Ihedinobi3:


I think that you are being very dishonest. When I offered you a chance to explain your weird stance on what constitutes the Word of God, you said that I shouldn't bother to sway you and that it is okay if I don't like your position. I accepted your answer, and now you have said several times that I should aspire to be like you, but I have no idea why you think being the way you are is right for even you, much less me.

I have been arguing that you don't have any comprehension of the Scriptures, and you have not even attempted to show why you believe that you do. So, when you say that you wish that I had a comprehension of the Scriptures, I can't even begin to understand what you mean by that.

It is not much of an argument to say that if I understood what I read, I wouldn't have opposed your claims. Since you believe that your understanding is correct, why don't you show why you do? Or am I supposed to just agree with you that you are right because you say that you are? And yet I am the cultist who thinks Christ belongs only to me and others like me?

As I said before, I have no idea what you are arguing against when you say that God chose some people or that Christ focused on these chosen ones for salvation. I don't see the difference between what you are saying here and the arguments that I have made regarding the matter. God certainly chose some people to be saved. The Lord Jesus most certainly treasures them and gives them special protection and provision to fulfill the purpose of their calling to salvation. What I don't see, as I have said before, is how any of that means that those who were not chosen are people that God doesn't want saved. It was our Lord Himself Who said that "many are called." Called to what if not salvation? The Bible says that God commands men everywhere to repent. I have offered you a passage in Ezekiel declaring that what God wants is for the wicked to repent and live. I don't see anything that even remotely suggests that God does not want everybody to be saved, quite the opposite in fact.

As for God intending to save all, I have no idea what claim you mean. I obviously argue that God wants all men to be saved. I have also argued that if it was a matter of His Intention or Will without any reference to individual free will, then, of course, you would have a point. But His Intention is that only those who want to and choose to be saved will be. That does not mean that God does not desire or want all men to be saved. If He didn't, Jesus would not have died for the whole world.

As for your first paragraph, as I have said twice, I have said the same thing to you.

My stance is weird? My stance is that the TRUTH of God is the word out of God's own mouth. Why is this hard for you to understand?

davidinchrist:


Friend, I wonder if you would like to hear the truth. See, I don't represent any church or pastor (stopped going to my former church since 2014). The truth is your emphasis above is half-truth.

You emphasized Ephesians 2; but why didn't you emphasize Ephesians chap. 4, 5 and 6 as well, which are equally important. That's one dangerous thing about churches and pastors; they form a doctrine using a part of scripture, ignoring others that they don't like. This is why I RUN from them: "Blind leaders of the blind", as Jesus called them.

Dear friend(s), we'd better stop fooling ourselves along with our great Pastors and churches on the broad way.

Read chap 4, 5 and 6 in your free time. IT'S DANGEROUS TO STOP AT CHAP 2.
Ephesians 5:5-8,15-16 KJV
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. [6] Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. [7] Be not ye therefore partakers with them. [8] For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: [15] See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, [16] Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Nevertheless, you don't need to agree with me: your choice.

Peace with you.

Learning starts from A, B, C ...and goes on to words, parts of speech, etc. In order words, we start from the BASICS and go on the more complex. If a person wants to conjugate without knowing the basics to work with things may not go well.

The Bible says line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here a little there.

If a person does not UNDERSTAND Ephesians 2 and wants to lump it up with chapters 4, 5 and 6 there might be confusion.

That is why I started with GRACE. Do you fault anything I said about grace?

sagenaija:
That is why I started with GRACE. Do you fault anything I said about grace?

You stand with grace, but what is grace, and what does the Grace of God refer to in the context that is Jesus Christ?

Precepts upon Precepts? I think you need to pick up a better translation of the Bible to read that entire Chapter with. In every other place in the same book, We learn that God works in other ways too. He gives an understanding of what He wants to whomever He wants. God does not teach even His own in a planned out manner.
I particularly like the ERV version since it is clearly presented in the English Language as used today, and not in the times of King David(400 years ago)

Isaiah 28 vs 9-22 (ERV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The people say, “Who does he think he is trying to teach and explain his message to? Does he think we are babies who were at their mother’s breast only a very short time ago?
10. He speaks to us as though we were babies:
“Saw lasaw saw lasaw
Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw
Ze’er sham ze’er sham.”
[b] 11. So God will use this strange way of talking, and he will use other languages to speak to these people.
12. In the past he spoke to them and said, “Here is a resting place. Let those who are tired come and rest. This is the place of peace.”But they would not listen to him.
13. So the Lord’s words will be senseless sounds[c] to them:
“Saw lasaw saw lasaw.
Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw.
Ze’er sham ze’er sham.”
When the people try to walk, they will fall backwards. They will be defeated, trapped, and captured.

Goshen360:


Hello my dear brother Ihedinobi,

I agree with all your thoughts even though Noah ark example you used geg keh leg....lol. Why? Noah's ark is a type and shadow and in type and shadow, the substance sometimes is bigger or smaller to the shadows but lets leave that one aside.

However, kindly explain these scriptures as regards our free will to continue to believe in the light of subject salvation.

Phillipians 2v13....both to will and to do (emphasized).

Ephesians 4v30...sealed unto the day of redemption

John 6v39. He shall not lose none the father gave him.

Kindly help us through light on those scriptures.

Thank you sir.

As I said, sir, "free will" is a gift from God. Therefore, the ability to "will" or to "choose" is from the Lord, just as the ability to perform what we have "willed" or "chosen" is from the Lord too. So, He works in us to make us able both to will and to do. This is supposed to be a statement of encouragement and reassurance for believers. It tells us that what our fate will be is guaranteed by the Lord to be just whatever we say that it will be. Nobody can force us to be saved or not saved. Our free will is guaranteed by the unopposable God Himself.

We are sealed with the Holy Spirit in the same way that a policeman is typically protected by his uniform and badge. We respect the power of the state. Likewise, our redemption is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit who dwells inside of us, as long as we continue to believe. Nothing can prevent our ultimate redemption through resurrection, as long as we believe.

The Lord Jesus has never lost anyone who continued to believe. But if anyone quits believing, then He will deny them just as surely as the Word of God in 2 Timothy 2:12 is true.

Those are my answers, sir.

Kobojunkie:

My stance is weird? My stance is that the TRUTH of God is the word out of God's own mouth. Why is this hard for you to understand?

My understanding is not the problem. You are the one who claimed that the epistles are the opinions of the apostles and others who wrote them. That is what I'm asking you to prove. You claimed that the Truth of God and the word out of God's own mouth is only the Old Testament and the Gospels. The question is how you know that, why you claim that it is so. That stance is weird.

Ihedinobi3:


My understanding is not the problem. You are the one who claimed that the epistles are the opinions of the apostles and others who wrote them. That is what I'm asking you to prove. You claimed that the Truth of God and the word out of God's own mouth is only the Old Testament and the Gospels. The question is how you know that, why you claim that it is so. That stance is weird.

Your understanding is the problem here since you don't seem to grasp what even Jesus Christ communicated to all those who would heed His word.
The epistles were never written as direct communications from God but as opinions based on the experience of the writers, to others of the same faith.
Why do you think the Berean Christians had to verify the authenticity of what was taught them even back then? That Christians of today have taken to equating what was written then as the truth of God has not changed the facts of what Jesus Chrst said, and is.

Kobojunkie:
Your understanding is the problem here since you don't seem to grasp what even Jesus Christ communicated to all those who would heed His word.
The epistles were never written as direct communications from God but as opinions based on the experience of the writers, to others of the same faith.
Why do you think the Berean Christians had to verify the authenticity of what was taught them even back then? That Christians of today have taken to equating what was written then as the truth of God has not changed the facts of what Jesus Chrst said, and is.

Where's the proof for all this stuff you're saying?

11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:11 (NIV)

That's the Scriptural account about the Bereans. Where does it say that the epistles were not direct communications from God? Where does it say that the epistles were the opinions of the writers based on their experience?

I think that you know that you are lying.

Ihedinobi3:
Where's the proof for all this stuff you're saying?

11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:11 (NIV)

That's the Scriptural account about the Bereans. Where does it say that the epistles were not direct communications from God? Where does it say that the epistles were the opinions of the writers based on their experience?

I think that you know that you are lying.

Have you not read the epistles? Paul never announced himself as a prophet(like the prophets of Old) of God or a messenger of God, but a follower of Jesus Christ, just like everyone else who submits to, and obeys the commandments of Jesus Christ.
Anyways, Jesus Christ was clear that He was the Truth of God... not Paul's, or Peter's or Jame's word, but His, Jesus Christ's words, is the Truth of God. Every other would need to be validated against His own word.

Kobojunkie:
Have you not read the epistles? Paul never announced himself as a prophet(like the prophets of Old) of God or a messenger of God, but a follower of Jesus Christ, just like everyone else who submits to, and obeys the commandments of Jesus Christ.
Anyways, Jesus Christ was clear that He was the Truth of God... not Paul's, or Peter's or Jame's word, but His, Jesus Christ's words, is the Truth of God. Every other would need to be validated against His own word.

First off, I asked this in an earlier post: "If you dismiss Paul's writings as merely his opinion, on what basis do you accept Matthew's, Luke's, or John's as reliable about what Jesus Himself said or even about His Existence?" (https://www.nairaland.com/6179868/once-saved-always-saved-gospel/1#95126633)

Second, I already shared a bunch of passages including one from Galatians where Paul is clearly put forward as writing under God's inspiration (https://www.nairaland.com/6179868/once-saved-always-saved-gospel/2#95137965). You should go and attend to them now, if you really think that you now have some argument about what Paul's letters are.

Third, of course, Paul was not a prophet. He was an Apostle. Those were special messengers given special revelations through which the Church was to be guided (John 17:20; Galatians 1:11-12).

Jesus is the Truth, the Word of God, and that means that all those who wrote under inspiration wrote about Him. That includes Paul, Peter, Jude, and James.

You're still throwing up wild claims, friend. There is nothing in your words to show that you know what you are talking about.

Ihedinobi3:


First off, I asked this in an earlier post: "If you dismiss Paul's writings as merely his opinion, on what basis do you accept Matthew's, Luke's, or John's as reliable about what Jesus Himself said or even about His Existence?" (https://www.nairaland.com/6179868/once-saved-always-saved-gospel/1#95126633)

Second, I already shared a bunch of passages including one from Galatians where Paul is clearly put forward as writing under God's inspiration (https://www.nairaland.com/6179868/once-saved-always-saved-gospel/2#95137965). You should go and attend to them now, if you really think that you now have some argument about what Paul's letters are.

Third, of course, Paul was not a prophet. He was an Apostle. Those were special messengers given special revelations through which the Church was to be guided (John 17:20; Galatians 1:11-12).

Jesus is the Truth, the Word of God, and that means that all those who wrote under inspiration wrote about Him. That includes Paul, Peter, Jude, and James.

You're still throwing up wild claims, friend. There is nothing in your words to show that you know what you are talking about.

Every question you asked, I responded to. You simply do not accept and likely do not understand what the response is.
And as far as Jesus Christ is concerned, there are really no special messengers in His Kingdom. Everyone is required to submit to the same criteria and obey the commandments of God, and we all end up being paid the very same in the end.

God has "special messengers" as part of His Old Covenant. He did away with those in His new Covenant, when He chose to install His very own Spirit, Himself, inside of every single person who submits to obeying Him.

Kobojunkie:
Every question you asked, I responded to. You simply do not accept and likely do not understand what the response is.
And as far as Jesus Christ is concerned, there are really no special messengers in His Kingdom. Everyone is required to submit to the same criteria and obey the commandments of God, and we all end up being paid the very same in the end.

God has "special messengers" as part of His Old Covenant. He did away with those in His new Covenant, when He chose to install His very own Spirit, Himself, inside of every single person who submits to obeying Him.

Where did you answer this particular question that I mentioned?

LOL. Refer to the second link, you'll see a quote from Acts about what Jesus said about Paul. Add to that Mark 3:14 and Luke 6:13. Add too Revelation 7:3-4 and 14:1-5.

I think that you know that you're lying, friend.

Ihedinobi3:
Where did you answer this particular question that I mentioned?

LOL. Refer to the second link, you'll see a quote from Acts about what Jesus said about Paul. Add to that Mark 3:14 and Luke 6:13. Add too Revelation 7:3-4 and 14:1-5.

I think that you know that you're lying, friend.

What Jesus Christ said about Paul? Every follower, beginning with the 12, of Jesus Christ is to carry the message that is the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ, and nothing extra, to those whom He sends them to. That Paul's encounter was recorded in the book of Acts, does not then mean even the book of Acts has become part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No, it is not!

About Mark 3, one of those 12 men was Judas Iscariot. So shall we also quote God's truth from, say the Gospel of Judas as well?

Kobojunkie:
What Jesus Christ said about Paul? What?

You think I'm going to repeat what I wrote and you ignored? I already provided you with the link. Look it up, if you want.

Ihedinobi3:
You think I'm going to repeat what I wrote and you ignored? I already provided you with the link. Look it up, if you want.

Jesus Christ is the Truth of God. What Paul taught had to be nothing but what Jesus Christ Himself already taught to all of His disciples while He lived. He made it clear that He and He alone are the ONLY teachers for all of those who will follow Him.

If Paul had taught some other doctrine that Jesus Christ did not teach, then Paul would have been against Jesus Christ... i.e. anti-Christ. Paul may have an opinion of His own to share based on His experiences, but those opinions, as I said, are meant to be validated against the Truth which is Jesus Christ before they can be accepted as God's Truth. Now, if Paul teaches that which Jesus Christ(God Himself) did not teach, how do you think that doctrine can be validated?

Kobojunkie:
What Jesus Christ said about Paul? Every follower, beginning with the 12, of Jesus Christ is to carry the message that is the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ, and nothing extra, to those whom He sends them to. That Paul's encounter was recorded in the book of Acts, does not then mean even the book of Acts has become part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No, it is not!

About Mark 3, one of those 12 men was Judas Iscariot. So shall we also quote God's truth from, say the Gospel of Judas as well?

I think that you know that you are lying, friend.

In case, you are still confused (and I don't believe for a moment that you are), the question is why you claim that nothing other than the Gospels and the Old Testament is the Word of God. So, of course, I'm completely discountenancing all the lies that you are telling about the other Scriptures. Whenever you can show that they truly aren't Scriptures, I'll stop using them as divine evidence.

We're all commissioned to preach the Gospel, it is true, but the apostles and prophets of the early days of the Church were unique. I obviously have posted John 16 for you before. Feel free to refer to my arguments there. The Lord Jesus Himself said that His apostles would receive new revelations of the truth, things that He had not yet told them, in addition to a supernatural recall of all that He had already told them, after He left them.

As for Judas Iscariot, I'm not sure what you're on about. Judas was chosen because he was supposed to betray Jesus Christ.

Kobojunkie:
Jesus Christ is the Truth of God. What Paul taught had to be nothing but what Jesus Christ Himself already taught to all of His disciples while He lived. He made it clear that He and He alone are the ONLY teachers for all of those who will follow Him.

If Paul had taught some other doctrine that Jesus Christ did not teach, then Paul would have been against Jesus Christ... i.e. anti-Christ. Paul may have an opinion of His own to share based on His experiences, but those opinions, as I said, are meant to be validated against the Truth which is Jesus Christ before they can be accepted as God's Truth. Now, if Paul teaches that which Jesus Christ(God Himself) did not teach, how do you think that doctrine can be validated?

As I have said a few times already, I think that you know that you're lying.

Ihedinobi3:
As I have said a few times already, I think that you know that you're lying.

Keep thinking that then!

Kobojunkie:
Keep thinking that then!

I will.

Ihedinobi3:


As I said, sir, "free will" is a gift from God. Therefore, the ability to "will" or to "choose" is from the Lord, just as the ability to perform what we have "willed" or "chosen" is from the Lord too. So, He works in us to make us able both to will and to do. This is supposed to be a statement of encouragement and reassurance for believers. It tells us that what our fate will be is guaranteed by the Lord to be just whatever we say that it will be. Nobody can force us to be saved or not saved. Our free will is guaranteed by the unopposable God Himself.

We are sealed with the Holy Spirit in the same way that a policeman is typically protected by his uniform and badge. We respect the power of the state. Likewise, our redemption is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit who dwells inside of us, as long as we continue to believe. Nothing can prevent our ultimate redemption through resurrection, as long as we believe.

The Lord Jesus has never lost anyone who continued to believe. But if anyone quits believing, then He will deny them just as surely as the Word of God in 2 Timothy 2:12 is true.

Those are my answers, sir.

Okay, great!

Kobojunkie:
You stand with grace, but what is grace, and what does the Grace of God refer to in the context that is Jesus Christ?

Precepts upon Precepts? I think you need to pick up a better translation of the Bible to read that entire Chapter with. In every other place in the same book, We learn that God works in other ways too. He gives an understanding of what He wants to whomever He wants. God does not teach even His own in a planned out manner.
I particularly like the ERV version since it is clearly presented in the English Language as used today, and not in the times of King David(400 years ago)

Grace ensures that the Christian's eternal life is secure.
Grace EXCLUDES human works.

"But if it by grace (God's unmerited favor), it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (it would not be a gift but a reward for works).
Romans 11:6 AMP.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Grace ensures that the Christian's eternal life is secure.
Grace EXCLUDES human works.
"But if it by grace (God's unmerited favor), it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (it would not be a gift but a reward for works).
Romans 11:6 AMP.

Grace is unmerited favor from a God that is not a God of favouritism.
Are you certain that meaning you apply to the Grace of God works in any way?

Kobojunkie:
Grace is unmerited favor from a God that is not a God of favouritism.
Are you certain that meaning you apply to the Grace of God works in any way?

I will appreciate it if you can rephrase these your comments above. I can't quite get your drift.

sagenaija:

I will appreciate it if you can rephrase these your comments above. I can't quite get your drift.

Your definition of God's Grace runs counter to God's own word.

God is by definition not a God of favouritism (the practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another). Since God does not show favouritism (the practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another), it follows that God's grace cannot imply a favour, unmerited or not.

Kobojunkie:
You are right! I have no real kinship with anyone, except Jesus Christ. My one and only business in all of this is Jesus Christ and what He commands of me. Everything else, including the opinions of ordinary men, opinions not verified by the word of God Himself, is meaningless!

What do you call the word of God? are they just the gospels, or do they include the Torah as well? Note that I am not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious.

Kobojunkie:
Your definition of God's Grace runs counter to God's own word.

God is by definition not a God of favouritism (the practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another). Since God does not show favouritism (the practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another), it follows that God's grace cannot imply a favour, unmerited or not.

You have not shown what God's word definition of GRACE is.

I never stated that GRACE is partial. I never stated that GRACE is an expression of favouritism. Favour and favouritism and two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT words.

Please check my posts again and don't read meaning into them. When you assume a person's position without seeking to understand it from what they have expressly stated you end up misunderstanding what is being passed across.

sagenaija:

You have not shown what God's word definition of GRACE is.

I never stated that GRACE is partial. I never stated that GRACE is an expression of favouritism. Favour and favouritism and two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT words.

Please check my posts again and don't read meaning into them. When you assume a person's position without seeking to understand it from what they have expressly stated you end up misunderstanding what is being passed across.

I did not read any meaning into anything you have said so far. I have simply processed the meaning you have presented as far as the Grace of God is concerned, from what is known of God. I have not assumed your position on anything, not yet. I have simply processed the one response you gave in answer to the question on the meaning you apply to the grace of God.

Favours result from a system of favouritism, and since God does not implement a system of favouritism, He does not do men any favours, merited or otherwise.

As for the definition I subscribe to, I do indeed have one, and it is simply that the grace of God we have in Jesus Christ is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the grace of God i.e. the way, the truth, and life -- the New Covenant, a resource that God Himself has prepared and made available to all those who will seek to find their way back to Him. Through the grace of God that is Jesus Christ, those who believe receive an eternal pardon from death, and those who also obey, are ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of the day.

John 1 vs 9-18 (ERV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.
10. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
11. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
12. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
13. children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15. (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”)
16. Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.
17. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

That is what I believe the grace of God through Jesus Christ refers to - the New Covenant that God has made with man.

GeneralDae:
What do you call the word of God? are they just the gospels, or do they include the Torah as well? Note that I am not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious.

The word of God refers to every word out of the mouth of God Himself....i.e. the message of God through the mouth of the Old Covenant prophets of God, where Jesus Christ is the human avatar of the word of God.

Matthew 4 vs 4 (ESV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. But he answered, “It is written,“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Kobojunkie:
I did not read any meaning into anything you have said so far. I have simply processed the meaning you have presented as far as the Grace of God is concerned, from what is known of God. I have not assumed your position on anything, not yet. I have simply processed the one response you gave in answer to the question on the meaning you apply to the grace of God.

Favours result from a system of favouritism, and since God does not implement a system of favouritism, He does not do men any favours, merited or otherwise.

As for the definition I subscribe to, I do indeed have one, and it is simply that the grace of God we have in Jesus Christ is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the grace of God i.e. the way, the truth, and life -- the New Covenant, a resource that God Himself has prepared and made available to all those who will seek to find their way back to Him. Through the grace of God that is Jesus Christ, those who believe receive an eternal pardon from death, and those who also obey, are ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of the day.


That is what I believe the grace of God through Jesus Christ refers to - the New Covenant that God has made with man.

Favour is not favouritism. You are confusing the two. A favour may be done out of favouritism but that does not mean that every favour is an expression of favouritism. God's favour is an expression of his KINDNESS. To the extent that God shows kindness to men he is extending his FAVOUR to them.

Take the story of the 'Good Samaritan', the Samaritan who attended to the man attacked by robbers did him a favour. That is an expression of GRACE. BUT you cannot say that he showed favouritism to him. Favouritism will come where if there were more than one person the Samaritan chose to help one over another for whatever reason, which would usually have a bias. There was no unfair or preferential treatment given to one at the expense of another in that story. Yet the Samaritan expressed grace.

God's expression of grace as expressed in John 3:16 is a FAVOUR expressed to ALL mankind without BIAS to any particular section of mankind. That favour does not come from any 'system of favouritism' like you said.

You didn't give a DEFINITION of GRACE. You only attempted an ILLUSTRATION.

GRACE is first an expression of favour. A favour that can be accepted or rejected by those it is extended to.

God's favour expressed in John 3:16 is to an undeserving mankind. Mankind DOES NOT MERIT the favour God extended. Mankind has not attained any measure of MERIT to deserve the FAVOUR.

Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9 & Titus 3:5 and other passages CLEARLY show that GRACE is a GIFT expression NOT a PRIZE or REWARD given for works or achievement. The distinction is necessary.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Favour is not favouritism. You are confusing the two. A favour may be done out of favouritism but that does not mean that every favour is an expression of favouritism. God's favour is an expression of his KINDNESS. To the extent that God shows kindness to men he is extending his FAVOUR to them.

Take the story of the 'Good Samaritan', the Samaritan who attended to the man attacked by robbers did him a favour. That is an expression of GRACE. BUT you cannot say that he showed favouritism to him. Favouritism will come where if there were more than one person the Samaritan chose to help one over another for whatever reason, which would usually have a bias. There was no unfair or preferential treatment given to one at the expense of another in that story. Yet the Samaritan expressed grace.

God's expression of grace as expressed in John 3:16 is a FAVOUR expressed to ALL mankind without BIAS to any particular section of mankind. That favour does not come from any 'system of favouritism' like you said.

You didn't give a DEFINITION of GRACE. You only attempted an ILLUSTRATION.

GRACE is first an expression of favour. A favour that can be accepted or rejected by those it is extended to.

God's favour expressed in John 3:16 is to an undeserving mankind. Mankind DOES NOT MERIT the favour God extended. Mankind has not attained any measure of MERIT to deserve the FAVOUR.

Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9 & Titus 3:5 and other passages CLEARLY show that GRACE is a GIFT expression NOT a PRIZE or REWARD given for works or achievement. The distinction is necessary.

What I read here seems nothing different from what I continue to hear preached in pulpits across the world, yet has next to no real grounding in scripture itself. And when I say scripture, I mean when considered within the original context it was presented.

Granted, anyone can pick and choose from scripture random verses to support just about any idea, no matter how devilish... Satan tried just that with Jesus Christ just as He, Jesus Christ, was exiting the wilderness. If any of the selected verses can be countered by yet another verse from the same Bible, then that idea or assumption is rendered invalid, and cannot be the Truth of God.
Favours and Favoritism have nothing to do with any of Jesus Christ's teachings, and there is no basis for assuming merit or the lack of it plays a role as far as the relationship that God has chosen to establish with man through Jesus Christ. God gives, we take... it is just that simple.

Anyway, since you seem to be well served with the world's narrative on the grace of God, what else is there to be said?

Kobojunkie:
What I read here seems nothing different from what I continue to hear preached in pulpits across the world, yet has next to no real grounding in scripture itself. And when I say scripture, I mean when considered within the original context it was presented.

Granted, anyone can pick and choose from scripture random verses to support just about any idea, no matter how devilish... Satan tried just that with Jesus Christ just as He, Jesus Christ, was exiting the wilderness. If any of the selected verses can be countered by yet another verse from the same Bible, then that idea or assumption is rendered invalid, and cannot be the Truth of God.
Favours and Favoritism have nothing to do with any of Jesus Christ's teachings, and there is no basis for assuming merit or the lack of it plays a role as far as the relationship that God has chosen to establish with man through Jesus Christ. God gives, we take... it is just that simple.

Anyway, since you seem to be well served with the world's narrative on the grace of God, what else is there to be said?

You gave no definition of grace from your perspective.
You gave no scriptural illustration or reference to further explain your position.
You also didn't define favour or favouritism to help see how you are right and how it lines up with the word of God.

But what you have done is assume my position is wrong -
Here are your words:
preached in pulpits across the world, anyone can pick and choose from scripture random verses to support just about any idea, no matter how devilish..., you seem to be well served with the world's narrative on the grace of God

How anyone who disagrees with you is taking the world's position, has no grounding in scripture and may even be devilish is interesting.