Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I think you are painting with a broad brush. I've never heard Hobbs or Striperaddict say there was grace plus the Law.
Hobbs just sees Romans 7 as a Jews falling back to the Law.
Welcome Guest!
Paul's struggle of two natures.
- Thread starter hobbs27
- Start date
I think you are painting with a broad brush. I've never heard Hobbs or Striperaddict say there was grace plus the Law.
Hobbs just sees Romans 7 as a Jews falling back to the Law.
They won't come out and say there's grace plus law, but when someone says man must do something to be saved, that is essentially what they are saying. Salvation is totally by grace. Unmerited favor.
The whole book of Romans is outlining grace. That is the theme of it.
There's your broad brush.
hobbs27
Senior Member
If man need do nothing for salvation... Why are we even here... Why didn't God just create all His elect in heaven?
gemcgrew
Senior Member
And why didn't He first consult with Hobbs? Who does He think He is?
hobbs27
Senior Member
Bless your heart.
He gets ALL the glory.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
If I throw a life vest to a drowning man, he needs to reach for it. In doing so, he knows he's drowning, otherwise he sinks, only realizing he can't breath under water after it's to late. Did he work for the life vest? No. Reach to take a hold of grace. "Do" and "work" are not the same. You guys are talking about the same thing.
Last edited:
hobbs27
Senior Member
Yes He does, this doesn't answer the question though.
Then I have to ask you this:
If Jesus throws a life vest to one that He died for and the person decides he will not accept the life vest and drowns, how can Jesus still say he will lose none?
Wouldn't that contradict John 6:39?
John 6:39
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
You 'll have to take that up with Him.
I was watching a movie (Pride and Glory, which I cannot recommend do to outrageously vulgar language and violence) which included a scene between a husband and wife which had little to do with the plot; but helped to develop the motivation for end of story action by the husband related to his career. At a poignant moment—all of their moments would have been poignant as she was dying of cancer, but only two were depicted in the movie—he pulled, a box from his pocket and opened it saying, “Will you accept it?” She replied, “I have to, it’s a gift.”
When you see an advertisement on TV which offers you a “free gift”, you always have to react to that offer or you will not receive the gift; actually, you have already been given the programing that the advertiser sponsored as enticement to expose yourself to his “offer”, (if you pay an entertainment provider, he acts as a broker). For the advertiser and his broker the incentive for your having been given something is the givers anticipated benefit.
Either of those scenarios could be applied to our relationship with God, but both are incomplete. The former assumes the existing relationship. The latter assumes that the receiver of the “free gift” has something that the giver wants.
As to the latter, most would agree, and scripture tells us, that God desires obedience, by which His glory is revealed. Some recognize that obedience as an element of God’s plan for giving His gift to others of His People. In this scenario God broadcasts His offer of a “free gift” and, more or less, awaits the anticipated response. But does the recipient of His message have obedience with which to respond? Obviously not, as God interceded, through His Son, and gave it to Himself, crediting it to His People? “….because He first loved us”.
In applying the former scenario to our relationship with God the assumed prior relationship of love between the parties is initiated when God gives His People a new heart. With the new heart God’s People are enabled with new sight and new hearing, with which they perceive the awesome nature of God and His love, and respond in love. As the wife knew, and stated, a gift that is known to be given in love, to one who loves the giver, must be accepted.
One must wonder, is it short sighted to view salvation as the end (goal) of creation; effectively making creation about creatures? Or, is regeneration (a new heart) the next step of creation leading to the goal of creation, which is the revelation of God’s glory; making creation about God?
When you see an advertisement on TV which offers you a “free gift”, you always have to react to that offer or you will not receive the gift; actually, you have already been given the programing that the advertiser sponsored as enticement to expose yourself to his “offer”, (if you pay an entertainment provider, he acts as a broker). For the advertiser and his broker the incentive for your having been given something is the givers anticipated benefit.
Either of those scenarios could be applied to our relationship with God, but both are incomplete. The former assumes the existing relationship. The latter assumes that the receiver of the “free gift” has something that the giver wants.
As to the latter, most would agree, and scripture tells us, that God desires obedience, by which His glory is revealed. Some recognize that obedience as an element of God’s plan for giving His gift to others of His People. In this scenario God broadcasts His offer of a “free gift” and, more or less, awaits the anticipated response. But does the recipient of His message have obedience with which to respond? Obviously not, as God interceded, through His Son, and gave it to Himself, crediting it to His People? “….because He first loved us”.
In applying the former scenario to our relationship with God the assumed prior relationship of love between the parties is initiated when God gives His People a new heart. With the new heart God’s People are enabled with new sight and new hearing, with which they perceive the awesome nature of God and His love, and respond in love. As the wife knew, and stated, a gift that is known to be given in love, to one who loves the giver, must be accepted.
One must wonder, is it short sighted to view salvation as the end (goal) of creation; effectively making creation about creatures? Or, is regeneration (a new heart) the next step of creation leading to the goal of creation, which is the revelation of God’s glory; making creation about God?
centerpin fan
Senior Member
No, because I think you're reading too much into John 6:39.
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I'm suddenly reminded of the many "homosexuals in Heaven" threads. I guess we could say man doesn't have to do anything because of grace but the Holy Spirit has to get busy sometimes.
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
None of the Jews that the Father gave Jesus ever returned to the Law? If this wasn't possible why did Paul even mention it? Why are there so many verses warning the early Jews to not return to the Law if it were not possible for them to do so?
How do you mean?
Are you implying that if a person returns to the law, they lose salvation?
Impossible.
hobbs27
Senior Member
There's no Torah to return to today... It was destroyed sometime in the first century after all scripture was written.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I don't care to use the bible as traps via wording, if I did I would point out that "he died for all" where you said "one that he died for". It's just a trap you have set. Your not really intending to change the subject to whether "Jesus would lose none", it's simply the first trap that you saw you could set. Good luck with finding any Christian fellowship, because that trap mindset will alienate you
Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
