Posted on 06/26/2002 9:54:11 AM PDT by CCWoody
Prefatory note: The following is a response to a question from another thread. It is posted here so that an entire thread can be devoted to a discussion of the grace of God.
So next we have to decide if Grace and Faith are the same thing. I would contend that they are not the same thing. Would you argue that they are? ~ kjam22
Grace and faith are not the same thing!
So your short answer is NO. It is that every time Jesus talks about faith... it is our faith. There is not one time that he says "The faith that God gave you has healed you". ~ kjam22
That's right, there is never a time when Christ said "the faith that God gave you has healed you" because He doesn't need to. Just like I never need to say "the car that someone else made got me from home to the office" because I don't need to. It is perfectly clear that I did NOT create my car. It is mine because I have possession of it, but I am most definitely NOT the creator of it. In the same way, my faith is mine because I have possession of it, but I am most definitely NOT the author of it.
Therefore, I look...
Heb 12:2 ... unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the JOY that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Now, it is not I or any Calvinist, who can read and understand that I am not the author of my own faith, who needs to defend such a position. For this position is entirely consistent with the scriptures. For I know that I am...
1 Pe 1:5 ... kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
No, the theological difficulty is entirely yours. For if the faith that you have is entirely your own doing, then in what way can it be the power of God for salvation that is through faith? It is excluded! It would be the power of man through his own faith for salvation. And I know that God has dealt to each one [of us] a measure of faith (Rom 12:3). And we do know for certain that not all men have faith (2 Th 3:2).
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be certain to all the seed,....
And what is certain is that the theological difficulty is entirely the Arminian's. Now, the Arminian contends that God has made salvation possible to all men, therefore, for the sake of logical charity, we will concede to the possible salvation of all men and examine its characteristics. It must be stated up front that a possible salvation is most definitely NOT an actual salvation. The Arminian will contend that man must supply the final ingredient(s) for a mere possible salvation to become an actual salvation.
Therefore, whatever final ingredient(s), BY THE VIRTUE OF ITS OWN POWER, that the man supplies actually makes a possible salvation become an actual salvation. While the Calvinist maintains that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God saves a sinner, the Arminian maintains that the inefficacious and resistible grace merely makes salvation possible and the final result of salvation comes from the power of man. For the Arminian, grace does not determine the will; the will determines the grace.
In order for the Arminian's construct to be proved, there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Calvinist position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is the ingredient(s) that the man supplies, then salvation is not by grace, but by the POWER of MAN.
Now, the Arminian will contend that it is the grace of God which enables the man to have faith. But the impossibility is not resolved for either it is the grace of God which gives the man the faith to believe and the Calvinist position is maintained or the grace of God does not give the man the faith and salvation is then not by grace, but by the POWER of MAN.
Thus, a possible salvation, which cannot become an actual salvation until the application of the POWER of MAN, cannot be a salvation by the grace of God. It must therefore be a salvation of works. But, Scriptures unquestionably teach that salvation is by grace: "By grace ye are saved." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Of course, according to Arminianism, sufficient grace is imparted to all men. Now, what makes the difference between the saved and the unsaved? Why is one man saved and another not saved? The Arminian cannot hide under the grace of God for ALL MEN have this grace in common, and in sufficient amounts. And this is only a possible salvation. Therefore, grace cannot save until the POWER of MAN is applied to the mix. Then, and only then does a possible salvation become an actual salvation. The determining saving factor then is entirely of man, of his own works righteousness. Man saves himself. Now, we will grant that the Arminian maintains that salvation is impossible without the grace of God, but such grace only makes salvation possible. The grace of God does not have the POWER to make an actual salvation, only a possible salvation.
This reasoning conclusively shows that, according to Arminianism, sinners are not saved by grace but by themselves in the use of grace, and that position contradicts the plainest teachings of Scripture. The system which necessitates such a salvation is an impossibly unScriptural doctrine. Arminianism is THE "Lie of Eden," that old heresy Pelagianism wrapped up in fancy sounding doctrines and made into a semi-Pelagianism. Man is dead in sins and dead men don't exercise spiritually living faith and wills except that they are first Sovereignly re engineered with a new nature to desire the Lord.
Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Faith must of sound Scriptural doctrine be a gift of God, lest salvation be reduced to works righteousness.
But you knew that already, of course.
I'm waiting for the Arminians to explain it!
I couldn't have said it clearer myself, Woody!
I must note that IF the rationality of which the arminian holds the calvinist is consistently applied to arminianism itself, it crumbles.
Arminianism holds that we calvinists doen't actually believe what we profess to believe for that would actually imply a logical contradiction (i.e. men would be robots).
Let's hold the arminianims to their rationality.
If God knows all that will eventually believe AND PERSEVERE IN THAT FAITH -why in tarnation does he need to 'predestinate' them? Won't they arrive their on their own?
If God foreknows all things, how can it be stated that he 'changed' his mind -He knew he was going to do this or that all along! Pinnock and his 'openness theology' are the only consistent arminians -along with ftd, winston and xzins. They all deny that God 'pre' knows every last detail of every thing which will ever happen. They must in order to hold on to their 'free-will'.
It's also claimed here that calvinisms makes the work of Christ on the cross immaterial or practically unnecessary.
What a poposterous joke!
It is all of reformed theology which BEGINS AND ENDS at the cross! The reformation was all about the justifying work of Christ on the cross. This was absolutely central in Calvin's theology, Luther's theology, Melancthon's theology -all the reformational fathers held the doctrine of justification and atonement as central to all other doctrines! If you understand the reformational doctrine of penal atonement, all the other doctrines in question held by the reformational fathers fall into place.
On the other hand, it is arminianism which begins and ends on absolute 'free-will' and ALL OTHER DOCTRINES OF QUESTION MUST BE PERVERTED in order to uphold to this absolute free will.
Arminianism redefines:
Atonement -no longer is atonement for ~his~ people -it is for all people. Since the sins of all were removed, condmenation is no longer because of sin, it is because of rejection -double jeapordy- your sins are forgiven, time for a new test!
Condemnation -one is no longer condemned due to sin, condmenation is due to 'rejection' of Christ -and only if one has heard of Christ to begin with.
Salvation -instead of salvation being entirely of God as it was in reformational theology -it is God + Man + ? = only a possibility of salvation -because men must PERSEVERE in 'their' faith.
Predestination -instead of being something God determines by his own good pleasure (which can hardly be honestly described as 'arbitrary') -predestination becomes some meaningless term which is unnecessary. Why does God need to 'predestine' someone who comes to saving faith on his own (oh, I forgot this so called 'prevenient grace') and PERSEVERE'S of his own free will in that faith need predestination?
Omniscience -God no longer knows all, he only knows 'what he can know'. Since God must be given the ability to 'change his mind', he couldn't have 'pre' known of his 'change of mind', for if he knew of his 'change of mind', then it really wouldn't be a 'change of mind', now would it?
Arminianism is the religion of 'me, myself and I', not of rejoicing in the good grace of the Lord Jesus Christ of which I am not deserving in the very least.
Jean
Here's a short and sweet answer woodmeister:
Rom 4:5 "worketh not but believeth." Paul says here that believing is NOT a work. He says that on the one hand you have work BUT on the other hand you have believing.
Since we're jumping threads....you owe me a response. I asked you to "ask me a question about Exodus 32." You never did.
I think you know that we freely move our discussions from thead to thread. I've been rather busy lately and still mean to get around to our discussion as my time does permit. Be patient!
I don't think anybody will argue that belief is not a work of merit (for to the calvinist it is of God, to the arminian it ~can't~, it just ~can't~ be a work or you'd have to admit you don't believe in 'faith + works').
It's the ~how you aquired~ the faith that implies merit for the arminian (forget the arminian pastor who I heard tell his flock that they must ~work~ very hard at their 'belief' lest they lose it). Your decision to 'accept' is merit just as my 'lusting' after a woman -my choice ~merely~ to think about having extra-marital sex with her -is also a work (of sin).
Jean
By the Way, x, I remember many moons ago, it was you specifically who encouraged me to take up the same discussion on different thread. When ~I~ posted the rule to you, you poo poo'd it ("everybody does it").
I doubt I could find the posts as one of the arminians probably had it deleted.
Jean
I do not know if CC had that problem
And I remember many moons ago a thread that got locked 'cause you c'vists got out of hand ON WHICH you were whining about me apologizing for being direct when I spoke with the c'vists.
And then you whined about calling calvinists "chauvinists" when you call yourself Jean Chauvin.
We all have plenty of faults on these threads. Do we want to inspect skeletons or do we want to discuss?
Calvinists don't even believe in faith. And they don't believe in the efficacy of the cross. And they don't believe in prayer. And they don't believe in the power of evangelism to bring about salvation.
Should I go on with the list.
Actually, if you wanna push it, it's entirely logical for me to say that "c'vists don't believe in anything."
But I WON'T say all the above, 'cause I don't wanna start a fight. :-0) !!
Notice that I wasn't one of them. I'm completely fine with your ad-hominem character attacks. If you need to resort to this kind of argument, it really shows the futility of your position.
"Calvinists don't even believe in faith. And they don't believe in the efficacy of the cross. And they don't believe in prayer. And they don't believe in the power of evangelism to bring about salvation."
"Actually, if you wanna push it, it's entirely logical for me to say that "c'vists don't believe in anything." "
You're losing it, x. (perhaps, it's already lost?) Please keep posting this nonsense, it really helps the lurkers see the sensibility of the calvinists here on FR.
"But I WON'T say all the above, 'cause I don't wanna start a fight. :-0) !!"
You already did. ;) (It shows your true character.)
(btw, an arminian buddy -personal, not electronic- of mine paroused some of our threads for the first time. He remembered you specifically and thought your tactics pretty disgusting -and he's one of yours -minus your openness theology. Keep it up, x. It can only help the calvinists! -and I do seriously mean that)
Jean
Rom 4:5 "worketh not but believeth." Paul says here that believing is NOT a work. He says that on the one hand you have work BUT on the other hand you have believing.
What an inept theological answer.
"But to him who does not work but believe on Him who justifies the ungodly, his FAITH is accounted for righteousness,... THEREFORE it is of faith that it might be according to grace,..."
You haven't even found the debate yet. I have already moved to the heart of the matter:
It must be stated up front that a possible salvation is most definitely NOT an actual salvation. The Arminian will contend that man must supply the final ingredient(s) for a mere possible salvation to become an actual salvation.
In order for the Arminian's construct to be proved, there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Calvinist position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is the ingredient(s) that the man supplies, then salvation is not by grace, but by the POWER of MAN.
Now, the Arminian will contend that it is the grace of God which enables the man to have faith. But the impossibility is not resolved for either it is the grace of God which gives the man the faith to believe and the Calvinist position is maintained or the grace of God does not give the man the faith and salvation is then not by grace, but by the POWER of MAN.
Thus, a possible salvation, which cannot become an actual salvation until the application of the POWER of MAN, cannot be a salvation by the grace of God. It must therefore be a salvation of works. But, Scriptures unquestionably teach that salvation is by grace: "By grace ye are saved."
Of course, according to Arminianism, sufficient grace is imparted to all men. Now, what makes the difference between the saved and the unsaved? Why is one man saved and another not saved? The Arminian cannot hide under the grace of God for ALL MEN have this grace in common, and in sufficient amounts. And this is only a possible salvation. Therefore, grace cannot save until the POWER of MAN is applied to the mix. Then, and only then does a possible salvation become an actual salvation. The determining saving factor then is entirely of man, of his own works righteousness. Man saves himself. Now, we will grant that the Arminian maintains that salvation is impossible without the grace of God, but such grace only makes salvation possible. The grace of God does not have the POWER to make an actual salvation, only a possible salvation.
Please try to catch up! Either believing is a matter of grace or it is not. Please address the root issue, i.e. the grace of God, or admit that you have no answer!
Sorry to affront such an exalted personage as yourself, but your response is fiddle-faddle.
The verse says what it says and you JUST DON'T LIKE IT.
It CONTRASTS (note the word BUT) works and believing.
In the set of things that is works YOU WON'T FIND believing.
Calvinists don't even believe in faith. And they don't believe in the efficacy of the cross. And they don't believe in prayer. And they don't believe in the power of evangelism to bring about salvation.
Actually, if you wanna push it, it's entirely logical for me to say that "c'vists don't believe in anything." ~~ xzins (obviously displaying his frustration over being unable to refute the article)
Well, xzins, you must understand that when you have built your theology upon shifting sand that you will have these days of frustration when someone brings the Scriptures and smashes all your "sand castle" doctrines.
Read it again, Jean. Your palookas are on too tight today. IT'S HUMOR, for Pete's sake.
I wonder if your friend is also a humorless Arminian. Although I MUST ADMIT that I'm glad you have friends who are Arminian.
If he met me he'd think I was a pussycat.
Well, that is not exactly correct.
They do believe in an Eternal Decree that damned most men to hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.