or what killed us?
We are like a seed in the ground waiting to be transformed into something else. More dead than a seed though cause a seed is still alive even though seemingly inert.

We do have some responsibility to walk this out in this life. God says we are dead, so then we need to walk it out as it is so., otherwise we be hypocrites and reprobates ourselves.

Col 3

3 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Character of the New Man

12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.

In this passage we have the elect and others, the sons of disobedience which are reprobates concerning the faith.

 

[Awaken4Christ]

Skala,

Proverbs 16:4

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

Why is it that this verse cannot work with free will? Why can't monergism work with free will?

Did you ever think that both Predestination and Free Will might both be true? And I have studied the bible and understand what you are trying to show me. You do not need to patronize me. I would suggest you become a little more skeptic of man's interpretation and show more concern for "careful" exegesis. Also I would suggest you consider the concepts and the application of epistemology and Hermeneutics in your studies.

You might say that these philosophies are outside of the Biblical text, however, I find that these studies can help make relevant the importance of being a skeptical Christian when it comes to man's interpretation. Man of course being a fallen creature.
This, I believe, would help give proper perspective on the Logic and assertions made by Calvin, and the reformation as a whole. The reformation was not without sin. It is an imperfect movement in the church and some of the conclusions made by it might have been descriptive beyond what exegesis can say about the nature of God's sovereignty for certain.

You may claim that free will explained by doctors of theology is simply bad exegesis, but have you ever considered that differences of presuppositions before the bible is even looked at might be why there is division among theology? These presuppositions might take the form of semantics and understanding of language or even be influenced by emotion and environment. That is why I see some people scaling Power with Control as being over-confident as if that is for sure how it works.

So you see my friend Its not that I don't want God to control everything. I think it has become easy for some to just generalize Non-Calvinists as not wanting a Large and In Charge God. But that's not the case for everyone. You see, that might be true for what you might call a Carnal Christian. Calvinists like to throw that around that whole "you just want a weak God" thing way too much. I personally think its presumptuous.

"God works all things according to the counsel of His own will" but HOW does he work all things according to the council of his will? I think some people think they can explain the "how" or think it is self evident. If God is an infinitely intelligent Being, then HOW are us small frys going to explain the nature of his sovereignty? You might say the bible has the answer but can the bible contain God's nature and methodology entirely? Or an even better question.... Do you think earthly fallen man has the capacity to understand everything about God?

 

[cygnusx1]

This is what a Greek lexicon says about the word:
katallass&#333;

1) to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent value
1a) to reconcile (those who are at variance)
1b) return to favour with, be reconciled to one
1c) to receive one into favour

I don't see anything about salvation here. I do see an "exchange", which would refer to Jesus paying the sin debt for all of humanity. I do see that Jesus removed the sin barrier between man and God, which can be understood as a "return to favor" in God's eyes.

iow, by the payment of sin for all of humanity, Jesus removed the barrier that stood between man and God. By that removal, the justice of God was satisfied and God is free to grace mankind.


Yes, that's what I said. And explained.

If you disagree, how so?

Why would those reconciled need saving ? Is God only temporally reconciled ? In your view even those in hell are reconciled ?

 

[shturt678s]

Thanks for bringing up 1 Cor 15:2. The Greek word for "in vain" is:
eik&#275;

1) inconsiderably, without purpose, without just cause
2) in vain
2a) without success or effort

I believe the word means to believe "without a purpose", which would be in vain.

What is the purpose for faith in Christ? Wealth, health, happiness, etc? No. There is no such thing as a "prosperity gospel", in spite of the many books and TV preachers pushing it.

The purpose of faith in Christ is FOR eternal life. iow, that's what we need to believe in Him FOR.

ICor.15:2: I have a little different take on this one, ie, Paul sees but one possiblility in keeping with which he could assume that the Corinthians no longer hold fast what he preached to them: "unless you believed in vain," episteusate, "you believed" an ingressive aorist, pointing to the time when the Corinthians first "came to believe."

The adverb eike, "in vain," means "at random," ie, so that your believing led you nowhere, brought you nothing - a little more grave. In the case if true believers such an assumption is an impossible idea.

Old Jack

1 Pet 1:9
obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

Not that clear, ie, you and I have a totally different view of the Epistle's "elect" compared to the Gospel's elect thus will let it go for now.

Even more clear:
1 Tim 1:16
Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Those who place their faith in Christ FOR eternal life ARE saved.

Saving faith requires 2 things: object, which is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and purpose, which is eternal life.

Apart from both of these, faith is "in vain". And doesn't save.

Old Jack

 

[Skala]

Thanks for your reply, but no, it doesn't.

You wrote:


I'm curious to know why God is pleased with the faith you have in Him...why He credits you with righteousness...when all along, it is actually the case that there does not seem to be any of Skala involved.

Do you understand why I am nonplussed?

"Lord, command what you will, and give what you command" - my prayer

If your prayer is "Lord, command what you will, but don't give what you command - I want to contribute that part, I want to take the credit for it", then that is your business.

I am in the business of giving God the credit. If you aren't, then we have not much to discuss.

 

[Skala]

Skala,

Proverbs 16:4

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

Why is it that this verse cannot work with free will? Why can't monergism work with free will?

Dear Awaken4Christ:

1) do you not have a response to my pointing out that you were using Rev 3:20 out of context?

2) Why do you assume, automatically, that "free will" exists? Where does the Bible teach it?

3) if you believe in "free will", you should carefully define it, because depending on what you mean, a Calvinist will either agree or disagree that "free will" exists.

3a) for example, do you mean "the ability to choose what you desire"? If so, then of course, I agree that free will exists, and also, none of my theology nor any Bible verses clash with that particular definition of free will. Therefore, there is no dilemma for monergists, as you have imagined.

Or, do you mean "a person is so free that not even God can control them"? If so, then I disagree with you, and further discussion is required. Also, such a belief is not allowed by Scripture.

Or, do you mean "a person can choose contrary to his desires" or "a person's actions are not determined or influenced by his fallen nature", again, I would disagree with you, and point out that such a belief is not allowed by scripture

4) Why do you measure every interpretation of scripture against the standard of --whatever your understanding of free will-- is? Last I checked, proper exegesis, and not "free will", is what a serious Bible student should use to measure truth by.

In other words, you automatically dismiss any interpretation that does not "allow" for your particular understanding of "free will". Why did you set "free will" up as the standard by which to measure truth? Why is free will important to you? Where does the Bible assign importance to free will? Where does the Bible teach that God respects free will and it considers it very important? Last I checked, God's will, not the creature's will, is what is important to God, and important to the Bible authors. Even Jesus told us to pray "Father, let your will be done, not only in heaven, but also on earth"

As a Christian who knows his own sinfulness and his own helplessness while I was fallen and unregenerate, I have no use for free will. My free will would have resulted in me landing squarely in hell. I don't need free will. I need free grace. I don't need the ability to reject God - that won't end well for me. I don't need the "ability to disobey", because I'm striving towards heaven, a place where I won't be able to disobey any longer. Why should I strive to defend something that won't even exist in the next life? Why should you strive to measure all theological truth against the standard of "free will" when it won't even exist in the next life?

It boggles the mind why a Christian would demand free will, and defend free will, and even set up it up as the standard by which to measure theological truth, even though his end goal is heaven, a place where "free will" (as most define it: the ability to go against God) won't exist any longer. Isn't that ironic? Something seems wrong or off about that.

 

[shturt678s]

Skala,

Proverbs 16:4

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

Why is it that this verse cannot work with free will? Why can't monergism work with free will?

Did you ever think that both Predestination and Free Will might both be true? And I have studied the bible and understand what you are trying to show me. You do not need to patronize me. I would suggest you become a little more skeptic of man's interpretation and show more concern for "careful" exegesis. Also I would suggest you consider the concepts and the application of epistemology and Hermeneutics in your studies.

You might say that these philosophies are outside of the Biblical text, however, I find that these studies can help make relevant the importance of being a skeptical Christian when it comes to man's interpretation. Man of course being a fallen creature.
This, I believe, would help give proper perspective on the Logic and assertions made by Calvin, and the reformation as a whole. The reformation was not without sin. It is an imperfect movement in the church and some of the conclusions made by it might have been descriptive beyond what exegesis can say about the nature of God's sovereignty for certain.

You may claim that free will explained by doctors of theology is simply bad exegesis, but have you ever considered that differences of presuppositions before the bible is even looked at might be why there is division among theology? These presuppositions might take the form of semantics and understanding of language or even be influenced by emotion and environment. That is why I see some people scaling Power with Control as being over-confident as if that is for sure how it works.

So you see my friend Its not that I don't want God to control everything. I think it has become easy for some to just generalize Non-Calvinists as not wanting a Large and In Charge God. But that's not the case for everyone. You see, that might be true for what you might call a Carnal Christian. Calvinists like to throw that around that whole "you just want a weak God" thing way too much. I personally think its presumptuous.

"God works all things according to the counsel of His own will" but HOW does he work all things according to the council of his will? I think some people think they can explain the "how" or think it is self evident. If God is an infinitely intelligent Being, then HOW are us small frys going to explain the nature of his sovereignty? You might say the bible has the answer but can the bible contain God's nature and methodology entirely? Or an even better question.... Do you think earthly fallen man has the capacity to understand everything about God?

Just so you understand that at Prov.16:4 God has not, indeed, made the wicked as such, but He has made the being which is capable of wickedness, and which has decided for it. Have to find another passage to support Calvinism.

Will let all have an "enslaved-will" and "God foreknew and foreordained" go for now,

Old Jack

 

[FreeGrace2]

No. Did God provide that faith?

No, of course not. Why would anyone think so?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Since you reject the idea that saving faith in Jesus is a gift from God, you have confirmed that God's work isn't to be credited for satisfying the requirement of your justification.

I reject that idea because it isn't found in Scripture.

God's "work" is salvation, justification, forgiveness. What do you mean by His "work isn't to be credited for"?

You did your part, and then God gets the credit for fulfilling his part of the contract. It's like a business transaction. Glad we finally have this resolved.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I don't have a "part" in my salvation. It is a complete gift. That isn't difficult to understand.

There is no part for man regarding his salvation. What is there about this that is so difficult to understand?

Is man credited for holding on to a lifeguard who rescues the man from drowning? Of course not. That is ridiculous, just as the RT claim that man's faith "takes part" in his salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So in the very same post, you simultaneously

1) claim to agree that Christ secured whatever you need to be saved
2) assert there in no scripture that teaches that Christ secured whatever you need to be saved

Classic!

Why did you bother saying "So do I" in the first place if the very next thing you would do is refute that very claim?

I didn't. All I see here in this post is a claim that I have refuted myself.

Please provide the specific statements or at least the specific post #. When I said "So do I", I was agreeing with a specific statement you made. We probably have different understandings of the words, but I agreed with the words you posted. No doubt I disagree with the meaning you put to those words.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why would those reconciled need saving ?

Because all are born dead in sins. That means separated from God. The reconciliation was toward God, accomplished by Christ. Man still needs to be reconciled, which Paul noted in 2 Cor 5:20.

Are you aware that both parties are involved in a reconciliation? If only 1 party extends a hand in a reconciliatory handshake, reconciliation has not taken place. Both parties must shake. God has extended His hand in reconciliation towards man because of what Christ did; pay for the sins of mankind. But man must "extend his hand" through faith in Christ.

Is God only temporally reconciled ?

No.

In your view even those in hell are reconciled ?

The Bible says that Christ reconciled the world to God. So of course those in hell were reconciled to God through Christ. But the FACT that they are in hell demonstrates that they didn't "extend their hand" to God via faith in Christ.

iow, they didn't take Paul's advice in 2 Cor 5:20- Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

 

[Skala]

Because all are born dead in sins. That means separated from God.

It means much more than that. Why don't you care how Paul defined "dead in sins"?

Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

See? it means much more than "separated from God", as you asserted.

 

[isleof]

It's that time again kids! Time for our annual philosophy lesson Necessity vs Sufficiency!

The concept of Necessity vs Sufficiency is a logical (ie, pertaining to logic) discussion that asks questions about the implicational relationships between two things.

Necessity:

If something is necessary, that is the same as saying that the consequence cannot be true unless the premise is true. That is, the premise is necessary for the consequence in question to become a reality.

Sufficiency:

If something is sufficient, that means the consequence will, without fail, be true. In other words, that one thing, all by itself, fulfils all the conditions for the consequence to be realized.

Still waiting for the skala dictionary to arise and appeal to the worlds lusts.

 

[isleof]

It means much more than that. Why don't you care how Paul defined "dead in sins"?

Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

See? it means much more than "separated from God", as you asserted.

Am I to assume that those that are dead in their sins, knowingly follow the kingdom of the air?

If so, that is a way I havn't ever known.