Is Salvation a choice? If it is, whose choice is it ?

Mark Quayle said:

Sophistry. That we learn much of love by what he did does not undo what I said, nor does it disagree with it. But you are presuming the notion that we have full [enough] understanding of love to create our own valid faith.

Click to expand...

Where was a new faith created here? What I've stated has been understood within the Christian faith from the beginning-and it's wholly biblical. If some have strayed from the faith, leaning on their own understanding based on private interpretation of Scripture, well...that's also been the case from the beginning even if more so within the last 500 years. Either way, it's promised that the Holy Spirit will guide His people into truth, and deeper truth. The revelation of what love is and our relationship to it is better understood due to that guidance, due to that grace. The knowledge of that love is an infinitely vast field, as God is, but that doesn't mean He doesn't want us to know it, and that He cannot have us know it more deeply. Your very created purpose is to come to know and to emulate that love, to be transformed into its image and share the uncompromised happiness that's intrinsic to it. This is not sophistry or invention; this is understanding-and basic Christinianty, BTW.

Mark Quayle said:

We do indeed grow, but of ourselves, we can do, we understand, we are, nothing. We are not independent beings.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's been the whole point. The Christian faith teaches that man can do nothing on his own, but that with God all things are possible. Once with Him we are now equipped, by grace, by the Spirit, to work out our salvation.

God's. If it were ours we would have never chosen Him.

zoidar said:

I don't think Lamentations 3:37 is saying that every human action only happens if God commands it. I think it’s more about outcomes in history, whether anything actually comes to pass outside of God's rule.

Click to expand...

Can you show how those do not work out to being one and the same thing? You want God to oversee something that he set in motion, without him being specific as to what happens. But, if he set it into motion OMNISCIENTLY, he intended every detail.

Furthermore, good reasoning shows that everything (but the first causer) results from cause, and there can be only one first causer. Nothing spontaneously springs into being.

fhansen said:

Yes, that's been the whole point. The Christian faith teaches that man can do nothing on his own, but that with God all things are possible. Once with Him we are now equipped, by grace, by the Spirit, to work out our salvation.

Click to expand...

And, again, to "work out our salvation" does not imply, "cause our salvation".

fhansen said:

How imperfectly can we keep them, how short can we fall, and still expect to make it into heaven?

Click to expand...

Wrong question. One mark short is enough. That's why we are utterly dependent on God's mercy, not by willing to depend on him, but because He decides who, not by anything they did, but by his mercy and grace alone.

fhansen said:

Ok...so "not of His church"=non-regenerated. They don't lose their salvation; they just never had it to begin with. My only addition would be that one can enter this saved status with God, but also leave it later-permanently- if they so decide. But that would be similiar to your view in that they obviously end up not being among the elect in any case.

Ok..now that's consistent with historical Christian understanding. A gaurded assurance based on internal witness, but I'd add also on external evidence of fruit. As far as intellectual certainty, I'm not sure how you mean that. Certainty is certainty; people base their claim to it on whatever they believe may give them that kind of assurance. Either way your view here renders concepts such as perseverance and limited atonement hypothetical for any one given person including ourselves: we won't know with certainty until the end of our lives, IOW. God, alone, knows with perfect certainty.

So He changes our wills to do what? It's not to will rightly, to become a slave to righteousnss, for example, to accept the things of God as all men should? Why bother changing our wills, then? I'm not talking about becoming perfectly sinless at that point, but about change in any case. So what, exactly, does the regenerate now choose?

Click to expand...

He changes our wills to be able to obey. Romans 8. No longer the mind of the flesh, that only wills to act out of endemic enmity against God, but of the Spirit, to will to act according to the Spirit.

Mark Quayle said:
Who in the world has been saying that his objective is to cause obedience? Not me. I'd have to say that from his POV it is a lot more important that we learn of him, come to know him better, than that we merely comply with his commands, and yield to our consciences, or even to train our consciences to his ways.

fhansen said:

Ok? And none of that has anything to do with obedience? And so no holiness is necessary after all in order to gain eternal life as per Rom 6:22, Rom 8:12-13?

Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time following you. Where did I say it has nothing to do with obedience? Have I not said that if we do not live in obedience we do not belong to Christ? What is NO HOLINESS —what does that even mean? Do I not believe in Sanctification subsequent to Justification? (And, for whatever it is worth, experientially, I find I MUST pursue holiness. God does not let me abandon it altogether. I cannot—not for long, anyway. It feels like dying.)

What has the RV Fridge drawing attachment to do with this?

#103
It's true it does not literally say "everyone might be saved", but it's saying "whoever" which is the same meaning as "everyone might" in the world. Meaningly it's an actual possibilty for everyone.

Do you agree the world means both the elect and none elect?

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

zoidar said:

@Mark Quayle

Would look at this again?

#103

Click to expand...

A. Take a look at John 3:16 interlinear. What here is translated in verse 16, "whoever", or in the KJV, "whosoever", is, in the Greek, properly, "all those that". It is not a question left up to chance or any quandary as to whether it is possible for anyone else to believe, (besides those who do).

B. And, again, the term, "so", can go either of two ways. The Greek works like the English: a) "So" means "so much", or, at least, it can imply it by the nature of that love. b) "So" means only, "Thus", or, "In this way". —The interlinear that I see renders it, "Thus", and that is how I read it, no matter how wonderful that love appears to us. We prefer a somewhat less clinical rendering, I understand, but... there it is! Preference is not what drives meaning. John 3:16 Interlinear: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

C. The subjunctive, carefully rendered in most translations, "so that [or, in order that]....might" is not in the Greek offering up alternate possibilities, but demonstrating PURPOSE. He did that, so that this would happen.

D. As for the term, "world", in all three references, I can't speak for the Reformed/Calvinists, but as a bilingual who grew up in a family of linguists, I can tell you that there are many ways to take that.

• 1. The one you seem to suppose, is indeed a possible meaning, as I see the language here, (apart from the larger context of John 3 and the whole of the counsel of God.)
• 2. The Bible doesn't always speak in specifics. It may not be literally, "everyone" within the world, but just a general statement of goodwill.
• 3. It may well be (and this will probably be abhorrent to you, but try to listen anyway) that God considers what he created in light of the end result, to be "THE WORLD", which is to be restored to him at the end, which does not include the reprobate. That is, the present world, that which it takes to bring about the end result, is not THE WORLD that he loves in this way. We do know, after all, that only those who believe in him comprise The People of God in that final completed creation. —THAT "world" may well be what is referred to here, that is being saved out of this present passing creation.
• 4. Repeatedly, in the Gospels, I hear Jesus making plays on words, and, in fact, throughout the Bible—the Old Testament, particularly—God speaks the same way, even in puns, for effect.
• 5. That 2-4 will not be satisfying to you, I don't doubt. I only point them out as possible uses. But this (point E.) may be intellectually satisfying to you—

E. John 12:47 contextually is saying that Jesus is not the one who judges. BUT it specifically says that there is one who does judge. As some 'lounge chair theologians' have put it, "Jesus saves us from the Father." Jesus came not for the purpose of judging, but for the purpose of saving. I expect you are familiar with the way the more liberal users of the Gospel love to describe Jesus, as gentle and forgiving and friend-of-sinners, etc etc, and, "Why can't we be more like Jesus?". There is some truth to that. This too may tie into my point #2 above.

zoidar said:

By “genuine causal power” I mean: at the moment of choice, the person could have chosen differently in a real sense, not just hypothetically, but as an open alternative.

Click to expand...

To me that's a mere tautology. You're just repeating the premise.

Let me repeat, that in the final analysis, the only thing that ever happens is what omniscient God knew would happen when he began all this. Nothing else can happen. What we see as possible is enough to call our choosing, "legitimate choice". It doesn't matter whether we could ACTUALLY have chosen it or not. We do not ever choose anything but what is actually chosen. Tautology indeed!

zoidar said:

I know you don't think so. If you mean by "predetermined acts" God exercising meticulous control over every single atom in the universe, I would just think your conclusion is incorrect.

Click to expand...

To you, meticulous control is ONLY "hands-on". To me —that is, in my attempt to understand how God is/works— he has both aseity and prevenience, not to mention what I weakly call, "timelessness". To my understanding, anyway, —(I can speak for nobody else, here)—, to Him it is no different to speak something into existence completed product, and to meticulously bring it all to pass, by particle-precision, over 16 billion years. His omniscience doesn't operate separate from his omnipotence, sovereignty, justice and love. All his attributes are in him one thing—that we might call, "Pure Actuality". He needn't think like we do. Perhaps it is somewhat more accurate to equate his 'thinking' to 'doing', his 'speaking' to 'creating' or 'causing'. He needn't consider possibilities, as he is THE one who invented very reality.

No matter how you cut it, then, (at least to my logic), you have to admit to particular ("meticulous", from a human POV) causation. Nothing happens by chance. Not one motion of one particle. Cause-and-effect is his universal method—he being both first cause, and meticulously upholding the very existence and ontology of all of Creation in every particular.

Mark Quayle said:

He changes our wills to be able to obey. Romans 8. No longer the mind of the flesh, that only wills to act out of endemic enmity against God, but of the Spirit, to will to act according to the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Exacftly, He enables us to obey as has been said-many times. And those enabled must decide daily if they will continue to walk with Him, by the Spirit. As you've agreed, it's not automatic. The new man can put to death the deeds of the flesh, and therefore live! (Rom 8:12-13) Just as holiness results in eternal life (Rom 6:22). Yep, obedience plays a key alright. And it's optional, because our walk with God is always optional.

Mark Quayle said:

#103
It's true it does not literally say "everyone might be saved", but it's saying "whoever" which is the same meaning as "everyone might" in the world. Meaningly it's an actual possibilty for everyone.

Do you agree the world means both the elect and none elect?

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

Not sure what you're asking me to look at. Are you asking me to give my view on these verses, and comment on your comments, or the Reformed/Calvinist views or what?​

A. Take a look at John 3:16 interlinear. What here is translated in verse 16, "whoever", or in the KJV, "whosoever", is, in the Greek, properly, "all those that". It is not a question left up to chance or any quandary as to whether it is possible for anyone else to believe, (besides those who do).

B. And, again, the term, "so", can go either of two ways. The Greek works like the English: a) "So" means "so much", or, at least, it can imply it by the nature of that love. b) "So" means only, "Thus", or, "In this way". —The interlinear that I see renders it, "Thus", and that is how I read it, no matter how wonderful that love appears to us. We prefer a somewhat less clinical rendering, I understand, but... there it is! Preference is not what drives meaning. John 3:16 Interlinear: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

C. The subjunctive, carefully rendered in most translations, "so that [or, in order that]....might" is not in the Greek offering up alternate possibilities, but demonstrating PURPOSE. He did that, so that this would happen.

D. As for the term, "world", in all three references, I can't speak for the Reformed/Calvinists, but as a bilingual who grew up in a family of linguists, I can tell you that there are many ways to take that.

• 1. The one you seem to suppose, is indeed a possible meaning, as I see the language here, (apart from the larger context of John 3 and the whole of the counsel of God.)
• 2. The Bible doesn't always speak in specifics. It may not be literally, "everyone" within the world, but just a general statement of goodwill.
• 3. It may well be (and this will probably be abhorrent to you, but try to listen anyway) that God considers what he created in light of the end result, to be "THE WORLD", which is to be restored to him at the end, which does not include the reprobate. That is, the present world, that which it takes to bring about the end result, is not THE WORLD that he loves in this way. We do know, after all, that only those who believe in him comprise The People of God in that final completed creation. —THAT "world" may well be what is referred to here, that is being saved out of this present passing creation.
• 4. Repeatedly, in the Gospels, I hear Jesus making plays on words, and, in fact, throughout the Bible—the Old Testament, particularly—God speaks the same way, even in puns, for effect.
• 5. That 2-4 will not be satisfying to you, I don't doubt. I only point them out as possible uses. But this (point E.) may be intellectually satisfying to you—

E. John 12:47 contextually is saying that Jesus is not the one who judges. BUT it specifically says that there is one who does judge. As some 'lounge chair theologians' have put it, "Jesus saves us from the Father." Jesus came not for the purpose of judging, but for the purpose of saving. I expect you are familiar with the way the more liberal users of the Gospel love to describe Jesus, as gentle and forgiving and friend-of-sinners, etc etc, and, "Why can't we be more like Jesus?". There is some truth to that. This too may tie into my point #2 above.

Click to expand...

Ok, let us assume this premise is correct: "the world" refers to both the elect and none elect. Then we read John 3:16.

“For God so (in such a way) loved the world (the elect and the none elect), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever in the world, believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
— John 3:16

So if this premise is correct God also loved the none elect in such a way He gave His only begotten Son. Agree?

Mark Quayle said:

I'm familiar with the reference. Funny you should put God on a level playing field with us.

Click to expand...

You are not someone that I can possibly respect in any way, shape or form because of things like this that you say. In no way, shape or form to I put God on a level playing field with us. Just because I believe man has responsibility because God made him responsible in no way, shape or form puts us in the same level playing field as God. Stop saying such foolish things that misrepresent what I believe. This is evil.

Mark Quayle said:

We've been through this. We have responsibility to work according to our own salvation. It's an idiomatic presentation, not a literal implication that we have a part causing our salvation (which, by the way, is entirely by grace, whether you agree with Eph 2:8,9 or not.)

Click to expand...

LOL. Such gibberish. It clearly indicates that we have responsibility in salvation. Otherwise, it's just a stupid, nonsensical thing that Paul said.

Mark Quayle said:

Yes, it is ridiculous if it means what you say it means. But, it doesn't mean that.

Click to expand...

Of course it does. And, of course ,you cannot prove otherwise. You just have no idea how weak your arguments are.

Mark Quayle said:

I could answer that by your own philosophy: Does not our Lord say, "If the Son of Man shall set you free, you shall be free indeed."? But, no need. The Bible itself says that to whomever we submit ourselves to serve, we are enslaved. We are slaves of sin, or slaves of Christ. Take your pick.

Click to expand...

Yes, everyone must choose who they want to serve, as Joshua said (Joshua 24:14-15). Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does scripture say that some people are unable to choose to repent and believe and to serve the Lord.

Mark Quayle said:

I have not said you don't choose, nor even that you cannot choose. But while slaves to sin, we only ever choose sin, even when we pick the best we have before us.

Click to expand...

That is not true. When presented with the gospel truth people can decide they no longer want to be slaves to sin. But, people can resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). God reached out all day long with the gospel to the Israelite people (Romans 10:21) and most of them rejected it. But, you expect me to believe that He did not sincerely want all of them to believe the gospel. Nonsense.

Mark Quayle said:

No, it is not an excuse. That they might use it for an excuse does not render it an excuse.

Click to expand...

You give them an excuse because of total depravity and total inability. Why can you not admit this? Why can you not be intellectually honest in these discussions?

Mark Quayle said:

Why not? It is what Scripture teaches.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. Not even close. Joshua told unregenerated people to choose who to serve. You say God chooses for them by regenerating people's hearts. Tell me, how did Lydia become a worshiper of God BEFORE being regenerated (Acts 16:14)? In your doctrine, people's hardened hearts are changed, yet Lydia did not have a hardened heart even before the gospel was preached to her. You have no explanation for that because your explanation that people need their hearts to be changed in order to believe doesn't work here.

Mark Quayle said:

In fact, I go so far as to say that in two ways, sanctification also is monergistic, though differently from justification. 1. It is GOD who works in us both to will and to do, according to his good pleasure. We choose accordingly.

Click to expand...

Nice job of ignoring the part that say we have to work out our own salvation. You're cherry picking.

Mark Quayle said:

No, that is not logic 101. That is silly, if not heretical, to say that a man does not humble himself if God humbles him.

Click to expand...

It's not heretical at all. Almost everything you say is just utterly ridiculous. You're very consistent like that. If God humbles him then God humbled him and he didn't humble himself. You have no understanding of logic and reason WHATSOEVER. You fail Logic 101 with a 0% score.

Mark Quayle said:

You continue to put man in God's arena of operation.

Click to expand...

No, I do not. I continue to put man in the arena of responsibility where God places him.

Tell me, do you think that God wants all people to repent? Scripture says that He does. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and wants them to repent (Ezekiel 18:30-32, Ezekiel 33:11). So, what is the reason that they don't repent? Does God want people to do something that they can't do? Of course not! Man must choose to repent or not and all people have the ability to do so. Otherwise, they'd have an excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, but they don't! As Paul made clear in Romans 1:18-21. Your doctrine gives them an excuse and you can't even admit that.

Mark Quayle said:

3 guesses why they were not willing! Because, at the core, they were corrupted.

Click to expand...

They chose to be that way. You make a fool out of Jesus for saying He wanted them to repent and you make a fool out of Him for being saddened and angered by their rejection of Him (Luke 19:41-44). Why would it have saddened Him and caused God to punish them if they couldn't help but to do so? You have no answer for that.

Mark Quayle said:

It does not make him look ridiculous. Do you think he enjoyed, wanted, the cross? Yet, it was his plan from them beginning.

Click to expand...

Deal with what the passage indicates instead of avoiding it. Why are you so evasive? Do you think that Jesus was not being genuine in Matthew 23:37-38? This isn't about what He came to do, which was to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). Of course, that was His plan. But, it was NOT EVER His plan for most of the Jews to reject Him. Otherwise, what He said in Matthew 23:37-38 and other passages like Luke 19:41-44 would make no sense whatsoever. He genuinely wanted them to repent and was saddened and angered that they didn't. You make His sadness and His wrath over their overall rejection of Him as if He was just putting on a show. He would not be angered and saddened by their rejection of Him if that was His plan all along. Why do you want to make a fool out of Jesus like this?

Mark Quayle said:

And, again, to "work out our salvation" does not imply, "cause our salvation".

Click to expand...

It clearly implies that we have responsibility in salvation. Of course, Jesus did all the work, but we have to decide how to respond to what He did. Salvation is presented in scripture as something that is offered to people (Matthew 22:1-13, Titus 2:11). Faith is not something that can be forced upon someone. In your doctrine Jesus kicks down the door of our hearts and lets Himself in. In scripture, He is described as knocking on the door of our hearts while making us responsible to open the door.

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Mark Quayle said:

Wrong question. One mark short is enough. That's why we are utterly dependent on God's mercy, not by willing to depend on him, but because He decides who, not by anything they did, but by his mercy and grace alone.

Click to expand...

God wants to have mercy on all people, but your doctrine has no explanation for why He doesn't have mercy on all people.

Romans 11:30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

As the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector shows, God has mercy on those who humble themselves before Him and acknowledge that they are sinners in need of His mercy and forgiveness (Luke 18:9-14). That is what He wants all people to do. He does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked and He does not want the wicked to die before repenting, but your doctrine says He is pleased to allow the wicked or non-elect to die without having any ability or opportunity to repent.

Mark Quayle said:

Can you show how those do not work out to being one and the same thing? You want God to oversee something that he set in motion, without him being specific as to what happens. But, if he set it into motion OMNISCIENTLY, he intended every detail.

Furthermore, good reasoning shows that everything (but the first causer) results from cause, and there can be only one first causer. Nothing spontaneously springs into being.

Click to expand...

I cannot explain how God created the universe, no one can. Can you prove everything is predetermined? If it is that obvious, can you at least show one human act is predetermined? (I mean outside the Biblical account. We all know Jesus' death was decreed).

I can't show you how free libertarian will works mathematically. But driving from reasoning, it's the best explanation or I would even say the only possible way it can be, since the alternative: God being the author of sin and we without responsibility is Biblically impossible.

Also, the burden isn't only on me to explain free libertarian will. It's also on determinism to explain how God ordains every sinful act without becoming its author.

Mark Quayle said:

And, again, to "work out our salvation" does not imply, "cause our salvation".

Click to expand...

It's a cooperative effort, with Him leading, us following, or not. A process, a journey.

Mark Quayle said:

The individual God has predestined to be his own, will indeed accept. That accepting, which is indeed an act of the same faith through which he is saved, does not bring the salvation about, nor the Grace of Eph 2:8,9, but the fellowship—the part of being 'in Christ' that we notice. We love him because he first loved us

Click to expand...

By what criteria did God predestine?

Mark Quayle said:

I'm having a hard time following you. Where did I say it has nothing to do with obedience? Have I not said that if we do not live in obedience we do not belong to Christ? What is NO HOLINESS —what does that even mean? Do I not believe in Sanctification subsequent to Justification? (And, for whatever it is worth, experientially, I find I MUST pursue holiness. God does not let me abandon it altogether. I cannot—not for long, anyway. It feels like dying.)

Click to expand...

Maybe you could just clarify a few things for me. In my understanding you believe something along these lines:

*A person is regenerated and saved totally without regard to their choice in the matter
*A regenerated/saved/justified person could never compromise and forfeit that status or position
*A regenerated person can and will do whatever is required of them in order to enter heaven
*Personal holiness has nothing to do with our salvation, whether prior to or after justification, but those regenerated must be and will be made holy/sanctified with our Spirit/grace-driven and inspired cooperative efforts, nonetheless
*This holiness/sinlessness will not be perfect in this life but there must be some level of sanctification (sort of a grey area?) without which one could not be a true child of God to begin with
*No one can know with perfect certainty in this life whether or not they or anyone else are among the regenerate

Mark Quayle said:

What has the RV Fridge drawing attachment to do with this?

Click to expand...

Now, that's a question that, believe it or not, I do not have an answer for. It's one of those great mysteries that will be answered only in eternity as far as I can tell, something like the question regarding names of the elect. But...if you happen to need any help with RV electrical systems, well, as of yesterday I'm your huckleberry as they used to say. I was able to solve a major appliance issue despite not finding any applicable diagrams at the end of day. Wasn't a fridge tho, so the mystery deepens...