Featured How Do The RCC/orthodox Churches Fit Ephesians 2:8-9 Into their theologies?

Your "first" process clearly asserts universal inability does it not?

 

If you want to take this step by step. Sure. To answer specifically your question:

Yes man cannot come to God of his own volition.

 

The problem is that what you say and what you quote does not seem to match and neither matches what the scriptures says.

You said is that (1) God must grant them ability to believe first, (2) followed by offering them an invitation to believe, (3) followed by infusing faith into those who accept that invitation. Isn't that correct?

If that is correct then it is also correct to assume that you believe in universal inability. So my question is do you believe that God grants universal ability and if so, how?

More importantly is how do you define "inability" in light of how the scriptures define it in Romans 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19??? This seems to be the real crux of the problem between us. The scriptures clearly spell out in no uncertain terms what this inability consists. But how do you define that "inability"?????

You can plainly read what man is unable to do in Romans 8:7. He has an irreversable ("neither indeed can be") enmity towards God and is not subject to the law of God. If that inability is reversed or changed, what is "enmity toward God" changed unto? If his inability is to submit to the law of God then what is that inability changed unto?

Has that been reversed when God grants ability? If it has been altered than altered into what? The opposite or some kind of NEUTRAL state that is neither what is was or the opposite of what it was? Is it some kind of LIMBO state so that man is no longer in a spiritual condition of inability but neither in a state of willing submission and love?

In other words, where is this Roman Catholic MIDDLE condition of ability described in scripture?

 

The problem with this statement is a logical fallacy. To believe that there is all men are inable to come to Christ on their own behalf doesn't mean you have to believe that all men are granted equal access. However, we know that

So God desires that all men become saved.

I think thats pretty straight forward. Inability means a man cannot even concieve with out the help of God's grace to consider even coming to God.

There is no such thing this is your own device. Using faulty logic.

 

What logical falicy? I never presented any theory. Indeed, I were to present my position it would be limited not universal. I simply asked if YOU believed that God gave this ability to all men universally. The answer would be either yes or no.

You are being sly. Perhaps you are not intentionly being sly but sly nevertheless. The only possible way you can provide a dichotomy between "ability" followed by opportunity to freely choose is to simply dismiss the Biblical characterizations of inability. Please stick to the Biblical characterizations of inability in Romans 8:7 and 1 Cor. 2:14.

Please explain the gift of ability as Rome perceives it by dealing with the clearly stated descriptions of inability in Romans 8:7 and 1 Cor. 2:14

1. "enmity with God"
2. "not subject to the Law of God"

Would not ability be the reversal of these characterizations? If not, why not?

I believe the kettle is calling the pan black here when we really get down to what the scripture defines as the characteristics of inability.

If you simply reversed what the Bible defines as inability then there would be absolutely no Biblical basis for you dichotomy between ability granted distinct from a change of will. The reversal of enmity is love which is an act of the will. The reversal of insubordination to the Law of God is submission which is an act of the will. However, in order to avoid the Biblical characterization of inability you invent out of thin air some mystical kind of "ability" distinct and separate from any action of will, which action you assert to be separate and distinction from what RCC characterizes as ability which is short of any actual reversal of Biblical inabilty.

 

Maybe...but is this something to be aimed for or held up as an ideal? We hear much trumpeting here about the virtues of salvation by 'faith alone' as if that is some kind of great thing to be valued but, to me, that sounds about as sad and makes about as much sense as lauding the value of a marriage made by 'wedding alone'.

 

God supplies grace in every way possible not just through those specific sacraments. You recieve grace from hearing the word of God. You recieve grace as you pray. You recieve grace just by being alive and God expresses his love to you. The Sacraments are specific way to recieve specific types of grace.

 

Your progression or logical flow is faulted.

This is silly. I read Romans 8 and saw no where that it says the definition of inability is: blahblah blah. Inability is clear man cannot come to God of his own volition. Period. Now Romans 8 may indeed give the reason why man cannot come to God of his own volition but it is not the definition of inability. Nothing sly about it. I agree with Romans 8. Mans natural stance due to the fall is that his nature is at war with God. But that doesn't negate the image of God that is within us either. The law works to reveal our inner nature and condemns us based on it. Those men apart from the law man is condemned by his conscience and natural law that can be observed. We are given the ability by God to choose for God and righteousness which apart from God's grace we cannot do. You treat scriptures like a smorgishboard and disregard the whole context. Which causes your leaps of logic to wrong conclusions.

I just did. Why don't you show me where it says the definition of inability is: - in Scripture.

You can believe whatever you want. Which you do as you are the sole arbitrator of truth for yourself. What you consistantly do is create definitions and then apply principles to those self imposed definition never admitting to the actual definition of the term. Thus you make up new phrases, theological consepts not purported by anyone and falsely apply them to people, ideas, and consepts as you see fit. In short you create your own reality of things rather than have an understanding that certain things exist on there own defined terms as they are apart from your view.

The bible is not a dictionary and doesn't define ability. Websters dictionary defines ability. The verses you quote show the condition of man. They don't define ability. This is where you have trouble with scripture. To make it fit your view you redefine words and meanings to suite your cause. The reasons man is inable is because of his sinful condition. Take care of that and the man has the ability to then choose for God. The consept is biblical and simple. You should rename your self from biblicist to myowndictionaryist.

 

Grace is not something automatically received by just sitting in a church pew no more than sitting in a chicken house makes you a chicken.

Grace is not GENERALIZED but specifically directed by God to His elect. You do not receive grace when you pray! James plainly tells some Christians that they pray and RECEIVE NOT becaus they pray amiss!

Things (ordinances) and actions (prayer, hearing) are not grace dispensers but God alone gives grace and He does so only in keeping with His PURPOSE OF GRACE (Rom. 8:28-31).

 

What a silly statment. Have you not read the scriptures where Jesus says

Grace takes on many facets. You only view it in as one facet one condition. But Grace is

Grace can further be classified

Which yes God provides grace as he expresses his love to us. There is also the classification sanctifying Grace

I think you need to clarify what your definition of Grace is...wait... most protestants claim its unmerited favor. So according to you God doesn't give grace to people in all situations? It seems to me that God actually does. So you're saying the non-believing rich man isn't recieving unmerited favor from God?

 

You can't be serious? He is talking about their NEW BIRTH by the effectual power of God through the preaching of the word (James 1:18). He is not talking about some kind of GENERAL cleansing of the Word by simply sitting under the preaching of the word! He went on to say "but not all of you" even though Judas SAT UNDER THE SAME EXACT PREACHING!!!! Hence, your interpetation falls flat as not everyone sitting under the word receives but only those whom God makes it effectual.

Grace is given "freely" or WITHOUT A CAUSE found in the person receiving it (Rom. 3:24; Rom. 9:11). Grace is WITHOUT PARTICIPANT WORKS OF MAN (Rom. 4:21; 11:6). Saving grace is restricted within the eternal purpose of Grace (Rom. 8:28-39).

 

No he wasn't. He was telling them that they needed to remain in him and he would remain in them. And that they the fact that they heard his teaching which is the truth. And the fact they heard the truth from Jesus and accepted it. IE to hear something you must actively listen. You so seriously want to put another context to his statement. And even James is saying that Jesus spoke the word of truth so that we could bear fruit.

How does this change anything I said about grace? Wait it doesn't. So yes God provides grace in many situations to all even those who aren't saved.

This is where you fall flat all grace is working towards our salvation it contends with those still in their sin and it leads those of us in the ark of Salvation. Grace is supplied when we do something to bring us closer to God or when we do nothing. God is calling all men to salvation (not that all will recieve salvation) and God helps those who will to be saved.

 

Jesus said verbatum

So you agree!

I never said otherwise. And the grace that he gives to his own is called sanctifying grace which is not the same as actual Grace. But note the blessing by grace he gives to those not his own is to lead them towards salvation. Whether they follow where that grace leads is up to them. AS they can either choose or reject God.

I never said other wise. His grace leads us to sanctification and transforming ourselves into his likeness.

I never said you can merit salvation through work. What I said is Actual Faith is evident in the activities you do. No matter how many good things you do without faith you cannot earn your salvation. However once you enter the ark of Salvation your faith will merit Gods good pleasure by the things you do. However, if your faith isn't active and you continue to live in sin then you are showing a dead faith. As James says

 

John 15:3 and John 13:8 both refer to regeneration. Abiding refers to progressive sanctification or PRODUCING FRUIT. Jesus made it clear that first the tree must be made good BEFORE the fruit can be good.

The Word did not make all clean who sat underneath Jesus. Hence, your illustration falls flat.

He is talking to saved people whose lives will be sanctified by the truth - Jn. 17:17. Again, you are confusing justification with regeneration/sanctification. As long as you do that you will be abusing God's word continually.

Rome defines "grace" in justification so that it inclusive the participant acts of men and it does not (Rom. 4:21; 11:6).

No, it is God that saves us. Grace is the stated cause for God doing it which excludes all participant assistance and/or contributions by those being saved.

 

So to ask you if you believe in universal or non-universal granting of ability is faulty logic??????:laugh:

I will tell you what is silly. Trying to have any sane conversation with you is what is silly! For example, I specifically point to Romans 8:7 and the words "NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" and you give the following "silly" response:

Your theology is a mess and your wrong and you simply do not want to have a Biblical based discussion that is half way rational. So forget it!