How exactly does grace save someone?

[Nick_Jones]

I asked,

How did Teflon (who was dead) manage to “let” himself be saved?

“Came to repentance.” Teflon in this case did precisely as the Prodigal Son did. For if the Prodigal Son didn’t return home, he wouldn’t have been reunited with the Father.

Can dead bodies bring themselves back to life by their own free will? Even if this were somehow possible (it isn’t) you still haven’t answered this:

what was it in Teflon’s deadness that made him different than the deadness of Nick?

We know the dead want. Remember the account of the damned soul yearning for some water to ease the pain in his tongue?

Dead people burning in hell might want water to ease the pain, but dead people are totally powerless to change their dead condition aren’t they?

Teflon, unlike Nick, had the humility to accept his faults, repent, seek forgiveness, and perform his contrition. “Go and sin no more.”

There we have it. Your answer to my question, “what was it in Teflon’s deadness that made him different than the deadness of Nick?”

By your answer we can only conclude that grace never had anything to do with why Teflon was saved. It was all about the goodness of Teflon, who “unlike Nick, had the humility to accept his faults, repent, seek forgiveness, and perform his contrition.”

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, in your analogy God is a firefighter who is only able to save those who want to be saved. How do you interpret this verse?

Rom. 10:20
And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”

Was the apostle Paul saved because of Gods grace, or because he had the desire to be saved?

As Paul noted, he wasn’t saved in one shot.

He had to work out his salvation in fear and trembling.

Which is why one must work out Scripture IN CONTEXT.

 

[Teflon93]

I asked,

Can dead bodies bring themselves back to life by their own free will? Even if this were somehow possible (it isn’t) you still haven’t answered this:

I did, you just ignored my answer:

“Came to repentance.” Teflon in this case did precisely as the Prodigal Son did. For if the Prodigal Son didn’t return home, he wouldn’t have been reunited with the Father.

This is what “dead in sin” means: one dead in sin has lost eternal life. They have through sin resisted the firefighter. There is time before the flames take them, however, and they can return to his grasp through the sacrament of penance.

Of course, some of you have torn yourself from his grasp and claim the flames will not touch you. You have rejected penance.

Dead people burning in hell might want water to ease the pain, but dead people are totally powerless to change their dead condition aren’t they?

I note you haven’t admitted you were wrong. Scripture clearly indicates that the damned do indeed long for salvation from torment, but too late.

There we have it. Your answer to my question, “what was it in Teflon’s deadness that made him different than the deadness of Nick?”

By your answer we can only conclude that grace never had anything to do with why Teflon was saved. It was all about the goodness of Teflon, who “unlike Nick, had the humility to accept his faults, repent, seek forgiveness, and perform his contrition.”

LOL—you might want to work on formulating your own arguments before presuming to formulate mine.

It had nothing to do with the “goodness” of Teflon (for who is good but God?); it had everything to do with Teflon exercising his free will to repent, as the Prodigal Son did, and return to the fold. Nick, unfortunately, has used his free will to make up excuses for not repenting and not availing himself of the sacrament Christ himself instituted.

Perhaps Nick will reflect on the parable of the Prodigal Son, although it doesn’t seem to be a favorite of Calvinists, and take back what Jean Calvin stole from him centuries gone.

Or Nick can continue to blame God for his sins by maintaining the Lutheran argument from “On the Bondage of the Will” that Erasmus completely refuted centuries gone.

You are not a slave, Nick, or you would not be here, among the free.

 

[Nick_Jones]

What if God’s grace - His free, unmerited gift to us - was/is His Son? His saving gift, the grace that saves us is His own Son’s horrible, bloody, human sacrifice on the cross?

True. His Son’s sacrifice was both a free gift, and essential for salvation. But not everyone is going to heaven. So, the question is, if we are saved by grace, through faith, how does that saving grace save only some people but not everyone?

What if Adam and Eve’s turning away from God closed the gates of heaven to all? Nothing we, as creatures, could do would ever open them. NO ONE could enter heaven, period. The only way for the gates to be re-opened was for Jesus Christ to die on the cross. When He did the gates of heaven were re-opened and now we can enter - if we want to. God invites all of us to join Him in heaven. We can choose to accept the invitation or not.

That is the question. We can choose to accept the invitation or not. So, what is it, in your view that makes some people choose to accept the invitation?

Nick, I get the idea from your posts that only certain people are given grace by God. Only those certain people can then be with Him in heaven, am I understanding you correctly? If so, then why have these discussions? Why preach the Gospel at all? Risk our lives traveling to foreign lands to bring the Good News to others? If they have not been chosen by God to recieve His grace then it’s a waste of time, they won’t accept it. If they have already been chosen to recieve His grace, then they don’t need to hear about it from me!

Because when people go around preaching the good news, good things happen. As for me, I was saved (I was an unbeliever) after discussions with an old friend of mine. The gospel message is essential in salvation, and we, who have the truth ought to want to share it with everyone we can. If the good news that I share is not received, does that make it a waste of my time? No, the message will glorify God even by those who reject it. By rejecting the gospel, the righteous judgment of God will be revealed. Either way, God’s glory is manifested: By grace, to those who receive it, and by His perfect justice, to those who reject it.

I also believe that you are confusing The Law of Moses (the Torah) with God’s law. The Torah is the Law spoken about when we hear that "10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”

I’m assuming that The Law of Moses is God’s law.

I also think that you are confusing God’s never ending love with salvation (spending eternity with Him in heaven). God loves the worst sinner in Hell just as much as He loves you and me and He always will. Nothing can separate us from God’s love. But that person has chosen to spend eternity in Hell and God allows that choice. We can choose to separate ourselves from God (not His love). I choose to believe that God is deeply saddened and even disappointed by that choice, but He still allows it and He still loves the sinner.

Just my 2 cents
Ken

I appreciate your 2 cents!

 

[TDiGaetano]

*Eph 2:8-10

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. *

Can someone find in the bible what defines or determins faith? So that we may be saved through it?

 

[Teflon93]

A further refinement of our firefighter analogy:

We put ourselves in the burning building through sin—we start the fire through our free will to sin.

God calls us out of the building. God comes to rescue us from it.

Some of us fight God, the firefighter. We do not wish anyone to know we set the fire.

Some of us claim that there is no fire; that the air is as fresh as on a spring day. No fire here, no sir.

Some of us claim that the fire is God’s fault—after all, he made us, and our arson could have been prevented if only He’d shown up to hose down the matches we lit.

Some of us tarry too long and are consumed by the flames.

Some of us acknowledge our arson and allow God to rescue us from the flames. By what right do we claim to be heroes? We do not. God saved us, we simply allowed him to do so, and may even have taken a step or two toward the door. Since we set the fire, however, we have nothing at all to be proud of.

 

[unacanta]

The undeserved merits of Our Lord which we as adopted sons and daughters of God obtain through the Sacraments–the thing which both sanctifies and cleanses us, and enables us to do that which we otherwise could not…

I thought the blood of Christ cleanses us??

1 John 1:7
but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Hebrews 10:29
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

We are cleansed by His blood and we are sanctified by His blood, not our participation in the Sacraments.

Len

 

[Teflon93]

I thought the blood of Christ cleanses us??

1 John 1:7
but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Hebrews 10:29
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

We are cleansed by His blood and we are sanctified by His blood, not our participation in the Sacraments.

Len

That’s a pretty big “if” in the John passage!

Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians and others demonstrates that some, even having accepted the spirit of grace at one point, do not always maintain their path in the light. They choose to walk in darkness, and need to return.

What would have happened had the Prodigal Son not decided to come home and ask his Father’s forgiveness?

While away squandering his Father’s grace did he not still believe in his Father? Did he not have faith in his Father’s goodness and mercy?

Of course he did—that’s what allowed the son to maintain his sinful lifestyle as he squandered that grace.

It is not enough to believe, therefore. One must love, honor, and obey. And when one goes astray, as the Prodigal Son did, one must repent, return home, and seek forgiveness, which the Father will in His joy grant.

 

[unacanta]

That’s a pretty big “if” in the John passage!

Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians and others demonstrates that some, even having accepted the spirit of grace at one point, do not always maintain their path in the light. They choose to walk in darkness, and need to return.

What would have happened had the Prodigal Son not decided to come home and ask his Father’s forgiveness?

While away squandering his Father’s grace did he not still believe in his Father? Did he not have faith in his Father’s goodness and mercy?

Of course he did—that’s what allowed the son to maintain his sinful lifestyle as he squandered that grace.

It is not enough to believe, therefore. One must love, honor, and obey. And when one goes astray, as the Prodigal Son did, one must repent, return home, and seek forgiveness, which the Father will in His joy grant.

Let us start with Jn3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life

Jn5:24
24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Both of these scriptures point the way,we can find many more if you wish? Scripture is clear, our salvation is based upon our belief not our actions.

 

[Teflon93]

Let us start with Jn3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life

Jn5:24
24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Both of these scriptures point the way,we can find many more if you wish? Scripture is clear, our salvation is based upon our belief not our actions.

Unfortunately for your position, that’s not ALL Scripture says. Matthew 19, John 6, and James 2 all elaborate on what we must do as well.

Of course, Luke 6:46 is the best summation, from Christ himself:

“Why do you call me “Lord, Lord” but do not do what I tell you to do?”

Since Christ speaks often of salvation throughout Scripture, one must consider ALL he has to say on the subject.

His view is authoritative, you know.

 

[unacanta]

Unfortunately for your position, that’s not ALL Scripture says. Matthew 19, John 6, and James 2 all elaborate on what we must do as well.

Of course, Luke 6:46 is the best summation, from Christ himself:

“Why do you call me “Lord, Lord” but do not do what I tell you to do?”

Since Christ speaks often of salvation throughout Scripture, one must consider ALL he has to say on the subject.

His view is authoritative, you know.

Most assuredly so, His Word is authoritative. When He says “believe in Him whom I sent”, That is what he means and says.

When one gets involved in “do”, “do” or steps in “do”, “do” it can be a smelly thing.

 

[Nita]

In that case you would be doing nothing to impede the impulse to feed the person which would come from God!

I understand that I would not be impeding the impulse, but I would be “doing something” in using my free will to agree to cooperate with it and in the actual carrying out of it. I am not trying to deny the primacy of God’s role and power in our good acts, His Being as the origin of them, - but man has a role to play also.

So there never is a case of choosing for or against God there is only a choice of impeding God or doing nothing–a neutral nothing zero act.

So, could you please explain how my decision to please God by feeding the hungry person and actually carrying out the activity can be said to be responding to God’s grace by “doing nothing”?

When man cooperates by doing nothing–a neutral zero act–God grace will continue to flow and sanctify.

I know and understand that it is God’s grace that is necessary to santify it; that His grace works to influence my choices, etc. BUT, it is still the person who makes the choice to impede or not; the person who chooses to cooperate and the person who performs the act. These are not neutrally zero acts. (I’m assuming by neutrally zero you mean of no credit/merit/meaning to the person for any of the acts carried out as a result of God’s inspiration and with the help of His grace). If that were true, why does Scripture tell us we will be rewarded according to our deeds. (eg Mt 5 & 6; Mt 25:15-31 Parable of talents)

Thee beauty of it is that God does allthe saving and all of the inititating and even all of completing of these God-willed works–but man gets to exercise his free will and cooperate with God by not exercising man’s will–

???
Don’t have a textbook definition, but my understanding of “surrendering” our will is choosing to do God’s will in all situations and not follow tendencies we may have that are contrary to it. “Tendences” would include our mental reasoning as well as physical resistance.

By doing the positive neutral nothing zero of having a neutral will–man gets to cooperate with God–and God receives all the glory because it is God that does all the saving.

We CANNOT have a neutral will. The will is where we make choices. Our whole existence is about choosing - for God - not just once, but every minute of every day. There is no such thing as remaining neutral to God’s grace - we either say “Yes”, or we say “No”. He respects our choice.

---

Maybe I am totally misunderstanding the meaning behind the terms you’re using. Could you refer me to some Catholic authoritative text that would go into it using the same terms as you? (I have a pretty extensive library - CCC, Denzinger, ECF, Aquinas, etc.)

I think it’s important to clarify your statements because as I interpret them, they would be contrary to Catholic teaching. So, just in case there are more dummies like me out there, I think it’s important to get it stated in a way that makes sense to us.

If there isn’t something that uses the same terms, could you perhaps give a statement I’ve misunderstood - for example:

“By *doing *the positive neutral *nothing *zero of having a neutral will–man gets to cooperate with God–and God receives all the glory because it is God that does all the saving.”

and then underneath it, give a quote from the CCC or some other source that you consider is saying the same thing.

I think that might help.

Thanks,
Nita

 

[Nita]

Most assuredly so, His Word is authoritative. When He says “believe in Him whom I sent”, That is what he means and says.

Yes, so we have to “do” that too.

Nita

 

[unacanta]

Yes, so we have to “do” that too.

Nita

I bow to you and submit that reply as most true.

God bless ya,

Len

 

[Teflon93]

Most assuredly so, His Word is authoritative. When He says “believe in Him whom I sent”, That is what he means and says.

When one gets involved in “do”, “do” or steps in “do”, “do” it can be a smelly thing.

True, but if one claims to believe they should not step in something, then steps in it anyway, the shoe is still soiled, no?

 

[Teflon93]

This exchange also recalls the experience on the sea of Galilee. Christ walks out on the water, then calls Peter to him. Peter goes, but becomes frightened, and begins to sink, causing Christ to rebuke him for insufficient faith.

It is an interesting illumination. Christ demonstrates walking on water can be done, calls Peter to him. Peter initially comes to him, and does indeed walk on the water for a time, but then loses heart and sinks, whereupon Christ pulls him up.

What would have happened had Peter not gotten out of the boat? What would we have said about his faith then?

None of the other apostles even left the boat. Was their faith greater than Peter’s?

 

[Nick_Jones]

*Eph 2:8-10

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith*—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Can someone find in the bible what defines or determins faith? So that we may be saved through it?

Jesus uses a parable to compare two different kinds of “faith” in Luke 18:9-14, but only the one who trusted in (had faith in) God’s goodness went home justified:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

---

The kind of faith that saves is trusting in the goodness and mercy of God and nothing else.

 

[KenEisman]

True. His Son’s sacrifice was both a free gift, and essential for salvation. But not everyone is going to heaven. So, the question is, if we are saved by grace, through faith, how does that saving grace save only some people but not everyone?

That is the question. We can choose to accept the invitation or not. So, what is it, in your view that makes some people choose to accept the invitation?

That’s just it, In my view, nothing makes people choose to accept the invitation. That’s like asking what made me choose a blue shirt today? We hear the Good News and make a decision to believe it or not. God does not interfere with our free choice. (I see this particular discussion moving towards philosophy and psychology and away from theology!)

Because when people go around preaching the good news, good things happen. As for me, I was saved (I was an unbeliever) after discussions with an old friend of mine. The gospel message is essential in salvation, and we, who have the truth ought to want to share it with everyone we can. If the good news that I share is not received, does that make it a waste of my time? No, the message will glorify God even by those who reject it. By rejecting the gospel, the righteous judgment of God will be revealed. Either way, God’s glory is manifested: By grace, to those who receive it, and by His perfect justice, to those who reject it.

But my point was, if God has already chosen who will recieve His gift of grace and those who won’t. They will either recieve it or not regardless of them hearing it proclaimed by someone else. If a woman in the farthest reaches of the earth never hears the Gospel but God wants to give her His grace, she WILL recieve His grace. She can’t have faith in Him because she doesn’t know him. If God decides NOT to give Billy Graham’s son His grace, then it won’t matter that he lives with the Gospel being expounded daily around him, he still will NOT recieve God’s grace. So it doesn’t do any good as far as bringing others to Christ IF God has preordained who gets His grace and who does not.

In other words, if God predestined you to recieve His grace wouldn’t you have recieved it (and been ‘saved’) even if your old friend hadn’t had the discussions with you? Or is there more than just grace (and/or faith) needed to be saved? You say that the Gospel message is “essential” to salvation. That means that one CANNOT be saved without hearing the Gospel - that God’s grace is NOT sufficient, by itself, for salvation. Is that what you meant to say?

I’m assuming that The Law of Moses is God’s law.

No, they are two different things. The Law of Moses was a temporary law given by God to Moses because of the transgressions of the Jews in the desert in order to kind of ‘keep them in line.’ Similar to the idea that we give small children more specific and more strict rules when they are young and make those rules more generic and less strict as they grow up - allowing them to make their own choices as their reasoning matures. We, God’s creatures, have matured spiritually over the years and no longer need the specific laws of the Torah, yet we still have to live by God’s more generic law - the Ten Commandments, more specifically to love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself.

If, by faith, we are “in Christ” there is no force in the entire universe that can separate us from God, not even our serious sins. See Rom. 8:28-39

The Holy Bible, New King James Version
Rom. 8:37 through Rom. 8:39 (NKJV) 37Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This passage is talking about separating us from the love of God, which can’t be done. We can, however, be separated from God Himself, through serious, unrepented sin. If we choose to commit mortal sin and refuse to repent, God will still love us just as much as He loves anyone else but we will be separated from Him, spiritually (lose our salvation).

I hope all this makes some sense!

Cheers
Ken

 

[Nick_Jones]

That’s just it, In my view, nothing makes people choose to accept the invitation. That’s like asking what made me choose a blue shirt today? We hear the Good News and make a decision to believe it or not. God does not interfere with our free choice. (I see this particular discussion moving towards philosophy and psychology and away from theology!)

I must respectfully disagree with your characterization of the will of fallen and unregenerate mankind as “free.” Is the will to resist God so that we can continue in sin, really free to do anything besides sinning? I think not. Fallen man in the unregenerate condition (not having received saving grace) is described as DEAD IN SIN:

Eph.2:1-7
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

---

Grace saves dead sinners who will not trust in God, by causing sinners (only the elect) to begin to see themselves as they really are–lost, dead, sinners, who desperately need God’s mercy. This regeneration (being born of the Spirit) is life giving and life changing. Like Saul on the road to Damascus, it happened to me even though I never asked for it, and I never did seek it.

 

[Nick_Jones]

But my point was, if God has already chosen who will recieve His gift of grace and those who won’t. They will either recieve it or not regardless of them hearing it proclaimed by someone else.

If God is sovereign, then He is the author of our salvation; He is in control of both the end (who gets saved) and the means (how the elect come to know the truth that sets them free).

If a woman in the farthest reaches of the earth never hears the Gospel but God wants to give her His grace, she WILL recieve His grace. She can’t have faith in Him because she doesn’t know him.

If it is God’s will for her to be saved, then by God’s grace she will hear or read the good news and God will draw her to Himself, and she will believe and be saved.

If God decides NOT to give Billy Graham’s son His grace, then it won’t matter that he lives with the Gospel being expounded daily around him, he still will NOT recieve God’s grace.

I agree.

So it doesn’t do any good as far as bringing others to Christ IF God has preordained who gets His grace and who does not.

We can bring the good news about what Jesus has done, but we don’t have the ability to bring others to Christ. Only God can do that.

In other words, if God predestined you to recieve His grace wouldn’t you have recieved it (and been ‘saved’) even if your old friend hadn’t had the discussions with you? Or is there more than just grace (and/or faith) needed to be saved? You say that the Gospel message is “essential” to salvation. That means that one CANNOT be saved without hearing the Gospel - that God’s grace is NOT sufficient, by itself, for salvation. Is that what you meant to say?

Yes, God’s grace doesn’t operate in a vacume, it works through faith in Jesus.