Sufficient vs Necessary

[guuila]

Gosh this is fun.

 

[shturt678s]

Man is immortal whether regenerated or not, ie, not eternal life without beginning or end.

Old Jack

 

[FreeGrace2]

Wrong.

Making a claim doesn't make it true.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36 ESV)

Right. And 1 Jn 2:2 isn't related to Jn 3:36.

John said that Christ IS the propitiation for our (believers' sins) and for the sins of the whole world. Please explain what propitiation means to you. That will help in furthering this discussion. AT this point, it isn't clear that you properly understand what it is. And who is being propitiated, and why they are.

Thanks.

 

[guuila]

Right. And 1 Jn 2:2 isn't related to Jn 3:36.

I never said it was. Although, it's worth noting that it's the same author, and you're forcing him to contradict himself.

John said that Christ IS the propitiation for our (believers' sins) and for the sins of the whole world.

I know. But kosmos has at least eight different definitions. I don't force it to mean 100% of humanity like you do.

Please explain what propitiation means to you. That will help in furthering this discussion. AT this point, it isn't clear that you properly understand what it is. And who is being propitiated, and why they are.

Thanks.

Propitiation is the removal of God's wrath. If Christ is the propitiation for my sins, that means God's wrath has been removed from me because of what Christ did.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So if Calvinism is true, and God elects sinners unto eternal life unconditionally, you think that means the ones not elected don't deserve hell?

Why did you ignore my question in post #251?
"When Christ atoned for sin, who was propitiated?"

Please answer.

As to your question here, everyone deserves hell.

Fortunately Calvinism isn't true, because people go to hell for rejecting the free gift of eternal life.

And people go to heaven because they received the free gift of eternal life.

If you disagree, please explain why.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So eternal life is grace-given. But one isn't regenerate unless one accepts that gift. So, grace is necessary, but not sufficient. Man must accept the gift to be saved.

You didn't answer my question. Why the dodge again?

 

[Hammster]

You didn't answer my question. Why the dodge again?

Because my point was to show that you believe grace is necessary, but not sufficient. I've done that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

In synergism (and the like), grace is powerless to do anything unless man does his part. Then and only then is grace sufficient to save. But as you rightly pointed out, "accepting the gift" is done in an unregenerate "non-grace" state.

What was pointed out is false and not what was said by me or anyone else. It would be considered honest and decent to accurately portray the views of others, instead of such mischaracterizations.

Therefore, grace is not sufficient in synergism and Free Grace theology.

This is totally false. I've explain WHY and HOW grace is sufficient. It's just that RT and FG don't agree on what is included in sufficiency.

For RT, it means that God gives what isn't asked for, nor wanted, because RT also claims that unregenerate man hates God and wants nothing to do with God. So God just regenerates him which changes him to want what he formerly hated. Yet, there isn't any verses that actually teach this stuff.

otoh, FG theology says what the Bible says. That God has already given to mankind all that is necessary to come to faith, and He holds man accountable for whether he does or not. But regardless, man has no excuse for not coming to faith in Christ.

If you disagree and are able to refute this from Scripture, please proceed.

Grace depends on an external source, namely, the supposed libertarian free will of man.

Oh, there we go again! It's all about free will, huh? Wrong. It's all about God's grace, and man's response to that grace.

How can grace depend on man's choices? That is absurd. If that is what you think I believe, you have revealed just how poorly you have comprehended my posts.

We are saved by grace. That means that we don't deserve it, nor have earned it. That is the FG view. Do you disagree with that?

Yet, God requires that man believe. And Paul made very clear that faith isn't a work that creates a debt.

God promises eternal life on the basis of faith. Do you understand what self obligation means?

Do you believe that God self obligates or not? Please answer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

it's not a bogus claim, because some people believe that grace results in the person receiving the gift, and other people don't believe that grace results in that.

Right. For those in RT, grace means God giving to someone what they never asked for, nor wanted. That's some "grace".

Thus, in the former, grace is sufficient for the person's salvation, in the latter, it's necessary, but not sufficient.

Apparently by "sufficient" RT means that God gives what people don't want. That's hardly the Biblical view of grace.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Basically wrong, however.

False. Calvinists believe 100% of the truth. Please see this giant collection of verses that prove it:

I'm looking for a verse that SAYS that Christ didn't die for everyone.
That SAYS that Christ died only for a subgroup of the human race.
That SAYS that God chooses who will believe.

When you find verses that SAYS those things, I'll convert to RT. But not until.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I never said it was. Although, it's worth noting that it's the same author, and you're forcing him to contradict himself.

Please explain HOW so. I haven't, so I'm interesting in seeing why you think such an erroneous view.

I know. But kosmos has at least eight different definitions. I don't force it to mean 100% of humanity like you do.

Please provide evidence that I "force" any word 100% of the time. This is a challenge. If evidence isn't provided to back up this claim, it will demonstrate the fallaciousness of said claim.

Propitiation is the removal of God's wrath.

hilasmos
Thayer Definition:
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

Nothing about "removal". The word isn't about God's wrath, but about His justice. Which was satisfied by Christ's payment for all sin. And frees God to extend grace to man, who doesn't deserve it.

If Christ is the propitiation for my sins, that means God's wrath has been removed from me because of what Christ did.

No, it doesn't. It means God's justice was satisfied when Christ paid your sins. But you and everyone else is STILL born dead in sins. It didn't remove sins. It satisfied the justice of God. And removed the penalty of sin from man.

Which leaves only one reason why anyone goes to hell. They don't have eternal life and are not qualified to live with God eternally.

Col 1:12-
giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

What does "qualified us" mean to you in this verse?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Because my point was to show that you believe grace is necessary, but not sufficient. I've done that.

No you haven't. I explained that grace is sufficient. But we obviously have very different understandings of what "sufficient" means. To RT, it seems to mean that God gives to those who don't want and never asked for it. Maybe sufficient force, but that isn't sufficient.

Once again, God gives to mankind all that is necessary to come to faith. I proved that, whether you understood it or not. So everyone is able to come to faith in Christ. And God holds man accountable because man has no excuse.

In RT, man HAS an excuse for not coming to faith in Christ.
#1 God didn't elect him for salvation.
#2 God didn't regenerate him in order to enable him to believe.
#3 God didn't give him the gift of faith.

Please look for errors in my 3 points. If you find any, please advise.

In the Bible, man has NO excuse for not coming to faith in Christ.

That's the difference between RT and me.

 

[Hammster]

No you haven't. I explained that grace is sufficient. But we obviously have very different understandings of what "sufficient" means. To RT, it seems to mean that God gives to those who don't want and never asked for it. Maybe sufficient force, but that isn't sufficient.

Sufficient means nothing else is needed.

Once again, God gives to mankind all that is necessary to come to faith. I proved that, whether you understood it or not. So everyone is able to come to faith in Christ. And God holds man accountable because man has no excuse.

But since not all men are saved, something else must be necessary for them to be saved.

In RT, man HAS an excuse for not coming to faith in Christ.
#1 God didn't elect him for salvation.
#2 God didn't regenerate him in order to enable him to believe.
#3 God didn't give him the gift of faith.

Please look for errors in my 3 points. If you find any, please advise.

In the Bible, man has NO excuse for not coming to faith in Christ.

That's the difference between RT and me.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. We all know your view is different and that you disagree with Calvinism. It has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[guuila]

Why did you ignore my question in post #251?
"When Christ atoned for sin, who was propitiated?"

God.

 

[AndOne]

I recommend the use of a lexicon. It certainly DOESN'T say what you are claiming here. No one was "made" for wrath. That's totally fallacious! The Greek word is "katartizo".
katartizō

1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete
1a) to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair
1a1) to complete
1b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust
1b1) to fit or frame for one’s self, prepare
1c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be

Nothing there about "make".

Maybe you should back up a bit in the text:

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? - ESV Version

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? - NIV version

Again - your argument is with Paul not Calvinists.

Hardly. The point is that RT gives hell dwellers an excuse for being there: they weren't chosen for heaven. Or were they but they refused? Or something else. Since you don't agree with my view, WHY not?

We all know that there are sinners in heaven and hell. What's the difference if not who was chosen by God for heaven? And if you say "grace", then you'll only be agreeing with my view, because such grace chooses who will go to heaven, and we all know that RT teaches that God chooses who will believe, etc. So, RT does give hell dwellers an excuse.

As I said earlier - your view is unique to your position. Can you show me another synergist that has come to this conclusion? If not - it is indicative of someone who does not understand Calvinism.

No one in hell has an excuse for being there - since all those who are there love their sin and the things of this world more than Christ. That is an element of RT that they teach from scripture (John 1 for example) that you are missing completely. If you love your sin and you are in hell then that is the reason you are there. Any one not in hell is in heaven by the grace of God through faith in His son.

The whole point is that the Calvinist doctrine of election does do that. It gives those in hell an excuse BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN.

They are in hell because they loved darkness more than they loved the light. They will have no excuse.

#1 RT believes that all whom God chose for salvation will go to heaven. Right?
#2 RT believes that those not chosen all go to hell. Right?

Yes to one - but no to two. RT teaches that all mankind is destined to hell. We are destined to hell because we love sin and hate God. Those in hell loved their sin and hate God. All who hate God, break His commandments, take desire in wicked and evil things go to hell. That's all of us - except for those who are elected for salvation who receive grace.

So why does RT deny that the only difference is who is chosen or unchosen, which has been my point?

Now, if these 2 statements do not represent RT, please correct my errors. Thanks.

I have given you my understanding of the situation and what I believe is taught within RT. I hope that helps.

 

[guuila]

What was pointed out is false and not what was said by me or anyone else. It would be considered honest and decent to accurately portray the views of others, instead of such mischaracterizations.

What was pointed out by the monergists is true and couldn't possibly be any more accurate.

This is totally false. I've explain WHY and HOW grace is sufficient. It's just that RT and FG don't agree on what is included in sufficiency.

Okay. Well, I think you're about the only one here who doesn't see that grace is insufficient to bring a person to saving faith in the Free Grace scheme.

For RT, it means that God gives what isn't asked for, nor wanted, because RT also claims that unregenerate man hates God and wants nothing to do with God. So God just regenerates him which changes him to want what he formerly hated. Yet, there isn't any verses that actually teach this stuff.

Praise God. I'm glad God loves me so much he didn't wait for me to act. Instead, he took the initiative to infallibly bring me to repentance and faith. What wondrous love is this? One you despise, evidently. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Geez...

otoh, FG theology says what the Bible says. That God has already given to mankind all that is necessary to come to faith, and He holds man accountable for whether he does or not. But regardless, man has no excuse for not coming to faith in Christ.

Right. Free Grace theology teaches that God gave us what we need. Whether we choose to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps or not has nothing to do with God's grace, other than God's grace helped.

Oh, there we go again! It's all about free will, huh? Wrong. It's all about God's grace, and man's response to that grace.

Haha.

 

[shturt678s]

Maybe you should back up a bit in the text:

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? - ESV Version

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? - NIV version

Again - your argument is with Paul not Calvinists.

As I said earlier - your view is unique to your position. Can you show me another synergist that has come to this conclusion? If not - it is indicative of someone who does not understand Calvinism.

No one in hell has an excuse for being there - since all those who are there love their sin and the things of this world more than Christ. That is an element of RT that they teach from scripture (John 1 for example) that you are missing completely. If you love your sin and you are in hell then that is the reason you are there. Any one not in hell is in heaven by the grace of God through faith in His son.

They are in hell because they loved darkness more than they loved the light. They will have no excuse.

Yes to one - but no to two. RT teaches that all mankind is destined to hell. We are destined to hell because we love sin and hate God. Those in hell loved their sin and hate God. All who hate God, break His commandments, take desire in wicked and evil things go to hell. That's all of us - except for those who are elected for salvation who receive grace.

I have given you my understanding of the situation and what I believe is taught within RT. I hope that helps.

Maybe we should move forward to the Context, ie, Rom.9:21 We shouldn't assume that the whole story as to why some are saved and others are lost is figuratively described in this verse, but the tertium comparationis of this figure, like every tertium of a figure, deals only with one point, ie, that of blame; as the potter cannot be blamed by any vessel which he turns out for dishonor instead of making it like another for honor, so also God cannot be blamed by any man whom he hardens instead of saving him.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[guuila]

Please explain HOW so. I haven't, so I'm interesting in seeing why you think such an erroneous view.

John says in chapter 3 that God's wrath remains on unbelievers. You're teaching that God's wrath has been propitiated toward unbelievers because of Christ. If God's wrath is appeased against a person, it no longer remains on them. Hope that clears up your confusion.

Please provide evidence that I "force" any word 100% of the time. This is a challenge. If evidence isn't provided to back up this claim, it will demonstrate the fallaciousness of said claim.

1 John 2:2. You think world means 100% of humanity.

hilasmos
Thayer Definition:
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

Nothing about "removal".

If God's wrath against me is appeased, it is removed. It is satisfied.

The word isn't about God's wrath, but about His justice. Which was satisfied by Christ's payment for all sin. And frees God to extend grace to man, who doesn't deserve it.

Justice demands God's wrath. Not sure why you're trying to separate the two.

No, it doesn't. It means God's justice was satisfied when Christ paid your sins.

Amen. All sins were atoned for, and God's wrath propitiated against me.

But you and everyone else is STILL born dead in sins.

Uh huh. Looks like you forgot you're talking to a Calvinist. I believe man is more depraved than you do, but thanks for the info.

It didn't remove sins.

I never said it did.

It satisfied the justice of God. And removed the penalty of sin from man.

If God's justice is satisfied for Bob, and God sends Bob to hell anyway, God is unjust.

Which leaves only one reason why anyone goes to hell. They don't have eternal life and are not qualified to live with God eternally.

Beg the question much? You're basically saying, "They don't have eternal life because they don't have eternal life." The reason they go to hell is because they are guilty of sin that was not atoned for.

Col 1:12-
giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

What does "qualified us" mean to you in this verse?

May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. (Colossians 1:11-12 ESV)

Who is "you" Paul is talking to? Oh yeah... context!

To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: (Colossians 1:2 ESV)

The Father qualified the saints at Colossae. Well, that was fun.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sufficient means nothing else is needed.

Right. And I explained already that God has already given everything necessary for man to believe in His promise of eternal life. So His grace is sufficient for anyone to come to faith. Can you refute that from Scripture?

But since not all men are saved, something else must be necessary for them to be saved.

Nope. They just rejected His grace.

A short list that supports my claim:

Lev 26:43, Num 11:20, 1 Sam 8:7, 15:23, Isa 5:24, Jer 8:9, Ezek 5:6, 20:13,16,24, and 1 Pet 2:4.

God's grace can and is rejected every day.

So much for the doctrine of "irresistible grace". Why believe what the Bible does NOT teach?

 

[Hammster]

Right. And I explained already that God has already given everything necessary for man to believe in His promise of eternal life. So His grace is sufficient for anyone to come to faith. Can you refute that from Scripture?

It's sufficient in that no works are required.

Nope. They just rejected His grace.

Right. In your view, it's necessary for grace to be accepted. So, grace ALONE isn't sufficient. Every a regiment that you make affirms this. I'm not sure why you keep pretending that it doesn't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What was pointed out by the monergists is true and couldn't possibly be any more accurate.

Since I rejected and refuted what was claimed to be my view, I have refuted your claim here.

Okay. Well, I think you're about the only one here who doesn't see that grace is insufficient to bring a person to saving faith in the Free Grace scheme.

I've explained WHY it is. But it seems Calvinists aren't understanding the explanation. By the FACT that God has given everything to mankind in order to be able to come to faith, proves that God's grace IS sufficient to save.

Please show me from Scripture where my error here is. Just making claims doesn't prove anything.

RT cannot prove that man cannot come to faith apart from regeneration. The claim is not true.

Praise God. I'm glad God loves me so much he didn't wait for me to act. Instead, he took the initiative to infallibly bring me to repentance and faith. What wondrous love is this? One you despise, evidently. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Geez…

It's not "wondrous", but maybe delirious. There aren't any verses that support this claim. I don't know why Calvinism doesn't understand that God created mankind with all that is necessary to understand His promises and the freedom to either accept or reject His promises. That is what the Bible teaches.

btw, while you may think your view is "wondrous" and all, what about those in hell who weren't chosen by God to bring them to repentance and faith. That would provide them with the excuse that God didn't choose them. Once again affirming my claim that RT provides an excuse for hell dwellers, by your doctrine of election.

Right. Free Grace theology teaches that God gave us what we need. Whether we choose to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps or not has nothing to do with God's grace, other than God's grace helped.

I have no idea what "bootstraps" means or why it was brought into the discussion. Since you at least acknowledge the FG view that God has already given man what is necessary to come to faith, the rest of your claim is meaningless and totally irrelevant.

Maybe we should bring in "strings", as in "puppets on a string".

[/QUOTE]Haha.[/QUOTE]
Seems Calvinists are allergic to the idea of free will.