# Grace and Faith



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 1, 2005)

Two definitions I've hear all the time for grace. 

1. Unmerited favor
2. Something we don't deserve

Now, I am always mentioning all the verses in the Bible to Arminians/Semi-Pelagians that involve that we are saved only by faith. They agree. However, they say that faith isn't a work because its not material. I respond taht it is merit though. That God is rewarding your salvation based on a decision that you have made, thus giving you the chance to boast/ glorify yourself in heaven, about how you made a decision while the others didn't. They say the chance to choose God is something we don't deserve and thus grace. When a guilty person is drowinging and a rope is thrown to him, that is grace. The person who threw the rope had the right and power not to do so, yet still did. A gift is grace, yet we can refuse it, if you are in jail and pardoned you can refuse the pardon, etc. If God gives us a chance and we refuse it, we refuse grace. To say that we share the glory when God initiated it and gave us the opertunity is silly because we didn't deserve the chance in the first place. 

I have many other angles to defeat them on this subject, however this one seems to be difficult for me to explain. Help me untangle this guys, shed me some of your light.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 1, 2005)

But they say that faith is not a gift and that a chance is sufficient grace.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2005)

But what they're missing is that the "chance" in reference is not a first chance, it is a second chance. Our first chance forfeited at the Fall and through original sin. We all have a first chance to get favor with God, which is by obeying Him. Once we forfeit that chance, on what grounds do they think God "owes" us a second chance, since the Cross is just that - a second chance.


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> But they say that faith is not a gift ...



There's the crux of the problem. Maybe try less of a philisophical approach, and instead focus on Scripture.


Philippians 1:29
"For to you *it has been granted* on behalf of Christ, not only *to believe in Him*, but also to suffer for His sake, 

2 Peter 1:1
To those who *have obtained a faith* of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 

Ask them what these verses mean. How can it be "granted to us to believe"? How can faith be "obtained"?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2005)

And 2 Tim. 2:25 (ESV), which says "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth."


----------



## edwardian289 (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> But they say that faith is not a gift and that a chance is sufficient grace.



By saying that "faith is not a gift" they deny scripture:
"for it is by grace that you have been saved, through *faith* and *that* not of yourselves *it is the GIFT of God* lest anyone should boast" 
(eph. 2:8-9)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> They say the chance to choose God is something we don't deserve and thus grace.


Here's their fatal flaw. Where does it say that Christ grants an opportunity for salvation? Whenever the work of Christ is discussed, it is always in definite terms, with a specific people in mind. Christ actually accomplished redemption on the cross, not the possibility of redemption. "It is finished." Christ has saved those whom the Father has given him. 



> When a guilty person is drowinging and a rope is thrown to him, that is grace. The person who threw the rope had the right and power not to do so, yet still did. A gift is grace, yet we can refuse it, if you are in jail and pardoned you can refuse the pardon, etc. If God gives us a chance and we refuse it, we refuse grace.



It is a faulty analogy. To be more correct, those being rescued are already dead. They are unable to grab the life preserver because they have already drowned. They must be brought back aboard the ship and rescusitated. We are dead in tresspasses and sins, and have enmity toward God in the very core of our being. There's no ability to choose Christ because we willingly refuse to. Until that enmity is removed through regeneration, there is no possibility "choosing Christ."


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2005)

Exactly. God does not "owe" us redemption in Christ in the first place (really He doesn't even owe us a "first chance" either), and whenever that redemption is spoken of, it is in definite terms.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But what they're missing is that the "chance" in reference is not a first chance, it is a second chance. Our first chance forfeited at the Fall and through original sin. We all have a first chance to get favor with God, which is by obeying Him. Once we forfeit that chance, on what grounds do they think God "owes" us a second chance, since the Cross is just that - a second chance.



They don't think God owes us a second chance, thats why they call it grace.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...



They would just say your analogy is faulty (althought its great).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



When they say that, at that point I'd turn to the Scriptures people listed above showing that that "grace" and faith are gifts.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 1, 2005)

These scripture referrences that you guys are throwing up are as clear as the sun. I definitely use these when I defend the Doctrines of Grace. However I was hoping that this logical defense of having a choice contradicting with grace to be sufficient enough to shut them up, and once they are stunned then to start pouring out the blunt scriptures on them.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Arminians would say that God did finish salvation through his foreknowledge he knew who would choose him, and he santified those. (However, they couldn't deny limited atonement with this)


Then there is no free will. If God forknows it, then nothing else can happen. God is omniscient, unless you're going to become an Open Theist.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...



I don't get what your saying. I think there some kind of conection between God ordaining what he foreknows and foreknowing what he ordains. However, couldn't they just say that since he "gave us the freedom to choose" that he knew everyone who would choose him in all of time and just secure and finish their salvation on the cross? Thus making salvation a done deal. "If God forknows it, then nothing else can happen," expand on this statement...


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> However I was hoping that this logical defense of having a choice contradicting with grace to be sufficient enough to shut them up



Thoughts?


----------



## Radar (Feb 2, 2005)

> Two definitions I've hear all the time for grace.
> 
> 1. Unmerited favor
> 2. Something we don't deserve



Well, both are true. But not complete.



> Now, I am always mentioning all the verses in the Bible to Arminians/Semi-Pelagians that involve that we are saved only by faith. They agree.



Certainly. No one comes to God except through faith in Christ's work.



> However, they say that faith isn't a work because its not material.



Strange argument. Works are first and foremost intentions. Nothing material about that. Judaizers intended to impress God and earn merit by circumcision. Nothing material about impression and earning merit. The material aspect, removing a piece of skin, is not the damnable work.



> I respond that it is merit though. That God is rewarding your salvation based on a decision that you have made, thus giving you the chance to boast/ glorify yourself in heaven, about how you made a decision while the others didn't.



You are on the right track here. No need to look elsewhere, just deeper in this area.



> They say the chance to choose God is something we don't deserve and thus grace.



This introduces their point of error. Think about this: "the chance to choose God." The underlying presupposition/ hermeneutic/ worldview with this is found in the words "chance" and "choose". Dismantle before their eyes these two assumptions, and the argument unravels. They acknowledge that things in this universe are left to "chance." They acknowledge that sinful, dead, captive man is free to choose life. This is what you need to attack.



> When a guilty person is drowinging and a rope is thrown to him, that is grace. The person who threw the rope had the right and power not to do so, yet still did. A gift is grace, yet we can refuse it, if you are in jail and pardoned you can refuse the pardon, etc.



I heard James White address Dave Hunt on this issue when they talked back in 2000. Dave used the story of a guy trapped in a well, and someone throws him a rope ladder. It was all "grace" to Dave, but he insisted that man had to climb that ladder. James countered that the man at the bottom of the well is dead, moss is growing on him, worms are eating him. If that man is going to get out of that well, God has to climb down that ladder and carry that man out.



> If God gives us a chance and we refuse it, we refuse grace.



This leans back on their presup of chance and choose. Both points are in error. The resurrected dead cannot refuse their resurrection. The life they are resurrected to cannot refuse that grace. And there ain't no chance involved!



> To say that we share the glory when God initiated it and gave us the opertunity is silly because we didn't deserve the chance in the first place.



This sooooooo misses the point. They are saying this, rephrased, "God, thank you for providing me the 'chance' to 'choose' your 'gracious' opportunity to climb myself outta here."



> I have many other angles to defeat them on this subject, however this one seems to be difficult for me to explain. Help me untangle this guys, shed me some of your light.



Hope I have been of a little help. I enjoyed thinking about this and responding.

Peace


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



If an Arminian argues for election on the basis of forseen faith, then he's shooting himself in the foot. Nevermind the fact that it's still man contributing his effort to gain eternal life, or the fact that such a scheme has God playing the heavenly bellhop. You also have the problem of God's perfect omniscience. He knows everything that will come to pass. Nothing can take him by surprise, nothing can thwart the course of history, because God already knows what will happen. If something doesn't happen according to the forknowledge of God, then He is not omniscient. No Arminian will argue that. So now they are left with a free will which really isn't free, because they can't choose contrary to what God has already forseen. It's a logical mess, besides being unbiblical.


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> If an Arminian argues for election on the basis of forseen faith, then he's shooting himself in the foot. Nevermind the fact that it's still man contributing his effort to gain eternal life, or the fact that such a scheme has God playing the heavenly bellhop. You also have the problem of God's perfect omniscience. He knows everything that will come to pass. Nothing can take him by surprise, nothing can thwart the course of history, because God already knows what will happen. If something doesn't happen according to the forknowledge of God, then He is not omniscient. No Arminian will argue that. So now they are left with a free will which really isn't free, because they can't choose contrary to what God has already forseen. It's a logical mess, besides being unbiblical.



Which is why the only consistant Arminian is the Open Theist.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 2, 2005)

Could he not be omnipotent by knowing the soul of everyone who would choose them out of their own strength before they actually did and atoning for them at the cross? How would he be taken from suprise in this scenario?


----------



## Radar (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Could he not be omnipotent by knowing the soul of everyone who would choose them out of their own strength before they actually did and atoning for them at the cross? How would he be taken from suprise in this scenario?



"Out of their own strength" is the error. One must deny monergism before he can assert this. That means one must default to a position that the spritually dead are really alive, those held captive to satan's will are really free to choose God, those who cannot understand the things of the spirit really can, those who are blinded can open their own eyes, the Sovereign Will of the universe in some manner acquiesces to infinitesimal creaturely wills before forming His plan, everyone instructs and counsels God in the way He should go, the Son is not free to choose who to reveal the Father to (Christ's statement in John 6 is a limiting statement, while the Arminian says everyone has the Father revealed to them).


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Radar_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...



Right right, I know this and completely agree with you. I was just wondering if there was a way to own them even in their hypothetical world of being spiritually alive.


----------



## Radar (Feb 3, 2005)

> Right right, I know this and completely agree with you. I was just wondering if there was a way to own them even in their hypothetical world of being spiritually alive.



Are you searching for a way to defeat them within their own view? Like an Achilles heel that displays an internal contradiction on their part? I'm not sure I'm following your meaning.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Radar_
> 
> 
> > Right right, I know this and completely agree with you. I was just wondering if there was a way to own them even in their hypothetical world of being spiritually alive.
> ...



Thats exactly what I'm trying to do.


----------



## Radar (Feb 3, 2005)

> Thats exactly what I'm trying to do.



Hmmm.

God elects based on foreseen faith. Thus "election" is a really weird word for it. It should be called rubber stamping. God is seen as taking the creature's will, and making it His own. Maybe it should be called cooption. Clinton commonly took Republican ideas, presented them himself, thus coopting the republicans. God takes man's will, coopts it, and claims it as His own. If it was conniving for Clinton to do, is it holy for God? 

God is seen as acquiescing to a future that man himself decreed, even before his creation. Thus we are all acting out today what we predestined ourselves to do before the foundation of the world. This is because predestination is undeniable, being a biblical term. The question then becomes who is the predestiner. In Arminianism, man is the predestiner. Thus we have an infinitesimal creature, even before the foundation of the world, decreeing his own destiny via God's passive fore-observation-of-things-that-woulda-happened-without-Him-anyway.

Another idea...in Arminianism, God foreobserved Adam's fall, and the shame of his nakedness. He foresaw Adam wearing clothes fo skins. The problem is, did God merely foreobserve Himself making those clothes of skins? God interacts with His creatures (from our perspective). Here is the rub: if God has no idea what our own ways and actions would be until He first foresaw us doing them, then this requires that in His relations with us, God has no idea what His own ways and actions would be until He first foresaw Himself doing them. That is an odd God indeed, who has to foresee His own will interacting with our foreseen will.

That may be along the lines of the internal inconsistency you are looking for. Contrastingly, in Calvinism, because God knows and decrees all His ways and deeds perfectly, He likewise does the same for all of our ways and deeds too.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 14, 2005)

Understanding sovereign grace and divine election in its proper perspective is very much part of that struggling with God in the heart of the believer.

When I stand before the judgment seat, I won't be able to say I chose Christ because I was little smarter or more righteous than the other guy. I love God because loved me. Otherwise, I would have been left dead in sins and trespasses without his miraculous work of regeneration in my heart.

[Edited on 2-14-2005 by Puritanhead]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 14, 2005)

For those struggling with the nature of election and trying to contend for forseen faith... I would recommend you study Ephesians 2:1-2 and Romans 3 and 9 in detail and prayerful consideration. Being dead in sins and trespasses means were spiritual blind--- we have no strength and dead men don't raise themselves. Our new birth or salvation is no more of a cooperative venture between God and man than was Lazarus role in his resurrection when Jesus Christ raised him. Again, before regeneration, we're dead in sins and trespasses and dead men don't raise themselves.

I am prayerful God will give you discernment on the matter and that the doctrines of grace when more fully illuminated to all of our hearts and minds, as well as that of your friend, which will make manifest the loving grace of our sovereign Lord.

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------

