Sufficient vs Necessary

[FreeGrace2]

Don't beat yourself up too bad. Just try to be less ambiguous in the future.

Apologizing for your misunderstanding isn't beating myself up. Not even close.

If my answers are so ambiguous, why not rather just ask for clarification?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Which is?

Your answer, naturally.

Unless you don't have an answer for the question you ask.

Which is it?

 

[guuila]

Apologizing for your misunderstanding isn't beating myself up. Not even close.

If my answers are so ambiguous, why not rather just ask for clarification?

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[guuila]

Your answer, naturally.

Unless you don't have an answer for the question you ask.

Which is it?

So you don't have an answer. That's okay.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't know about how you are using words. I just know that by your own postings, you see grace as necessary, but not sufficient.

What seems to be missing from your understanding is that the need to receive the gift has nothing to do with grace. It is by God's grace that salvation is given to man. I don't know how that can be misunderstood.

It's by grace that the gift is available.

I do see through your line of questions, though. Since RT believes that unless God gives the gift of faith, no one can believe. So, please provide some evidence for that view from Scripture, if there is one.

God gives to mankind all that is necessary to come to faith. Everyone is able to come to faith. No one has any excuse, even though RT provides the excuse for unbelievers in hell that they weren't given the gift of faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yet, here you are.

No, the question is why you are posting to me.

This is what I said:
"Way to totally ignore what I posted. Since it is apparent that our understanding of the meaning of words is totally different, there really isn't any reason to continue trying to have a conversation."

You ignore what I post, so why do you continue to post to me?

 

[guuila]

What seems to be missing from your understanding is that the need to receive the gift has nothing to do with grace. It is by God's grace that salvation is given to man. I don't know how that can be misunderstood.

It's by grace that the gift is available.

I do see through your line of questions, though. Since RT believes that unless God gives the gift of faith, no one can believe. So, please provide some evidence for that view from Scripture, if there is one.

God gives to mankind all that is necessary to come to faith. Everyone is able to come to faith. No one has any excuse, even though RT provides the excuse for unbelievers in hell that they weren't given the gift of faith.

I guess when you said "there really isn't any reason to continue trying to have a conversation." you didn't mean it. Here you are, continuing to try to have a conversation.

 

[guuila]

No, the question is why you are posting to me.

No, it isn't.

 

[Hammster]

What seems to be missing from your understanding is that the need to receive the gift has nothing to do with grace. It is by God's grace that salvation is given to man. I don't know how that can be misunderstood.

I understand that this is your view. I'm not arguing against it. I'm simply pointing out that by holding this view, you think grace is necessary to save, but not sufficient.

 

[FreeGrace2]

GRACE needs no explanation. Anyone in heaven is there by God's grace alone.

Why leave out the whole answer: sovereign grace, which is code for RT doctrine of election, in which God CHOOSES who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Right?

Actually he chooses to save believers for His own good pleasure to his glory.

Everything God does is for His own good pleasure to His glory. But I'm glad to see the acknowledgement that God chooses to save believers. I see progress. Others from RT can't give any reason WHY God chooses who He does. They have said it is a mystery. At least you know why He does.

If people in hell needing an excuse is not the point then you shouldn't have made it. You have essentially just validated my argument by making such a statement.

The point is that RT GIVES them an excuse by their theology. That is the point. OF course they don't "need" an excuse, as if that helps them out any.

I find it fascinating that the reformed seem completely unaware that their doctrine of election GIVES the hell dwellers an excuse, not that it is legitimate or real. But the theology does do that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, that explains some of your posts. You accused me of being ambiguous.

But again, since you don't seem to remember what you post, and have ignored my questions, what is the point of continuing to post to me? Is there one?

 

[guuila]

I find it fascinating that the reformed seem completely unaware that their doctrine of election GIVES the hell dwellers an excuse, not that it is legitimate or real. But the theology does do that.

Is it a valid excuse?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So you don't have an answer. That's okay.

And, obviously, you don't either. Which is also OK.

 

[guuila]

Well, that explains some of your posts. You accused me of being ambiguous.

But again, since you don't seem to remember what you post, and have ignored my questions, what is the point of continuing to post to me? Is there one?

Not really. Your errors have been exposed repeatedly, so really this is just a good way to kill time.

 

[guuila]

And, obviously, you don't either. Which is also OK.

I do have one. The answer is no. Glad you agree with me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I understand that this is your view. I'm not arguing against it. I'm simply pointing out that by holding this view, you think grace is necessary to save, but not sufficient.

What you think about what I think is fallacious. I've explained it, but you don't understand my explanation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not really. Your errors have been exposed repeatedly, so really this is just a good way to kill time.

That's funny. But in error all the same.

 

[Hammster]

What you think about what I think is fallacious. I've explained it, but you don't understand my explanation.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I don't understand you. So let me ask, do you believe eternal life and regeneration are synonymous, or does the new birth lead to eternal life?

 

[shturt678s]

Maybe you're right. Maybe I don't understand you. So let me ask, do you believe eternal life and regeneration are synonymous, or does the new birth lead to eternal life?

Immortal life = no regeneration = regeneration, ie, whether one is regenerated or not.

Old Jack's view

Agape those paygrade questions, ie, thank you my friend

 

[AndOne]

Why leave out the whole answer: sovereign grace, which is code for RT doctrine of election, in which God CHOOSES who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Right?

Grace - sovereign grace - it's all the same. "Code?" - are Calvinists some kind of secret society or something? Give me a break. Read Romans 9:22-23. It says what we believe - God makes some for wrath and others for mercy. Your issue is with Paul. Not Calvinists.

Everything God does is for His own good pleasure to His glory. But I'm glad to see the acknowledgement that God chooses to save believers. I see progress. Others from RT can't give any reason WHY God chooses who He does. They have said it is a mystery. At least you know why He does.

I guess you don't disagree then. Great!

The point is that RT GIVES them an excuse by their theology. That is the point. OF course they don't "need" an excuse, as if that helps them out any.

Too late - you already said its not the point - you can't back peddle now....

I find it fascinating that the reformed seem completely unaware that their doctrine of election GIVES the hell dwellers an excuse, not that it is legitimate or real. But the theology does do that.

This is just a misunderstanding of what the reformed believe. You have come to a conclusion that I have heard no other Arminian or synergist ever reach. If someone else has documented it please let me know - otherwise you might want to reconsider your conclusion as being inconsistent.