Sufficient vs Necessary

[guuila]

The ones who disagree with each other.

Thank you for your insight.

 

[reformed ttL]

The ones who disagree with each other.

no disagreement here

 

[shturt678s]

I have yet to meet even two Christians who agree on everything , even the Orthodox are divided , and they claim to be the one and only true church .

Oriental Orthodoxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tbh I would be suspicious if believers didn't have different views , it would indicate a machine type mind , or something worse

Over 65% of this nation claim to be Christians per several recent polls, and all agree that one is saved by "faith," ie, including me thus I'm now wondering if I'm also a machine grinding out spurious conclusions?

Thanks for the head's up
btw maybe it's repentance + faith or?

 

[guuila]

Over 65% of this nation claim to be Christians per several recent polls, and all agree that one is saved by "faith," ie, including me thus I'm now wondering if I'm also a machine grinding out spurious conclusions?

Thanks for the head's up
btw maybe it's repentance + faith or?

Methinks you missed the point...

 

[Ignatius21]

At this point I think 165 posts are more than sufficient, but not at all necessary.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There are several verses that do say "some" but you already knew that

Actually, I don't know that. Could you please provide the verses that say "some"?

I do know a verse that says "many", Matt 20:28. And that is in contrast to "few". Matt 7:13.

So if the argument is that Christ died for "many" supports limited atonement, it will backfire. Because "many" more are going to hell than are going to heaven.

I await your response.

 

[shturt678s]

Methinks you missed the point...

Thank you, ie, must be the processing part - heard the point.

Old Jack needing more vitamin E

 

[AndOne]

So if the argument is that Christ died for "many" supports limited atonement, it will backfire. Because "many" more are going to hell than are going to heaven.

Seeing as how no one deserves to go to heaven it makes more sense to me that those who get in do so as per God's goodwill and pleasure and their atonement is specific to those he chooses. See John 17:6-2.

 

[Skala]

The poster removes from all men the capacity to do the very thing God/Jesus asks of us.

The poster's words necessitate this repeated charge that it would make Jesus disingenuous.

So would you say you credit yourself for coming to faith in Christ?

 

[Skala]

Piper is a monergist, and yet he tells unbelievers that Christ died for them. It seems that your statement:

However, in synergism, this is not true. Christ can die for a person (in synergism), but yet that person might not be saved.

is true of monergism too, depending on which monergist one speaks too.

But Piper still believes that built into Christ's death was the inevitable salvation of the elect. Thus, even Piper believes Christ's death is sufficient for the elect's salvation, because he believe His death brings the elect to faith and secures the holy spirit's future work of regeneration and conversion for them.

 

[Skala]

Why the inaccurate judgement of what I care about?


yes, Paul noted the results of being separated from God. But to be dead in sins means to be separated from God.

No, to be dead in sins means what Paul said it means, not what you say it means.

 

[Skala]

He is responsible, but NOT by giving you your faith. There are NO verses that SAY what Rt claims. None at all. No reason to believe it.

The Bible says that faith is a gift, in many places. And it also says that all good things are gifts from above. And it also says that God gives everything to the person that Christ dies for.

You deny each of these points.

Not sure why.

 

[Skala]

Jesus is my saviour. Grace came by him, faith is in Him, it's all about him.
I'm just saying it is not by grace alone, but also conditioned on having faith in him. He is the author and finisher of our faith. Grace and faith go together. His grace and faithfulness allows us to be like him..gracious and faithful. I know grace alone does not save, because it is written, Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Both qualities required for salvation originate from God.

So, that doesn't really fit the neat little categories of the first post, I mean I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, that grace alone is what saves or the idea that just because faith is something we exercise it is the same thing is free will when it clearly isn't.

Also you seem to be saying Christs death is what saves, or his life and death no no no, I don't just believe in his death paying for my sins but in his resurrection as well. Because if Jesus is still dead then our faith in him is in vain. God raised him.

Whether this is necessary or sufficient i don't know as it doesn't seem to fit in your categories.

It's simple: do you credit God for the fact that you're currently a believer, yes or no?

If yes, then God's grace was sufficient for your salvation, because grace is what brought about everything that you need to be saved, including you faith.

If no, then God's grace was not sufficient for your salvation. It provided part of the requirements, but you had to provide the rest.

If you ask me "Skala, do you credit God for the fact that you are currently a believer in Jesus?" I would say "Yes. I give God all the credit for the fact that I am a believer. I take none of the credit. I am not wiser or smarter or more spiritual or more righteous or more moral than those who are unbelievers. It is grace and grace alone that makes me to differ from them."

Do you disagree with my testimony? Do you think I give God too much credit, and instead, I should take some of the credit?

Based on your argumentation so far, I must assume "yes".

 

[Skala]

True, but if Calvinist's are divided over the very Gospel of Jesus Christ then that must be very significant.

We aren't divided.

However, you and FG2 have drastically different beliefs. You and ignatius have drastically different beliefs.

I guess that means synergists are divided, right?

 

[guuila]

We aren't divided.

However, you and FG2 have drastically different beliefs. You and ignatius have drastically different beliefs.

I guess that means synergists are divided, right?

You're not supposed to notice that... They'd rather not acknowledge their differences. BETTER TO IGNORE THEM FOR THE SAKE OF DESTROYING CALVINISM!!! BEHOLD THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MAN!! MWAH HAHAHAHAHAHA (not intended for Ignatius)

 

[FreeGrace2]

Seeing as how no one deserves to go to heaven it makes more sense to me that those who get in do so as per God's goodwill and pleasure and their atonement is specific to those he chooses.

Why does that make more sense?

Yes, no one deserves to go to heaven, yet the chosen do go there. While other sinners who don't deserve to go to heaven don't go there. Calvinism therefore provides an excuse for those who go to hell: they simply weren't chosen to go to heaven, since no one deserves to go there, and the only ones who get there were chosen for it, while the others were passed over or chosen for hell.

See John 17:6-2.

Did you mean 17:26? Or v.2-6? The subject in v.26 is believers, whom Jesus prayed for. What is the point?

 

[guuila]

Why does that make more sense?

Yes, no one deserves to go to heaven, yet the chosen do go there. While other sinners who don't deserve to go to heaven don't go there. Calvinism therefore provides an excuse for those who go to hell: they simply weren't chosen to go to heaven, since no one deserves to go there, and the only ones who get there were chosen for it, while the others were passed over or chosen for hell.

Did you mean 17:26? Or v.2-6? The subject in v.26 is believers, whom Jesus prayed for. What is the point?

Is it a valid excuse?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So would you say you credit yourself for coming to faith in Christ?

I'm sure Janx will have a good response, but I'll take the opportunity to say that I credit God for revealing Himself to me. He didn't have to. And He gets all credit because it's all His plan. Accepting His plan provides no credit for me.

I cannot figure out why RT thinks that non-calvinists take credit for their salvation. Do you really know any non-calvinist who makes such a ridiculous claim?

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, to be dead in sins means what Paul said it means, not what you say it means.

That would be one opinion.

 

[AndOne]

Why does that make more sense?

Yes, no one deserves to go to heaven, yet the chosen do go there. While other sinners who don't deserve to go to heaven don't go there. Calvinism therefore provides an excuse for those who go to hell: they simply weren't chosen to go to heaven, since no one deserves to go there, and the only ones who get there were chosen for it, while the others were passed over or chosen for hell.


Did you mean 17:26? Or v.2-6? The subject in v.26 is believers, whom Jesus prayed for. What is the point?

I meant John 17:6-12 - read it and what I said will make more sense.