What is the purpose of Grace?

[shepherdsword]

This isn't just about you.

I've responded in general to my understanding of how several have spoken of grace.

You yourself wrote, "The grace of God empowers us . . ." Perhaps if you think I've misunderstood you (power of grace), perhaps you could say it in different words so I can better understand.

Or you can do as you've done, and become accusatory of my twisting your words, and lying to you.

Much love!

You did twist my words. I said God's grace empowers us and you tried to make it sound as if I was referring to some new age "grace force". However, think what you wish. I am not going to play paddy cake with you. Discussions with you always end up in some adolescent game of immature ping pong. I am not interesting in debate only to win the argument.

Much love!

 

[Peter1]

Grace is a free unearned gift from God that brings salvation to the believer

 

[Episkopos]

It remains noteworthy to me, that as there are essentially 2 groups posting on either side of this thread, there are two distinct spirits on display in each set of posts. Have you noticed that?

Much love!

Yes! There are the carnal greasy grace lot, that twists every verse to serve the self, that you champion. And there are the real truth seekers that understand that twisting the scriptures to suit one's taste is abhorrent and lawless.

 

[Episkopos]

Grace is a free unearned gift from God that brings salvation to the believer

Do you "bible know" that or can you testify to the resurrection life and power of Christ?

BTW welcome to the forum! :) I spent a number of years in "Winterpeg" ;)

 

[Episkopos]

I ask the greasy grace lot here. Do you cite scripture to your own advantage....or to your own hurt? What is your motive...truth or self?

 

[Wick Stick]

I'd like to suggest to you that Adam was more than representing humanity, that when God created Adam, He created all who would ever live in Adam. That God created Humanity as a single thing.

We tend to think of humanity as being a collection of individuals who self-replicate, producing more individuals.

The Bible tells us, for instance, that Levi paid tithes to Melchesidek "being in the loins of Abraham". Not that Levi would be someone born in some future time, but that Levi was already in Abraham, and humanity is not a collection of individuals, but a single thing, unfolding over the centuries.

1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Also allegory? Or reality?

Much love!

I think the idea of groups being considered corporately is correct.

But I think you haven't enough groups. There is the elect, Abraham's children. There are those outside the elect group. And then there are those who have been removed from the elect due to offense - the sons of Esau.

 

[Wick Stick]

Read the entire chapter of Heb 7 and ask yourself this question....did Jesus also pay tithes in Abraham?

Is Melchizedek a theophany? If so, it doesn't make much sense to pay tithes to... yourself.

 

[marks]

I think the idea of groups being considered corporately is correct.

But I think you haven't enough groups. There is the elect, Abraham's children. There are those outside the elect group. And then there are those who have been removed from the elect due to offense - the sons of Esau.

Wasn't Esau rejected before being born, having not done anything neither good nor bad?

I agree, there are various groups we can consider. The children of promise and the children of works, Isaac and Ishmael. The chosen and the nations. For the purposes I was thinking, those in Adam, and those in Christ.

Much love!

 

[Wick Stick]

Wasn't Esau rejected before being born, having not done anything neither good nor bad?

There was a prophecy that each son would become a nation and that the older would serve the younger.

Genesis 25:23 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

I don't know that I'd call that a rejection... it isn't a positive. Maybe you're thinking of something else?

I agree, there are various groups we can consider. The children of promise and the children of works, Isaac and Ishmael. The chosen and the nations. For the purposes I was thinking, those in Adam, and those in Christ.

Your earlier question of whether Jesus was "in Adam" is a head-scratcher. I immediately want to answer in the negative, but... the phrase "Son of Man" is a fly in the ointment. How would you answer the question?

 

[shepherdsword]

Wasn't Esau rejected before being born, having not done anything neither good nor bad?

Sure he was, God knew by his foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright and mixed up his bloodline. He was therefor rejected.

 

[ProDeo]

It remains noteworthy to me, that as there are essentially 2 groups posting on either side of this thread, there are two distinct spirits on display in each set of posts. Have you noticed that?

Much love!

Sure.

And it is time to take a break.

 

[marks]

There was a prophecy that each son would become a nation and that the older would serve the younger.

Genesis 25:23 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

I don't know that I'd call that a rejection... it isn't a positive. Maybe you're thinking of something else?

Malachi, and quoted by Paul,

Malachi 1:2-3 KJV
2) I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3) And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:10-13 KJV
10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

God's love for Jacob is a word showing God's intention for them, just as "Esau I have I hated" signified God's intent for Esau (Edom), "they will build, but I will throw down."

Your earlier question of whether Jesus was "in Adam" is a head-scratcher. I immediately want to answer in the negative, but... the phrase "Son of Man" is a fly in the ointment. How would you answer the question?

I say that no, Jesus was not "in Adam", as, all in Adam die, and Christ did not die. I'd like to give some thought concerning how Jesus' title "Son of Man" relates before replying to that part.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Sure he was, God knew by his foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright and mixed up his bloodline. He was therefor rejected.

Romans 9:10-13 KJV
10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This states that God's choice was not based on what these children would go on to do.

Have you considered the possibility that Esau might not have rejected his birthright were God's election on him?

Much love!

 

[shepherdsword]

Romans 9:10-13 KJV
10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This states that God's choice was not based on what these children would go on to do.

No it doesn't say that his choice was not based on what they would go on to do. It just says they haven't done any right or wrong yet.

Have you considered the possibility that Esau might not have rejected his birthright were God's election on him?

No I haven't. Because I know God is just and not some monster that predestines some to hell by HIS choice. His predestination is based on his foreknowledge of their decision. That means everyone's fate is a result of their own choice and not God's.

1 Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Ro 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

[Wick Stick]

No it doesn't say that his choice was not based on what they would go on to do. It just says they haven't done any right or wrong yet.

No I haven't. Because I know God is just and not some monster that predestines some to hell by HIS choice. His predestination is based on his foreknowledge of their decision. That means everyone's fate is a result of their own choice and not God's.

1 Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Ro 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

You're basically just re-stating the Reformed idea that pre-destination occurs at the level of individual people.

It's clear to me that election belongs to a group, rather than individuals. Individuals may belong to the elect group, or they may not...but have the possibility of joining that group... or some few were part of the elect but were removed, and so are without hope.

 

[Wick Stick]

Malachi, and quoted by Paul,

Malachi 1:2-3 KJV
2) I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3) And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:10-13 KJV
10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

God's love for Jacob is a word showing God's intention for them, just as "Esau I have I hated" signified God's intent for Esau (Edom), "they will build, but I will throw down."

Ah... I see.

That works well with my understanding of prophecy - that it isn't prediction, but rather God stating what He's going to do. And then doing it.

 

[shepherdsword]

You're basically just re-stating the Reformed idea that pre-destination occurs at the level of individual people.

It's clear to me that election belongs to a group, rather than individuals. Individuals may belong to the elect group, or they may not...but have the possibility of joining that group... or some few were part of the elect but were removed, and so are without hope.

Jacob and Esau were individuals. Also, I stand diametrically opposed to reformed concept of predestination as in regards to God deciding. We all have freedom of choice. I take it you have read Randy Shank's "Life in the Son"?

 

[Wick Stick]

Jacob and Esau were individuals. Also, I stand diametrically opposed to reformed concept of predestination as in regards to God deciding. We all have freedom of choice. I take it you have read Randy Shank's "Life in the Son"?

Never heard of Randy Shank.

The Bible treats Jacob and Esau as nations, as well as individuals:

Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

I view pre-destination/election as corporate. Israel is elect. The church is pre-destined. This view preserves freedom of choice without discarding election entirely. Those who aren't part of the elect group can become part of it, if they believe and are baptized into the group.

 

[marks]

It's clear to me that election belongs to a group, rather than individuals. Individuals may belong to the elect group, or they may not...but have the possibility of joining that group

I think we see this here:

Ephesians 1:3-4 KJV
3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Every spiritual blessing we have, we have in Christ. Being baptized into Christ we share with Him, including His election (behold my elect servant).

Much love!

 

[bdavidc]

Please read my reply to @ProDeo which explains what I mean. As you have seemingly not read the article you are really not in position to comment.

I have now read the article, and your position is worse than I initially understood.

First, the article is not Scripture, and I have no obligation to accept its theology. Where the author goes beyond Scripture and speaks as though every human being literally participated in Adam's personal act of sin, I reject that. Romans 5 does not teach that we were preexistent souls standing beside Adam committing his transgression. In fact, Romans 5:14 speaks of people who “had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.”

Scripture gives us what we need without the speculation. “By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” and “by one man's disobedience many were made sinners” (Romans 5:18-19). Adam sinned. His fall brought sin, death, and condemnation into the human race.

But the article does not support what you are claiming either. You accused the author of missing Gregory of Nazianzus, yet the article actually discusses Gregory directly and cites him as speaking corporately of mankind sharing in Adam's fall, deception, death, and restoration through Christ.

Your claim that man is born in the same innocent state as Adam and only falls when he personally chooses sin is false teaching.

Adam was created innocent before sin entered the world. We are born into a fallen human race after Adam sinned.

Paul says plainly, “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12), and “by one man's disobedience many were made sinners” (Romans 5:19). He does not say every person is born as another innocent Adam and later recreates the Fall for himself.

Ephesians 2:3 says we are “by nature the children of wrath.” Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

And then you went even further and called your teaching “the gospel in totality.”

No. It is not.

Paul already told us what the gospel is:

“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

The gospel is not that innocent people eventually fall and then progress toward some higher spiritual state. The gospel is that fallen sinners need Christ, and that Christ died for our sins and rose again.

You are not merely disagreeing over terminology. You are changing man's biblical condition before God and then calling that change “the gospel.”

That is false doctrine.