The Definition of Grace

Seabass said:
So you are pushing the false idea of Universalism, salvation of all men while all men were unforgiven and in unbelief thereby rendering the death of Christ vain.
Click to expand...
The world Christ died for is reconciled to God, and has no sin imputed to it. Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:19 so people who are lost in their sins Christ didnt die for. Hows that remotely close to universalism ?
 
brightfame52 said:
Thats works and law, saved by mans responsibility lol
Click to expand...
There is no conflict between grace and obedience for obedience is not perfect therefore cannot earn grace.

But there is a conflict between grace and law for if man could work and keep the law perfectly sinless then his reward would be owed to him and not of grace (Rom 4:4). Hence keeping the law perfectly is man's own work and man's own work cannot save him for man's work will not be perfectly sinless. But being obedient to God's will, as in in repenting and submitting to baptism, is me doing God's righteousness and not me doing my own righteousness and doing God's righteousness is how man is saved (Rom 10:3) not by man doing his OWN righteousness.

God's graciously gave me seeds soil water and sunshine but for me to appropriate what God has graciously given me I must do the work of gardening if I want a garden...doing nothing gets me no garden. Likewise God has graciously given me a way to be saved thru repenting and submitting to baptism and I must use, appropriate what God has given me to be saved...doing nothing would leave me lost.
 
Seabass said:
There is no conflict between grace and obedience for obedience is not perfect therefore cannot earn grace.

But there is a conflict between grace and law for if man could work and keep the law perfectly sinless then his reward would be owed to him and not of grace (Rom 4:4). Hence keeping the law perfectly is man's own work and man's own work cannot save him for man's work will not be perfectly sinless. But being obedient to God's will, as in in repenting and submitting to baptism, is me doing God's righteousness and not me doing my own righteousness and doing God's righteousness is how man is saved (Rom 10:3) not by man doing his OWN righteousness.

God's graciously gave me seeds soil water and sunshine but for me to appropriate what God has graciously given me I must do the work of gardening if I want a garden...doing nothing gets me no garden. Likewise God has graciously given me a way to be saved thru repenting and submitting to baptism and I must use, appropriate what God has given me to be saved...doing nothing would leave me lost.
Click to expand...
Thats law, you still under the law in your thinking
 
brightfame52 said:
The world Christ died for is reconciled to God, and has no sin imputed to it. Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:19
Click to expand...
2 Cor 5:19 God reconciling the world unto Himself...nothing in this context that 'world' only refers to some. Furthermore your position has God culpable for the lost which He did not reconcile, yet God has no such culpability. What basis was used as to why would God reconcile one person and not another? Was it just pure randomness? If not randomness can you give the basis? If you do not know the basis then you cannot know with any certainty yourself if you are of those reconciled or not.

Even Albert Barnes does not agree with you:
2 Cor 5:19
"Reconciling the world unto himself - The world here evidently means the human race generally, without distinction of nation, age, or rank. The whole world was alienated from him, and he sought to have it reconciled. This is one incidental proof that God designed that the plan of salvation should be adapted to all people; see the note on 2 Corinthians 5:14 (NAS)"

Barnes on 2 Corinthians 5:14:
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:"

"The phrase “for all,” (ὑπὲρ πάντων huper pantōn) obviously means for all mankind; for every man..........There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to anyone class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, anymore applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever may be true in regard to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all. The argument in favor of the general atonement, from this passage, consists in the following points:

(1) That Paul assumes this as a matter that was well known, indisputable, and universally admitted, that Christ died for all. He did not deem it necessary to enter into the argument to prove it, nor even to state it formally. It was so well known, and so universally admitted, that he made it a first principle - an elementary position - a maxim on which to base another important doctrine - to wit, that all were dead. It was a point which he assumed that no one would call in question; a doctrine which might be laid down as the basis of an argument, like one of the first principles or maxims in science.

(2) It is the plain and obvious meaning of the expression - the sense which strikes all people, unless they have some theory to support to the contrary; and it requires all the ingenuity which people can ever command to make it appear even plausible, that this is consistent with the doctrine of a limited atonement; much more to make it out that it does not mean all. If a man is told that all the human family must die, the obvious interpretation is, that it applies to every individual. If told that all the passengers on board a steamboat were drowned, the obvious interpretation is, that every individual was meant. If told that a ship was wrecked, and that all the crew perished, the obvious interpretation would be that none escaped. If told that all the inmates of an hospital were sick, it would be understood that there was not an individual that was not sick. Such is the view which would be taken by 999 persons out of 1,000, if told that Christ died for all; nor could they conceive how this could be consistent with the statement that he died only for the elect, and that the elect was only a small part of the human family."

(3) This interpretation is in accordance with all the explicit declarations on the design of the death of the Redeemer. Hebrews 2:9, “that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man;” compare John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 1 Timothy 2:6, “who gave himself a ransom for all.” See Matthew 20:28,” The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many.” 1 John 2:2,” and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

(4) The fact also that on the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer, salvation is offered to all people by God, is a proof that he died for all. The apostles were directed to go “into all the world and to preach the gospel to every creature,” with the assurance that “he that believeth and is baptized shall he saved;” Mark 16:15-16; and everywhere in the Bible the most full and free offers of salvation are made to all mankind; compare Isaiah 55:1; John 7:37; Revelation 22:17. These offers are made on the ground that the Lord Jesus died for people; John 3:16. They are offers of salvation through the gospel, of the pardon of sin, and of eternal life to be made “to every creature.” But if Christ died only for a part, if there is a large portion of the human family for whom he died in no sense whatever; if there is no provision of any kind made for them, then God must know this, and then the offers cannot be made with sincerity, and God is tantalizing them with the offers of that which does not exist, and which he knows does not exist. It is of no use here to say that the preacher does not know who the elect are, and that he is obliged to make the offer to all in order that the elect may be reached. For it is not the preacher only who offers the gospel. It is God who does it, and he knows who the elect are, and yet he offers salvation to all. And if there is no salvation provided for all, and no possibility that all to whom the offer comes should be saved, then God is insincere; and there is no way possible of vindicating his character."

(5) If this interpretation is not correct, and if Christ did not die for all, then the argument of Paul here is a non sequitur, and is worthless. The demonstration that all are dead, according to him is, that Christ died for all. But suppose that he meant, or that he knew, that Christ died only for a part, for the elect, then how would the argument stand, and what would be its force? “Christ died only for a portion of the human race, therefore all are sinners. Medicine is provided only for a part of mankind, therefore all are sick. Pardon is offered to part only, therefore all are guilty.” But Paul never reasoned in this way. He believed that Christ died for all mankind, and on the ground of that he inferred at once that all needed such an atonement; that all were sinners, and that all were exposed to the wrath of God. And the argument is in this way, and in this way only, sound. But still it may be asked, What is the force of this argument? How does the fact that Christ died for all, prove that all were sinners, or dead in sin? I answer:

(a) In the same way that to provide medicine for all, proves that all are sick, or liable to be sick; and to offer pardon to all who are in a prison, proves that all there are guilty. What insult is it to offer medicine to a man in health; or pardon to a man who has violated no law! And there would be the same insult in offering salvation to a man who was not a sinner, and who did not need forgiveness.
 
Seabass said:
2 Cor 5:19 God reconciling the world unto Himself...nothing in this context that 'world' only refers to some. Furthermore your position has God culpable for the lost which He did not reconcile, yet God has no such culpability. What basis was used as to why would God reconcile one person and not another? Was it just pure randomness? If not randomness can you give the basis? If you do not know the basis then you cannot know with any certainty yourself if you are of those reconciled or not.

Even Albert Barnes does not agree with you:
2 Cor 5:19
"Reconciling the world unto himself - The world here evidently means the human race generally, without distinction of nation, age, or rank. The whole world was alienated from him, and he sought to have it reconciled. This is one incidental proof that God designed that the plan of salvation should be adapted to all people; see the note on 2 Corinthians 5:14 (NAS)"

Barnes on 2 Corinthians 5:14:
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:"

"The phrase “for all,” (ὑπὲρ πάντων huper pantōn) obviously means for all mankind; for every man..........There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to anyone class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, anymore applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever may be true in regard to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all. The argument in favor of the general atonement, from this passage, consists in the following points:

(1) That Paul assumes this as a matter that was well known, indisputable, and universally admitted, that Christ died for all. He did not deem it necessary to enter into the argument to prove it, nor even to state it formally. It was so well known, and so universally admitted, that he made it a first principle - an elementary position - a maxim on which to base another important doctrine - to wit, that all were dead. It was a point which he assumed that no one would call in question; a doctrine which might be laid down as the basis of an argument, like one of the first principles or maxims in science.

(2) It is the plain and obvious meaning of the expression - the sense which strikes all people, unless they have some theory to support to the contrary; and it requires all the ingenuity which people can ever command to make it appear even plausible, that this is consistent with the doctrine of a limited atonement; much more to make it out that it does not mean all. If a man is told that all the human family must die, the obvious interpretation is, that it applies to every individual. If told that all the passengers on board a steamboat were drowned, the obvious interpretation is, that every individual was meant. If told that a ship was wrecked, and that all the crew perished, the obvious interpretation would be that none escaped. If told that all the inmates of an hospital were sick, it would be understood that there was not an individual that was not sick. Such is the view which would be taken by 999 persons out of 1,000, if told that Christ died for all; nor could they conceive how this could be consistent with the statement that he died only for the elect, and that the elect was only a small part of the human family."

(3) This interpretation is in accordance with all the explicit declarations on the design of the death of the Redeemer. Hebrews 2:9, “that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man;” compare John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 1 Timothy 2:6, “who gave himself a ransom for all.” See Matthew 20:28,” The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many.” 1 John 2:2,” and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

(4) The fact also that on the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer, salvation is offered to all people by God, is a proof that he died for all. The apostles were directed to go “into all the world and to preach the gospel to every creature,” with the assurance that “he that believeth and is baptized shall he saved;” Mark 16:15-16; and everywhere in the Bible the most full and free offers of salvation are made to all mankind; compare Isaiah 55:1; John 7:37; Revelation 22:17. These offers are made on the ground that the Lord Jesus died for people; John 3:16. They are offers of salvation through the gospel, of the pardon of sin, and of eternal life to be made “to every creature.” But if Christ died only for a part, if there is a large portion of the human family for whom he died in no sense whatever; if there is no provision of any kind made for them, then God must know this, and then the offers cannot be made with sincerity, and God is tantalizing them with the offers of that which does not exist, and which he knows does not exist. It is of no use here to say that the preacher does not know who the elect are, and that he is obliged to make the offer to all in order that the elect may be reached. For it is not the preacher only who offers the gospel. It is God who does it, and he knows who the elect are, and yet he offers salvation to all. And if there is no salvation provided for all, and no possibility that all to whom the offer comes should be saved, then God is insincere; and there is no way possible of vindicating his character."

(5) If this interpretation is not correct, and if Christ did not die for all, then the argument of Paul here is a non sequitur, and is worthless. The demonstration that all are dead, according to him is, that Christ died for all. But suppose that he meant, or that he knew, that Christ died only for a part, for the elect, then how would the argument stand, and what would be its force? “Christ died only for a portion of the human race, therefore all are sinners. Medicine is provided only for a part of mankind, therefore all are sick. Pardon is offered to part only, therefore all are guilty.” But Paul never reasoned in this way. He believed that Christ died for all mankind, and on the ground of that he inferred at once that all needed such an atonement; that all were sinners, and that all were exposed to the wrath of God. And the argument is in this way, and in this way only, sound. But still it may be asked, What is the force of this argument? How does the fact that Christ died for all, prove that all were sinners, or dead in sin? I answer:

(a) In the same way that to provide medicine for all, proves that all are sick, or liable to be sick; and to offer pardon to all who are in a prison, proves that all there are guilty. What insult is it to offer medicine to a man in health; or pardon to a man who has violated no law! And there would be the same insult in offering salvation to a man who was not a sinner, and who did not need forgiveness.
Click to expand...
The world of 2 Cor 5:19 doesnt have sin imputed to it, so its a world saved from its sin. Thats not everybody.
 
brightfame52 said:
The world of 2 Cor 5:19 doesnt have sin imputed to it, so its a world saved from its sin. Thats not everybody.
Click to expand...
2 Corinthians 5:19–20 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The world of the elect is a phrase which never appears in scripture

. The world is condemned by God 1 Cor 11:32; but also the object of the divine plan of salvation 2 Cor 5:19;
BAGD
 
TomL said:
2 Corinthians 5:19–20 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The world of the elect is a phrase which never appears in scripture

. The world is condemned by God 1 Cor 11:32; but also the object of the divine plan of salvation 2 Cor 5:19;
BAGD
Click to expand...
The world of 2 Cor 5:19 doesnt have sin imputed to it, so its a world saved from its sin. Thats not everybody.
 
brightfame52 said:
The world of 2 Cor 5:19 doesnt have sin imputed to it, so its a world saved from its sin. Thats not everybody.
Click to expand...
2 Corinthians 5:19–20 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The world of the elect is a phrase which never appears in scripture

. The world is condemned by God 1 Cor 11:32; but also the object of the divine plan of salvation 2 Cor 5:19;
 
TomL said:
2 Corinthians 5:19–20 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The world of the elect is a phrase which never appears in scripture

. The world is condemned by God 1 Cor 11:32; but also the object of the divine plan of salvation 2 Cor 5:19;
Click to expand...
The world in 2 Cor 5:19 doesn't have sin charged to it, so its not condemned
 
brightfame52 said:
Who in the world of 2 Cor 5:19 has sin charged to them ?

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Click to expand...
As pointed out yesterday reconciliation is not salvation. You have conflated them just like you have with Christ death that provides reconciliation. But it's His Resurrection that gives new life , regeneration, salvation etc...... As Paul so astutely declared in 1 For 15- if Christ is not risen/rersurrected from the dead you are still dead in your sins. Christs death does nothing for ones sins or salvation without the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the heart of the gospel. They preached Christ is Resin, Resurrected from the dead. He is the Resurrection and the Life. Life/Resurrection go hand in hand together. You preach half a gospel which is no gospel at all. Paul warns us about those who would teach any other gospel in Galatians 1.

half truths are falsehoods. Just ask Adam how satan deceives.

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
As pointed out yesterday reconciliation is not salvation. You have conflated them just like you have with Christ death that provides reconciliation. But it's His Resurrection that gives new life , regeneration, salvation etc...... As Paul so astutely declared in 1 For 15- if Christ is not risen/rersurrected from the dead you are still dead in your sins. Christs death does nothing for ones sins or salvation without the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the heart of the gospel. They preached Christ is Resin, Resurrected from the dead. He is the Resurrection and the Life. Life/Resurrection go hand in hand together. You preach half a gospel which is no gospel at all. Paul warns us about those who would teach any other gospel in Galatians 1.

half truths are falsehoods. Just ask Adam how satan deceives.

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
Yes it is Salvation from the penalty of sin. Thats part of Salvation. Salvation is:

deliverance from the power and penalty of sin; redemption.
 
TibiasDad said:
Eph 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

In preparation for a series on Grace, I found myself thinking deeper about the definition of Grace. Not that I thought the definition unclear, but the Lord was prompting me that there is a dynamic of Grace that, perhaps, was not fully realized in both a theological and pragmatic way in both my own faith or by the masses in general.

I suddenly realized that there are two perspectives in defining Grace, our human perspective, and God’s divine perspective.

The typical definition of Grace is “unmerited/undeserved favor”, which is our human view; we do not deserve God’s favor toward us! This is what we must acknowledge about ourselves in relation to God’s gifts to us.

But something that I had not concretely thought much about, was how God views Grace. That is until I sensed the Spirit prompting me to reevaluate my thinking more fully. It was then that I began to think about how God might define Grace, and I found the Spirit saying that the Godhead might say that it’s not only that we are undeserving, but also, and more importantly, that God didn’t have to be gracious at all. In other words, nothing we could ever do as humans can obligate God to act kindly to us. I have often quoted the former president of my alma mater, Ohio Christian University, Dr. Doug Carter, who once said, “Grace is grace because the one being gracious didn’t have to be!” But it never really registered as being God’s perspective.

Now I have long held that we are incapable of obligating God, but I had never consciously associated it with the definition of Grace, and doing so has dramatically changed my life perspective.

It has expanded my epignosko, my experiential knowledge of God personally, and my appreciation and enjoyment of all that he has blessed me with in this life.

Paul’s words in Eph 2:8-9 really struck me in a more profound way by applying not only the fact that I am completely undeserving of God’s blessing, both spiritual and practical, but that even if I were in some manner worthy, that God is not obligated to me in any manner because of my actions or apparent worth.

This is why salvation is by grace, through faith, and why it is not of ourselves, that is, not by works, but rather a gift of God! Our works are incapable of obligating God to act favorably in any way. I can’t ever back God into a proverbial corner and make him say, “Well, I guess you got me now!” God never has to do anything simply because I want him to do it!

It is by Grace, because it is only because God chooses to save out of his own desire to do so! Works and merit are meaningless if God doesn’t want to save us! That is the meaning of “I will have mercy on whom I want to have mercy”, and “nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” It has always been God decision, always his desire that precipitates salvation and never the desire or will of man that necessitates God to save us.

It is “the great and precious promises” of God that obligate God, not our asking him to save us. It is his promise alone that “whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life” that obligates him to do what he does.


Doug
Click to expand...
I would not agree that God cannot be obligated when he has obligated himself through covenant promises. Once he has made an unconditional promise as he did to Abraham and his family through Jacob, then his actions are by the principle of promise and not by grace. I am not making this up. God said this himself.

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

He 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

God has obligated himself to keep his promises to whom he made them. He calls them everlasting covenants. They are immutable. He will not change them.

God included gentiles under the principle of grace and mercy through Jesus Christ and gave us gentiles the Life giving Spirit that he promised to the nation of the Jews in covenants. The Jewish nation rejected his fulfillment of his covenant promises when he came to fulfill it, Lk 24:44 above and Acts 2-7. Only a few Jews received Jesus Christ as their promised Messiah but God is the God of the second chance and he made a new covenant with the Jewish people by which he could include the gentiles and provide the blood sacrifice that could take away our sins, something that was not provided for gentiles in the OT apart from the Jewish nation. A gentile must become as a Jew and keep the law and live as a Jew in order to participate in God's sacrificial system. Now, because of the once for all time eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the whole world and his rising from the dead there is no such requirement and all of the redeemed are equally children of God in Jesus Christ, his body. This age of grace has expanded God's salvation to include gentiles, which has always been his intention, but it has not negated a single national promise God has made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, or Jesus Christ.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.


Reason and logic is applicable to these scriptures in light of the everlasting and unconditional covenants of God to Israel.
 
brightfame52 said:
Yes it is Salvation from the penalty of sin. Thats part of Salvation. Salvation is:

deliverance from the power and penalty of sin; redemption.
Click to expand...
2 Corinthians 5:19–20 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

It seems one must be yet

be ye reconciled to God.
 

Similar threads

Rowan
The Gift of Grace
2 3
Replies
56
Views
416
civic
civic
Grace ambassador
Free Gift Of "Salvation: Do you Have It?"
10 11 12
Replies
227
Views
2K
TibiasDad
TibiasDad
Grace ambassador
Three Things Happened On The Road...
Replies
0
Views
78
Grace ambassador
Grace ambassador
koberstein
Noah and the Ark: Prophetic Symbols of Grace
Replies
1
Views
151
Johann
J
Behold
Paul's Doctrine : #1
Replies
9
Views
169
civic
civic
Back
Top Bottom