Unmerited Favor?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Out of the four types of life created by God, humans are the only group, if you will, given any sort of grace. Angels, animals, and plants are not given grace. Of course, the last two categories don't need grace, since they do not sin.

But why is it that angels are not given grace for their sins? Why are humans given MUCH grace for our sins?

It is true that grace is not earned. It is freely given by a faithful, loving Creator.

But consider this idea:

Jesus, the sinless Son of God, has purchased us with His blood, redeeming us back to God the Father. We are now heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. We've been adopted by the One Spirit into the family of the Lord.

I submit therefore that for all born again saints, grace, while not merited through personal actions to earn it, is nonetheless ours by right! Jesus Christ was and is full of grace and truth. By being filled with the same Spirit, we too can and ought to be filled with grace and truth, as well. Indeed, John wrote that we have received the fullness of God in Christ, even of grace for grace (John 1:16).

That grace is upon us, and in us. It is impossible to have received the power of God to become His sons through Christ, and have NOT received such grace.

Zechariah foretold of a time when the "spirit of grace and supplication" would be poured out on the house of David and Jersualem adjacent to the time of the crucifixion (See Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37). That grace has been poured out in the atonement, received in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This saving grace is part of the earnest of our inheritance. Jesus tasted death for every one by the "grace of God" (Hebrews 2:9). We receive such a grace because of our obedience to the faith of the Son of God by the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:5, Galatians 3:2 & 14).

So, it's not earned, but it is gratuitously given to all who are the children of God. None are refused. And in fact, it was the grace of God that drew us to the Lord in the first place, and as a teacher, shows us how to live (Titus 2:11).

Now, some might say that we'd get a big head and take grace for granted. Well, only idiots would do such a thing. Rather, the grace of God, poured out freely upon all who believe and obey, ours by right, ought to make us humble and thankful, filling our hearts with gratitude, as the recipients of such an awesome grace (i.e. the very meaning of charis).

Good post! Agreed, it is ours by "right"!

Consider that divine grace was already operative in the Garden of Eden when God responded to the complete failure of the fall with the promise of redemption and especially God's solicitous watching over Adam and Eve, rather than with abandonment or retributive annihilation.

The call to Abraham was an extension of grace, which was not afforded to Abraham as an individual only, but through him as a means of universal outreach.

I especially liked your earlier post where it is really saying that if "grace" is viewed or defined as "unmerited/undeserved favor", then where did Noah find himself as unmerited being a "preacher of righteousness?

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You know, Noah found favor with God. We are not told it was unmerited favor, just that he found favor.

The only clue as to a possible reason why is because Noah was a preacher of righteousness.

Had Noah been a maurading lunatic like the rest of the world at the time, would he have found any favor with God?

And what was Abraham's fault performed that he would also be counted as "unmerited/undeserving?"

God simply set out a plan - "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people." Titus 2:11

[Pressing-On]

Something else I read that is very well stated -

"Because Christ represents the fulfillment, the embodiment, and the dispenser of divine grace, the early Christians freely referred to God's grace as "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." This grace was conceived as being so basic and so pervasive of their communities of faith they they naturally coupled the traditional greeting of shalom/peace with a reference to the grace of Jesus Christ. This is the reason for the ubiquitous repetition of numerous variations on the basic greeting formula found in almost every book of the New Testament - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all" II Thessalonians 3:18

I am still looking for texts that allude to a believer as being "unmerited". It might be our view, but I don't see it as God's.

[Praxeas]

PO..this is the one listing for the word "one" from Strongs

G1520
εἷς
heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

Notice it says heis? I was looking up the word One in John 10:30. The word is HEN not HEIS.

Strongs does not tell you whether it's Hen or Heis. What it does is what you see above. It says "Heis", then says "Including the neuter hen".

But I can't tell you how many Oneness I have heard say the word is Heis because they used Strongs and saw that the heading for this word is "Heis"..

Im using Esword. I used to have Strongs Concordance in Hard Cover and that is where First saw this.

That is what I have said in previous posts and yes I am right. I just showed it to you

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

PO..this is the one listing for the word "one" from Strongs

G1520
εἷς
heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

Notice it says heis? I was looking up the word One in John 10:30. The word is HEN not HEIS.

Strongs does not tell you whether it's Hen or Heis. What it does is what you see above. It says "Heis", then says "Including the neuter hen".

But I can't tell you how many Oneness I have heard say the word is Heis because they used Strongs and saw that the heading for this word is "Heis"..

Im using Esword. I used to have Strongs Concordance in Hard Cover and that is where First saw this.

That is what I have said in previous posts and yes I am right. I just showed it to you

This is the conversation I was referring to. What it will reflect is that even when you continue pushing against Strong's as having no relevance at all, it generally is a good source and not hard to figure out the context of a passage. IOW, if this is your strongest case against the Strong's, it is a weak one. I could plainly see the context of John 10:30 using the Strong's with both Hen or Heis listed as a possible definition for "one".

I've stated several times my experience in reading lengthy, educated forum posts on the Greek and Hebrew, in that, many more times the Strong's nutshells the idea that a lengthy article or debate takes so long to get to. It just seems rather silly to me.

I've never seen the Strong's be so inaccurate as to you lead you away from the purpose or main important points being expressed in the Bible.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=218

I'm saying in Jn 10:30 the Greek word is Hen not Heis.

Heis usually means One (in number) in distinction to Hen meaning usually One (in unity) and that One In number is not the same thing as One in Unity.

Im saying exactly and ONLY what I've already said

Prax, while it is true that the neuter hen generally means "one" in the sense of unity, as I would imagine you know, there are numerous places in the NT where it can also means "one" in person.

Romans 12:5 So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

The above verse will perhaps help illustrate what I am saying. Here is the exact parsing of the verse:

http://interlinearbible.org/romans/12-5.htm

As you will see, the first "one," as in "one body" is the neuter sing. "hen," while the second "one," as in "individually members 'ONE' of another" is the masc. sing. heis. And, it even contains the same plural verb (ἐσμεν/esmen) as in Jn. 10.30.

The "one" that appears in the independent clause could be taken to mean "one person" inasmuch as "one body" is never more "one person." Conversely, it could also be interpreted to mean "one in unity" due to "many members" clearly are not "one person." Here is where context will enter the picture to be the final judge.

However, the "one" that appears in the dependent clause is clearly talking about "one 'individual' person" (talk about demolishing the "multiple-divine-persons," or "Trinity".....the Masc. Sing. does it!).


Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."

There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=225