Sufficient vs Necessary

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
Can the opposite be shown from Scripture? That man is born again before he can believe? I'd appreciate it very much.
And you responded with:

It doesn't matter.

Oh, yes, it does matter. Very much. If the opposite can't be shown from Scripture, why believe it?

That's not the subject of the OP. The point of the OP is that IF your view is right, grace is not sufficient for a man to be born again, although it is most necessary.

No, that is not my view. Why keep repeating what isn't my view, and calling it my view?

You have said that a man must (necessity) believe first. If there are two necessary things, then neither is sufficient.

The ability to believe is also part of the grace that is sufficient. So your point is not taken. God provided all that is necessary to believe.

Hopefully, this will help provide what I really believe vs what you keep claiming that I believe.

 

[FreeGrace2]

He believes that both grace and belief are necessary components for one to be born again. I don't think I've misunderstood that.

From the charges that you keep leveling, yes, you do still misunderstand my view. The act of believing is an action that God has provided to everyone, so the charge is false.

Your view separates grace from belief, when I've been clear that believing is included in grace, because God created man with the ability to believe and the freedom to believe or reject. And He holds man accountable for their choices. Which is decidedly non RT.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:
Can the opposite be shown from Scripture? That man is born again before he can believe? I'd appreciate it very much.
And you responded with:

Oh, yes, it does matter. Very much. If the opposite can't be shown from Scripture, why believe it?


No, that is not my view. Why keep repeating what isn't my view, and calling it my view?


The ability to believe is also part of the grace that is sufficient. So your point is not taken. God provided all that is necessary to believe.

Hopefully, this will help provide what I really believe vs what you keep claiming that I believe.

Belief is still a necessary component before a man can be born again. In your view, before a man can be born again, he needs to believe. No belief, no born again. So grace is necessary (even for giving ability to believe), but in your view, God will not save anyone apart from belief.

 

[Hammster]

From the charges that you keep leveling, yes, you do still misunderstand my view. The act of believing is an action that God has provided to everyone, so the charge is false.

Your view separates grace from belief, when I've been clear that believing is included in grace, because God created man with the ability to believe and the freedom to believe or reject. And He holds man accountable for their choices. Which is decidedly non RT.

If God had provided the act of believing, then everyone would believe

 

[guuila]

Really? The claim is made, but where's the evidence? Please be specific, and provide verses that back up your evidence. Thanks.

Sure you did. If not, why then did you mention "man's part"? As if man contributes something in order for God to keep His promise to save? So, yes, you certainly did, whether or not that is realized.

Really? In this post? Where, specifically can I find any refutation of my view?

Tools? Is that what I said? No, that is not what I said. Why use words that I don't use? Is that being intellectually honest? Or not? It would be nice to use the words I use. For being accurate about my view.

God graced man with the ability to understand the gospel promise and the freedom to accept or reject it.

If you can actually refute that, please do. I'm quite interested in how you'll accomplish that.

No, you've misunderstood again. IF Calvinism were true, it WOULD BE A VALID EXCUSE,whether or not RT recognizes that.

The ONLY reason it isn't a valid excuse is because Calvinism is not true. Thank God!

I said this:
The point which RT seems to want to distance themselves from, is that the RT doctrine of election does GIVE those in hell the excuse that they weren't chosen. Simple as that.
To which you responded with this:

Why do you keep trying to distance yourself from the FOUNDATION of RT theology, that being the RT version of election?

If my statement is not correct, How so? Please provide a clear explanation of HOW and WHY it is incorrect, if it is.

The very teaching of RT election provides an excuse for those in hell; that being, they weren't chosen. Simple as that.

What you admit to is the RT version of it, not the real doctrine.

So, you can't explain why you brought up "bootstraps" in your post?? I don't need to google it. I know what it means, but I don't know why you brought it up, and it seems there is a huge reluctance on your part to explain why it was brought up.

Yes, sir! That's how I feel about it.

Here is what I posted:
Why deny what the Bible teaches? When God created mankind, all that is necessary to come to faith was given to man. Why is that so offensive to you?
And your answer offered zero explanation, just more claims. No support, no nothing. Would be possible to actually provide some explanation for your drive-by comments?

I do understand that you view my statement as offensive. But how so? Please refute it from Scripture, if that is possible.

What I see here is just another dodge of issues that can't be answered from your theology. At the beginning of your post, this was said:
"Yet, here you are... being refuted again.
yet, there was none of it in this post.

Plus, I've asked for refutation of several of my statements in my response to your post. I'm awaiting that refutation.

I disagree.

Best wishes,

Griff

 

[shturt678s]

He believes that both grace and belief are necessary components for one to be born again. I don't think I've misunderstood that.

Stand corrected, ie, I should have grasped that from previous posts. Grace and "fatih" are of absolute necessity for one's 'instant of faith' effected through repentance, eg, "thief on the Cross" who wasn't born again. And this is probably where the rubber meets the road, ie, sadly agreeing to disagree.

Old Jack

 

[janxharris]

The reason they go to hell is not for lack of being chosen, but because they are guilty for their sins.

Election puts nobody in hell, in merely rescues from hell people that would go there otherwise. Election is all about putting people in heaven, not putting people in hell.

Sin puts people in hell.

Election has nothing to do with why people go to hell, but everything to do with why people DON'T go to hell.

Why isn't this slander?

 

[Skala]

Why isn't this slander?

Huh?

 

[janxharris]

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?

This does not resolved the obvious implications for the very character of God.
Why is this not slander?

 

[Skala]

This does not resolved the obvious implications for the very character of God.
Why is this not slander?

So you think it does damage to the character of God that He would freely have mercy on billions and billions of people that deserve hell?



On the contrary, the Bible describes this wondrous grace as an act of love, and for the glorification of his grace (Eph 1:4-11)

Perhaps you can explain why you disagree with the Bible's opinion on this amazing grace from our Lord?

 

[guuila]

This does not resolved the obvious implications for the very character of God.
Why is this not slander?

Why is it not slander that you're accusing me of slander just because I believe God has the freedom to infallibly save billions and billions of people without respect to any foreknown action on their part when they deserve nothing but eternal torment?

 

[AndOne]

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

that's what I call eisegesis.

 

[AndOne]

No reason to, which will be obvious soon:


Since the Greek word "katartizo" in v.22 doesn't include the idea of "make" or "made", your comments are irrelevant and totally miss the point.

So what your saying then is that all the verses leading up to verse 22 are irrelevant. Nice.

This is what I said, and your comments are dodging:
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.
Why ignore the foundational doctrine of RT; election? Because of the way RT defines election, that in itself gives hell dwellers an excuse.

I feel like I have answered the question adequately - so I'm not going to rehash it.

First, why should I know what synergists think? I'm not one of them. I'm a monergist, but according to the correct definition, not the RT one.

No friend - if you don't believe in election then you are a synergist since you believe that man must participate in his own salvation by an act of his own freewill. I hate to break it to you - but you are a synergist. I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.

That's my view, yet, I'm not RT. So there is obviously more that you're not wanting to admit. Or, are you now admitting that people are in heaven because of faith, and NOT because of election? If you think it includes election, then your statement wasn't completely accurate. I await your answer.

Question - have I not said that faith is a gift from God?

Please provide the verse that teaches that. I've never heard that from anyone, including Calvinists.

Romans 3:10-19 - Also I was mistaken when I wrote John 1 - I meant John 3:19-20.

Correct. Because they AREN'T there because they weren't chosen. They are there because they rejected God's free gift. Do you agree with this?

No - see John 3:19-20 again.

Since all mankind is destined for hell, according to your statement, what is the difference between those in hell and those in heaven? The ONLY difference is that God chose those in heaven. This cannot be denied.

I never denied it.

Right. Which is my point exactly: those going to heaven were elected or CHOSEN. The rest were NOT chosen, which gives them an excuse. For the life of me, I cannot understand why RT does not see the point that their view of election GIVES an excuse for those in hell.

Well - maybe when you can understand that a person who believes that they must participate in their salvation by their own free will is a synergist you can understand RT a little better.

 

[shturt678s]

that's what I call eisegesis.

Thank you for at reading my post, ie, most try to do the slide, ie, just slide right on by

Old Jack

 

[AndOne]

Thank you for at reading my post, ie, most try to do the slide, ie, just slide right on by

Old Jack

Well - I have a job that keeps me pretty busy - and a family that I like to spend time with - so if I happen to miss a post that you responded to me with because a thousand posts were made in the interim from the last time I was able to get on CF - that is why...

 

[shturt678s]

Well - I have a job that keeps me pretty busy - and a family that I like to spend time with - so if I happen to miss a post that you responded to me with because a thousand posts were made in the interim from the last time I was able to get on CF - that is why...

Job + family + this great forum, ie, you're doing better than me.

I'm an old man and just overkill to the extreme Bible thumper 24/7 except when taking others to their appointments, and etc, ie, doesn't make my view any more valid than anyone's elses nor righteous.

Old Jack

 

[FreeGrace2]

Belief is still a necessary component before a man can be born again. In your view, before a man can be born again, he needs to believe. No belief, no born again. So grace is necessary (even for giving ability to believe), but in your view, God will not save anyone apart from belief.

And it's all grace, right? You're not making your point.

The problem is that RT rejects that God created mankind with the ability to understand the gospel, and the freedom to accept or reject it. With that mindset, it is impossible to have a real discussion. The roadblock is just too high.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If God had provided the act of believing, then everyone would believe

Huh? According to RT, God did provide the act of believing, but only to the chosen ones. Your statement surprises me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I disagree.

And that is ok.

What I'm looking for, though, is for someone who disagrees to actually refute from Scripture my views. To just disagree doesn't mean a lot.

I'm as interested as you are of being aligned with truth. The idea of being on the wrong side of anything theological really bothers me. So I look to Scripture for truth. And I've shared what I have found. I have more verses that actually SAY what I believe than RT does. And I recall someone admitting that RT theology doesn't come so much from specific statements as it does from inference.

Now, that's a big admission.

But I don't need inference when I have verses that actually SAY what I believe.

 

[AndOne]

Job + family + this great forum, ie, you're doing better than me.

I'm an old man and just overkill to the extreme Bible thumper 24/7 except when taking others to their appointments, and etc, ie, doesn't make my view any more valid than anyone's elses nor righteous.

Old Jack

Well - one thing is for certain, brother - none of us are experts - which is why we are posting on CF and not theologians in some seminary somewhere...