Sufficient vs Necessary

[guuila]

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

Great! That means the answer is "no" that your faith is not God's work, thus your justification depends on you first and foremost. So glad we finally got to the bottom of this.

 

[guuila]

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.

Men don't hate lifeguards by nature. Analogy fail.

Best,

Griff

 

[Skala]

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

Part of his work is also "working in us to will and to act" Phil 2:13

But it seems like from our discussions, you deny this part. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You deny that God works in us to will and to act. In your view, God has nothing to do with how we will (our willingness, our desires, etc) nor how we act (our actions, our choices, etc)

To you, all of those things are completely autonomous.

Calvinists believe God is responsible for us coming to faith (ie, he gives us our faith)

You believe that we are responsible for us coming to faith (ie, He doesn't give us faith)

You are even quoted here as saying:

But I strongly disagree that God gives the faith

http://www.christianforums.com/t7788258-5/#post64867994

 

[Skala]

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

Huh?

 

[Skala]

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.

Well, that's what the Bible says.

Who am I to disagree with God?

 

[isleof]

Huh?

You've decided to define certain words of your own accord, skala.

 

[Skala]

You've decided to define certain words of your own accord, skala.

False. A simple google search on the nature of "sufficiency' and "necessity" will reveal I merely repeated what is universally known and true:

Wikipedia entry:
Necessity and sufficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy website:
Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions

Law School website
Necessity vs. Sufficiency

Department of Philosophy at a university
The Concept of Necessary Conditions and Sufficient Conditions

The concepts of sufficiency and necessity are laws of logic. It's not something little ole' me invented. But I am flattered you'd think that

 

[isleof]

Well, that's what the Bible says.

Who am I to disagree with God?

Of course, those that willing sin and rejoice in sin are in need of Jesus. Those that are of God already, are only at fault by those that worship sinful ways. Meaning no fault at all. In other words, without those that willfully sin, perfection is already all.

So all blame of wickedness is upon those that willfully sin, and or sinned willfully.

In other words, all of you who are innocent, are of God. Those that willfully sinned, knowingly, arent of God, yet God remains faithful to mercy, to forgive and consider the repentant.

Im aware that the fast paced ones will reject me, yet God will stand firm and correct every offense.

 

[isleof]

False. A simple google search on the nature of "sufficiency' and "necessity" will reveal I merely repeated what is universally known and true:

Wikipedia entry:
Necessity and sufficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy website:
Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions

Law School website
Necessity vs. Sufficiency

Department of Philosophy at a university
The Concept of Necessary Conditions and Sufficient Conditions

The concepts of sufficiency and necessity are laws of logic. It's not something little ole' me invented. But I am flattered you'd think that

All of that and yet I see your own words typed in your original post.

 

[isleof]

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.

The actual dictionary doesn't include your description, regardless of how much you'd like it to.

skala version 1.9?

Winking is for scandals.

 

[guuila]

The actual dictionary doesn't include your description, regardless of how much you'd like it to.

skala version 1.9?

Winking is for scandals.

Methinks we've identified a deflection attempt...

 

[isleof]

Methinks we've identified a deflection attempt...

Willful sinning is an enemy of God.

 

[guuila]

Willful sinning is an enemy of God.

Okay.

 

[isleof]

Isn't it?

 

[guuila]

Isn't it?

I don't know what this has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Goodbook]

Vain philosophies of men much? Why is the OP arguing this?

Just go with what the bible says, that we are saved by grace through faith. Grace is conditional upon faith.

Me thinks the OP have grace mixed up with mercy, which is unconditional.

After all, in Jude's letter, it's talking about false teachers creeping in to churches abusing Gods grace, as a license to sin. It says we are to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, not grace.

I smell something fishy here. also, we are not of paul or of apollos or of Calvin. it seems like people who believe a certain doctrine want to make a name for themselves and divide the church, and look down on others for not adhering to their self imposed definitions of what the bible says.

 

[Skala]

The actual dictionary doesn't include your description, regardless of how much you'd like it to.

skala version 1.9?

Winking is for scandals.

Surely you realize I was merely explaining it in my own words.

 

[Skala]

Vain philosophies of men much? Why is the OP arguing this?

Just go with what the bible says, that we are saved by grace through faith. Grace is conditional upon faith.

Me thinks the OP have grace mixed up with mercy, which is unconditional.

After all, in Jude's letter, it's talking about false teachers creeping in to churches abusing Gods grace, as a license to sin. It says we are to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, not grace.

I smell something fishy here. also, we are not of paul or of apollos or of Calvin. it seems like people who believe a certain doctrine want to make a name for themselves and divide the church, and look down on others for not adhering to their self imposed definitions of what the bible says.

I don't think it is wise to take 1 Corinthians 3:4 out of context, like you have done here. That passage is not about divisions over doctrinal differences, but rather following personalities, like a fan club.

Surely you see the difference.

Jesus divided over doctrine when He rebuked the pharisees. He also told his disciples to watch out for false teachers. Thus, Jesus believed the truth was important

Calvinism vs Arminianism is not about John Calvin and James Arminius, but about doctrines, ie, beliefs. Those terms (Calvinism and Arminianism) are merely nicknames for a set of doctrines. It has nothing to do with the historical figures themselves.

Just go with what the bible says, that we are saved by grace through faith. Grace is conditional upon faith.

That is where you are wrong, for faith itself is a product of grace. Surely you credit God for the fact that you are currently a believer? Surely you credit God for the fact that you have faith in Christ and are thus saved?

Or maybe I am mistaken and you credit yourself for those things? Maybe you can tell me.

 

[isleof]

Surely you realize I was merely explaining it in my own words.

I figured that was already obvious. Care to link a true definition of the such?

 

[Skala]

I figured that was already obvious. Care to link a true definition of the such?

I provided links to the logical (ie, pertaining to logic) concepts of the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. Feel free to do your own footwork to refute or disprove the OP.

Good luck