This is better. It's good, actually. Thanks to you.
How about putting it like this, Those who do abide in Christ do the will of God being in Him. How can any if he be in Christ, sin? He cannot -- says John.
The common denominator
- Thread starter GerhardEbersoehn
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This is better. It's good, actually. Thanks to you.
How about putting it like this, Those who do abide in Christ do the will of God being in Him. How can any if he be in Christ, sin? He cannot -- says John.
and I do (with you) disagree with #6, but also with the whole thing especially at #1 because one is saved from ALL sin and ALL its consequences in principle immediately but in (human) practice, not immediately yet. In other words, one is saved OF ALL sin and of ALL its consequences in principle as well as finally NOW, ALREADY, the difference coming in at instead of <from all sin...> it in truth is OF ALL sin.
Last edited:
A very wild shot and useless of course. Blank both Biblically and historically it holds no truth.
Asks Wesley, <<What is salvation by faith?>> Wesley says, <<This then is the salvation which is through faith>>; <through faith> is the same thing as <by faith>.
So Wesley says one is saved through or by faith, <<from sin, both from the guilt and power of it>> -- but, <<from the guilt of all past sin>> -- not from sin, not from all sin, but <<from the guilt of all past sin>>.
Wesley says one is saved through or by faith from past sin, <<from the guilt and power of it .. from the power of sin as well as from the guilt of it>>.
Are you not forgiven the sin you in fact, sinned? Yes.
How then were you <<through and by faith saved from sin>>? <Saved from sin>, does it not mean saved from, to sin? Supposedly yes, according to Wesley. Or not?; ask Wesley.
But faith must have failed in every <present salvation>, <from sin>, obviously.
Wesley says one is saved through or by faith <<from the guilt and power of it (sin)>>. Wesley not once says Christ or the Holy Spirit or the Father <<saves from sin>>. Wesley says <<faith saves from sin .. it is a present salvation>>.
So what about the proverbial 'Power of the cross'? <Faith> -- man -- is owed the merit and given the power and the honour to become <<saved from sin, both from the guilt and power of it>>.
Marks Wesley point by point, <<This then is the salvation which is through faith, even in the present world: a salvation from sin and the consequences of sin .. through this faith>>. <<Through this faith>> says JOHN Wesley, <<They are saved from fear a. of the wrath of God and b. of falling away from the grace of God>>.
His Calvinist brother would have said, 'For the fear and glory of the Lord alone, you are saved BY GRACE alone from falling away.'
PS. and every true believer would believe the brother.
Last edited:
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.
Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed -- that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them.
(John Calvin)
So, Calvin, in fact, did not place regeneration before faith, he tried to have his cake and eat it too by having both happen simultaneously.
Which of course, is not Biblical and you have yet to quote a single verse to prove that regeneration proceeds faith or that faith is irresistibly bestowed.
Indeed, we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) and we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:1-2).
So, it would seem to be a given that faith comes to a man and being a recipient of grace is the result.
Therefore faith is the catalyst for becoming a recipient of (saving) grace.
While, apparently, one must have grace in order to be able to make the decision of faith.
I would say, only, that such a grace is not saving grace.
For saving grace only comes after a man repents and gives his heart to Jesus Christ.
So, it would seem to be a given that faith comes to a man and being a recipient of grace is the result.
Therefore faith is the catalyst for becoming a recipient of (saving) grace.
While, apparently, one must have grace in order to be able to make the decision of faith.
I would say, only, that such a grace is not saving grace.
For saving grace only comes after a man repents and gives his heart to Jesus Christ.
For the record in proof of unity between Roman Catholicism and Seventh day Adventism. Identical twins man! They don't even try to differ; they try their utmost best to be more like one another.
Last edited:
'WE believe DESPITE rather than BECAUSE.' Karl Barth. "The heart is deceitful above everything." David. Nevertheless, I agree with you here. Just to try to kill the mystery about our justification and regeneration, makes every hidden methodology unknown or perceived and every lively feeling of conscience, impotent, dead, fruitless folly.
The only <catalyst> for the grace and mercy of God that saves every one of God's elect has been the heart and the love of God for his commitment and faithfulness to His Eternal Purpose through Jesus Christ. The false <faith> you PRESUME YOU AGAIN ARE PRESUMING blasphemously haughtily. The recipient of saving grace is are the elect of God the Saviour out of Own initiative for and compassion with the utterly, DESERVEDLY, LOST.
Free-will-choice worshippers cannot help to go on defending their idol with their life for as long as they live, for their idol, their assumed faith they so proudly and loudly and vehemently profess, proclaim and acclaim, is their very life. No wonder the Reformers called the Catholic's god their free-will-choice salvation.
They will go on forever, systematically from their most primitive to their most sophisticated emotional trick and as soon as they have come to the end of their list, they will just start all over again from the first to the last, no matter how old and tattered the figure and dismal the mind of each idol's 'Spirit' are worn out.
Your point of view lends to the idea that we are either elect or non-elect; and that if we are the non-elect, not even doing what it takes to be saved is going to bring salvation to us.
The only problem with this idea is that it is unbiblical.
Jhn 6:37, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
I take that back. There is another problem with that idea. The problem is that this idea is not consistent with the biblical concept of a God of love.
Because if the Lord arbitrarily relegates certain people to hell and they have no possibility of salvation (because they are non-elect), then God created them for the express purpose of placing in them into the lake of fire at the end of their days; a situation where they will burn in fire and brimstone for ever and ever.
If God is responsible for such a thing then He is a Cosmic Monster.
If man is responsible based on his free will decision to either surrender his life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and be saved, or else rebel against Christ's Lordship and be damned because he rejected salvation, then the full blame for whether or not I will find myself in hell rests solely on me; and God is not to blame for my condemnation to hell but I am wholly responsible for it.
(which is not to say that I believe that I am going to hell; but I am using a literary tactic to explain things here).
Similar threads
