Does God respond to Man?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Thanks.

[Father_JD]

First we must DEFINE terms, figgie. No doubt you're thinking of such verses as "God resists the proud, but gives GRACE to the humble" as a "response from God to man for the choices mankind makes, etc".

So, for your own edification I'm gonna give you the uses of the word, "Grace" which is the English word for "Charis".

I'll be happy to address "faith" afterwards. What you apparently seem to forget/ignore (take your pick) is the reality that CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING.

So without any further ado, please read this entry on "grace" and THEN ask your questions.

Grace:

gras:
1. The Word Charis:

In the English New Testament the word "grace" is always a translation of (charis), a word that occurs in the Greek text something over 170 times (the reading is uncertain in places). In secular Greek of all periods it is also a very common word, and in both Biblical and secular Greek it is used with far more meanings than can be represented by any one term in English Primarily

(a) the word seems to denote pleasant external appearance, "gracefulness" "loveliness"; compare the personificaion in the Graces." Such a use is found in Lu 4:22, where ‘wondered at the charm of his words’ is a good translation; and similarly in Col 4:6.

(b) Objectively, charis may denote the impression produced by "gracefulness," as in 3 #Joh 1:4 ‘greater gratification have I none than this’ (but many m****cripts read chara, "joy," here).

(c) As a mental attribute charis may be translated by "graciousness," or, when directed toward a particular person or persons, by "favor." So in Lu 2:52, "Jesus advanced .... in favor with God and men."

(d) As the complement to this, charis denotes the emotion awakened in the recipient of such favor, i.e. "gra***ude." So Lu 17:9 reads literally, ‘Has he gra***ude to that servant?’ In a slightly transferred sense charis designates the words or emotion in which gra***ude is expressed, and so becomes "thanks" (some 10 t, Ro 6:17, etc.)’.

(e) Concretely, charis may mean the act by which graciousness is expressed, as in 1Co 16:3, where the King James Version translates by "liberality," and the Revised Version (British and American) by "bounty." These various meanings naturally tend to blend into each other, and in certain cases it is difficult to fix the precise meaning that the writer meant the word to convey, a confusion that is common to both New Testament and secular Greek And in secular Greek the word has a still larger variety of meanings that scarcely concern theologian.

2. Grace as Power:

Naturally, the various meanings of the word were simply taken over from ordinary language by the New Testament writers. And so it is quite illegitimate to try to construct on the basis of all the occurrences of the word a single doctrine that will account for all the various usages. That one word could express both "charm of speech" and "thankfulness for blessings" was doubtless felt to be a mere , if it was thought of at all. But none the less, the very elasticity of the word enabled it to receive still another—new and technically Christian—meaning. This seems to have originated in part by fusing together two of the ordinary significances. In the first place, as in (e) above, charis may mean "a gift." In 1Co 16:3; 2Co 8:19 it is the money given by the Corinthians to the Jerusalemites. In 2Co 9:8 it is the increase of worldly goods that God grants for charitable purposes. In 2Co 1:15 it is the benefit received by the Corinthians from a visit by Paul. In a more spiritual sense charis is the endowment for an office in the church (Eph 4:7), more particularly for the apostolate (Ro 1:5; 12:3; 15:15; 1Co 3:10; Eph 3:2,7). So in 1Co 1:4-7 margin charis is expanded into "word and all knowledge," endowments with which the Corinthians were especially favored. In 1Pe 1:13 charis is the future heavenly blessedness that Christians are to receive; in 3:7 it is the present gift of "life." In the second place, charis is the word for God’s favor, a sense of the term that is especially refined by Paul (see below). But God’s favor differs from man’s in that it cannot be conceived of as inactive. A favorable "thought" of God’s about a man involves of necessity the reception of some blessing by that man, and "to look with favor" is one of the commonest Biblical paraphrases for "bestow a blessing." Between "God’s favor" and "God’s favors" there exists a relation of active power, and as charis denoted both the favor and the favors, it was the natural word for the power that connected them. This use is very clear in 1Co 15:10, where Paul says, "not I, but the grace of God which was with me" labored more abundantly than they all: grace is something that labors. So in 2Co 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness"; compare 2Ti 2:1, "strengthened in the grace," and 1Pe 4:10, "stewards of the manifold grace." Evidently in this sense "grace" is almost a synonym for the Spirit (see HOLY SPIRIT), and there is little real difference between "full of the Holy Spirit" and "full of grace and power" in Ac 6:5,8, while there is a very striking parallel between Eph 4:7-13 and 1Co 12:4-11, with "gifts of grace" in the one p***age, and "gifts of the Spirit" in the other. And this connection between grace and the Spirit is found definitely in the formula "Spirit of grace" in Heb 10:29 (compare Zec 12:10). And, as is well known, it is from this sense of the word that the Catholic doctrine of grace developed.

3. Grace in Justification:

This meaning of charis was obtained by expanding and combining other meanings. By the opposite process of narrowly restricting one of the meanings of the word, it came again into Christian theology as a technical term, but this time in a sense quite distinct from that just discussed. The formation of this special sense seems to have been the work of Paul. When charis is used with the meaning "favor," nothing at all is implied as to whether or not the favor is deserved. So, for instance, in the New Testament, when in Lu 2:52 it is said that "Jesus advanced .... in favor with God and men," the last possible thought is that our Lord did not deserve this favor. Compare also Lu 2:40 and Ac 2:47 and, as less clear cases, Lu 1:30; Ac 7:46; Heb 4:16; 12:15,28. But the word has abundant use in secular Greek in the sense of unmerited favor, and Paul seized on this meaning of the word to express a fundamental characteristic of Christianity. The basic p***age is Ro 11:5,6, where as a definition is given, "If it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." That the word is used in other senses could have caused no 1st-century reader to miss the meaning, which, indeed, is unmistakable. "Grace" in this sense is an at***ude on God’s part that proceeds entirely from within Himself, and that is conditioned in no way by anything in the objects of His favor. So in Ro 4:4. If salvation is given on the basis of what a man has done, then salvation is given by God as the payment of a debt. But when faith is reckoned for what it is not, i.e. righteousness, there is no claim on man’s part, and he receives as a pure gift something that he has not earned. (It is quite true that faith involves moral effort, and so may be thought of as a sort of a "work"; it is quite true that faith does something as a preparation for receiving God’s further gifts. But it simply clouds the exegetical issue to bring in these ideas here, as they certainly were not present in Paul’s mind when the verses were being written.) "Grace" then, in this sense is the antinomy to "works" or to "law"; it has a special relation to the guilt of sin (Ro 5:20; 6:1), and has almost exactly the same sense as "mercy." Indeed, "grace" here differs from "mercy" chiefly in connoting eager love as the source of the act. See JUSTIFICATION. Of course it is this sense of grace that tes Ro 3-6, especially in thesis 3:24, while the same use is found in Ga 2:21; Eph 2:5,8; 2Ti 1:9. The same strict sense underlies Ga 1:6 and is found, less sharply formulated, in *** 3:5-7. (Ga 5:4 is perhaps different.) Outside of Paul’s writings, his definition of the word seems to be adopted in Joh 1:17; Ac 15:11; Heb 13:9, while a perversion of this definition in the direction of antinomianism is the subject of the invective in Jude 1:4. And, of course, it is from the word in this technical Pauline sense that an elaborate Protestant doctrine of grace has been developed.

Part II will address "special" uses of the term...

[stemelbow]

JD...you have to prove your point, not just fill up threads with words.

Here you say:

First we must DEFINE terms, figgie. No doubt you're thinking of such verses as "God resists the proud, but gives GRACE to the humble" as a "response from God to man for the choices mankind makes, etc".

So, for your own edification I'm gonna give you the uses of the word, "Grace" which is the English word for "Charis".

I'll be happy to address "faith" afterwards. What you apparently seem to forget/ignore (take your pick) is the reality that CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING.

So without any further ado, please read this entry on "grace" and THEN ask your questions.

Show someone that the p***age in 1 Peter which you allude to holds a meaning of grace as something other than salvific. You never tried to do this in the other thread. how about trying it in this one?

love,
stem

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

JD...you have to prove your point, not just fill up threads with words.

Here you say:



Show someone that the p***age in 1 Peter which you allude to holds a meaning of grace as something other than salvific. You never tried to do this in the other thread. how about trying it in this one?

love,
stem

Sure. Read the CONTEXT and weep, Stemmy:

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;


1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.


1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

1Pe 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.


1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:


1Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.


1Pe 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle [you].

Note:

To WHOM is the epistle written?

TO THE ELDERS OF THE FLOCK, I.E. BELIEVERS ALREADY IN THE FAITH AND LEADERS. This is enough to demonstrate that the meaning of "grace" here can NOT be of the salvivic kind.

Note:

The context also engages the believers SUFFERING for the faith. A promise to those who "humble themselves" that in due time God will exalt them.

Again, point 1 dispels your notion.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Sure. Read the CONTEXT and weep, Stemmy:

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;


1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.


1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

1Pe 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.


1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:


1Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.


1Pe 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle [you].

Note:

To WHOM is the epistle written?

TO THE ELDERS OF THE FLOCK, I.E. BELIEVERS ALREADY IN THE FAITH AND LEADERS. This is enough to demonstrate that the meaning of "grace" here can NOT be of the salvivic kind.

Note:

The context also engages the believers SUFFERING for the faith. A promise to those who "humble themselves" that in due time God will exalt them.

Again, point 1 dispels your notion.

Nowhere does it indicate that the words:

"for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble."

is NOT a UNIVERSAL and self-evident principle that Peter is teaching and which applies to all of human-kind, (not just elders). But you seem to think it is a principle that applies to no one in the world, EXCEPT Elders who are already saved?

That seems like a hyper-narrow very, to restrict the application of this principle to Elders in the church, and only Elders.

IMO.

Thanks

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Nowhere does it indicate that the words:

"for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble."

is NOT a UNIVERSAL and self-evident principle that Peter is teaching and which applies to all of human-kind, (not just elders). But you seem to think it is a principle that applies to no one in the world, EXCEPT Elders who are already saved?

That seems like a hyper-narrow very, to restrict the application of this principle to Elders in the church, and only Elders.

IMO.

Thanks

No, it's EVIDENT from the context that CHRISTIANS (Elders, younger, etc.)HAVE ALREADY RECEIEVED SALVIVIC GRACE, therefore this usage of "grace" is something other.

You can go "nuh-uh" as much as you want...the context says you're in error, Fig.

[Father_JD]

4. Special Uses:

A few special uses of the word may be noted. That the special blessing of God on a particular undertaking (Ac 14:26; 15:40) should be called a "grace" needs no explanation. In Lu 6:32-34, and 1Pe 2:19,20, charis seems to be used in the sense of "that which deserves the thanks of God," i.e. a specifically Christian act as distinguished from an act of "natural morality." "Grace for grace" in Joh 1:16 is a difficult phrase, but an almost exact parallel in Philo (Poster. Cain, 43) may fix the sense as "benefit on benefit." But the tendency of the New Testament writers is to combine the various meanings the word can have, something that is particularly well illustrated in 2Co 8; 9. In these two chapters the word occurs 10 t, but in so many different senses as to suggest that Paul is consciously playing with the term. Charis is the money given to the Jerusalemites by the Corinthians (2Co 8:19), it is the increase of goods that God will grant the Corinthians (2Co 9:8), it is the disposition of the givers (2Co 8:6), it is the power of God that has wrought this disposition (2Co 8:1; 9:14), it is the act of Christ in the Incarnation (2Co 8:9; contrast the distinction between "God’s grace" and "Christs act" in Heb 2:9), it is the thanks that Paul renders (2Co 9:15). That all a Christian is and all that he has is God’s gift could have been stated of course without the use of any special term at all. But in these two chapters Paul has taught this truth by using for the various ideas always the same term and by referring this term to God at the beginning and the end of the section. That is, to the multiplicity of concepts there is given a unity of terminology, corresponding to the unity given the multiple aspects of life by the thought of entire dependence on God. So charis, "grace," becomes almost an equivalent for "Christianity," viewed as the religion of dependence on God through Christ. As one may think of entering Christianity, abiding in it, or falling from it, so one may speak of entering into (Ro 5:2), abiding in (Ac 13:43), or falling from (Ga 5:4) grace; compare 1Pe 5:12. So the teaching of Christianity may be summed up as word or gospel of grace (Ac 14:3; 20:24,32). So "grace be with you" closes the Epistles as a sufficient summary of all the blessings that can be wished Christian readers. At the beginning of the Epistles the words "and peace" are usually added, but this is due only to the influence of the Jewish greeting "peace be with you" (Lu 10:5, etc.), and not to any reflection on "grace" and "peace" as separate things. (It is possible that the Greek use of chairein, "rejoice," as an epistolary salutation (so in Jas 1:1) influenced the Christian use of charis. But that "grace and peace" was consciously regarded as a universalistic combination of Jewish and Gentilecustom is altogether unlikely.) The further expansion of the introductory formula by the introduction of "mercy" in 1 and 2Ti is quite without theological significance.

5. Teaching of Christ:

In the Greek Gospels, charis is used in the words of Christ only in Lu 6:32-34; 17:9. As Christ spoke in Aram, the choice of this word is due to Luke, probably under the influence of its common Christian use in his own day. And there is no word in our Lord’s recorded sayings that suggests that He employed habitually any especial term to denote grace in any of its senses. But the ideas are unambiguously present. That the pardon of sins is a free act on God’s part may be described as an essential in Christ’s teaching, and the lesson is taught in all manner of ways. The prodigal knowing only his own wretchedness (Lu 15:20), the publican without merit to urge (Lu 18:13), the sick who need a physician (Mr 2:17), they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Mt 5:6), these are the ones for whom God’s pardon is inexhaustible. And positive blessings, be they temporal or spiritual, are to be looked for from God, with perfect trust in Him who clothes the lilies and knows how to give good gifts to His children (Mt 7:11; here Lu 11:13 has "Holy Spirit" for "gifts," doubtless a Lukan interpretation, but certainly a correct one). Indeed, it is not too much to say that Christ knows but one unpardonable sin, the sin of spiritual self-satisfaction—"That which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Lu 16:15; compare Lu 17:7-10; Mt 20:1-16).

6. In the Old Testament:

There is no word in Hebrew that can represent all the meanings of charis, and in the Septuagint charis itself is used, practically, only as a translation of the Hebrew chen, "favor," this restriction of meaning being due to the desire to represent the same Hebrew word by the same Greek word as far as possible. And chen, in turn, is used chiefly only in the phrase "find favor" (Ge 6:8, etc.), whether the reference is to God or men, and without theological importance. Much nearer Paul’s use of charis is ratson, "acceptance," in such p***ages as Isa 60:10, "In my favor have I had mercy on thee"; Ps 44:3, "not .... by their own sword .... but .... because thou wast favorable unto them." Perhaps still closer parallels can be detected in the use of checedh, "kindness," "mercy," as in Ex 20:6, etc. But, of course, a limitation of the sources for the doctrine to p***ages containing only certain words would be altogether unjust. The main lines seem to be these:

(1) Technically, salvation by grace in the New Testament is opposed to an Old Testament doctrine of salvation by works (Ro 4:4; 11:6), or, what is the same thing, by law (Ro 6:14; Joh 1:17); i.e men and God are thought of as parties to a contract, to be fulfilled by each independently. Most of the legislation seems to presuppose some idea of man as a quan***y quite outside of God, while De 30:11-14 states explicitly that the law is not too hard nor too far off for man.

(2) Yet even this legalism is not without important modifications. The keeping of the law is man’s work, but that man has the law to keep is something for which God only is to be thanked. Ps 119 is the essence of legalism, but the writer feels overwhelmed throughout by the greatness of the mercy that disclosed such statutes to men. After all, the initial (and vital!) act is God’s not man’s. This is stated most sharply in Eze 23:1-4—Oholibah and her sister became God’s, not because of any virtue in them, but in spite of most revolting conduct. Compare De 7:7, etc.

(3) But even in the most legalistic p***ages, an absolute literal keeping of the law is never (not even in such a p***age as Nu 15:30,31) made a condition of salvation. The thought of transgression is at all times tempered with the thought of God’s pardon. The whole sacrificial system, in so far as it is expiatory, rests on God’s gracious acceptance of something in place of legal obedience, while the p***ages that offer God’s mercy without demanding even a sacrifice (Isa 1:18; Mic 7:18-20, etc.) are countless. Indeed, in Eze 16; 20; 23, mercy is promised to a nation that is spoken of as hardly even desiring it, a most extreme instance.

(4) But a mere negative granting of pardon is a most deficient definition of the Old Testament idea of God’s mercy, which delights in conferring positive benefits. The gift to Abraham of the land of Canaan, liberation from Egypt, food in the wilderness, salvation from enemies, deliverance from exile—all of Israel’s history can be felt to be the record of what God did for His people through no duty or compulsion, grateful thanksgiving for such unmerited blessings filling, for instance, much of the Psalter. The hearts of men are in God’s keeping, to receive from Him the impulse toward what is right (1Ch 29:18, etc.). And the promise is made that the God who has manifested Himself as a forgiving Father will in due time take hold of His children to work in them actual righteousness (Isa 1:26; 4:3,1; 32:1-8; 33:24; Jer 31:33,14; Eze 36:25,26; Zec 8; Da 9:24; Ps 51:10-12) With this promise—for the Old Testament always a matter of the future—the Old Testament teaching p***es into that of the New Testament.

7. Summary:

(The following is the most typical error of Mormon hermeneutics!!!)

Most of the discussions of the Biblical doctrine of grace have been faulty in narrowing the meaning of "grace" to some special sense, and then endeavoring to force this special sense on all the Biblical p***ages. For instance, Roman scholars, starting with the meaning of the word in (say) 2Co 12:9, have made Ro 3:24 state that men are justified by the infusion of Divine holiness into them, an interpretation that utterly ruins Paul’s argument. On the other hand, Protestant extremists have tried to reverse the process and have argued that grace cannot mean anything except favor as an at***ude, with results that are equally disastrous from the exegetical standpoint. And a confusion has resulted that has prevented men from seeing that most of the controversies about grace are at cross-purposes. A rigid definition is hardly possible, but still a single conception is actually present in almost every case where "grace" is found—the conception that all a Christian has or is, is centered exclusively in God and Christ, and depends utterly on God through Christ. The kingdom of heaven is reserved for those who become as little children, for those who look to their Father in loving confidence for every benefit, whether it be for the pardon so freely given, or for the strength that comes from Him who works in them both to will and to do.

LITERATURE.

All the Biblical theologies contain full discussions of the subject; for the New Testament the closest definitions are given by Bernard Weiss. But for the meaning of "grace" in any particular place the commentaries must be consulted, although the student may be warned against discussions that argue too closely from what may seem to be parallel p***ages.


Written by Burton Scott Easton

[BigJulie]

Father JD, I couldn't help but smile with you post..it reminded me of when I was trying to explain my beliefs and this was the reply I received:

Have you ever heard this statement, "the simplicity of the Gospel?" I am sorry, but your explanation is quite complicated to say the least. I do not fault you BigJulie, for obviously this is what you have been taught, and this is what you believe, and I respect that.

[dfoJC]

So nice to be remembered...

with kind regards,
dfoJC

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Father JD, I couldn't help but smile with you post..it reminded me of when I was trying to explain my beliefs and this was the reply I received:

The one and only TRUE Gospel IS simple:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be SAVED".


The contextually-nuanced meanings of "grace" and "faith" are not necessarily simple.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father JD

...
Written by Burton Scott Easton

No where does Mr. Easton answer the question: Does God respond to Man?

Nowhere does Mr. Easton ***ert that the gifts of Grace and Faith are NOT examples of God responding to Man.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

No where does Mr. Easton answer the question: Does God respond to Man?

Nowhere does Mr. Easton ***ert that the gifts of Grace and Faith are NOT examples of God responding to Man.

Uh, you missed the whole point as usual, figster:

"Grace" has MULTIPLE MEANINGS.

"Faith" has MULITPLE MEANINGS. ( Which I haven't posted yet, waiting for you to settle on your skewed Mormon meaning of "grace".)

The question IS:

What do YOU mean by "grace" or "faith"?????

There are examples where one particular usage of "grace" appears to demonstrate that GOD RESPONDS TO MAN.

Got it now??

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Uh, you missed the whole point as usual, figster:

"Grace" has MULTIPLE MEANINGS.

"Faith" has MULITPLE MEANINGS. ( Which I haven't posted yet, waiting for you to settle on your skewed Mormon meaning of "grace".)

The question IS:

What do YOU mean by "grace" or "faith"?????

There are examples where one particular usage of "grace" appears to demonstrate that GOD RESPONDS TO MAN.

Got it now??

The problem is you don't understand the simple question.

The question is not about the definition of grace and faith. It is about God.

Got it now???

Marvin

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

The problem is you don't understand the simple question.

The question is not about the definition of grace and faith. It is about God.

Got it now???

Marvin

No, I'm afraid YOU don't get it, Marvin. Figgie's challenge is based upon his narrowistic Mormon "understanding" of the words.

I'm merely asking Figge exactly WHAT does he mean by "grace" or "faith".

The answer as to "whether God responds to man regarding grace and faith" is completely dependent upon this.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

The answer as to "whether God responds to man regarding grace and faith" is completely dependent upon this.

Why?

The question is a simple one and if you need to give a 20,000 word answer you can. Just answer the question, and provide all the qualifications you want to.

I'm waiting.

You have 3 options:

God NEVER responds to Man

God ALWAYS responds to Man

Only in certain cases does God respond to Man.

You seem to be leaning to no. 3. So explain.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Why?

The question is a simple one and if you need to give a 20,000 word answer you can. Just answer the question, and provide all the qualifications you want to.

I'm waiting.

You have 3 options:

God NEVER responds to Man

God ALWAYS responds to Man

Only in certain cases does God respond to Man.

You seem to be leaning to no. 3. So explain.

That is NOT what you asked in your OP:


What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Therefore I ask you, "What do you MEAN by 'the gift of Grace and Faith'?????"

You've equivocated your OWN QUESTION from "the gift of Grace and Faith" to that of a generic, "Does God respond to man's choices or actions"???

I'm more than happy to answer that: Of course he does. That's WHY you stand condemned by the REAL Christ of the Bible for your CHOICES:

Trusting in a FALSE GOD
Trusting in a FALSE CHRIST
Trusting in a FALSE GOSPEL
Trusting in FALSE PROPHETS.

You are an idolator figgie of the first rank.

Now...do you want to stop equivocating your own questions or what???

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

That is NOT what you asked in your OP:


What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Therefore I ask you, "What do you MEAN by 'the gift of Grace and Faith'?????"

You've equivocated your OWN QUESTION from "the gift of Grace and Faith" to that of a generic, "Does God respond to man's choices or actions"???

I'm more than happy to answer that: Of course he does. That's WHY you stand condemned by the REAL Christ of the Bible for your CHOICES:

Trusting in a FALSE GOD
Trusting in a FALSE CHRIST
Trusting in a FALSE GOSPEL
Trusting in FALSE PROPHETS.

You are an idolator figgie of the first rank.

Now...do you want to stop equivocating your own questions or what???

The question headline was "Does God respond to Man?"

What do I mean by the gift of faith and grace? Here, Read your Bible.

Your childish ranting aside, Do you believe God gives his gifts in response to man, or not?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

The question headline was "Does God respond to Man?"

And THEN you qualified it by GIFT OF GRACE AND FAITH. Do you not know what you wrote, figgie??? Why do you persist in your games?

What do I mean by the gift of faith and grace? Here, Read your Bible.

Your childish ranting aside, Do you believe God gives his gifts in response to man, or not?

And what does John 15 have to do with this?? Enlighen me.


IF you mean does God give gifts in response as some kind of "reward", NO, God does NOT give "gifts" that MUST BE EARNED BY WORKS RIGHTEOUENESS.

You're playing your little juvenile word games, Figgster, refusing to DEFINE your terms in hopes of trapping anyone who deigns to play your little Mormon reindeer games.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

And THEN you qualified it by GIFT OF GRACE AND FAITH. Do you not know what you wrote, figgie??? Why do you persist in your games?




And what does John 15 have to do with this?? Enlighen me.

You pretend to understand grace and can't see a tie in here? Amazing.

So why can't a gift be given in response to something the receive has done?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

You pretend to understand grace and can't see a tie in here? Amazing.

So why can't a gift be given in response to something the receive has done?

Duh. Because "gifts" by NATURE, by DEFINITION are NOT EARNED, figgie. And you pretend to understand grace and can't see how you've equivocated the meaning of the term here? Amazing.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Duh. Because "gifts" by NATURE, by DEFINITION are NOT EARNED, figgie. And you pretend to understand grace and can't see how you've equivocated the meaning of the term here? Amazing.

So, JD, your conclusion appears to be that God does not respond to man.

And that is a huge reason why I tell people to "Just say NO to hyper-Calvinism."

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

So, JD, your conclusion appears to be that God does not respond to man.

Nope. Didn't say that Figgie and I suggest you actually READ responses before answering. God DOES respond to man in many ways. Does He REWARD people with salvivic grace and faith in "response" to man's choices and actions...to that I heartily say, NO because the BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THIS.

You have to re-define Biblical terms...equivocate them to make them conform to Mormon dogma.

And that is a huge reason why I tell people to "Just say NO to hyper-Calvinism."

And I heartily AGREE for everyone to say NO to HYPER-Calvinism as well.

(Hint...you have no idea what Calvinism is or it's perverted form of it do you??)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Nope. Didn't say that Figgie and I suggest you actually READ responses before answering. God DOES respond to man in many ways. Does He REWARD people with salvivic grace and faith in "response" to man's choices and actions...to that I heartily say, NO because the BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THIS.

Does God GRANT people salvific grace and faith in "response" to individuals in any way shape or form?

What about the gift of 'additional' grace, and the gift of 'additional' faith. Are these given in any way at all as a response from God to Man?

[Father_JD]

Does God GRANT people salvific grace and faith in "response" to individuals in any way shape or form?

NO, no, and no!

What about the gift of 'additional' grace, and the gift of 'additional' faith. Are these given in any way at all as a response from God to Man?

Finally we're getting some where. This is WHY I posted a lengthy article on the DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF "GRACE".

So YES, God does respond to the REGENERATE Christian with MORE grace, etc. This is CLEAR from the article I provided.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

NO, no, and no!




Finally we're getting some where. This is WHY I posted a lengthy article on the DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF "GRACE".

So YES, God does respond to the REGENERATE Christian with MORE grace, etc. This is CLEAR from the article I provided.

Is Regeneration a choice belonging to Man?