Mark Quayle said:
Haha! I heard that one coming! I even considered mentioning it in anticipation and presenting rebuttal to head it off at the pass!
I memorized Revelation 3:20 in Greek back in my father's Greek class 50 years ago— (Wow doesn't seem that long ago!) (Not that it is important to the point, but I suspect there is somewhere to go with it, if one thinks the verse is talking about salvation, yet to oppose your implication that it is definitely proving salvation by human choice: The verse doesn't say "knock" but "call". Now why would anyone at enmity with God respond by opening the door?) But I tend to think it is implying fellowship, and not salvation. But each to their own, I suppose.
Haha! IDK, Strongs defines the term as "strike". But knock, call, whatever, the idea is that God beckons to us; He must take the initiative with all that implies. And in the historic understanding that means that we will not open the door without His grace prompting and moving us to do so, and yet, we can still refuse, we can say "no" even as He gives us all we need in order to say "yes". It's a both/and situation, by His wisdom and will for us. And fellowship with God is salvation if one understands the gospel. Somewhere in Institutes even Calvin acknowledges this concept of union, but apparently doesn't fully develop it or understand its importance, I believe.
Bear with me; it has been 50 years. I think the etymology shows the same root for
κρούω (which Strong's does indeed say it means strike, as in to beat a door with a stick to gain admittance) as it does for "shout" which is
κραυγή. If I remember right, the notion behind
κρούω is that of "make the sound" as in announcing oneself at the door, or something along those lines. Notice that Christ says, "If someone should
hear my voice..."
I haven't read Calvin's Institutes, so I can't say what he does or does not do as to
"this concept of union," but the reports I keep getting as to Calvin's doctrine of puppethood (when I know very well there is no puppethood there), or of "automatic" virtues once saved (when I know very well that is not what Calvinism claims) have me more than ready to say that you most likely read Calvin very differently from how I would. In fact, I'm pretty sure what you mean by
'union' is a whole different sort of thing from what I mean by it.
Mark Quayle said:
Then you use the term, again, "force". Who is talking "force" here?
A rose is a rose... If God is so radically changing one's dispositon such that they cannot but choose as He desires, then they are no longer the ones doing the choosing. And the bible and the gospel are rendered pretty much unnecessary, as a sidenote; the need to obey, the need to choose good over evil, life over death, to walk justly with our God unnecessary to know-because the choice is made for you! And as with hope and love, faith is both a GIFT, and a very human choice, a daily one.
Whoa there, Nelly! Who says the regenerated cannot but choose as God desires? By desires, do you mean commands, or decrees? They aren't the same thing. Whatever, the regenerated do not choose contrary to God's
decree; but they most certainly they do choose contrary to God's
command, and often! But you don't seem to realize, not even the unregenerated, who always act in rebellion to God, cannot help but choose precisely as God decrees.
Born again, or not, one always chooses what one most desires to choose, even if they only desired it most at that moment of choice.
But it is not just the disposition, but the very person that is changed, and yes, radically. Mind, heart, will, disposition. Born again. Born from above. Born of the Spirit of God.
Maybe you can rewrite that paragraph with the first sentence corrected, then see if the rest of it makes sense.
