Is faith or works necessary for Salvation ?

[Free]

Did we need another thread of the same?

 

[glorydaz]

Did we need another thread of the same?

I'm thinking we do, Free. One is going in one direction (kinda stuck on Rom. 2), while this one has branched out in another direction including different posters.

 

[Free]

I'm thinking we do, Free. One is going in one direction (kinda stuck on Rom. 2), while this one has branched out in another direction including different posters.

Well, we really don't need another since Romans 2 figures into this as well.

 

[Danus]

What God does is to draw man into the promised land...no argument there. God draws all men. Without God's drawing, man would not come. Without God's grace, no man could be saved. On that we agree. I believe our point of contention comes when man is sufficiently ripe for the harvest, is man able to turn back or can he choose to cross over (look upon Christ). Some men love Egypt and want to return. Some trust and cross over, just as those who followed Joshua did. I hope you're not of the belief that God created some for destruction, and some for life. That seems to be the only alternative to free will.

Why would God say, "YOU WOULD NOT", rather than "YOU COULD NOT", in response to His drawing them?

To say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible to believe until he's saved isn't supported by any wider view of the Old Testament. Sin came into the world, not into men. Each man chooses to follow his conscience or not, and each man sins on his own account. This is not because our father Adam sinned, but because sin is in the world, and we're weak in the flesh. We don't sin because we have no other choice than to sin. Man is without excuse in that regard. That said, by the grace of God, the evidence in nature, the moral law written in our heart (conscience), and the power of the Gospel message, we can choose to believe and look upon the Son when He is lifted up.

Good. We are now only dealing with semantics.

There may be some who hold the notion that God specifically created some for destruction, but that is false. False in the biblical sence and false to the teachings of :fullauto John Calvin. Sorry, I like to use the gun on Calvin to put others at ease.

"Would not" and "Could not" are synonymous terms in respect to man's ability to choose God on his own. The requirement is God. So, let's add another "Can Not".

Could the Israelites have brought themselves out of Egypt based on what we know in the OT? They Can not.

Would the Israelites have brought themselves out of Egypt from what we know in the OT? again, they Can Not. Moreover, they did not. ;)

So at what point does man choose to follow God? Well, that's a tough one ins't it? We can answer it this way. Man does not choose God until God acts.

Now that's a bold statement. But, if we look back using our example of the Isrealites and the Exodus, we see this truth. God acted first.

Let me rearrange a few of your notions. The reformist view does not say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible to believe. Again, semantics. We say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible for man to have faith in God, however it also makes it possible for man to "believe" in anything. Why, any golden calf will do. Do you see the difference?

Let's talk about sin for a second, because I think you see it they same as I do conceptually. I think of sin, sin in the world, like a scrambled egg in it's totality. Something that is not easily undone, yet a mix of two elements.

Some view sin as something more parallel to righteousness in the world. In other words, there is sin in the world and then there is righteousness in the world. Your either one or the other. How would you view sin, and sin in the world? However you can also address my prior statements, and we can keep discussing the will of man also.

 

[glorydaz]

Good. We are now only dealing with semantics.

There may be some who hold the notion that God specifically created some for destruction, but that is false. False in the biblical sence and false to the teachings of :fullauto John Calvin. Sorry, I like to use the gun on Calvin to put others at ease.

"Would not" and "Could not" are synonymous terms in respect to man's ability to choose God on his own. The requirement is God. So, let's add another "Can Not".

Could the Israelites have brought themselves out of Egypt based on what we know in the OT? They Can not.

Would the Israelites have brought themselves out of Egypt from what we know in the OT? again, they Can Not. Moreover, they did not. ;)

So at what point does man choose to follow God? Well, that's a tough one ins't it? We can answer it this way. Man does not choose God until God acts.

Now that's a bold statement. But, if we look back using our example of the Isrealites and the Exodus, we see this truth. God acted first.

Let me rearrange a few of your notions. The reformist view does not say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible to believe. Again, semantics. We say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible for man to have faith in God, however it also makes it possible for man to "believe" in anything. Why, any golden calf will do. Do you see the difference?

Let's talk about sin for a second, because I think you see it they same as I do conceptually. I think of sin, sin in the world, like a scrambled egg in it's totality. Something that is not easily undone, yet a mix of two elements.

Some view sin as something more parallel to righteousness in the world. In other words, there is sin in the world and then there is righteousness in the world. Your either one or the other. How would you view sin, and sin in the world? However you can also address my prior statements, and we can keep discussing the will of man also.

Speaking of scrambled eggs....my brain resembles one at the moment. I'm really interested in discussing this further, but must get to bed as the other thread on faith has done me in for the night. It's pleasant discussing this with someone who doesn't immedietely accuse me of denying the Word as it's written. Back at ya, tomorrow.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Yep, all those who chose to look when Christ was lifted up to them.

Thats your religion, not mine. The Christ I serve was to give Eternal life to as many as the Father gave Him. Nothing is required of them. Jn 17:2

2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Good. We are now only dealing with semantics.

There may be some who hold the notion that God specifically created some for destruction, but that is false. False in the biblical sence and false to the teachings of :fullauto John Calvin. Sorry, I like to use the gun on Calvin to put others at ease.

"Would not" and "Could not" are synonymous terms in respect to man's ability to choose God on his own. The requirement is God. So, let's add another "Can Not".

Could the Israelites have brought themselves out of Egypt based on what we know in the OT? They Can not.

Would the Israelites have brought themselves out of Egypt from what we know in the OT? again, they Can Not. Moreover, they did not. ;)

So at what point does man choose to follow God? Well, that's a tough one ins't it? We can answer it this way. Man does not choose God until God acts.

Now that's a bold statement. But, if we look back using our example of the Isrealites and the Exodus, we see this truth. God acted first.

Let me rearrange a few of your notions. The reformist view does not say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible to believe. Again, semantics. We say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible for man to have faith in God, however it also makes it possible for man to "believe" in anything. Why, any golden calf will do. Do you see the difference?

Let's talk about sin for a second, because I think you see it they same as I do conceptually. I think of sin, sin in the world, like a scrambled egg in it's totality. Something that is not easily undone, yet a mix of two elements.

Some view sin as something more parallel to righteousness in the world. In other words, there is sin in the world and then there is righteousness in the world. Your either one or the other. How would you view sin, and sin in the world? However you can also address my prior statements, and we can keep discussing the will of man also.

Danus -----So at what point does man choose to follow God?

Grubal-----After he has heard the Gospel (Good news) about God's Grace towards man, been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and chooses to place his faith in Christ his Savior...That's the short of it...

 

[savedbygrace57]

Danus -----So at what point does man choose to follow God?

With my Christ, its when they hear His voice. Jn 10:27,16

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

However, this is restricted to only His Sheep, the Elect of God !

 

[kjb1769]

So far this conversation seems to keep going back to Israel. What is necessary for salvation today?
Through the fall of Israel salvation has gone to the Gentiles. Paul the apostle to the Gentiles revealed to us the Mystery the gospel is to all men today to trust in what Christ did.
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; -2 Corinthians 5:18 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. -2 Corinthians 5:19 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. -2 Corinthians 5:20

 

[Grubal Muruch]

So far this conversation seems to keep going back to Israel. What is necessary for salvation today?
Through the fall of Israel salvation has gone to the Gentiles. Paul the apostle to the Gentiles revealed to us the Mystery the gospel is to all men today to trust in what Christ did.
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; -2 Corinthians 5:18 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. -2 Corinthians 5:19 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. -2 Corinthians 5:20

You are 100% correct. There are some here with a "Calvinist" leaning and others, not. Your right though, there should be "Despensational" differences observed here...Sometimes during the course of Scripture, it speaks only to the Israelite's (Jews) other times, the Gentiles and at times, both... Context is everything. Some cannot distinguish between the differences however. Sometimes that causes confusion and misinterpretation...

 

[Danus]

Danus -----So at what point does man choose to follow God?

Grubal-----After he has heard the Gospel (Good news) about God's Grace towards man, been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and chooses to place his faith in Christ his Savior...That's the short of it...

So is it man who does this, or God?

First the word, then the spirit, then and only then is man able to come to God in any mesure of faith. Calvin is not that difficult here.

 

[kjb1769]

No doubt God did the work and made it possible for us to be saved by taking our sin out of the way. No doubt that the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. No doubt while unsaved we have a need for that blessed assurance of salvation.
Also no doubt that you can decide to reject Christ & go to eternal damnation.
By the the same process of believing the gospel and trusting in Christ you can be saved and by one spirit be baptized into one body the Church the Body of Christ, where you are sealed until the day of redemption.

 

[savedbygrace57]

kjb

So far this conversation seems to keep going back to Israel.

Salvation is only for Israel ! Salvation is according to Promise, the Promise of God.

Isa 45:17

But Israel shall [a promise] be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

Paul says Acts 13:23

Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Now, what the mystery was, is that this Israel whom the promised Salvation is for is the Church, comprised of both jew and gentile.. It was not Ethnic jews considered in and of themselves..

So Salvation was not conditioned on the sinners, but on the Saviour ! Israel also means God's Elect ! Salvation was promised to God's Elect...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

No doubt God did the work and made it possible for us to be saved by taking our sin out of the way. No doubt that the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. No doubt while unsaved we have a need for that blessed assurance of salvation.
Also no doubt that you can decide to reject Christ & go to eternal damnation.
By the the same process of believing the gospel and trusting in Christ you can be saved and by one spirit be baptized into one body the Church the Body of Christ, where you are sealed until the day of redemption.

A BIG AMEN!!!

 

[glorydaz]

So is it man who does this, or God?

First the word, then the spirit, then and only then is man able to come to God in any mesure of faith. Calvin is not that difficult here.

Man accepts or rejects...that's free will. We're commanded to believe, repent, come, and choose life. It's really pretty simple. I'm wondering if there are those who follow Calvin who go overboard. Hmmm. I don't know, but I do know that salvation is available to "whosoever will", not just a select few.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Man accepts or rejects...that's free will. We're commanded to believe, repent, come, and choose life. It's really pretty simple. I'm wondering if there are those who follow Calvin who go overboard. Hmmm. I don't know, but I do know that salvation is available to "whosoever will", not just a select few.

A "BIG" AMEN!!!!

 

[Danus]

Man accepts or rejects...that's free will. We're commanded to believe, repent, come, and choose life. It's really pretty simple. I'm wondering if there are those who follow Calvin who go overboard. Hmmm. I don't know, but I do know that salvation is available to "whosoever will", not just a select few.

Let's get back to scripture and weight this notion against the bible if we can.

What you have here is a logical thought, but it's still a notion not necessarily grounded in full biblical principle. Neither of us have time to simply trade opinions, if we are in fact trying to teach, or gain from one another.

Otherwise we fail to have an exchange, but rather a situation of whoever post the most, or types out the cleverest quips wins, and that's not worth anything, I'm sure you'll agree.

I agree the Armenian view of Free Will is quite simple, and again I do not mean that in a derogatory manner. It's not only simple, it's also quite logical. I will go further in saying it seems to also be fair, or what man would consider fair, but is it true? Is it the full truth? I say it is not, but a weak, simplistic thought to biblical truth and the nature of God, man and the relationship between the two. Does that mean I think it's a lie? No, nor do I think one is not saved by holding it, because ones salvation have nothing to do with their efforts or thought to being saved. That's the tricky part that Armenians don't like to hear, and I don't blame them.

Earlier in this thread GM said "Grubal-----After he has heard the Gospel (Good news) about God's Grace towards man, been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and chooses to place his faith in Christ his Savior...That's the short of it..."

He said this in response to a rhetorical question I asked about "At what point does man choose to follow God."

I like, and agree with his answer because it is in fact in line with what we know from God's word. So, ...
1. Man hears the word.
2. Man is "convicted by the holly spirit", this is to say that the spirit of God is upon man.
3. Man chooses to follow.

However, we know that not all who hear the word are saved. this is to say that not all who hear the word of God Choose to follow God. right?

You can, and many have, preach the word of God to different people every day and still some, maybe most, who knows, will not follow God, or accept God, or turn to God...it didn't take. Would you agree?

If this is true, why? More importantly, can we say that step # 2 happened? Where those people who heard the word and still did not turn to God, where they "convicted by the Holly spirit"? If so, what scripture says this? What scripture says that a man hears the word and is indwelt by the holly Spirit then chooses to not choose God?

The Calvin view is not unique to :fullauto John Calvin. John Calvin did not "invent" anything that was not already laid out in the bible. In fact he's not even the first to ponder, or write, or preach what he did. He's just the most controversial.

So, there are many things to talk about in relation to the subject of free will, and I'd ask that you address my earlier points starting with sin, and we can go from there. I'll repost....

Let me rearrange a few of your notions. The reformist view does not say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible to believe. Again, semantics. We say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible for man to have faith in God, however it also makes it possible for man to "believe" in anything. Why, any golden calf will do. Do you see the difference?

Let's talk about sin for a second, because I think you see it they same as I do conceptually. I think of sin, sin in the world, like a scrambled egg in it's totality. Something that is not easily undone, yet a mix of two elements.

Some view sin as something more parallel to righteousness in the world. In other words, there is sin in the world and then there is righteousness in the world. Your either one or the other. How would you view sin, and sin in the world? However you can also address my prior statements, and we can keep discussing the will of man also.

I have asked quite a few questions in here, so if you can address them all great, otherwise if you can get the ones you want to focus on that would be great as well.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Let's get back to scripture and weight this notion against the bible if we can.

What you have here is a logical thought, but it's still a notion not necessarily grounded in full biblical principle. Neither of us have time to simply trade opinions, if we are in fact trying to teach, or gain from one another.

Otherwise we fail to have an exchange, but rather a situation of whoever post the most, or types out the cleverest quips wins, and that's not worth anything, I'm sure you'll agree.

I agree the Armenian view of Free Will is quite simple, and again I do not mean that in a derogatory manner. It's not only simple, it's also quite logical. I will go further in saying it seems to also be fair, or what man would consider fair, but is it true? Is it the full truth? I say it is not, but a weak, simplistic thought to biblical truth and the nature of God, man and the relationship between the two. Does that mean I think it's a lie? No, nor do I think one is not saved by holding it, because ones salvation have nothing to do with their efforts or thought to being saved. That's the tricky part that Armenians don't like to hear, and I don't blame them.

Earlier in this thread GM said "Grubal-----After he has heard the Gospel (Good news) about God's Grace towards man, been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and chooses to place his faith in Christ his Savior...That's the short of it..."

He said this in response to a rhetorical question I asked about "At what point does man choose to follow God."

I like, and agree with his answer because it is in fact in line with what we know from God's word. So, ...
1. Man hears the word.
2. Man is "convicted by the holly spirit", this is to say that the spirit of God is upon man.
3. Man chooses to follow.

However, we know that not all who hear the word are saved. this is to say that not all who hear the word of God Choose to follow God. right?

You can, and many have, preach the word of God to different people every day and still some, maybe most, who knows, will not follow God, or accept God, or turn to God...it didn't take. Would you agree?

If this is true, why? More importantly, can we say that step # 2 happened? Where those people who heard the word and still did not turn to God, where they "convicted by the Holly spirit"? If so, what scripture says this? What scripture says that a man hears the word and is indwelt by the holly Spirit then chooses to not choose God?

The Calvin view is not unique to :fullauto John Calvin. John Calvin did not "invent" anything that was not already laid out in the bible. In fact he's not even the first to ponder, or write, or preach what he did. He's just the most controversial.

So, there are many things to talk about in relation to the subject of free will, and I'd ask that you address my earlier points starting with sin, and we can go from there. I'll repost....

Let me rearrange a few of your notions. The reformist view does not say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible to believe. Again, semantics. We say that man's sinful nature makes it impossible for man to have faith in God, however it also makes it possible for man to "believe" in anything. Why, any golden calf will do. Do you see the difference?

Let's talk about sin for a second, because I think you see it they same as I do conceptually. I think of sin, sin in the world, like a scrambled egg in it's totality. Something that is not easily undone, yet a mix of two elements.

Some view sin as something more parallel to righteousness in the world. In other words, there is sin in the world and then there is righteousness in the world. Your either one or the other. How would you view sin, and sin in the world? However you can also address my prior statements, and we can keep discussing the will of man also.

I have asked quite a few questions in here, so if you can address them all great, otherwise if you can get the ones you want to focus on that would be great as well.

I realize you addressed glorydaz here but I have something to say about this, you said, " What scripture says that a man hears the word and is indwelt by the holly Spirit then chooses to not choose God?

Grubal-----No scripture says that a man hears the word, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and then "chooses" to not choose God. You got this wrong my friend. We hear the word then we are convicted by the Spirit, using what we heard from the Bible (the Gospel) next, we choose if we will place our faith. And if we place our faith, then the Holy Spirit indwells/seals us. We must first place our faith then the Spirit indwells. (in that order) Now I'll leave the rest for glorydaz...

 

[Danus]

I realize you addressed glorydaz here but I have something to say about this, you said, " What scripture says that a man hears the word and is indwelt by the holly Spirit then chooses to not choose God?

Grubal-----No scripture says that a man hears the word, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and then "chooses" to not choose God. You got this wrong my friend. We hear the word then we are convicted by the Spirit, using what we heard from the Bible (the Gospel) next, we choose if we will place our faith. And if we place our faith, then the Holy Spirit indwells/seals us. We must first place our faith then the Spirit indwells. (in that order) Now I'll leave the rest for glorydaz...

No problem GM, jump on in.

Indwelt was a poor choice of words on my part. Good catch and good point.

I'm going on the order you presented. However, Your missing, or not really addressing the point, and that is that without the holly Spirit in the first place, there is no man choosing God. God has to act first, just as you pointed out, and I agree with you. otherwise man's will is not to choose God.

To put another way, When I asked at what point does man choose God, you said he chooses God after he hears the word, and after is convicted by the holly spirit, which is the will of God upon man, before man is able, or can, or will choose God. We are in agreement.

What I don't understand is how you can still say that man chooses God on his own ""Free Will", but then describe the process of being born again, then accepting God by God's will and calling that man's will.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

No problem GM, jump on in.

Indwelt was a poor choice of words on my part. Good catch and good point.

I'm going on the order you presented. However, Your missing, or not really addressing the point, and that is that without the holly Spirit in the first place, there is no man choosing God. God has to act first, just as you pointed out, and I agree with you. otherwise man's will is not to choose God.

To put another way, When I asked at what point does man choose God, you said he chooses God after he hears the word, and after is convicted by the holly spirit, which is the will of God upon man, before man is able, or can, or will choose God. We are in agreement.

What I don't understand is how you can still say that man chooses God on his own ""Free Will", but then describe the process of being born again, then accepting God by God's will and calling that man's will.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That's a fair question. We first "hear" about the "Grace of God" through the Bible, and of course, The Spirit uses that word to bring us to the knowledge that, we are sinners, lost and condemned without a Savior. (conviction) God however, does not force us to believe that knowledge and place our faith in it. Nor does the Spirit use force to bring us to salvation. God does not do this because, He has given us a "free-will" to come to Him. He wants us to come to Him of our own choice and free-will (that He gave all of us) and not because we've been coerced or forced or even chosen...