Election by God Is According to His will, not man’s Will to believe

[rogerg]

The meaning of any word, including "world," depends on the context. In John 3:16 it refers to people.

world is a sub-set of, and included within, the earth in the verses I included. No, I don't think it does
refer to a people, otherwise, God would have said "people". "World" is more inclusive of that,.

 

[Roger316]

Salvation is received as a complete gift through faith, that is what the scripture makes clear.
If initial/saving faith was a gift it would not be "through."

Paul is absolutely clear in the grammatical structure of Ephesians 2:8 that the gift IS salvation, not faith.

Without that verse all else is eiegesis and manipulations.

Why can't it be both? Why can't the gift of faith be subsumed under the gift of salvation?

 

[rogerg]

Justification and peace are two different things, yes?

Justification brought peace - one a prerequisite of the other

 

[HeIsHere]

Why can't it be both? Why can't the gift of faith be subsumed under the gift of salvation?

The grammatical structure does not support that.

 

[rogerg]

Paul is absolutely clear in the grammatical structure of Ephesians 2:8 that the gift IS salvation, not faith.

That is, through Christ's faith, not man's as Rom 5:1 clearly states. Otherwise, salvation wouldn't be a gift of "not of yourselves" because man would have to contribute to it making it not a gift. Read the whole verse together.

 

[brightfame52]

Can't you address the scripture in my post? Perhaps you can't

I can but Im not. Not playing bible hop scotch with someone who outright rejects the Gospel. I have dealt with posters like you with the same scriptures for past 20 years on these boards, they wont believe a word you say or cry you taking things out of context. I have plenty of material here for you know what I believe and defend.

 

[brightfame52]

You don't hand out the gospel but if you did, it seems it might be lacking grace.

Really dont matter what you think Pal, the Gospel is offensive to most people

Where is all the scripture that illustrates what you say you believe? I have not seen any from you...

You not looking hard, I have plenty of threads here loaded with scripture.

 

[brightfame52]

Do you believe that "reconciliation" in Romans 5:10 refers to expiation?

Why ? You deny Rom 5:10

 

[Roger316]

The grammatical structure does not support that.

I guess what people want to know is this. If I must supply the faith, then how is salvation a gift? No matter how many times we insist that salvation is a gift, we can't seem to avoid framing the relationship between God and the believer as a quid pro quo.

Any thoughts?

 

[rogerg]

I guess what people want to know is this. If I must supply the faith, then how is salvation a gift? No matter how many times we insist that salvation is a gift, we can't seem to avoid framing the relationship between God and the believer as a quid pro quo.

Any thoughts?

Exactamundo! And don't forget the "and that not of yourselves" part of the verse

 

[HeIsHere]

I guess what people want to know is this. If I must supply the faith, then how is salvation a gift? No matter how many times we insist that salvation is a gift, we can't seem to avoid framing the relationship between God and the believer as a quid pro quo.

Any thoughts?

Belief in/Faith in Christ Jesus is not a trade it is an act of trust.
It is a willingness to receive it, sadly people frame things to their advantage rather than letting the words of scripture be understood in context.

Do you feel comfortable with God leaving people in their sins because He did not select them for salvation?
Is that the God you find in Jesus?

 

[pinebeach]

I can but Im not. Not playing bible hop scotch with someone who outright rejects the Gospel. I have dealt with posters like you with the same scriptures for past 20 years on these boards, they wont believe a word you say or cry you taking things out of context. I have plenty of material here for you know what I believe and defend.

Yet promote something you cannot defend. I don't see why anyone should believe you if you cannot say what is wrong in the video and why it is a rejection of the gospel, ESPECIALLY since it is all about the biblical gospel and not a manmade set of rules or ignorance of Jesus words or the fact that God sent Him for the remission of sins for the entire globe, past, present and future, for those accept God's gift.

You have not dealt with me...I don't think I have addressed you in any other thread but if I did, I don't remember it.

I know what Calvin believed but I also know there are different flavors of Calvinism. Did you know that? Further, some people have no experience outside of 'reformed' and are very relaxed in what they believe. It has just become another label, like Calvinism which is often just variations on the flower scale

 

[pinebeach]

Really dont matter what you think Pal, the Gospel is offensive to most people

You not looking hard, I have plenty of threads here loaded with scripture.

Baloney. I have yet to find any person who really believes they are the 'chosen' while the rest of us are simply fuel for the fire, to be anything but rude in the end and you do not disappoint.

The Bible is loaded with scripture.

 

[Roger316]

Justification brought peace - one a prerequisite of the other

Okay, I'm trying to understand your explanation of Romans 5:1. Let me quote it here for the sake of discussion.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Now, to make my point, I want to give the verse a new structure as follows:

1. Therefore, having been justified by faith,
2. we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

“Having been justified” in Romans 5 functions as Paul’s way of saying, “Since A is already true, B necessarily follows.” The aorist participle (δικαιωθέντες) presents justification as a completed act that serves as the firm ground for the main assertion that follows. In other words, Paul is not merely stating two related truths; he is building an argument in which the accomplished reality of justification guarantees the subsequent blessing. This is the same logical pattern he makes explicit in the “much more” statements of Romans 5:9–10, where he uses classic a fortiori reasoning—an argument from the greater to the lesser. By establishing justification as the decisive, completed act of God, Paul draws out its necessary implications: peace with God now, and certain salvation in the future. The participial construction signals that the second reality flows inevitably from the first, forming a tight ground‑and‑inference structure that drives the logic of the entire chapter.

That's how I see it. Do you agree or you might think of it differently?

 

[rogerg]

Belief in/Faith in Christ Jesus is not a trade it is an act of trust.

If it's something that, according to you, must be produced by the one to be saved, and if they don't provide it, then they can't be saved.
That would make it, beyond question, a quid pro quo between God and man to become saved and not a gift.
Read 2: 8 in its entirety, don't just focus on the "through faith" part at the expense of the rest of it but as contributory to it.

 

[pinebeach]

Sorry, I misunderstood your humor.

Well you may just be more serious about the threads than I currently am. After awhile, it is hard to take the determined effort of some to mess up the gospel as serious.

No worries. Next time I will put a smiley face or something.

 

[pinebeach]

Good question. The Bible believes in Free will and meaningful choices, but where it is obvious that God orchestrated events, it sometimes demonstrates "Asymmetrical Agency"

A good example of this is found in the book of Genesis. The passage is Genesis 50:20, where Joseph tells his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good…”

Joseph’s statement comes at the end of a long arc in which his brothers’ betrayal—selling him into slavery—set in motion a chain of suffering that included false accusation, imprisonment, and years of separation. Yet Joseph interprets the entire story through the lens of asymmetrical agency: human intentions operated on one plane (malice, jealousy, betrayal), while God’s intention operated on a different and higher plane (preserving life during famine). The same act carried two meanings simultaneously, but not symmetrically—God’s purpose overrode, encompassed, and ultimately transformed theirs, turning their evil into the means of saving many lives.

I totally understand what you posted here. I'm not clear as to what you are saying about it though?

 

[Roger316]

That is, through Christ's faith, not man's as Rom 5:1 clearly states. Otherwise, salvation wouldn't be a gift of "not of yourselves" because man would have to contribute to it making it not a gift. Read the whole verse together.

But don't we see two faith's in Romans 5:1? The faith of Christ led him to believe his Father and trust him. Our faith led us to believe and Trust in the Father also. Christ's faith led to our reconciliation, but our faith led to our justification.

Or no?

 

[HeIsHere]

If it's something that, according to you, must be produced by the one to be saved, and if they don't provide it, then they can't be saved.
That would make it, beyond question, a quid pro quo between God and man to become saved and not a gift.
Read 2: 8 in its entirety, don't just focus on the "through faith" part at the expense of the rest of it but as contributory to it.

Faith/belief is not produced, nor manufactured.. it exists in people.
The objects of that faith/trust/belief vary from person to person.

 

[rogerg]

Okay, I'm trying to understand your explanation of Romans 5:1. Let me quote it here for the sake of discussion.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Now, to make my point, I want to give the verse a new structure as follows:

1. Therefore, having been justified by faith,
2. we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

“Having been justified” in Romans 5 functions as Paul’s way of saying, “Since A is already true, B necessarily follows.” The aorist participle (δικαιωθέντες) presents justification as a completed act that serves as the firm ground for the main assertion that follows. In other words, Paul is not merely stating two related truths; he is building an argument in which the accomplished reality of justification guarantees the subsequent blessing. This is the same logical pattern he makes explicit in the “much more” statements of Romans 5:9–10, where he uses classic a fortiori reasoning—an argument from the greater to the lesser. By establishing justification as the decisive, completed act of God, Paul draws out its necessary implications: peace with God now, and certain salvation in the future. The participial construction signals that the second reality flows inevitably from the first, forming a tight ground‑and‑inference structure that drives the logic of the entire chapter.

That's how I see it. Do you agree or you might think of it differently?

You're making it way too complicated. Its intent is right there as written - that all of what was stated is in the verse and is soley
"through Jesus Christ (as Savior - my addition). Neither does it state nor imply anything besides that (if you focus soley on the writeen
verse and do not impose personal assumptions into it).