Faith and salvation, where do they come from?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Worm,

Yet the Bible tells us that men everywhere will be held to account for what they can perceive of God in the Creation?

Ro

[st. Worm]

Grace to you,

Worm,

Yet the Bible tells us that men everywhere will be held to account for what they can perceive of God in the Creation?

Ro

[st. Worm]

See this. Receive is not the same as accept nebula.

This is falacious reasoning. Recieve and accept are completely synonomous terms. You might as well try to argue that "chopping down the tree and "cutting down the tree" are not the same thing. This is a faulty premise that you are building on.

I have received faith from God, faith that has caused me to believe. It was not my acceptance of it that caused the receipt.

Again, you are trying to make create a fake distinction between these words. Both words involve a conscious decision on the part of the recipient.

I did not do anything on my end to accept it. That is synergism. I received God's grace unto salvation. It was not because of my decision to accept it that brought God's grace.

Acceptance is not synergism where this issue is concerned. Syngergism only applies to those who think that they must perform good works in addition to faith in Christ.

Grace is grace, completely unmerited. That is why I say those who insist that they had a part in their salvation by their "acceptance" of Christ are seeking their own glory by claiming their part in the process.

Accepting the grace of God has nothing to do with "meriting" it. Merit comes from a sense of entitlement. Those who attempt to merit salvation, do so because they feel that simply grace cannot be accepted freely, but that it can only accepted when one has done enough good works to warrant being offered salvation.

Receive and accept are not the same thing and I gave an example.

Whether you like it or not synergism is two things working together. You believe acceptance and grace are required for salvation. That is clearly synergism and clearly not true grace.

It is you who are misusing terms if think cutting and chopping have the same relationship as accepting and receiving. That is silly and torturing the words.

sw

[st. Worm]

Such is the mystery of salvation. The spiritually dead can reject the goodness of God. Besides, spiritual death does not mean inactivity like physical death. The spiritually dead choose freely according to their inclination and their inclination is always towards sin and against God. However only God can awaken dead sinners. It can become very mindblowing when we throw election into the mix. The bottom line is, those who are saved receive God's grace in a special way. Those who are lost have no one to blame but themselves. The issue of how we are saved can be almost as distressing as why we, who are no more deserving of salvation than others, are saved, while the others are lost.

Pray tell, when did you receive God's grace?

When did you go from being dead to being alive in Christ?

I have no idea what day and time God regenerated me and freed my soul to hear his gospel. I do know that I received the gift of faith through the preaching of God's Word in 1993 as an adult. It was a day I remember well and I will never forget it. It was not a choice I made. It was God causing me to repent and believe through the power of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins. Obviously many do not remember the day they came to believe in Jesus. However that does not invalidate their salvation. You always seem to demand a dramatic salvation experience from what I recall in other posts. Doesn't always work that way and it is not a requirement. Are you aware that only about 10% of those who walked forward with their dramatic conversion experiences at Billy Graham crusades actually followed up, became part of Christ's church and continued forward in real faith. What does that tell you about conversion "experiences"?

sw

[st. Worm]

I have no idea what day and time God regenerated me and freed my soul to hear his gospel. I do know that I received the gift of faith through the preaching of God's Word in 1993 as an adult. It was a day I remember well and I will never forget it. It was not a choice I made. It was God causing me to repent and believe through the power of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins. Obviously many do not remember the day they came to believe in Jesus. However that does not invalidate their salvation. You always seem to demand a dramatic salvation experience from what I recall in other posts. Doesn't always work that way and it is not a requirement. Are you aware that only about 10% of those who walked forward with their dramatic conversion experiences at Billy Graham crusades actually followed up, became part of Christ's church and continued forward in real faith. What does that tell you about conversion "experiences"?

sw

It was not a choice I made. It was God causing me to repent and believe through the power of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins.

Just where does free will enter into your doctrinal concept? C.S. Lewis wrote,

[Guest shiloh357]

See this. Receive is not the same as accept nebula.

This is falacious reasoning. Recieve and accept are completely synonomous terms. You might as well try to argue that "chopping down the tree and "cutting down the tree" are not the same thing. This is a faulty premise that you are building on.

I have received faith from God, faith that has caused me to believe. It was not my acceptance of it that caused the receipt.

Again, you are trying to make create a fake distinction between these words. Both words involve a conscious decision on the part of the recipient.

I did not do anything on my end to accept it. That is synergism. I received God's grace unto salvation. It was not because of my decision to accept it that brought God's grace.

Acceptance is not synergism where this issue is concerned. Syngergism only applies to those who think that they must perform good works in addition to faith in Christ.

Grace is grace, completely unmerited. That is why I say those who insist that they had a part in their salvation by their "acceptance" of Christ are seeking their own glory by claiming their part in the process.

Accepting the grace of God has nothing to do with "meriting" it. Merit comes from a sense of entitlement. Those who attempt to merit salvation, do so because they feel that simply grace cannot be accepted freely, but that it can only accepted when one has done enough good works to warrant being offered salvation.

Receive and accept are not the same thing and I gave an example.

Whether you like it or not synergism is two things working together. You believe acceptance and grace are required for salvation. That is clearly synergism and clearly not true grace.

It is you who are misusing terms if think cutting and chopping have the same relationship as accepting and receiving. That is silly and torturing the words.

sw

Your "example" was not satisfactory, and even a thesaurus tells us that the two words are synonyms. I guess you know more?

Jesus always brings people to a point of decision.

Grace and acceptance are not examples of "synergism." You are trying to stretch that beyond its normal use to support your "theology." Any thinking person can see that.

And Yes, cutting and chopping are an adequate example of your ridiculous, and fake distinction between receiving and accepting.

[st. Worm]

See this. Receive is not the same as accept nebula.

This is falacious reasoning. Recieve and accept are completely synonomous terms. You might as well try to argue that "chopping down the tree and "cutting down the tree" are not the same thing. This is a faulty premise that you are building on.

I have received faith from God, faith that has caused me to believe. It was not my acceptance of it that caused the receipt.

Again, you are trying to make create a fake distinction between these words. Both words involve a conscious decision on the part of the recipient.

I did not do anything on my end to accept it. That is synergism. I received God's grace unto salvation. It was not because of my decision to accept it that brought God's grace.

Acceptance is not synergism where this issue is concerned. Syngergism only applies to those who think that they must perform good works in addition to faith in Christ.

Grace is grace, completely unmerited. That is why I say those who insist that they had a part in their salvation by their "acceptance" of Christ are seeking their own glory by claiming their part in the process.

Accepting the grace of God has nothing to do with "meriting" it. Merit comes from a sense of entitlement. Those who attempt to merit salvation, do so because they feel that simply grace cannot be accepted freely, but that it can only accepted when one has done enough good works to warrant being offered salvation.

Receive and accept are not the same thing and I gave an example.

Whether you like it or not synergism is two things working together. You believe acceptance and grace are required for salvation. That is clearly synergism and clearly not true grace.

It is you who are misusing terms if think cutting and chopping have the same relationship as accepting and receiving. That is silly and torturing the words.

sw

Your "example" was not satisfactory, and even a thesaurus tells us that the two words are synonyms. I guess you know more?

Jesus always brings people to a point of decision.

Grace and acceptance are not examples of "synergism." You are trying to stretch that beyond its normal use to support your "theology." Any thinking person can see that.

And Yes, cutting and chopping are an adequate example of your ridiculous, and fake distinction between receiving and accepting.

My purpose here is not to satisfy you. Its to be truthful. In the context the words are being used here, receiving and acceptance are NOT the same. Sorry you can't seem to grasp that. I receive mail in my mail box each day. I am seldom there to accept it. Get it now?

sw

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Of course we are accountable for our sins. Also, all of the passages you continue to quote that tell what God requires of us do not address our ability to do so. Does God make demands of us he knows we cannot fulfull? Of course he does! The commands of the Law are required even though we cannot fulfill them. The command to repent and believe likewise is beyond our ability apart from a special work of the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying our will is in the same condition as that of Adam before the Fall? Do you not understand how the Fall affected mankind? In the words of the writer of Genesis, "man's thoughts are continually evil". Jeremiah says our hearts are deceitfully wicked. Paul recalls OT verses and says none are righteous, none do any good. Jesus himself says no one can come to him unless it is granted and that we must born again before we can even begin to see the Kingdom of Heaven. When you read the Bible in context from the Fall forward you understand that man's will is bound by sin. Only those who receive the special grace of being born again are awakened from their death and able to be converted. Of course Adam and Eve had free wills but that changed after they sinned. Our wills and our nature are completely tainted. You are discounting sin in your view that mankind has a morally neutral free will. You think too highly of us dear soul.

I think our disagreement is not so much that we need to repent and believe. Of course I believe that. Our disagreement which is fundamental is that you believe all men have the natural ability to do so. That is simply not the case. That is clear in the Words of Jesus, the words of Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards and on it goes. There is not a single passage in Scripture that indicates man after the Fall has the free ability to do what you claim he can. That is the teaching of those who have been properly rebuked by the church throughout history. It is not grounded in Scripture. You view salvation as a cosmic crapshoot where God creates a bunch of independent entities and then hopes some choose Him. You view Jesus as a weak and impotent God who stands off in the corner crying to us "Please choose me, please choose me!" That is not the God of the Bible who knits us together in the womb and who ordains all that comes to pass. I believe it is Ezekial where a graveyard of dead bones are brought to life by the command of God. This in itself is a picture of God's work in salvation. This is a picture of true grace to the fallen. The free will argument is nothing but a scheme of salvation by good works for those smart enough, religious enough, or fortunate enough to make the right choice.

sw

The examples I have quoted you are both from the Old and New Testament. They are designed to show you that God hasn't changed the way He operates.

He operates through a Covenant. An Agreement. Handed down by God. Abraham agreed to a Covenant and then divided some sacrifices. Yet God walked between them as a smoking firepot. When God could find nothing greater, He swore by Himself that He would accomplish His Will. Despite the failures of Abraham. Abraham still receieved Faith and agreed with God. He received Faith because he heard the Word of God and agreed with it.

The Covenant we are under is the New Covenant of Gods Grace. God has accomplished all of it. Therefore we cannot boast. However to be in Covenant two parties must agree.

Have you not heard?

Am

[nebula]

Only those who receive the special grace of being born again are awakened from their death and able to be converted.

Please explain how this is not the doctrine of "predestination"?

[st. Worm]

Grace to you,

Of course we are accountable for our sins. Also, all of the passages you continue to quote that tell what God requires of us do not address our ability to do so. Does God make demands of us he knows we cannot fulfull? Of course he does! The commands of the Law are required even though we cannot fulfill them. The command to repent and believe likewise is beyond our ability apart from a special work of the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying our will is in the same condition as that of Adam before the Fall? Do you not understand how the Fall affected mankind? In the words of the writer of Genesis, "man's thoughts are continually evil". Jeremiah says our hearts are deceitfully wicked. Paul recalls OT verses and says none are righteous, none do any good. Jesus himself says no one can come to him unless it is granted and that we must born again before we can even begin to see the Kingdom of Heaven. When you read the Bible in context from the Fall forward you understand that man's will is bound by sin. Only those who receive the special grace of being born again are awakened from their death and able to be converted. Of course Adam and Eve had free wills but that changed after they sinned. Our wills and our nature are completely tainted. You are discounting sin in your view that mankind has a morally neutral free will. You think too highly of us dear soul.

I think our disagreement is not so much that we need to repent and believe. Of course I believe that. Our disagreement which is fundamental is that you believe all men have the natural ability to do so. That is simply not the case. That is clear in the Words of Jesus, the words of Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards and on it goes. There is not a single passage in Scripture that indicates man after the Fall has the free ability to do what you claim he can. That is the teaching of those who have been properly rebuked by the church throughout history. It is not grounded in Scripture. You view salvation as a cosmic crapshoot where God creates a bunch of independent entities and then hopes some choose Him. You view Jesus as a weak and impotent God who stands off in the corner crying to us "Please choose me, please choose me!" That is not the God of the Bible who knits us together in the womb and who ordains all that comes to pass. I believe it is Ezekial where a graveyard of dead bones are brought to life by the command of God. This in itself is a picture of God's work in salvation. This is a picture of true grace to the fallen. The free will argument is nothing but a scheme of salvation by good works for those smart enough, religious enough, or fortunate enough to make the right choice.

sw

The examples I have quoted you are both from the Old and New Testament. They are designed to show you that God hasn't changed the way He operates.

He operates through a Covenant. An Agreement. Handed down by God. Abraham agreed to a Covenant and then divided some sacrifices. Yet God walked between them as a smoking firepot. When God could find nothing greater, He swore by Himself that He would accomplish His Will. Despite the failures of Abraham. Abraham still receieved Faith and agreed with God. He received Faith because he heard the Word of God and agreed with it.

The Covenant we are under is the New Covenant of Gods Grace. God has accomplished all of it. Therefore we cannot boast. However to be in Covenant two parties must agree.

Have you not heard?

Am