Question re; Your definition/understanding of "Works" and "Grace"

HP: The text does not indicate he had “no faith.” I would agree that he showed reluctance to fulfill the stated conditions,…….but he did show at least some faith however weak it might have been. I believe the text does show clearly that a gift from God indeed can and often does have conditions, and one can be required to fulfill the conditions without a just charge that if one complies 'the gift' was acquired or gained from God on a ‘works’ basis.

There are several examples in Scripture where God required man to do something in order to receive a gift from God, yet compliance to what God required to receive the gift in no wise constitutes a ‘works based’ receiving. (one other example I gave in this thread was the serpent being raised up on the pole by Moses) God requires man to fulfill certain conditions for salvation yet that in no wise equates to a works based salvation, neither does it diminish or take away the grace from whence it comes. When man is required to fulfill a condition in order to receive a gift from God, be it healing or salvation, the ‘work’ required is not meritorious in nature nor is the work required in any way confused with the proper ‘grounds’ of the gift. The fulfilling of the required condition (although it requires us to do something and thereby a work in some sense) is always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ When we fulfill the required condition it cannot be said we are establishing a ‘works based’ salvation or a ‘works based’ healing because there is no merit in the work itself that we are required to do. Obedience to God’s required conditions in no way ‘merits’ us anything nor does obedience to the conditions required by God for receiving His gifts take away or add to the grace which is in fact the grounds of those gifts from God, whether or not we are speaking of healing, salvation, or any other gift from God for that matter.

Again. the works we are required to do are not to establish the grounds of our receiving of a gift from God, nor can the gift itself be merited in any way by the performance of the required condition or any other action on our part for that matter. To charge one with ‘adding to grace’ by the mere recognizing that man must do something commanded by God to receive a gift is most often a false charge without merit. Man 'can be under certain circumstances' justly charged with adding to grace IF in fact they require out of man something God does not require, or if in fact they require out of man to fulfill something God does not require for us to fulfill, but that is not the case with the three conditions required by God for salvation, (and the only three that I have heard any on this list say God requires for salvation) which are repentance, faith, and obedience until the end. God does in fact require these conditions to be fulfilled by us to not only enter into a hope of eternal life, but to gain it in the end as well in its finality, although again none of these things are meritorious in any way and by the fulfilling of these conditions it cannot be said any of these things add or take away from the grace or free gift by which salvation comes. If it is a condition required by God for man to receive of His gift and grace, it is always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ and NOT in any meritorious sense or sense that if we do these things we are ‘working for’ our gift or 'working for' our salvation.

 

While we are on this subject, let me illustrate the unjust charges that have been made against what I have stated. I have been equated by Steaver, to Roman Catholics and others simply on the basis of saying there are conditions to salvation. I have limited the conditions of salvation to the three conditions I believe have ample testimony in Scripture as being required, i.e., repentance, faith, and obedience until the end. Is that the case with those I have been related to?? Many might require water baptism, membership into certain organizations via baptism etc. in order to part of the family of God. Some might require worshipping on a certain day or adherence to certain doctrines all as part of requirements of salvation. I would certainly believe that to require things for salvation that Scripture does not, indeed does take away from God’s grace and as such those supporting such notions could be justly charged with presenting a ‘works based’ salvation.

To equate what I have said as being part and parcel to other groups, such as the Roman Catholics as Steaver has done, is ludicrous and as such an unjust and absurd charge, but what is fairness to Steaver??

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Let me put this in as simple terms as I am able. If ‘all is of God,’ ‘all is determined by God.’ If all is determined by God and God alone, determinism rules and that without question.

HP: Don’t mince words DHK. If salvation is ‘all of God’ and none of man, pray tell us why or how all is not determined by God? Slice it any way you so desire, He that it is “all” by determines the outcome. IF you desire to say it is ‘all of God’ but man must choose, you are adding a condition of man choosing therefore it is not ‘all of God’ but a combination of God and man choosing. Your problem is clear. You will not make a distinction between the grounds and conditions of salvation.

HP: You have created your own lie to view anything I have ever stated or implied. Your charge of "blasphemy" is unjust and uncalled for and is an affront to not only truth, reason, and justice but the rules of this forum. Your comments are despicable DHK.

 

My, my, my. A little turn about and you shout UNFAIR!!!

I thought the RCC comment would open your eyes to your own rhetoric against DHK and I of calling us Calvinistic. But you didn't see the irony.

I'll make you a brotherly treaty. You leave Calvin out of my views and I will leave the RCC out of yours.

Let me know.

:jesus:

 

Steaver, there is a just connection between the deterministic ends of Calvinism and your views as well as those of DHK, and there is not a just connection between myself and the RCC. Sorry, no deal.

 

2Ki 5:11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.
2Ki 5:12 [Are] not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
2Ki 5:13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, [if] the prophet had bid thee [do some] great thing, wouldest thou not have done [it]? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?
2Ki 5:14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
2Ki 5:15¶And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that [there is] no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

You cannot deny it or excuse it. Naaman had no faith in the God of Israel until after he received his gift.

This is a Calvinistic doctrine. I am sure you will abandon Naaman's healing now as some sort of example of how God saves.

Naaman's gift was all of works on his part and no faith. Isn't faith included in your conditions list?

:jesus:

 

It's a matter of opinion. The deal is always open, let me know if you change your mind.

:thumbsup:

 

It is not a simple matter of a difference of opinion. It is a matter of a just and an unjust comparison.

 

There are but two basic positions to take on salvation, a deterministic one or one of freedom and choice. All agree that God alone is the creator of salvation and it is through His blood alone that salvation is made possible. We all agree that man plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in the grounds of salvation for the grounds of salvation is by Gods grace alone. Nothing but God’s grace necessitates the implementation of the plan of salvation period.

We are all in agreement as far as I know as to the grounds of salvation being all of God, and it can be rightfully stated when speaking of the grounds of salvation that salvation is indeed “all of God.” Now comes the rub. Calvinism comes along and inserts an idea foreign to the Word of God and foreign to reason that man then plays no part in salvation, and that there are no, and cannot be any, conditions to salvation or one has created salvation by works. Nothing can be further from the truth. God has so designed salvation for man to play a role, NOT in the design or implementation of the plan, but rather in making the plan effective in our individual lives.

You have but two alternatives to take. Either you can take the position that all is of God, including but not limited to the means by which it is implemented individually, making repentance and faith the sole work of God, or you can take the position of freedom of the will in that God forces or coerces no one to salvation, but rather offers it to all that hear the gospel message and allowing man to choose voluntarily to fulfill the stated conditions and live, or refuse the stated conditions and die.

If you deny there are conditions of salvation, there is only one possible end, i.e., determinism and that by God alone. To say there are no conditions and that salvation is by God and God alone, man playing no part whatsoever, yet deny ones position is deterministic, is to cavil at just reason itself. It is to refuse to accept the truth of ones stated position and believe a lie concerning it. You cannot logically or reasonably say flat out without qualification that salvation is accomplished by God alone….yet man must choose to accept, for choosing is in itself a condition that must involve contrary choice to be a choice at all. If you say God causes us to choose we are right smack back to the determinism Calvinism has been part of for centuries. Double deterministic predestination is the only end of such argumentation.

There is only one way to avoid Calvinistic determinism with its absurd logical ends of double predestination, and that is by accepting the Biblical position that man must of his own will fulfill the stated conditions of repentance and faith to be saved.

 

Well that is debatable :tongue3:

But I have better things to debate. The offer remains open at all times.

:wavey:

 

I agree.

The repentence that saves is the turning from unbelief to belief, which is turning in faith towards God through Jesus Christ.

Repentence of sins and dead works is a process that follows regeneration.

:godisgood:

 

HP: No you do not agree. You are stating precisely the well known Calvinistic opinion. Repentance is not the results of being saved or regenerated. One must exercise repentance in order to be saved and as such regenerated. Sorry, but you have it precisely backwards as do all following Calvinism or leaning hard towards it. Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 

Concerning yourself HP: IF you lied to someone and didn't have a chance to make it right, to repent, then suddenly died of a heart attack, would you go to heaven or hell?
Can you give an honest answer?

 

We are hitting right at the heart of contention in the Christian world on issues of grace and works. Steaver has demonstrated precisely the Calvinistic notion, unfounded by the Word of God, that God must regenerate the soul ‘antecedent’ to one becoming saved and antecedent to repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are not the results of being saved, but rather are conditions God calls on man to perform in order to be saved. If one desires to be saved, he must exercise repentance and faith as conditions of acceptance before God.

Steaver, if you desire to separate yourself from the system of thought known in the church world as the system of Calvinistic determination and the double predestination it imbibes, you are going to have to rethink the whole salvation process and coin your words in a way inconsistent with Calvinism which you by no means have done thus far.

 

No he hasn't. That is what you want him to believe. No doubt it is what you want me to believe. You want to force upon us the belief of Calvinism. You keep telling us we are Calvinism when we keep telling you we are not for which you should be reported for. False allegations are not permitted here.

You have put words into Steaver's mouth claiming that he believes something that he does not. That is unconscionable. It is unethical. It is wrong. Tell me what punishment do you think you deserve?

Here is what Steaver formerly said. Perhaps you can answer him:

 

HP: You need to read Steavers post again DHK. I never once misrepresented him. It is the doctrines of Calvinism, not Scripture, from whence such notions have received their birth.

 

HP: Certainly I can. I have passed from death to life and have my faith in Jesus Christ and I fear not such hypothetical occurrences. I believe Scripture that promises that such will not be the case if I continue to put my faith in Him until the end.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

 

I say I agree and you say I do not. I thought you would be happy I agreed.

Calvin believed that one could NOT exercise faith towards Jesus Christ until God FIRST regenerated him, BEFORE any turning towards God which is called repentence or trusting in God to save him which is called faith.

Steaver believes that one CAN exercise faith towards Jesus Christ AND THEN God regenerates him, this AFTER turning towards God which is called repentence, not before as Calvin believed, and AFTER trusting God to save him which is called faith.

Thus, Calvin believed repentence and faith came AFTER regeneration and Steaver believes repentence and faith comes BEFORE regeneration.

From this point forward Calvin and Steaver would agree on some points such as ESIC. And Calvin and Steaver would also agree that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, Trinity, etc, etc.

I believe where you get confused is you do not see the distinction scripture makes concerning repentence of faith towards God and repentence from sin and bad works. You just see "repent" and think that this is all inclusive.

:jesus:

 

I believe Calvin also believed that one must be regenerated in order to be capable of obeying God's commandments. Don't you also believe this way?

Or do you believe one can keep God's commandments BEFORE the Holy Spirit indwellment (regeneration)? If yes, then there is no need for Christ's sacrifice. The Law would be sufficient.

Maybe yourself is more Calvinistic than you might expect. :thumbs:

 

If you "can" believe in such hypothetical occurrences, then it is an admission of belief in OSAS; that repentance is not needed right before death; that repentance for every sin committed is not needed in order to enter into heaven--thus giving way to the possibility that Jesus' atonement paid for all of our sins: past, present and future at the cross. True?