Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[al Hartman]

ROM 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;
ROM 10:10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

ROM 10:13 for "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

EPH 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

     ...not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (v.9)

     I addressed this last passage on another thread, and Brothers Calvin and Maddux teamed up to point out that the language of the text declares that it is salvation, not faith, which is being referred to as "the gift of God."
     This point I readily concede because it changes nothing of the meaning of the passage.  Verse 8 clearly establishes that our salvation has been given us through faith.  So if that salvation is the gift of God, then clearly the faith through which it is administered to us is also a part of that gift, so that salvation can be witnessed to be absolutely and entirely not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
     The exercising of faith may surely be viewed as a "work," but a work in which no one may boast.  That is, the "work" is worked by the Lord.  ...so that no flesh may boast before God.  But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus ...so that, just as it is written, "let him who boasts boast in the Lord." 1Cor.1:29-31  "This is the Lord's doing: It is marvelous in our eyes." Psa.118:23 (cf Matt.21:42; Mk.12:11)
     Our "good works," the fruits by which we may be recognized, are the product of, not the means to, the working of God's Holy Spirit within us.  Christ in you is the hope of glory.  His glory, not ours.  Nothing we are capable of initiating apart from God could possibly be of any value to Him, and therefore, neither can it be of value to us.

     Consider an analogy from the world of sports:  Preceding every season, large numbers of students appear to try out for the team.  They go through preseason conditioning, study to learn the playbook and teamwork, and they practice, practice, practice.  But in the end, none of that can give them a place on the team.  It is all entirely up to the Coach.  You will read the sportswriters and hear the commentators say, "Smith looked fantastic in the preseason, but the Coach picked Jones for the position-- He must know something the rest of us don't."
     You bet He does!  The Coach has been at His job forever and He's the best there is.  He knows exactly what He's looking for, and He understands exactly what He's looking at.  The reasons behind His choosing are WAY beyond our understanding.  He's looking not at what the player has done, but at what He can potentially do with the player.

     Is there anything at all we need to do to receive God's gift?  It depends on how you look at it, but should you choose to think that the offer of salvation requires a response, you need to understand that the response has to come from God, because if you can do anything to warrant receiving it, then salvation is no longer a gift.  And if it is no longer a gift, then it is no longer salvation.

     Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! 2Cor.9:15

al Hartman                                 all scriptures = updated NASB

[H]

Al,

Regarding Ephesians 2:8-9, John Calvin once commented on these verses as follows:

"...he does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God..."   Calvin's Commentaries, vol 11, 145.

The reason he said this is that the Greek structure of the verse makes it clear that salvation is the gift, and not faith.

So, the paragraph in which you quote it needs some rethinking.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Three comments:

1. If you look at the quote in context, I don’t think Calvin was necessarily denying that faith is the gift of God. He was just saying that the gift in this passage is not limited to faith but refers to the whole work of salvation, which includes saving faith. Here is the quote in context
(taken from http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol41/htm/iv.iii.iii.htm):

"Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God."

Calvin did not want to "restrict the word gift to faith alone" in this passage but wanted to apply it to the whole work of salvation. That does not mean that he didn't believe that saving faith is also a gift from God.

2. The Greek structure of the verse does NOT really make it clear that salvation is the gift, and not faith. Some say that since the Greek word translated "that" is neuter whereas the Greek word translated "faith" is feminine that it therefore cannot be referring to faith. The problem is that the Greek words for "salvation" and "grace" are also feminine. So what does the word "that" refer to? Here is what an unnamed Greek scholar has to say
(taken from http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/ephesians/gill/ephesians2.htm):

"Here you ask a wonderful theological/exegetical question to which I can only give an opinion, and not a definitive answer. The problem is that there is NO precise referent. Grace is feminine. Faith is feminine. And even Salvation (as a noun) is feminine. Yet it must be one of these three at least, and maybe more than one, or all three in conjunction. Since all three come from God and not from man, the latter might seem the more likely. However, it is a tautology to say salvation and grace are "not of yourselves," and in that case it certainly looks more like the passage is really pointing out that man cannot even take credit for his own act of faith, but that faith was itself created by God and implanted in us that we might believe (i.e. the normal Calvinistic position). In which regard the whole theological issue of "regeneration preceding faith" comes into play. So, that is basically my opinion, though others obviously disagree strenuously, but from an exegetical standpoint, the other positions have to explain away the matter of the tautology."

3. Fortunately, the teaching that saving faith is a gift from God does not depend solely on  Ephesians 2:8. There are a number of verses which either clearly teach it or at least imply it, such as the following:

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Jhn 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Phl 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; ….

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

[Recovering Saint]

Mark 16:16 Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.  

What does this mean to you? I take it that God demonstrated who He was to man and demonstrated His love to mankind and offered us the option to believe He loved us and had forgiven our sins. Now we have to decide what to do with that. God's gift if anything is to make it possible for us to lay hold and believe but He does not force us to do so.

[Joe Sperling]

Brent----

Great discussion.

"Ho, everyone that thirsts, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat, yeah, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price"(Is. 55:1).

One could argue that to be saved all one has to do is "take the gift" of the free water. But is this the salvation---or is the "thirsting" what is salvation? If you are not thirsty you won't even want to come and drink the "free gift".   Kind of a paradox.

--Joe

[Tony]

Brent wrote:
"If salvation is a gift----I'm sure most of us agree with that----then
what must one do to be saved?

Are we saved when we accept the gift?  You have probably heard this type
of approach,  "God so loved you that He gave His Only Son to die in your
place!
 All you need to do is:

1.)admit you are a sinner
2.)believe that Jesus Christ paid for your sins on the cross
3.)ask Jesus to come into your heart
4.)purpose to live a life that honors God."

Brent, this is an excellent question to ask.   IMO, not to debate but to make people think of what they believe.

 
Salvation and then comes works.   Salvation is of the Lord alone.  Look
at Lydia:
Acts 16:14  A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of
purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened
her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
15  And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us,
saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my
house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

"THE LORD OPENED HER HEART"  

And the Phillipian jailer:

Acts 16:30  and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do
to be saved?"
31  They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and
your household."
32  And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were
in his house.
33  And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds,
and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
34  And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and
rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

He first asked what he needed... they spoke the Word and the Holy Spirit
produced in this man, and his household, Salvation.   And, then came the
works.
(note that I just used the references in Acts 16 because that happens to be where I am presently reading.  there are many other examples)

So, how I would respond to your questions:

"In the model above, salvation requires three or four things from us.
Can this be called a "free gift," when we cannot get it unless we do
1-3?"

  Brent, I think that the 4 step formula is not an answer to how to be
saved.   My opinion is that this is just another way that we like to make things all nice and packaged in a way that is palatable to our own understanding.   Thus, IMO, it would seem to be a work to "accept" or "receive" the Word and believe.  To which I would ask, where does this put a Sovereign God who's ways are not our ways?        

So, I guess what I'm saying that if someone hears the Word and their
heart has been transformed by the Holy Spirit, they would be able to say
that they believe etc...and their life will begin to produce works worthy
of the Name.  

"Or, is the model outlined above not really the way a person gets saved
at all, despite its current popularity?"

   I agree with this statement.   However, I do believe that 1-4 do happen in a life that is saved.
(I will try to clarify where I'm coming from in another post)

  As for if the Good Samaritan was saved...  I'm not sure I see the point
of the question.   I don't believe that is the point of the parable
either.   Although I guess that it could support the statement that Jesus
made in Matthew 5:20 "20  ¶"For I say to you that unless your
righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not
enter the kingdom of heaven."
   Also, the Parable was in response to "...who is my neighbor?"   We don't minister to our neighbor by our doctrine but by our love.    Love that is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.   So, IMO, the question asked about the Samaritan's Salvation is moot in it's reference in the current topic.

Peace be with you,
Tony

[Tony]

Brent wrote:
"I submit that simply receiving the Word does not result in salvation.
Also, it doesn't say anywhere that we must accept Him,  however, it does
say that He has accepted us!"  

  And I say Amen!And He will continue HIS work within us and produce HIS fruits for HIS glory!

"I submit that confession, repentance, and calling upon The Lord is fruit, or evidence of salvation, and not what brings it about.  BTW, I am still NOT a Calvinist."

I would agree that the above are evidence to ourselves.   I believe that the Fruits of the Holy Spirit are evidence to others as well.


"The reason I am bringing this up----and there is so much more to say
about this----is that I hope to talk about the type of theology we were
taught under George, and root out the various aspects of it that will come back to
trouble us.

If we start at the beginning, then we can "  As you have therefore
received  Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, "

I think it is important to get the beginning right, so we can continue on
the right path.  The Galatians started right, but became confused, thinking that
they could be "better" Christians if they did certain things that seemed to from The Word.  In the same way,  many of us struggle as a result of not really understanding salvation and grace from the get go.
..."

   I believe that this is a good issue to discuss on this forum because of what you mention above.  
Marcia said:
"Michael Coren was invited to speak at our church. He is a journalist and
a gifted speaker. He has been a Christian for 8 years now. He was
watching TV late one night and someone was interviewing a Christian minister (or something). He says he fell asleep on the couch and when he woke up the next morning he
knew that he was saved. Maybe this ties in with what you are saying here.
But I am curious to know 'what brings about our salvation'."

I used to disregard the above type of testimony until recently when I reflected on my own...

  I was filled with drugs, prescribed and self-prescribed early in the morning New Year's Day, 1989.   I cried out to God to let me die...I then asked that He change me.   I fell asleep and awoke the next morning and pitched all of the medications and *some* of my own "meds"
   I quit drinking and using the narcotics and four months later, I met my wife.   It wasn't until about a year and a half later that I began reading the Bible on cassette tape.   It was thrilling to read His Word for the first time.   I never prayed a "Sinner's Prayer" or followed a formula.   I did however, confess that He was my Savior to many people.   I was not Baptized until June of 1994.

   Was I Saved when I cried out to the Lord on New Year's Day?   I believe from the Lord's "perspective" that I was.   From my own perspective...what does it matter?!  I have seen that the Lord has narrowed my path in spite of my wanderings, He has continued to "change my life."   He has remained Faithful and Trustworthy, even though most times I have been anything but...

   I believe that I personally needed to be hit with something as clear as the collapse of the self-proclaimed *ministry* of George Geftakys to fully recognize the Grace by which my lord has kept me through these years.

...Blessed be the name of the Lord!

--Tony

[Kimberley Tobin]

I don't quite get how we are discussing this issue on this thread and also how it somehow migrated to "The Inner Ring" thread.

Brent just recently made a response to Tom Maddux on that thread re: faith and I don't know how to quote it here (oh well!)

I don't have time to go into detail as to all I believe on this topic, but I wanted to chime in with what little time I do have.

I'm no theologian and with all the assembly stuff I am having to divest myself of........I am still trying to sort through what I DO believe.

One of the problems I have with the strict, "Confess with your mouth......believe on the Lord Jesus.......and you shall be saved", "steps" approach to determining salvation, is my experience on the "outside", so to speak.

My family, of which none but my step-father profess Christ, show more love, acts of service, belief in "God" without "ramming" and "preaching" at others and what they "should" be doing.  I know Romans 2 talks about the law written on men and womens hearts bearing more witness than those who are the "descendents" of Abraham.

My mother, who is one of the most loving, compassionate, service oriented, has an incredible "testimony" amongst hundreds of her acquaintances, by the "steps" method of salvation is clearly not saved.  But she has taught me more about the love of God and the "nature" of God than any christian I have been associated with in the assembly.  Not to mention my sister and brother in law, who are the most incredible parents I have ever witnessed.  These individuals have watched the "hypocrisy" of Christians and want nothing to do with being "indoctrinated" with what they have to do to be "saved."  But they are "living" the word, more than I see many Christians I have been assocaited with through the assembly.  And their foundation is a spiritual one.  They all profess a faith in God, but they are unwilling to "label" it.

I am still questioning the "salvation" issue.  The fruit in my life compared to the fruit in my mother's or my sister's life?  I dunno............I seem to be the one who is missing the boat more than they, and I took the "steps".

Interesting topic, one in which I will continue to debate on with y'all.  What do you think?

[Oscar]

Brent and Kimberly,

Rather than go into a long verse by verse discussion, especially since I don't know how to bring Brent's last post over here either, I am going to give a very general reply.

It seems to me that the core issue in this discussion is the idea that God must do something in/for an individual before they can believe.

Reformed theology says that the elect are regenerated prior to salvation.  This is seen as necessary because of their view of man's fallen nature, (Total Depravity).  Reformed folks believe that man cannot believe, so God must, through the operation of irresistable grace, so work in the man that he must believe.  He will do this because God has so decreed.


Arminians believe that because of man's fallen nature he cannot believe. They say that since Christ died for the sins of all men, common grace makes it possible for all men to believe.  Some will, some wont.  God has known for all eternity who will and who wont, so He elected those who will.

Now the purpose of my post is not to argue for one against the other.  I don't believe either one is completly correct myself.  Those who get their underwear in a bundle about this usually make the mistake of thinking that these are the only options.

I wanted to make a few points that can be considered in this discussion.

1. Both views require prevenient grace.  Prevenient just means "comes before" so whether it is irresistable or not all grace operating on men before salvation must be prevenient.

2. The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace, through faith.  Faith is an decision of the mind and will to respond positively to Divine revelation.  In this case the gospel.

Remember, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".  You must have something to believe before you can have faith in it.  This dictates an order.  How can someone believe before there is anything to believe.

A widly accepted rule of interpretation is that truth established by clear passages is to used in understanding unclear passages.  BTW GG rejected this.

3. We must be careful about drawing conclusions that do not follow from a particular verse.

 For example the verse that says, "No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
(John 6:44).

This verse says that no one can come unless they are drawn.  It does not say that all who are drawn come.

It may be true that all come.  But it is a violation of the rules of logical inference to draw that out of this verse.  One who wishes to establish that idea must find a verse or passage that does lead one to that conclusion.  

No one can ride in my car unless I invite him.  But not all who are invited ride in my car.

What reformed theologians do with verses like this to impose their systematic theology on them.  The verse must mean what we have concluded is true, ie, TULIP.  However, that is doing theology backwards.  It is an exponential form of the "Begging the Question" fallacy.

4. Kimberly, unless people are sinless, they need a savior.  No one, as far as I know, believes that only Christians can live a good outward life.  There are plenty of very nice people who live outwardly moral lives, at least generally.

But if we offend in one point of the law, we are guilty of all the law.  We need Christ, and apart from his cross there is no salvation.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

H,

What you have done in your post under "Soaring with the Seagulls" is what I was talking about in point #3 in my last post.

You quoted John 6:37-39.  Then you made the point that all who the Father has given to the son will come to him.  Well, that is exactly what it says.

The problem is the conclusion you draw.  Everyone believes that the elect will be saved.  The whole discussion is about, "How does one become one of the elect"?  How does one become one of those who are "given to the son"?

Is it by irresistable grace, or by choosing Christ while enabled by prevenient grace?

You have simply stated the obvious.  But this in no way leads to the point under discussion.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[sfortescue]

To quote text from one thread to be posted in another thread:


1. Click the Quote button.

2. Click the message box.

3. On the keyboard, while holding Ctrl press Home, then while holding Ctrl and Shift press End, then while holding Ctrl press C.

4. Start the Notepad program.

5. Click the Notepad text window.

6. While holding Ctrl press V.  The quoted message should appear in the Notepad text window.

7. Click the internet browser Back button to cancel posting in the source thread.


You can repeat this process (except step 4) to include multiple quoted messages in your post.


8. Compose your post using Notepad.  While composing you might want to turn on Word Wrap in the Format menu so that paragraphs will be easier to read.  After you have composed your message you should turn Word Wrap off again so that the Notepad line breaks won't interfere with the BB paragraph formatting.

9. While holding Ctrl press Home, then while holding Ctrl and Shift press End, then while holding Ctrl press C.

10. Find the destination thread and click the Reply button.

11. Click the message box.

12. While holding Ctrl press V.  Your post should appear in the message box.


From here you can post as usual.  For longer posts I usually use the preview option and if needed fix the post with Notepad then redo the text copy and paste operation, deleting the contents of the message box just before the copy.  I also save longer posts to files in case something goes wrong.  File save must be done with Word Wrap turned off.

[Scott McCumber]

To quote text from one thread to be posted in another thread:


1. Click the Quote button.

2. Click the message box.

3. On the keyboard, while holding Ctrl press Home, then while holding Ctrl and Shift press End, then while holding Ctrl press C.

4. Start the Notepad program.

5. Click the Notepad text window.

6. While holding Ctrl press V.  The quoted message should appear in the Notepad text window.

7. Click the internet browser Back button to cancel posting in the source thread.


You can repeat this process (except step 4) to include multiple quoted messages in your post.


8. Compose your post using Notepad.  While composing you might want to turn on Word Wrap in the Format menu so that paragraphs will be easier to read.  After you have composed your message you should turn Word Wrap off again so that the Notepad line breaks won't interfere with the BB paragraph formatting.

9. While holding Ctrl press Home, then while holding Ctrl and Shift press End, then while holding Ctrl press C.

10. Find the destination thread and click the Reply button.

11. Click the message box.

12. While holding Ctrl press V.  Your post should appear in the message box.


From here you can post as usual.  For longer posts I usually use the preview option and if needed fix the post with Notepad then redo the text copy and paste operation, deleting the contents of the message box just before the copy.  I also save longer posts to files in case something goes wrong.  File save must be done with Word Wrap turned off.

Seems like a lot to go through. Why not just CTRL A, CTRL C in the quote, then go to the other thread, hit reply and hit CTRL V? Am I missing something?

It is good to write your messages in Notepad or Word, I'll admit, but only because I've written posts and when I tried to hit the Post button, found out that my login session has expired. Ow. Have to start over if I don't have it in Word originally.

Since that has happened, I'm always conscious of my login and don't worry about typing it in Word if not necessary.

Or, I guess, if you are using multiple quote sources and need to keep copying and pasting them into your message.

S

[al Hartman]

     A few days ago I expressed some thoughts on another thread which triggered an allergic reaction in some assembly-trained minds.  Owing to our common background, I can understand why my remarks were construed to be those of one infected with the overcomer virus.  There was a concern that I was leaning, and leading others to lean, away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ and toward the idea that we continue and ultimately complete our salvation by virtue of our own works.

     In ensuing attempts to clarify my conceptions, I may have inadvertently swung too far in the other direction, giving the impression that I believe the whole matter to be decided by God, leaving us as helpless puppets or pawns in His hands.

     As this BB goes, I am far from the brightest bulb on the tree.  I am not attempting to teach doctrine or to lead anyone toward a particular line of thought beyond that God the Father loves us, God the Son saves us and God the Holy Spirit teaches and leads us.

     My purpose in sharing my views beyond that is to inspire prayer, discussion and study that will bring us each farther into His Light and enable us to please and glorify Him.
=========================================

     Why are the nations in an uproar
               And the peoples devising a vain thing?
     The kings of the earth take their stand
               And the rulers take counsel together
     Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
               "Let us tear their fetters apart
     And cast away their cords from us!"  Psalm 2:1-3

     Why?  After God created mankind in His image and likeness, the first man and woman took steps of disobedience that brought about a rift between God and them, and all who followed them.  Originally God and man could fellowship face to face and man, the creation, had opportunity to be intimately acquainted with God, the Creator.
     Ever since that relationship was severed, mankind has been unable to know and understand God, and so has sought and yet seeks to re-create a god in his (man's) image and likeness.  That is, mankind wishes to have a god who is defined within the parameters of human comprehension.  To define God is also to confine Him within the very limited capacities of the mortal mind.

     And that brings us to the conflicting ideas of the Calvinists and the Arminianists:  all with the noblest intentions of understanding our God, Whose thoughts and ways infinitely exceed ours in our present state upon the earth.
     Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights...  James 1:17
     Can there be any doubt as to the nature, power and extent of God's grace?  Can we possibly have any need too great for grace to cover?  And yet previous posts offer scriptural evidence that an active response must take place on the part of each of us in order that we may be partakers of and continue in that grace.
     We do understand, I believe, that any positive response toward God could not possibly originate from a heart not prepared by grace, or we would be able to claim partial credit for our own redemption, thus negating the completeness of Christ's work.  So, then, we are left debating the design, nature and working of grace at a level far beyond our need to know.  Opinions are to be encouraged, but not to become doctrine.  Doctrine is for guidance in the essentials of redeemed life preceeding death or rapture; not for speculation beyond that.
     Suffice to know that God has acted magnanimously on our behalf, and we shall respond with acts only possible because of Him.  And the final scorecard will show that He alone scored every point, and not one of us will have credit for an assist.  And we will all rejoice and be fine with that...

God bless,

al Hartman



     

     

[editor]

Brent and Kimberly,

Rather than go into a long verse by verse discussion, especially since I don't know how to bring Brent's last post over here either, I am going to give a very general reply.

It seems to me that the core issue in this discussion is the idea that God must do something in/for an individual before they can believe.

Reformed theology says that the elect are regenerated prior to salvation.  This is seen as necessary because of their view of man's fallen nature, (Total Depravity).  Reformed folks believe that man cannot believe, so God must, through the operation of irresistable grace, so work in the man that he must believe.  He will do this because God has so decreed.


Arminians believe that because of man's fallen nature he cannot believe. They say that since Christ died for the sins of all men, common grace makes it possible for all men to believe.  Some will, some wont.  God has known for all eternity who will and who wont, so He elected those who will.

Now the purpose of my post is not to argue for one against the other.  I don't believe either one is completly correct myself.  Those who get their underwear in a bundle about this usually make the mistake of thinking that these are the only options.

I wanted to make a few points that can be considered in this discussion.

1. Both views require prevenient grace.  Prevenient just means "comes before" so whether it is irresistable or not all grace operating on men before salvation must be prevenient.

2. The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace, through faith.  Faith is an decision of the mind and will to respond positively to Divine revelation.  In this case the gospel.

Remember, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".  You must have something to believe before you can have faith in it.  This dictates an order.  How can someone believe before there is anything to believe.

A widly accepted rule of interpretation is that truth established by clear passages is to used in understanding unclear passages.  BTW GG rejected this.

3. We must be careful about drawing conclusions that do not follow from a particular verse.

 For example the verse that says, "No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
(John 6:44).

This verse says that no one can come unless they are drawn.  It does not say that all who are drawn come.

It may be true that all come.  But it is a violation of the rules of logical inference to draw that out of this verse.  One who wishes to establish that idea must find a verse or passage that does lead one to that conclusion.  

No one can ride in my car unless I invite him.  But not all who are invited ride in my car.

What reformed theologians do with verses like this to impose their systematic theology on them.  The verse must mean what we have concluded is true, ie, TULIP.  However, that is doing theology backwards.  It is an exponential form of the "Begging the Question" fallacy.

4. Kimberly, unless people are sinless, they need a savior.  No one, as far as I know, believes that only Christians can live a good outward life.  There are plenty of very nice people who live outwardly moral lives, at least generally.

But if we offend in one point of the law, we are guilty of all the law.  We need Christ, and apart from his cross there is no salvation.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

You make some really good points here Tom.  

I agree, faith comes through hearing.  It is extremely difficult to make that one say something else.

So, do I undertand you correctly in that you are saying there is prevenient Grace, which enables faith?  Therefore, although confession and a receiving of Christ's gift of salvation is required, it isn't a work?  Do I have this right?

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent and Kimberly,

Rather than go into a long verse by verse discussion, especially since I don't know how to bring Brent's last post over here either, I am going to give a very general reply.

It seems to me that the core issue in this discussion is the idea that God must do something in/for an individual before they can believe.

Reformed theology says that the elect are regenerated prior to salvation.  This is seen as necessary because of their view of man's fallen nature, (Total Depravity).  Reformed folks believe that man cannot believe, so God must, through the operation of irresistable grace, so work in the man that he must believe.  He will do this because God has so decreed.


Arminians believe that because of man's fallen nature he cannot believe. They say that since Christ died for the sins of all men, common grace makes it possible for all men to believe.  Some will, some wont.  God has known for all eternity who will and who wont, so He elected those who will.

Now the purpose of my post is not to argue for one against the other.  I don't believe either one is completly correct myself.  Those who get their underwear in a bundle about this usually make the mistake of thinking that these are the only options.

I wanted to make a few points that can be considered in this discussion.

1. Both views require prevenient grace.  Prevenient just means "comes before" so whether it is irresistable or not all grace operating on men before salvation must be prevenient.

2. The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace, through faith.  Faith is an decision of the mind and will to respond positively to Divine revelation.  In this case the gospel.

Remember, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".  You must have something to believe before you can have faith in it.  This dictates an order.  How can someone believe before there is anything to believe.

A widly accepted rule of interpretation is that truth established by clear passages is to used in understanding unclear passages.  BTW GG rejected this.

3. We must be careful about drawing conclusions that do not follow from a particular verse.

 For example the verse that says, "No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
(John 6:44).

This verse says that no one can come unless they are drawn.  It does not say that all who are drawn come.

It may be true that all come.  But it is a violation of the rules of logical inference to draw that out of this verse.  One who wishes to establish that idea must find a verse or passage that does lead one to that conclusion.  

No one can ride in my car unless I invite him.  But not all who are invited ride in my car.

What reformed theologians do with verses like this to impose their systematic theology on them.  The verse must mean what we have concluded is true, ie, TULIP.  However, that is doing theology backwards.  It is an exponential form of the "Begging the Question" fallacy.

4. Kimberly, unless people are sinless, they need a savior.  No one, as far as I know, believes that only Christians can live a good outward life.  There are plenty of very nice people who live outwardly moral lives, at least generally.

But if we offend in one point of the law, we are guilty of all the law.  We need Christ, and apart from his cross there is no salvation.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

You make some really good points here Tom.  

I agree, faith comes through hearing.  It is extremely difficult to make that one say something else.

So, do I undertand you correctly in that you are saying there is prevenient Grace, which enables faith?  Therefore, although confession and a receiving of Christ's gift of salvation is required, it isn't a work?  Do I have this right?

Brent

Brent,

Any grace that operates in/on a person before their salvation is by definition prevenient, ie, it comes before.  The "ven" root of the word is from the Latin for "to come".  Pre is obvious to English speakers.

When Reformed folks think of grace that "comes before" they don't say "prevenient grace".  That is because what that term means for Arminians is different than Calvinists believe.  But in their view the regenerative work of God that precedes new birth is by God's irresistable grace.  But it obviously "comes before" faith unto salvation.  So it is prevenient in that sense at least.

When Weslyan Arminians speak of prevenient grace they mean common grace, which they believe operates on all men, enabling, not forcing them to believe.  Reformed folks also believe in common grace, but to a more limited extent.

I believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins of an elect group.  Because of this, it seems likely to me that grace is available to all men.  To enable faith unto salvation, it would have to be prevenient.

This also seems, to me at least, to accord best with Biblical injunctions to go into the world to preach the gospel to all nations.

Perhaps I am wrong in this.  In the past Christians have gone so far as to kill each other over this issue.  In our day, I am well aware that many would despise me for my opinions.

I am just not sure why I should care very much about folks that think that way.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Perhaps I am wrong in this.  In the past Christians have gone so far as to kill each other over this issue.  In our day, I am well aware that many would despise me for my opinions.

I am just not sure why I should care very much about folks that think that way.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I don't think it's a good idea to take our discussion to the extreme you mention above.  Are you with me Saints?  

You have actually answered my whole point in starting this thread.  We are saved by God, not by our efforts, diligence, self-denial, faithfulness, performance, or wisdom.  

If we begin in this way, we must also continue this way, in grace.  It is quite simple, but if I understood it 20 years ago, I wouldn't have done all the things I did!

I am attracted to reformed theology because of its emphasis on grace.  However, I am not a Calvinist!   If you are looking for someone to come to blows with over whether grace is irresistable or not, you've got the wrong person.

The very idea of that is best illustrated with an episode of The Simpsons.  The residents of Springfield discovered what they thought was the skeleton of an angel.  In no time at all, two guys were fist-fighting over it,  "I say it's the angel of Mercy!"  "No! You idiot!  It's the angel of peace!"   Pretty good insight in those writers, eh?

Brent