Sufficient vs Necessary

[janxharris]

Jesus disagrees with you. John 6:44.

John 6:32-45
32Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

This true bread of heaven gives life to the world, so it's benefits are to all mankind.

34“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” 35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Coming to Jesus must be for all men otherwise this statement becomes disingenuous.

36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

The giving and coming are essentially the same thing and are those who have heard and learned from the Father (v.45)

38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Again, belief is the sine qua non of eternal life. Those given are those that come. Those that come are those that hear and learn.

41At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” 43“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

I would say the drawing equates to those that hear and learn.

45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

As above.

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more". Could she become sinless? Or was he being disingenuous?

I expect she would have been taught the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ. Righteousness is credited to those who have faith.

Well, too bad for John Piper. I don't give a rip what he said. Don't try resurrecting that old red herring of yours... It's been thoroughly refuted.

Refuted? I think it divided the Calvinists on this forum.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You ask where do I find reconciliation and. No condemnation , they are linked directly :
2 Cor 5
[19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation

I think it is a mistake to equate "not imputing trespasses" and "no condemnation". They are not equal or equated in any way. The verse teaches that Christ paid the sin debt which reonciled the world to God. This reconciliation is Godward, from Christ. Man has nothing to do with this. But man is responsible and accountable because of v.20 where Paul implores people to be reconciled to God.

I gave the example of a handshake. Did you read it? Because Christ reconciled the world to God, God is able to extend His hand to man. But v.20 says that man must also extend his hand to God.

Unless both extend their hands, there is no full reconciliation. To extend the hand for man means to accept the free gift of eternal life because of Christ's death.

If any of this is incorrect, is there any verses that clearly refute it?

And so God is both reconciled and angry with the wicked every day ? I don't think so .

Correct. The sins were paid for (reconciled) but man still sins. And God hates sin.

And all those He is reconciled to are still condemned ?

Yes, until man reconciles to God (v.20). Throughf faith in Christ.

No , see above

Yes, see above.

I need saving from a "reconciliation " that leaves man condemned for it has saved no one

You need saving because you were born "dead in sins", meaning separated from God (not having His life). To live with God for ever, one must have eternal life, which is obtained through faith in Christ.

Reconciliation saves no one. God is the Savior. And He saves only believers.

If either reconciliation or Christ's death actually saves anyone, they don't need faith then, do they?

But the Bible says that we are saved by grace (Christ's reconciliation) THROUGH FAITH.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Also, God expects us to be perfect, and condemns us if we aren't.

That statement insinuates that God isn't omniscient. God "expects" NOTHING. Because He is omniscient, He has always KNOWN what will occur.

It is sinful, fallen, finite man who "expects" stuff. Not God.

I guess you'd have to conclude God is disingenuous for making such a demand since it is impossible.

That guess would be quite wrong. No such conclusion at all.

God had a purpose for establishing the Law and the command to be holy. To demonstrate to mankind that they can't, and that they need the Savior. Gal 3.

But thanks for the opportunity to clarify and educate.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So your faith didn't cause your justification, even though justification is the necessary result of faith. Makes perfect sense.

The sarcasm here is quite obvious. Sadly, it doesn't make sense to those who have rejected man's freedom and abilty to believe or reject the gospel, rejected the FACT that Christ died for everyone, and believe that God chooses who will believe.

My faith doesn't "cause" anything. To say that implies that my faith "helps" God in doing whatever He does as a result of my faith. Utter nonsense to think that.

The point is that when God makes a promise, He obligates Himself. Maybe RT doesn't believe that, but it's true, nonetheless.

So, when a person believes in Christ, because God has obligated Himself, He is obligated to carry through on His promise of saving that believer.

All the while, God does the saving. Not because man's faith "causes" Him to, but because His self-obligation causes Him to.

Because God is God, He HAS to honor His obligations. And all of His obligations are self-obligations.

He is NOT obligated to man in any sense of the word. But He is totally obligated to all the promises that He has made to man.

Care to disagree? And if so, please provide a clear explanation of why my point here is false. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Denying original sin again I see.

Baseless and false accusation again, I see. I have not denied original sin. I just see it from the Bible's perspective, not Calvinism's.

Also, a person in a false religion does not love the one true God. They love a false god.

the RCC religion worships God. Which one is that, if not the One True God?

But then again I'm not the one teaching that devil worshippers go to heaven…

Since I don't teach that, just another false and baseless statement. I believe what the Bible teaches; that anyone who has placed their faith in Christ for eternal life will go to heaven, regardless of "things present, or things in the future" as Paul said it in Rom 8:39.

But believers are free to deny what Scripture teaches.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I guess this was missed by griff. Please respond:

My faith does NOT cause my justification, as your post wrongly insinuates.

Because my faith comes from my heart (Rom 10:9) doesn't mean it causes anything, which those in RT seem unable to grasp.

God has promised certain things. A promise obligates the Promiser, in this case God Himself.

Agree or disagree so far? (This is how we'll "get to the bottom of this".)

 

[cygnusx1]

I think it is a mistake to equate "not imputing trespasses" and "no condemnation". They are not equal or equated in any way. The verse teaches that Christ paid the sin debt which reonciled the world to God. This reconciliation is Godward, from Christ. Man has nothing to do with this. But man is responsible and accountable because of v.20 where Paul implores people to be reconciled to God.

I gave the example of a handshake. Did you read it? Because Christ reconciled the world to God, God is able to extend His hand to man. But v.20 says that man must also extend his hand to God.

Unless both extend their hands, there is no full reconciliation. To extend the hand for man means to accept the free gift of eternal life because of Christ's death.

If any of this is incorrect, is there any verses that clearly refute it?


Correct. The sins were paid for (reconciled) but man still sins. And God hates sin.


Yes, until man reconciles to God (v.20). Throughf faith in Christ.


Yes, see above.


You need saving because you were born "dead in sins", meaning separated from God (not having His life). To live with God for ever, one must have eternal life, which is obtained through faith in Christ.

Reconciliation saves no one. God is the Savior. And He saves only believers.

If either reconciliation or Christ's death actually saves anyone, they don't need faith then, do they?

But the Bible says that we are saved by grace (Christ's reconciliation) THROUGH FAITH.

Just a quick question are you Orthodox ?

 

[guuila]

Refuted? I think it divided the Calvinists on this forum.

Which Calvinists are divided?

 

[janxharris]

Which Calvinists are divided?

If I say who said what I will probably be accused of misrepresentation. Have a look:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7795099/

There was division over whether Piper should have said what he said. It underlines the difficulty in preaching the gospel as a calvinist.

 

[cygnusx1]

If I say who said what I will probably be accused of misrepresentation. Have a look:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7795099/

There was division over whether Piper should have said what he said. It underlines the difficulty in preaching the gospel as a calvinist.

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 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy

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

 

[janxharris]

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 .

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

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

 

[guuila]

If I say who said what I will probably be accused of misrepresentation. Have a look:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7795099/

There was division over whether Piper should have said what he said. It underlines the difficulty in preaching the gospel as a calvinist.

Interesting. Well, I'm pretty sure whoever it was got over it. Really, all it does is show that we all have the ability to be inconsistent. I have no problem preaching a Gospel that includes particular atonement.

 

[cygnusx1]

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

I don't think so , their disagreements are insignificant in comparison to the unity , are you sure your not attempting the old divide and conquer routine ? If you are be careful .

 

[cygnusx1]

Interesting. Well, I'm pretty sure whoever it was got over it. Really, all it does is show that we all have the ability to be inconsistent. I have no problem preaching a Gospel that includes particular atonement.

Same here Griff , I did have a problem with unlimited universal atonement though , I mean it doesn't stack up when analysed , same goes for universal none saving reconciliation which leaves men in the same state they were already in , condemned

 

[janxharris]

I don't think so , their disagreements are insignificant in comparison to the unity , are you sure your not attempting the old divide and conquer routine ? If you are be careful .

I'm not sure why you are suggesting I need to be careful.

What is clear, is that Christ died for every man; and it is also clear that the Calvinist stumbles to preach anything remotely resembling good news.

 

[guuila]

I'm not sure why you are suggesting I need to be careful.

What is clear, is that Christ died for every man; and it is also clear that the Calvinist stumbles to preach anything remotely resembling good news.

It is clear that you like to slander Calvinists. Not sure if God approves of that. You better watch it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Which Calvinists are divided?

The ones who disagree with each other.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Same here Griff , I did have a problem with unlimited universal atonement though , I mean it doesn't stack up when analysed , same goes for universal none saving reconciliation which leaves men in the same state they were already in , condemned

If it doesn't "stack up", then were are the verses that plainly SAY that Christ either didn't die for everyone, or that He died only for some, and I'm not asking for specific verbiage, but clear statements that support point 3 of TULIP.

 

[cygnusx1]

If it doesn't "stack up", then were are the verses that plainly SAY that Christ either didn't die for everyone, or that He died only for some, and I'm not asking for specific verbiage, but clear statements that support point 3 of TULIP.

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

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm not sure why you are suggesting I need to be careful.

What is clear, is that Christ died for every man; and it is also clear that the Calvinist stumbles to preach anything remotely resembling good news.

So , why would Christ die for

Those already in hell ?

Those he knew would never be saved ?

Those he would not even pray for ?


I could go on ...