Is Salvation a Process or Event?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mikedexion

Well-Known Member
The context and timing of the parable as described in Matthew 24:29 establishes the timeline as the 2nd coming, not the rapture.
The rapture has already happened, the bride was snatched away previously. What the 5 foolish virgins are going to miss is the wedding banquet (the Millennium).
Try giving Jack's articles a read and see how he breaks it all down.
Disagree that brakes away the ancient Jewish wedding tradition. There is no delay in the Tribulation period it’s 7 years. The virgins also fell asleep during this long delay which is hard to imagine when they are being tortured and persecuted during the Tribulation and the judgements of God are falling to the earth. Lastly Jesus again said keep watch because you won’t know the day nor the hour. Everyone will know the day of his second return, Daniel gave us a perfect count!!

I don’t really put much faith in commentaries because they can be all over the place depending on the authors theological flavor.
 

lenraff

Well-Known Member
The context and timing of the parable as described in Matthew 24:29 establishes the timeline as the 2nd coming, not the rapture.
The rapture has already happened, the bride was snatched away previously. What the 5 foolish virgins are going to miss is the wedding banquet (the Millennium).
Try giving Jack's articles a read and see how he breaks it all down.
Steve got a few minutes before church, thought I'd check in. I think what's missing here is the that there is a difference between the church and the Bride. Check the scriptures for the dichotomy. Everything Jesus used to illustrate the difference was based on Hebrew wedding traditions. His hearers understood that perfectly. Also, I would take a fresh look at the at church in Rev. Look at the attributes and ask yourself if that matches a bride prepared for it's bridegroom or a virgin with no oil?
 
Last edited:

Steve53

Well-Known Member
Steve got a few minutes before church, thought I'd check in. I think what's missing here is the that there is a difference between th church and the Bride. Check the scriptures for the dichotomy. Everything Jesus used to illustrate the difference was based on Hebrew wedding traditions. His hears understood that perfectly.
There's no difference between the church and the bride. The church is the bride in the parable.
 

Steve53

Well-Known Member
Disagree that brakes away the ancient Jewish wedding tradition. There is no delay in the Tribulation period it’s 7 years. The virgins also fell asleep during this long delay which is hard to imagine when they are being tortured and persecuted during the Tribulation and the judgements of God are falling to the earth. Lastly Jesus again said keep watch because you won’t know the day nor the hour. Everyone will know the day of his second return, Daniel gave us a perfect count!!

I don’t really put much faith in commentaries because they can be all over the place depending on the authors theological flavor.
The literalness of the parable only relates to the customs of the wedding tradition. The rest is allegory and the period defined by the context is post rapture.

Regarding Daniel's description, don't forget that the sun will have gone dark and the timing of Christ's physical return to earth post darkened sun will not be known but can be approximated. And an approximation is not a known, known.
 

lenraff

Well-Known Member
The literalness of the parable only relates to the customs of the wedding tradition. The rest is allegory and the period defined by the context is post rapture.
Steve, there is no bridegroom coming after the tribulation, the marriage supper has already taken place in heaven and the bride, not the church returns with Christ. (No mention of Church after the 3rd chapter Rev. )Gotta run pick it up latter if you wish. Peace.
 

Steve53

Well-Known Member
Steve, there is no bridegroom coming after the tribulation, the marriage supper has already taken place in heaven and the bride, not the church returns with Christ. (No mention of Church after the 3rd chapter Rev. )Gotta run pick it up latter if you wish. Peace.
There's likewise a difference between the marriage supper and the wedding banquet....
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/wheres-the-wedding/
https://gracethrufaith.com/topical-studies/parables/the-parable-of-the-wedding-banquet/

Regarding the Bride (the Church), don't overlook Rev. 19.
 
Last edited:

Mikedexion

Well-Known Member
The literalness of the parable only relates to the customs of the wedding tradition. The rest is allegory and the period defined by the context is post rapture.

Regarding Daniel's description, don't forget that the sun will have gone dark and the timing of Christ's physical return to earth post darkened sun will not be known but can be approximated. And an approximation is not a known, known.
““From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.””
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭12:11-13‬ ‭NIV‬‬

It’s right there. The sun being darkened doesn’t mean people won’t be able to count days. Otherwise this prophecy makes no sense.

Alas we can always agree to disagree
 

Steve53

Well-Known Member
““From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.””
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭12:11-13‬ ‭NIV‬‬

It’s right there. The sun being darkened doesn’t mean people won’t be able to count days. Otherwise this prophecy makes no sense.

Alas we can always agree to disagree
Can you state with certainty which of those 45 interim days and in which hour Christ will return?
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/more-on-no-one-knows-the-day-or-hour/
 

Jan51

Well-Known Member
Steve, there is no bridegroom coming after the tribulation, the marriage supper has already taken place in heaven and the bride, not the church returns with Christ. (No mention of Church after the 3rd chapter Rev. )Gotta run pick it up latter if you wish. Peace.
Mat. 25 picks right up from Mat. 24 so that is the context--the second coming and the inauguration of Christ's kingdom. The comparison is clearly about the kingdom, 1, so the timeframe Jesus is discussing is not the rapture. The rapture took place seven years prior, so this is not the church waiting to meet Him in the clouds. The bridegroom is Christ, John 3:29, the bride is the church, Eph. 5:25-33. he Bible is consistent in its symbolism; the church can't be the virgins who are going to the wedding feast (10) AND the bride.

So at the end of the seven years, we see two groups within Israel: those with the Holy Spirit who will enter the kingdom, and those without the Holy Spirit, who will not enter the kingdom. (Oil represents the Holy Spirit.) All Jews THOUGHT they would be part of the promised kingdom, but many, like the Pharisees, did not place their faith in Christ. This must be the judgment of Israel to see who will enter the kingdom, as 31-46 would be the judgment of the Gentiles to see which of them will enter the kingdom.

Unbelieving Jews were left on earth after the rapture; some believe (those with the oil) and some don't. All Israel, even the believers, get spiritually lethargic as they wait. Israel is pictured as the ones who will attend the wedding feast of the bride of Christ (the church), which must be here on earth following the second coming. See Psalm 45:10-15, Luke 12:35-37. The bridegroom returns at midnight, at the very last moment.

When Christ returns, it will be too late to choose Him; if you don’t already have your oil, you won’t be entering the kingdom. You must choose Him BEFORE His return. We know the five without oil never were believers because the bridegroom says He "never" knew them. They are not believers who lost their salvation.

People that believe in the "partial rapture" get their thinking from this passage, seeing the ten virgins as the church; they think some believers will be raptured and some will be left to go through the tribulation. But the church and the rapture are not pictured in Matthew, and this speaks clearly of Christ’s second coming.

In Revelation 2-3, we see the church age, and the word "church" is used frequently. After chapter 3, we do not read about the church because she is in heaven, having been raptured at the end of the church age, 4:1. She next appears in Rev. 19, but is now called the bride (wife, KJV), not the church, because the wedding has taken place.
 

Mikedexion

Well-Known Member
Can you state with certainty which of those 45 interim days and in which hour Christ will return?
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/more-on-no-one-knows-the-day-or-hour/
1,335th day this happens:
“Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.”
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭12:2-3‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Daniel asked when will all this that Gabriel told him happen. So according to Gabriel the resurrection at the second coming will happen on the 1,335th day after the Antichrist goes into to the temple to proclaim to the world that he is God. Literally they can countdown the days then. I can’t just sweep this under the rug brother :)

The second coming is known and documented in scripture Satan knows exactly how much time he has. Jesus second coming won’t be as a thief in the night. The Rapture which begins the day of the Lord will come in as a thief remember:

“Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭3:3‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Look at Jesus council to this church. If Jesus meant the second coming, that would mean two things.
First: There is no pretribulation rapture and the church will go through the Great Tribulation
Second: Jesus statement can’t hold because Daniel 12 gives us an exact count to where you can know at what time he’d come.
 
Last edited:

Steve53

Well-Known Member
1,335th day this happens:
“Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.”
‭‭Daniel‬ ‭12:2-3‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Daniel asked when will all this that Gabriel told him happen. So according to Gabriel the resurrection at the second coming will happen on the 1,335th day after the Antichrist goes into to the temple to proclaim to the world that he is God. Literally they can countdown the days then. I can’t just sweep this under the rug brother :)

The second coming is known and documented in scripture Satan knows exactly how much time he has. Jesus second coming won’t be as a thief in the night. The Rapture which begins the day of the Lord will come in as a thief remember:

“Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭3:3‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Look at Jesus council to this church. If Jesus meant the second coming, that would mean two things.
First: There is no pretribulation rapture and the church will go through the Great Tribulation
Second: Jesus statement can’t hold because Daniel 12 gives us an exact count to where you can know at what time he’d come.
You're on a very slippery slope when you claim something can be known when Christ clearly and unambiguously says otherwise. You do realize that the argument that someone will know the day/hour is an affront to the veracity of Christ's Word on the matter, don't you?

Yes, we have an exact count but notice what's not said....And likewise don't forget Rev. 16:15. And no, I've never posited that Rev. 3:3 was in reference to the 2nd coming.

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/still-more-on-no-one-knows/

What you are ignoring is the rest of the full counsel of God's Word. And even if someone were able to guess (not know, guess) the day, they still won't know the hour.

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/more-on-no-one-knows-the-day-or-hour/
 
Last edited:

lenraff

Well-Known Member
I don't think Mike is on a slippery slope at all. There are definite signs and timing given to us during the Tribulation period. Daniel gives the exact day Jesus was to enter Jerusalem and the duration of the tribulation and the great tribulation. The Virgins are Clearly the church, and the five with oil are The Bride prepared for the wedding, end of story. Every time we have a discussion that threatens the osas doctrine, it seems like we end up on a merry go round. And when we can't agree on the black letter Word of God on a literal basis it always turns into a referral to this teacher our that, instead of the whole council of God. Regretfully, I'll beg out.
 

Steve53

Well-Known Member
I don't think Mike is on a slippery slope at all. There are definite signs and timing given to us during the Tribulation period. Daniel gives the exact day Jesus was to enter Jerusalem and the duration of the tribulation and the great tribulation. The Virgins are Clearly the church, and the five with oil are The Bride prepared for the wedding, end of story. Every time we have a discussion that threatens the osas doctrine, it seems like we end up on a merry go round. And when we can't agree on the black letter Word of God on a literal basis it always turns into a referral to this teacher our that, instead of the whole council of God. Regretfully, I'll beg out.
Of what benefit or good does it serve ourselves or others if we shrink from edifying one another? What service does it provide to the body if errant teachings are allowed to go unchallenged?

No Lenraff, the virgins are NOT representative of the church. And as has been clearly demonstrated neither is that errant point of view of yours the end of the story. It's a misinterpretation.
In this dispensation, OSAS is the doctrine.
I always refer to the full counsel of God's Word and find it funny and ironic that charge is being bandied about now.
Concerning the referrals to the writings and teachings of others - please consider that not everyone is a master typist or has the time to devote to an original rebuttal when the same thoughts have already been expressed by another. Referring to a Biblically sound study or teaching is simply shorthand and not reflective of an inability to think for oneself.

Galatians 4:16
 
Last edited:

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
I have been watching this thread since the beginning but have held off jumping in, in order to allow members to express their ideas. But I will jump in now.

IF the ten virgins are the Church but only five are the Bride, then we no longer have the saints (ie: those who are saved) being delivered from the wrath to come. I admit that the "wrath" of Romans 5:5-9 can be interpreted to speak of the coming final judgment, but the "wrath" of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 by its context MUST speak of the Great Tribulation. There are not two classes of saints: there are only saints. Plural noun, but a singular meaning. Were it not so, then the type of Noah would no longer hold true. ALL of the 8 people were saved, not just Noah. And on the night of the first Passover, ALL who were protected by the blood were saved. Not just the most faithful. And at the Red Sea, ALL were delivered, not just those whose lives were pleasing to God. The promises of God are based on His Word, not on our works. Throughout ancient history, God delivered His people Israel, even when some among them were disobedient or lax in their faithfulness. Yes, eventually judgement came when Israel as a whole refused God's instruction, but it came on all ... just as deliverance came on all.

We cannot begin splitting up the Church. Man has tried doing that for two thousand years. That is why there are roughly nine thousand denominations, sects, and independent assemblies. Some are indeed Christian; many are not. The only difference between saints in the Church and self-proclaimed saints who are NOT in THE Church (although they are in many churches) is that some are saved by faith in the finished work of Christ alone; and some are not.

Len, if you want to argue that many sitting in pews on Sunday morning are not saved, I would agree with you. And obviously they will NOT go in the Rapture. But if you are arguing that some Christians are faithful Christians and will go in the Rapture and some are not faithful Christians and will not go in the Rapture then I cannot see that Scripture agrees with you. The faithfulness of our salvation rests in Jesus Christ, not in ourselves. We cannot admit ANY works into that formula, or that process. Works are a fruit that demonstrates the root of salvation is well-planted: it in no way can be part of the root itself. Our assurance rests exclusively on Christ's finished work and His promise to keep us. Hence, if we accept the ten virgins as being the Church, then we have destroyed the very foundation of our assurance.

As an aside— I often think that God purposely left certain places where differing interpretations of His Word are possible among those who truly love Him. Those who are not saved and do not have the Holy Spirit will always come up with contrary opinions as to what God is saying; but those who are saved also can sometimes disagree on points that are not directly related to how one becomes right with God. I think God allows this possibility of disagreement so we can learn to deal with one another over such issues with grace ... and with patience. Surely these are an evidence of the love that we are each to have toward one another. In this vein, I am reminded of the First Century issue of eating foods devoted to idols. God, through Paul, instructed the early Christians (and also us) this way:

"1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions. 2 For one man has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."​
The principle underlying these things is apparent. And, I suggest, relevant to this issue as well. Len, I appreciate your concern: you do not want anyone to be deceived and fall short of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. You, therefore, want each person to strive to walk in obedience and thus be sure of their salvation. The danger in this view (one which I held for many, many years) is that we add works into salvation, and our efforts into God's sure promise—in effect breaking the seal of the Holy Spirit upon our souls. On the other hand, OSAS can become an excuse for godless people to live their lives in their own ways deceiving themselves into thinking they are well set for eternity. And such is tragic. God is not mocked; He knows who are His. We ourselves cannot know another's heart—in fact, Scripture says we are not even capable of judging own selves (1 Corinthians 4:3-4)—but since outward fruit can betray the condition of the inward heart, we should always examine ourselves as we are instructed in 2 Corinthians 13:5 to test whether we are in the faith. This means to ensure that our faith is truly in Christ and in His finished work alone. How do we know? Well, are we trusting in any other thing (prayers, baptisms, churches, rites, creeds, religious acts, etc)? And has there been an inner change? Something deep inside us that causes us to desire God and His will (even though we may fight against it at times and persist in our ingrained fleshly ways.) If not, then we are only fooling ourselves and we are not part of Christ's Church—we have never been saved.

God's Word is clear: there are only TWO classes of people—saved or unsaved. There are no other classifications; nor are there sub-classes. Saved or unsaved. Those who are saved are sealed for all eternity. Those who are unsaved have the possibility of repentance and coming to faith in Christ as long as they have breath; after that, they are lost for eternity. So any interpretation of a parable that leads to there being sub-classes of Christians is unscriptural. I always thought that the Parable of the Ten Virgins referred to the Church and the Rapture ... until I began examining the issue in the fullness of God's Word, building on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ alone. Once I realized that I could not effect my salvation—or affect it; that Christ has done it ALL; that I was eternally secure (though looking at myself I could never have any hope of such security); that God knew my failings, my flaws, my foibles, but still saved me and sealed me; that my God-given faith in Jesus Christ and His fully-finished and all-sufficient work on Calvary was my sole security; I then realized that the Parable of the Ten Virgins could NOT be about the Church but about the Tribulation Saints. I did not come to this view overnight. It was a process. At times I kicked and struggled against it. But ultimately I had to surrender my own reasoning and understanding and rest in the truth of God's Word alone.

I pray this helps someone.

NOTE: I believe it wise to lock this thread for a while until tempers cool as members humbly seek God in this matter. I will reopen it in a couple of days. If anyone has something truly urgent to say, please report this post, giving your reasons, and I will consider re-opening it sooner. Otherwise it will remain closed for a bit.
 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think Mike is on a slippery slope at all. There are definite signs and timing given to us during the Tribulation period. Daniel gives the exact day Jesus was to enter Jerusalem and the duration of the tribulation and the great tribulation. The Virgins are Clearly the church, and the five with oil are The Bride prepared for the wedding, end of story. Every time we have a discussion that threatens the osas doctrine, it seems like we end up on a merry go round. And when we can't agree on the black letter Word of God on a literal basis it always turns into a referral to this teacher our that, instead of the whole council of God. Regretfully, I'll beg out.
Probably because this is a OSAS website. We hold to that and OSnAS is not welcome here because it is a false teaching. If you want to argue for OSnAS please go do it on another website and not here. Thank you.
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
No, it isn't unless one is a Calvinist. Biblically speaking, Matt. 7:7-8, John 3:16, Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13 and 2nd Peter 3:9 all refute the "I" in TULIP.


Again, salvation itself is not a process. Salvation is an instantaneous event based on belief.
Good morning Steve,

As a side note, I've entered many discussions with both dyed in the wool Arminians and dyed in the wool Calvanists, and I can say conclusively that I'm not accepted by either.

What is being taken exception to is that I've asserted that grace is irresistible. What I've take exception to, is that belief is the basis of salvation; how I define something as "being the basis" is that it is the foundation or underlying support. What we agree on is that salvation is not a process, and I assume we agree that salvation is non-repeatable, and that it's irreversible.

In case you haven't read the thread (where I've briefly addressed belief and faith: posts #4, 7, 11), I understand belief/faith to be the human requirement for salvation, and I also understand regeneration (born anew, new creature, born again, begotten of God, quickened etc. etc. --all biblical terms) to come after faith (although this is the first time I've mentioned it). The way that I understand grace to be irresistible is through justification... justification is a judgment, the sinner is judged to be righteous based on the perfect righteousness of our Lord God Jesus. So once a person believes, that God promises to save them through Jesus, then God (based on His grace, and His grace alone), imputes the righteousness of the Christ to them. This is the instantaneous act of salvation... and it's irresistible because the person receiving this grace can do nothing to stop it once it's done, nor can the judgment be reversed.

If... salvation were based on belief, then the ongoing basis of salvation would have to rest upon belief. This would mean that salvation would be based on the "P" in TULIP, where-in the believer must persevere in the faith to be saved. Many people (mostly Calvinist; not saying you're one) will contend that the Holy Spirit guides, helps, directs, and/or keeps the person in the faith so that the saint can not fall, and they deem this the nature of the security of the saint. I would wonder aloud to these people how this is not the "I" in TULIP. Since an ongoing belief is the basis of salvation (in that case), I'd also wonder how this differs or agrees with your own understanding of the security of the saint. And if it agrees with your understanding of salvation, how this is not a process?

The order of salvation as I see it is repentance, faith, justification, regeneration, and sanctification.

Kind regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:

Steve53

Well-Known Member
Good morning Steve,

As a side note, I've entered many discussions with both dyed in the wool Arminians and dyed in the wool Calvanists, and I can say conclusively that I'm not accepted by either.

What is being taken exception to is that I've asserted that grace is irresistible. What I've take exception to, is that belief is the basis of salvation; how I define something as "being the basis" is that it is the foundation or underlying support. What we agree on is that salvation is not a process, and I assume we agree that salvation is non-repeatable, and that it's irreversible.

In case you haven't read the thread (where I've briefly addressed belief and faith: posts #4, 7, 11), I understand belief/faith to be the human requirement for salvation, and I also understand regeneration (born anew, new creature, born again, begotten of God, quickened etc. etc. --all biblical terms) to come after faith (although this is the first time I've mentioned it). The way that I understand grace to be irresistible is through justification... justification is a judgment, the sinner is judged to be righteous based on the perfect righteousness of our Lord God Jesus. So once a person believes, that God promises to save them through Jesus, then God (based on His grace, and His grace alone), imputes the righteousness of the Christ to them. This is the instantaneous act of salvation... and it's irresistible because the person receiving this grace can do nothing to stop it once it's done, nor can the judgment be reversed.

If... salvation were based on belief, then the ongoing basis of salvation would have to rest upon belief. This would mean that salvation would be based on the "P" in TULIP, where-in the believer must persevere in the faith to be saved. Many people (mostly Calvinist; not saying you're one) will contend that the Holy Spirit guides, helps, directs, and/or keeps the person in the faith so that the saint can not fall, and they deem this the nature of the security of the saint. I would wonder aloud to these people how this is not the "I" in TULIP. Since an ongoing belief is the basis of salvation (in that case), I'd also wonder how this differs or agrees with your own understanding of the security of the saint. And if it agrees with your understanding of salvation, how this is not a process?

The order of salvation as I see it is repentance, faith, justification, regeneration, and sanctification.

Kind regards,
Dave
Lots to unpack in the above. On my phone, and your narrative is difficult to follow on a tiny screen...Coupled with your references to other posts, I'm afraid a more substantive response will have to take place once I return to my home office computer sometime this weekend.
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
Lots to unpack in the above. On my phone, and your narrative is difficult to follow on a tiny screen...Coupled with your references to other posts, I'm afraid a more substantive response will have to take place once I return to my home office computer sometime this weekend.
Good morning Steve,

Yes, there's lots to unpack in salvation (as I've learned), and although I don't think salvation is complicated in so far as receiving it from our Lord God, I find that the information regarding salvation in scripture is amazingly complex and layered (as should be expected from our Omniscient God, and our sin problem). I apologize if my narrative is difficult to follow, even on a big screen (when you get home), I considered my post to be an opening to a potential productive dialogue where information is exchanged. The references to earlier posts are simply to note that even though I have made an assertion that grace is irresistible (within explanation), grace doesn't have to be irresistible apart from human will (faith) as I've noted in those earlier posts and as I've understood it through study. In saying that, I don't expect to need to respond to arguments aimed at "Calvinistic" points of view if they don't fit... and Calvinistic points of view are predominately defended by (as I have understood them) the saint's regeneration (which is the "U" and "I" because of the "T") in order to receive faith (which is the "P"), in order to be justified (which I find to be lacking, and made reference to in my last post).

I'll appreciate a substantive response... although I'm surprised that my original assertion that salvation is given on the basis of God's grace wasn't necessarily received positively (in general).

May God bless you as study and respond, take your time (I'm inconsistent in responses for lack of it), and safe travels to you,

Kind regards,
Dave
 

Hol

Worships Him
Hi! First, I miss you all & keep RF in prayers (thankful for the solid admins Chris & Adrian ❤). I needed a news story & was sure Chris would have it, and he did! Next thing I knew I was lurking for two hours...

This thread is very helpful, and I wanted to comment.

I'm surprised that my original assertion that salvation is given on the basis of God's grace wasn't necessarily received positively (in general).
Good observation Dave, and based on my encounters with many folks here, I suggest it simply needs more fleshing out. Christ’s offer of salvation is through grace to us; and only based on His merit.

Sometimes we toss the notion of faith around as if faith had merit. Nope, none at all ✝. More often we adopt terms that become repetitive and almost meaningless. “I” placed my faith in God’s redemption plan for any who will come to Christ for life. Well, “I” received an unfathomably costly gift of eternal life that cost me nothing. Jesus had an awful agony to endure to pay ‘the bride price,’ and as I placed faith & trust in knowing that He agonized for me perfectly frames this: He is the basis of salvation. When I state that I placed my faith in Christ it should be easy to remember that my faith is not the value. Where is the basis / value? In the object of our faith, Jesus our Creator & His sacrifice. (We all need reminders.)

DaveS, I’m so glad to learn you are a determinist, so am I (maybe to a lesser degree?). While I embrace the realities of free choice & personal responsibility for those choices; I puzzle over a frequent undertone of pride from those debating. Again, placing faith in Christ by my free choice is non-meritorious. (BTW- this is not suggesting you presented any pride in your well thought out questions/comments.) For me, choosing to love God was simply a response of love because He first loved me. My trust grows through reading His Word, the Word of Life. I have no pride to find myself with a desperately wicked heart in need of salvation. Example: a person in critical need of rescue doesn’t deem that their allowing a First Responder to save them as an matter of responsible choice. Maybe determinism could relax as they term free-will as personal responsibility??

DaveS, your definition of ‘irresistible grace’ did bother me, but I’m not sure why? Your are not Calvinist, and that is their “I” in TULIP. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your terms? For me, if I can get through a day and not grieve the Holy Spirit, that’s a Gold Star day!! So He is resistible and I need DAILY to responsibly choose to bear my cross. (And dare I point out that my choice to ‘be responsible’ is largely a choice to avoid discipline?)

Would you agree that Apostle Paul continually wrestled with his sin nature? In other words, in Romans 7:19 “For the good which I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice.” Is it possible that he wrestled with his sin nature to the day he died?

Thanks DaveS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top