For By Grace Are Ye Saved

"Soft Determinism" is merely a necessity that the Determinist needs to avoid (soften)the blow of theological fatalism. The Determinist necessarily needs to proclaim that man has free will somewhere in their systematic theological principles as to develop a way to avoid constructing God as the author of sin; so they have developed a fallicious theory of compatibility. This theory is a mere attempt to prove that free will and not free will can both be true. Also, the “Compatibilists” can not logically get around creaturely responsibility while holding their necessary view of how God must be in sovereign control by having predestined the elect (and the only logical conclusion that others were not predestined to be elect) at the foundation of the world and before time even began.

“Maximizes” in other words “redefines” free will by making this link to “desires and motivations” and then attempts to claim God sovereignly gives/controls all these desires and motivation (I’m thinking robots here by selective grace) and somehow after this determination predestined man becomes logically responsible for his action which presumably were irresistible because he was unconditionally elected before time began. Ah Huh!

What the compatiblist does is attempt to redefine free will accordingly to fit their theology. Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose, and again, one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.

 

Here we go again!

The Greek "This" does not refer directly to either grace or faith (because, as you know, the neuter pronoun and the feminine nouns).

However, the construction καί τουτο is quite significant. These two words together show there is a considerable stress and connection of the two preceding circumstances and is meant to clarify faith and its origin as being a gift from God.

So, while there is not a direct grammatical reference the "this" even if it refers directly to salvation--which it does--is directly intended to include both grace and faith.

It is widely known from reading Paul that grace is a gift. The καί τουτο is Paul's clarification to include faith itself in the overall gift of salvation so that both grace and faith are seen as part and parcel.

Also, it does not have to be the case that neuter pronouns can only refer to neuter nouns. A.T. Robertson (whose interpretation of this verse I reject, I'm sorry to say) will even say that pronouns and the antecedent nouns generally agree in gender. Notice "generally" which is to say that they do not have to.

Furthermore the major verbs of the passage made us alive, raised us up, seated us, are all prefixed with the preposition συν which coupled with the fact that these three verbs are all aorist shows God doing these three works--making us alive, raising us up, and seating us--as being done together with Christ. So, these things are not done at a later date (ie. when we come to Christ). From God's perspective we were made alive, raised up, and seated, when Christ was on the cross--at that one moment in eternity.

So, since God did these three things to us at the Cross (actually did them, not provisionally did them) it must be the case that all these things bring about our salvation. So, God's grace is indefatigably obtained for His elect on the cross.

Now, I will go so far as to say that faith, though a gift, is part of the human response to God. But, salvation must always be presented so that God is the Initiator and man is the responder--because that is always the biblical model.

So, sleep well and maybe you can re-evaluate the text in the morning.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Hello Arch :wavey:

I disagree with you on this but also understand what you are saying.
Greek scholars of the highest calibur do not agree exactly on this issue of faith in the passage in question, to mean that Paul is including faith in with grace as a gift given directly from God to man. That says something in and of itself

I believe this is not so much an issue with grammer per-se as it is with preference relating to the grammer, at least with this passage. It is for this reason some state your view and other a different one in relation to faith but maintianing the same view on salvation.

Now with respect to the above.. This is a hill on which I would die and a truth I will never cease to speak.

 

Seeing this as referring to grace, faith, having been saved is one of the views held by many. I believe that can be a legitimate view but not one that forces faith into a Calvinist mold. We would be remiss to say all of life and existence is not a gift of God. Only a Fool would venture out on that limb. From the stand point of that context faith is the ability of man created in God's image to exercise or place in an object. In this case the object is the grace of God. For me theologically speaking and supported form scripture faith is the responsibility man. The overwhelming evidence is revealed as follows, "your faith", "his faith", "their faith", "little faith", "much faith", "great faith" etc. We cannot overlook these numerous facts as the cost of straining a gnat around a tree to prove a point.

The reference in Romans 5: 15 that some reference as Grace being a gift does not stand. En is instrumental dative (by grace) not a genitive "of grace".

Here we go again more of the same Calvinist teaching. You can search high and low - deep and wide and you will not fine one statement that puts new birth before faith. Faith first / regeneration - saved second. Luke 7:50 Jesus who is God told the woman "your faith has saved you" Paul teaches us in Titus that saved is the Holy Spirit washing of regeneration and renewing.

1) Faith first
2) saved second and what is saved? washing of regeneration and renewing

Washing or regeneration and renewing happened in a nana second, a flash when sinner man believed, he actually exercised his faith and trusted in Christ, then and only then was he by the Holy Spirit washed by the regeneration (new birth) and renewing.

Regards
Benefactor




Well here it is 6:28 am and I am still right. Anyone care for a cup of coffee?

 

Ok. I'll assume for a minute there is a "saving faith" separate from what we know faith to be, and it is a special gift to the minority of mankind. The majority that are not granted this gift...according to John 3:18, how can they be accountable for not using a gift that was never given to them?

 

Because Romans 1 tells us they already freely rejected God, just like us. That is why repentance is necessary. You have to turn from what you already chose.

 

I thought General Revelation was not enough to lead to salvation. John 3:16 - 18 states man either accepts Christ (not general revelation), or rejects Christ. When the lost stand before God, it is not to be judged on what they did with nature, it is what did they do with His Son.
Also, since Scripture clearly states man KNOWS there is a God, those that reject Him in Romans 1 have the ability to go against the Truth.
Lastly, how can man be held accountable in not only rejecting a gift, but since Christ did not die to save them, they are responsible for rejecting a God that didn't come to save them? Makes no sense.

 

Nothing in John 3:16-18 about accepting or rejecting. Just a statement of fact, which can be summarized like this "If you believe, you live". You can say "Whatever battery that has a charge, will start the car." Nowhere does that statement imply choice, though.

Let's look at the verse...


Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.


See the "already"? They are not condemned by not believing in Christ. They are condemned "already. Previously. This is agreeing with what I just stated. Those who are condemned, are already condemned by their prior rejection of God. The fact that they do not believe in Christ, just means they do not get saved from that condemnation.

Not sure what you are saying about Romans 1. Could you clarify? Thanks.

And Thank you for being gracious, and not spitting the word "Calvinist" at me.

 

Sorry for getting into the middle of your conversation but 'if I may'..

I agree look at the verse. Even in your explaination you leave off an important part.

As I said, you missed the important the part that states 'why' they are condemned already - it is because they have not believed.
They are condemned 'already' simply refers to the fact that even though they live they and have not YET been judged, they are condemned 'already' due to their choice of not believing or as the scripture stated because he has not believed.

 

The information of J3 is not isolated from Chapters 1 to 21 in its "Book" or "Gospel of John" context, neither is it isolated from chapter one and two specifically etc. If we allow to cherry pick scripture of course foreign kings of doctrine can be support in the absent of actually language. That is assumption.

Later in J3 Jesus teaches the meaning of the previous comments, but if one has a model that this disagrees with then of course cherry picking is a must.

 

I don't believe in a special "saving faith". This is never mentioned in scripture. It is the object of faith that is of importance. If we place our faith in anything other than Jesus Christ, we will not be saved.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God. The other day Old Regular submitted John 3:5-8 as proof that the Holy Spirit regenerates a man to believe. It never mentions that. In fact, it only mentions one effect upon man, and that is that we can "hear it"

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

So again, Jesus statements to Nicodemus support Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing the word of God.

 

I don't believe in it either, I stated that for arguments sake using their own logic.

 

So you admit it is the doctrine of man?

 

Now, OR I do try to hug a Calvinist here and there, there are a few in my SS class. It is very hard but I do manage it. Anyway if you are occupying the place confessional priest then I will tell you that I had rather :tonofbricks: verses hug one and it this :flower: were a tulip I would jump up and down on it, over and over again.

 

Look at the next three verses:

Light does not just illuminate some people; it also condemns other people.

For some, the light causes them to scamper into the shadows and away from the light. The light condemns them.
For others, the light causes them to come to the light, and the light reveals that their goodness is in God.

Notice that verse 18 says that those who believe not are condemned already. They are already under condemnation for their sins. The punishment is already something that they deserve. However, since salvation is by grace through faith, it cannot be demanded. God is under no obligation to give anyone the grace necessary to secure his salvation. The President is under no obligation to pardon anyone on death row because they deserve this punishment. Just because the President does actually pardon some on death row, and they hence are freed from justice and live as free men, does not obligate the President to pardon everyone on death row. Those who receive their punishment receive it justly as everyone deserves. Those who are pardoned receive grace that they do not deserve. Grace is not an obligation in any respect on God's part, and He is perfectly vindicated to give some what they deserve and some grace that they do not deserve.

Why is it that just about any non-universalist Christian will wholeheartedly assent that God would be perfectly just and vindicated to give everyone what he deserves in sending everyone to hell. Yet, merely to suggest that God would send only some to hell while bestowing grace upon others makes God "a monster"? It doesn't make a lick of sense. If God is just for sending everyone to hell, why is He wrong to send only some to hell, and give others what they do not deserve? If everyone deserves hell, there is no injustice for those who actually go to hell, and grace for the others is completely unmerited, yet still right for God to do. The argument that God has to "give everyone a chance" totally voids any previous affirmation that God is just in giving man what he deserves. Grace is not an obligation on God's part; it is a free gift on God's part.

Of course, I am not saying that saving grace happens apart from faith, but the faith from illumination is part of the efficacious grace that the Light brings to God's elect.

 

Winman seems to do that a lot. Stating verses that Abraham believed God when his and Sarah's wombs were "dead" to giving birth is absolutely silly to compare with being "dead in trespasses and sins" to prove that one has the intrinsic ability to believe the Gospel. Not all forms of "dead" are created equal. Does one's computer or car battery being "dead" prevent someone from believing the Gospel?

Being "dead in sins" has to do with one's ability to believe or act contrary to one's spiritual nature.
Being "dead" in the womb has to do with one's physical ability to procreate.

These two are not mixable; however, God raising someone to spiritual life so that he believes the Gospel contrary to his nature is just as much (if not more) a miracle as God quickening a dead womb to procreate.

 

Could not the thinking that faith in the Gospel is the same "faith" as flipping a light switch and expecting light be considered a man-made doctrine? Regardless, where is the Scripture that says that everyone has "faith" (as in salvific quality) but just needs to "place" it in the right "object"? What about 2 Thes 3:2 and Rom 12:3?