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

fhansen said:

But he cannot be morally accountable/responsible if he can only make the right choice by first being totally regenerated/changed. There's no responsibility in that. He's either changed and determined to choose one way, or not.

Click to expand...

No. That is the problem encountered by assuming man is a moral agent on a level with God. God has the absolute right, even if it were the case, to burn up everything that opposes him, even if (as logic demands) he created what he knew would oppose him (and planned for it to WILLINGLY oppose him).

The rule here goes, All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Off topic —there is a very good indent there into the meaning of "Glory of God".) It is simply that. They have sinned, for whatever reason, even to include God setting about that it should happen, and are therefore guilty. Clinical and cold as it may feel to realize, it still remains true. And God has that right.

GOD is the standard. Anything morally less gets burned up.

In the Doctrine Proper of God, his very nature, his burning purity, explains why sin is to be killed, no matter how it happened.

I'm also sorry to say this, but human-kind has for so long had self-worth and self-actuality ingrained into us, and the power and majesty of God has been corrupted in our minds and hearts to a "kindly grandfather" who leaves it entirely up to us to decide whom we will serve, (not to mention to produce and increase all our virtues), that we for some reason relegate responsibility for our moral choices entirely to the same level as his.

Let me put that a little differently. All day long we see sin; though rationally we know it is ALL OF IT resulting from God having created all fact, we have to invent ways to distance him from the sin we see, because we think him having anything to do with it is to blame him for it.

David1701 said:

Yes, the "why" questions can be very difficult to answer; but, we need to trust the Lord that he always has good purposes for whatever happens and that he works all things together for good, to those who love him, those who are the called, according to his purpose.

I don't believe that God desires evil things to happen for their own sake; rather, he always has good purposes for everything that happens, even if those directly involved do not.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And he even tells us some of that purpose. For example, he repeatedly shows us our inability and guilt so that we (slowly enough) learn to depend on his mercy.

fhansen said:

We know that about Joesph's situation-and it's used often to try to explain the "mystery of evil" as it's sometimes called. It can be much more difficult to fathom why some people have to suffer years long ugly debiltating bed-ridden battles with cancer, or someone's child was tortured and killed, why such things would be at all necessary and positive, let alone ordained. Either way, we certainly can't believe God simply desires evil for its own sake- that wasn't Jesus' way, for one thing-and God would just be a powerful but ugly and untrustworthy God in that case.

Click to expand...

Agreed —BUT, so that sin may be seen as sin, it is increased so that it can be seen as what it is —exceedingly sinful. (fr Romans 7:13)

fhansen said:

What keeps coming to mind in this discussion is that man is, simply, a morally accountable being, whether before or after rebirth -even if his rebirth (entering God’s family) gives him the full true means of finally accomplishing moral righteousness. And moral accountability means that he can choose this or that; he can refrain from a wrong or sinful choice. And if he can only choose to do wrong, then he’s not and can’t be a morally accountable being: “God made me do it”, “the devil made me do it”, “I made me do it” but in any case “I can’t do it any other way”. And if he’s not a morally accountable being then why would God hold him accountable, let alone accountable to the tune of being tormented eternally?

Click to expand...

The Bible gives us the reason he is 'unable' to choose right, not only by definition of what is and what is not right, but by the fact that he cannot because he is always willing 'at enmity' to God. It is because he is not willing to submit to God, that he cannot.

David1701 said:

This is a flawed argument. Moral accountability is based upon what God has commanded man to do, not the willingness/moral ability that we lost, when we sinned in Adam.

Click to expand...

No, sin existed before the law-and is the cause of man's universal separation from God, the reason death reigned before the law. And sin is sin, an immoral choice, only because it's avoidable. Man has a conscience, so the law is already written in his mind. We intuitively know, for example, that when murder is committed this is both a prosecutable criminal offense for legal and practical reasons and a moral offense against humanity.

David1701 said:

Man's will is a slave, not a master; it is a slave to his strongest desire, at any given moment (in fact, the will is that which attempts to bring the strongest desire to fruition, dependent upon ability and opportunity); and his desire is the result of his nature interacting with his environment (internal and external).

Click to expand...

And yet man can have a change of heart, not as some moral puppet, but with struggle within his conscience, a struggle between conflicting desires where the one he'd most prefer to do in his flesh might be finally outweighed by a higher desire...or not-it's a choice. It's a continuous, daily choice to be a slave to righteousness, to be under grace, to begin with, which Rom 6:11-23 and elsewhere make clear. Human choice is involved in putting on Christ, putting on the new man and putting off the old (Rom 14, Eph 4, Col 3), in putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit (Rom 8), in washing our robes (Rev 22). We're lost and tiny while God is infinitely vast; we can't possibly reach up and find Him, He must come to us. We must be called, we must be invited and enabled, but we can always turn away; we can always say "no".

David1701 said:

The fall of Adam rendered man unwilling, and, therefore, incapable, of obeying God properly, which is why we MUST be born again, in order to perceive and enter the kingdom of God, through faith in Jesus Christ (c.f. John 3 - Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus). The natural (fallen) man is hostile towards God and CANNOT please him (Rom. 8:7,8); he hates the light and WILL NOT come to it (John 3:19,20 - contrast that with the born again man, in verse 21); and he does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Click to expand...

No, you have a polarized view that separates the reborn from the fallen in the absolute sense. Fallen man is NOT some sin machine, rather he tends towards sin, easily swayed by concupiscence because of his distance from God, a state sometimes referred to as "original sin", this distance or alienation, itself, being sin because it's a state that's not "meant to be"; it's outside of God's will. Man is separated from the very Vine that gives him life, now existing in a world that serves as a sort of half-way house between heaven and hell, life and death, between pure goodness and sheer evil= the total absence of God/love.

And the reborn show that they're still slaves to sin at times anyway, fighting a battle against it, and therefore against that distance from their Creator because..they still sin. We demonstrate any true faith, hope, and love by how we live our lives, by our fruit.

fhansen said:

No, sin existed before the law-and is the cause of man's universal separation from God, the reason death reigned before the law. And sin is sin, an immoral choice, only because it's avoidable. Man has a conscience, so the law is already written in his mind. We intuitively know, for example, that when murder is committed this is both a prosecutable criminal offense for legal and practical reasons and a moral offense against humanity.

Click to expand...

This is also a flawed argument.

Firstly, there was no sin in man before God's first commandment (not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil). I spoke of God's commands, not merely the law of Moses.

Secondly, man is no longer the same as he was before the fall of Adam. Since the fall, the natural man is a slave of sin. Yes, his conscience tells him right from wrong (albeit imperfectly) but it goes not give him the power to resist his sinful proclivities (selfishness, pride, lust, greed, idolatry, worry, etc., etc.).

Thirdly, if all immoral choices were avoidable, simply by fallen man's will power, then salvation would be by law, since man would be able to keep it; but, the law was given, partly, to show man his inability to keep it (c.f. Rom. 3; Rom. 7 etc.), his consequent guilt before God, and his need of a Saviour.

Fourthly, the Bible states that the fallen man without the Holy Spirit (i.e. still in his unregenerate state) CANNOT please God (Rom. 8:7,8)

etc., etc..

If you think that you can, innately (even as a born again Christian), avoid all immoral choices, then just ask the Lord not to give you any grace to do his will, because you don't need it, then see what happens...

Mark Quayle said:

Mark Quayle said:
If we do, we were never his. He will lose not one. John 6:39

Notice that his prayer here is generally for all his own, but specifically for his disciples. He is not with us in the world, in the same sense as those he refers to in verse 11 and 12, the "these" he refers to (my highlight, italics and underline above) are contrasted with the rest. Those there that the Father gave him were the twelve, but Judas, the "son of perdition", lost, to fulfill scripture concerning only him. Those were given for the specific purpose of discipleship (and later, apostleship).

Click to expand...

If that's what them being given to Him means in that verse, then why does it mean something else entirely in John 6:39? That seems rather convenient for you to see it that way.

Mark Quayle said:

No need to go there; you go there because your "free will" demands it in order to remain viable.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

Mark Quayle said:

How am I contradicting anything in Scripture—nevermind contradicting what Jesus said?

Click to expand...

I already told you. You read what I said. Yet, you still ask this question? Just read what I said.

Mark Quayle said:

It is common language to speak of such things. Makes me think of the story of an acquaintance who eloped with his girlfriend— took a couple of friends for witnesses— and just before going in to the Justice of Peace to do the ceremony, had his friend take the last picture left on the Polaroid camera (they didn't realize it was the last), of him and his girlfriend at the sign out front, and only after the picture had developed did they realize the sign was for the local public library, not city hall as they had supposed. It is funny—ironic—but that picture is now spoken about as their wedding picture. Paul and others speak the same way about believers. Many times Paul is addressing a church, a local group, and warning about different things that can be described as falling away. It doesn't mean that a true believer WILL ever fall away, but it gives motivation for pursuing Christ and living in obedience. Over and over throughout the Bible, there are those in the group who are "weeded out".

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't find this argument to be convincing whatsoever. Who are being addressed in Hebrews 3:12-14? Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling. And they are being warned about departing from the living God. But, you say it's not possible for that to happen, making that passage just some empty threats made to true believers that they can just disregard and scoff at.

Mark Quayle said:

Our modern mindset is in many ways not like those in other eras and lands. I hear (often) that the Calvinistic notion of eternal security —(that everything promised is sure to happen)— would imply that "there is no need to do anything, since it is all automatically done for us". That is false. It is only because what God has set out to do he will complete, that it is SURE to happen—not that we need not pursue Christ. God uses means to accomplish what he set out to do. If we fall away, if we do not remain in him, we were not in that sense "his" to begin with.

Click to expand...

So, those who are holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, are not His to begin with if they fall away? Really? No.

Mark Quayle said:

Further, the use there has also in the larger context been expanded to speak of those who are "in Christ" and will indeed be saved, even if they do not remain in the vine, because their works will be burned though they themselves will survive, "singed", narrowly escaping, by the description. 1 Corinthian 3:15. I myself do not hold to that use of the John 15 text, but I mention it for consideration.

Click to expand...

John 15:6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

I don't believe what is written in 1 Corinthians 3:15 resembles what is written here other than both mentioning fire. There's nothing written in 1 Corinthians 3:15 that I would compare to a branch being thrown away and then picked up and thrown into the fire and burned. In what sense would a believer be thrown away and then picked up and thrown into the fire and burned? No, John 15:6 reminds me more of passages that speak of unbelievers being separated from Christ after He returns at the end of the age and then are taken and cast into outer darkness/a furnace of fire/everlasting fire/the lake of fire.

zoidar said:

Everyone thinks man is morally accountable. We just disagree on if man can be determined to never accept Christ and still be morally accountable. Calvinists think so.

Click to expand...

What exactly is man morally accountable for in Calvinism? How is it possible to be morally accountable for rejecting Christ if you are unable to accept Him? There's no possible way that can make any sense.

Mark Quayle said:

It seems another of your assumed axiomatic principles is at play here: That if God inexorably CAUSES that something happen, that it somehow should be characterized as "forcing". Is God forcing anyone to breathe or live?

Click to expand...

In a way He is, yes. It's not like anyone could live without God causing them to live. The words cause and force are synonyms, so you shouldn't be so offended by the words "force" or "forcing".

Mark Quayle said:

We don't say so, so why should we call it "forcing them" to remain in Him?

Click to expand...

If you say He causes things to happen, it's not wrong to also say He forces those things to happen. It's just that the word force can have negative connotations, but it doesn't have to be like that. You believe God causes things in a forceful way in the sense that nothing could have kept those things from happening. That describes force.

Mark Quayle said:

Are we to be like the one servant who said to the master, "I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed." instead of like Jonah, who though he wasn't happy about it, says, "I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

But this is endemic to the meaning of the figure Jesus draws on here: It is not that God does his part and we must do ours, but that "our part" is being done "IN HIM", and not that our part is separate from his.

Click to expand...

There is so much scripture that you apparently do not take into consideration. How do you explain the following passage?

Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

In this passage Jesus, who, of course, is God, is telling the Jews who rejected Him genuinely how often He had wanted to gather them together, as a hen gathers her chick under her wings, but He didn't. Why? According to your doctrine, it was because that is what God willed to happen. Which means you think God willed something to happen against His desires, which is just nothing short of complete nonsense. The reason given that Jesus/God didn't do what He had wanted to do is because the Jewish unbelievers "were not willing" and not because God was not willing. Your doctrine contradicts this. If the Jews having rejected God all those years was what God actually wanted to happen and decreed to happen, then why did Jesus render their house to be spiritually desolate as a punishment for them not being willing to accept Him?

David1701 said:

Yes, the "why" questions can be very difficult to answer; but, we need to trust the Lord that he always has good purposes for whatever happens and that he works all things together for good, to those who love him, those who are the called, according to his purpose.

Click to expand...

And what about those who don't love God?

David1701 said:

I don't believe that God desires evil things to happen for their own sake; rather, he always has good purposes for everything that happens, even if those directly involved do not.

Click to expand...

Literally everything that happens? Did you forget about the part that He always works for the good of those who love Him? Does God have a good purpose for when a wicked man who does not love God rapes a little girl and then kills her? No, clearly not. That's why He punishes people for such wickedness.

fhansen said:

What keeps coming to mind in this discussion is that man is, simply, a morally accountable being, whether before or after rebirth -even if his rebirth (entering God’s family) gives him the full true means of finally accomplishing moral righteousness. And moral accountability means that he can choose this or that; he can refrain from a wrong or sinful choice. And if he can only choose to do wrong, then he’s not and can’t be a morally accountable being: “God made me do it”, “the devil made me do it”, “I made me do it” but in any case “I can’t do it any other way”. And if he’s not a morally accountable being then why would God hold him accountable, let alone accountable to the tune of being tormented eternally?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Moral responsibility and accountability implies free will. Otherwise, we are just robots that God programs to do what He wants within the limitations that He sets that do not include truly free will choices.

Scripture teaches that man must humble himself in order to receive God's mercy (Luke 18:9-14). It does not teach that God has to humble man in order to receive His mercy. Scripture teaches that man must, in his own volition, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" in order to be saved (Acts 16:30-31) rather than God causing/forcing man to believe. Free will is taught throughout the Bible over and over again. Not in the sense that man can just make choices apart from God's influence or other outside influences, but in the sense of having true, genuine moral responsibility and accountability where he can't blame anyone but himself for suppressing the truth in wickedness while exchanging it for a lie and refusing to repent and believe and for refusing to accept God's gracious offer of salvation. The doctrines of total depravity and total inability give man an excuse for something that scripture says he has no excuse for (Romans 1:18-21).

Mark Quayle said:

No. That is the problem encountered by assuming man is a moral agent on a level with God.

Click to expand...

No, that is simply the knowledge had by the experience of being human, interacting with humans, and understanding Scripture. Man is a moral agent. And I'm not sure that it would be correct to say that God is a moral agent anyway, as one who could choose between good and evil: God is sheer goodness itself.

Mark Quayle said:

The rule here goes, All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Off topic —there is a very good indent there into the meaning of "Glory of God".) It is simply that. They have sinned, for whatever reason, even to include God setting about that it should happen, and are therefore guilty. Clinical and cold as it may feel to realize, it still remains true. And God has that right.

GOD is the standard. Anything morally less gets burned up.

Click to expand...

God is only wanting man to be who he was created to be, perfect according to his nature as an animal is perfect according to their natures. He certainly created no one to be a sinner. The difference is that man can choose to get back on board with the Truth, with the Creator and His ways for man, or not. God is the standard in that we were made in His image and likeness, never to have the infinite perfection that He has but like Him to the greatest extent possible, meaning, primarily, that we ultimately love as He does to the greatest extent possible.

Mark Quayle said:

In the Doctrine Proper of God, his very nature, his burning purity, explains why sin is to be killed, no matter how it happened.

Click to expand...

And that love that I mentioned is His "burning purity". And it's to be ours:
"Be holy, because I am holy" 1 Pet 1:16
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" Matt 5:48

Mark Quayle said:

I'm also sorry to say this, but human-kind has for so long had self-worth and self-actuality ingrained into us, and the power and majesty of God has been corrupted in our minds and hearts to a "kindly grandfather" who leaves it entirely up to us to decide whom we will serve, (not to mention to produce and increase all our virtues), that we for some reason relegate responsibility for our moral choices entirely to the same level as his.

Click to expand...

I don't know where this kindly grandfather notion comes from but the kindly grandfather type would just predetermine and do it all for us, rather than drawing us into moral responsibility ending in holiness ending in eternal life. He would also be showing a cruel unkind side if he merely created others for the purpsoe of suffering eternally. As it is the true God is a God of love and justice, kind to those who turn to Him and do His will while stern to those who fall away, and thus can be cut off, Rom 11:22.

Mark Quayle said:

Let me put that a little differently. All day long we see sin; though rationally we know it is ALL OF IT resulting from God having created all fact, we have to invent ways to distance him from the sin we see, because we think him having anything to do with it is to blame him for it.

Click to expand...

God created a world where the freedom to sin was allowed from the beginning. Does that mean God is unholy? Or should we defend His "burning purity", the fact that He is love, to put it best, from those detractors who point to the presence of evil in His world as evidence that He's just alright with evil, as we agreed that He is not?

Mark Quayle said:

Exactly! And he even tells us some of that purpose. For example, he repeatedly shows us our inability and guilt so that we (slowly enough) learn to depend on his mercy.

Click to expand...

And learning implies choice; that man (Adam) can and must learn, often the hard way here in this life, by revelation, grace, and experience (all of those being aspects of grace), of God's goodness, mercy, and love and of our absolute need of it, so that we may turn, and begin to follow and unite with Him as we were created to be.

David1701 said:

This is a flawed argument. Moral accountability is based upon what God has commanded man to do, not the willingness/moral ability that we lost, when we sinned in Adam.

Man's will is a slave, not a master; it is a slave to his strongest desire, at any given moment (in fact, the will is that which attempts to bring the strongest desire to fruition, dependent upon ability and opportunity); and his desire is the result of his nature interacting with his environment (internal and external).

The fall of Adam rendered man unwilling, and, therefore, incapable, of obeying God properly, which is why we MUST be born again, in order to perceive and enter the kingdom of God, through faith in Jesus Christ (c.f. John 3 - Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus). The natural (fallen) man is hostile towards God and CANNOT please him (Rom. 8:7,8); he hates the light and WILL NOT come to it (John 3:19,20 - contrast that with the born again man, in verse 21); and he does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Click to expand...

Your argument is the one that is flawed. Scripture teaches that a person becomes a born again child of God AFTER receiving/believing in Christ (John 1:12-13). Scripture teaches that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit AFTER we have first put our faith and trust in Christ (Ephesians 1:12-13).

As for what you are saying about John 3:19-21, I don't think you're thinking this through very carefully.

John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Think about when the gospel first started being preached, which was to the Jews first before it went to the Gentiles. People like the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus ranted against in Matthew 23 loved darkness instead of light. So, because of that, they would not come into the light. They would not accept the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, the disciples and other believers did come into the light because they lived by the truth. None of this says anything about how people come to live by the truth and come to love darkness instead of light in the first place. It only talks about those who are currently loving darkness not being willing to come into the light and those who currently live by the truth embracing the light.

But, how did the people who love darkness come to love darkness in the first place? They couldn't help but to do so? That's not what scripture teaches.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Scripture teaches that people know God by what He has made and He makes that plain to them. So, they have no excuse for suppressing this truth that they know about God in wickedness. They have no excuse for not glorifying God and being thankful to Him. In your doctrine, they have a great excuse. They were born loving spiritual darkness and simply have no ability to do anything but suppressing the truth that they know about God in wickedness. But, Paul taught that people are not born that way, but rather BECOME that way. He said they have no excuse for not glorifying God or being thankful to Him, but since they refused to do so "their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened". See that? Your doctrine says that their thinking was futile and their hearts were darkened from birth, but Paul says that people BECOME that way when they refuse to accept the truth and instead suppress it in wickedness. And they have no excuse for it. Your doctrine gives them an excuse for that.

fhansen said:

And learning implies choice; that man (Adam) can and must learn, often the hard way here in this life, by revelation, grace, and experience (all of those being aspects of grace), of God's goodness, mercy, and love and of our absolute need of it, so that we may turn, and begin to follow and unite with Him as we were created to be.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Where do you hear anyone denying choice?

Or, are you here trying to re-state a definition of choice? Or, are you trying to restate a definition of salvation? —the cause of salvation?

Not sure what you are trying to get at, here.

Mark Quayle said:

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Where do you hear anyone denying choice?

Or, are you here trying to re-state a definition of choice? Or, are you trying to restate a definition of salvation? —the cause of salvation?

Not sure what you are trying to get at, here.

Click to expand...

If you agree that God doesn't just change someone into another person first, so that they're caused to freely "choose" as He wishes, then you've upheld free will, that man must consent to his being changed. Unless a man is like Adam in that he's free to choose rightly or wrongly, then he's not truly free at all. To say otherwise requires engaging in double-speak.

fhansen said:

If you agree that God doesn't just change someone into another person first, so that they're caused to freely "choose" as He wishes, then you've upheld free will, that man must consent to his being changed. Unless a man is like Adam in that he's free to choose rightly or wrongly, then he's not truly free at all. To say otherwise requires engaging in double-speak.

Click to expand...

Once again, I have to ask —why inject the notion, "free", into the descriptions? I really don't care if you want to consider the "new person" to be "another person" or not—it doesn't change the principle that in regeneration one is raised from death to life, per Ephesians 2. Verse 1 says, "you were dead in your transgressions and sins", and in verse 3, "by nature deserving of wrath". Then verses, "4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus". That man must consent to what has already happened by the Spirit of God taking up residence within one, regenerating them, I don't dispute (—in fact, I insist on it), but the change and faith has already happened at that point. This is what is described by Irresistible Grace. The grace by which one is saved is a RESULT of God's choice alone. That we subsequently consent to it is immaterial to the reality of it. That we were unwilling to choose Christ before becoming "in Christ" is also immaterial to the reality of it.

Where is the double-speak? If a man is dead in his sins, deserving of wrath, and Romans 6:20 says we were slaves to sin, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 says we were unable to understand spiritual things, HOW, I ask, is one to be able to commit to Christ, to submit to God or to please God (Romans 8:7,8)? Where is the act of will involved in accomplishing spiritual birth? Up until that moment, we were dead; afterward, we were alive—no mention of human will or choice in the process.

If by "double-speak" you are not addressing regeneration, but only the ability of man to make a valid spiritual choice, I grant that man is a moral agent, and his 'valid spiritual choice' is always at enmity with God, even when he fools himself into thinking he has chosen Christ and not rejected him. He is indeed able to choose between the two alternatives, but in choosing either one, he is still at heart rejecting Christ because he is unable to do otherwise, being at enmity, as Romans 8 shows.

fhansen said:

No, that is simply the knowledge had by the experience of being human, interacting with humans, and understanding Scripture. Man is a moral agent. And I'm not sure that it would be correct to say that God is a moral agent anyway, as one who could choose between good and evil: God is sheer goodness itself.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear you say that (that "God is sheer goodness itself.") But, I wasn't calling God a moral agent. I was referring to man considering himself, by 'moral agent', to be operating on God's level in the matter.

fhansen said:

God is only wanting man to be who he was created to be, perfect according to his nature as an animal is perfect according to their natures. He certainly created no one to be a sinner. The difference is that man can choose to get back on board with the Truth, with the Creator and His ways for man, or not. God is the standard in that we were made in His image and likeness, never to have the infinite perfection that He has but like Him to the greatest extent possible, meaning, primarily, that we ultimately love as He does to the greatest extent possible.

Click to expand...

Can you show all this from scripture? It seems awfully temporal-centered. This life is not for this life.

fhansen said:

And that love that I mentioned is His "burning purity". And it's to be ours:
"Be holy, because I am holy" 1 Pet 1:16
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" Matt 5:48

Click to expand...

Do you know anyone who can do these? We won't see his burning purity until we see him as he is.

This life is not for us. It is for Christ.

fhansen said:

I don't know where this kindly grandfather notion comes from but the kindly grandfather type would just predetermine and do it all for us, rather than drawing us into moral responsibility ending in holiness ending in eternal life. He would also be showing a cruel unkind side if he merely created others for the purpsoe of suffering eternally. As it is the true God is a God of love and justice, kind to those who turn to Him and do His will while stern to those who fall away, and thus can be cut off, Rom 11:22.

Click to expand...

No. The kindly grandfather is suffering from a bit of cognitive decline. He is coasting along, helping out where he can.

God does not create anyone merely for the purpose of suffering eternally. See Romans 9:22, for one explanation of why he created them—(to show his glory to the objects of his mercy). I'm not sure why you would mention the true God of love and justice as if I had posited something else.

fhansen said:

God created a world where the freedom to sin was allowed from the beginning. Does that mean God is unholy? Or should we defend His "burning purity", the fact that He is love, to put it best, from those detractors who point to the presence of evil in His world as evidence that He's just alright with evil, as we agreed that He is not?

Click to expand...

I agree about the freedom to sin, depending on what you mean by freedom, there. We certain have the ability to choose to sin. But why would you ask me if that means that God is unholy?? Have I even begun to intimate such a thing? Is something I say implying that he is alright with the presence of evil?

But are you proposing that evil occurred by mistake, and now God has to invoke plan B, or C, or is it, Xxsubx to the 100th power?

Mark Quayle said:

Once again, I have to ask —why inject the notion, "free", into the descriptions? I really don't care if you want to consider the "new person" to be "another person" or not—it doesn't change the principle that in regeneration one is raised from death to life, per Ephesians 2. Verse 1 says, "you were dead in your transgressions and sins", and in verse 3, "by nature deserving of wrath". Then verses, "4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus". That man must consent to what has already happened by the Spirit of God taking up residence within one, regenerating them, I don't dispute (—in fact, I insist on it), but the change and faith has already happened at that point. This is what is described by Irresistible Grace. The grace by which one is saved is a RESULT of God's choice alone. That we subsequently consent to it is immaterial to the reality of it. That we were unwilling to choose Christ before becoming "in Christ" is also immaterial to the reality of it.

Where is the double-speak? If a man is dead in his sins, deserving of wrath, and Romans 6:20 says we were slaves to sin, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 says we were unable to understand spiritual things, HOW, I ask, is one to be able to commit to Christ, to submit to God or to please God (Romans 8:7,8)? Where is the act of will involved in accomplishing spiritual birth? Up until that moment, we were dead; afterward, we were alive—no mention of human will or choice in the process.

If by "double-speak" you are not addressing regeneration, but only the ability of man to make a valid spiritual choice, I grant that man is a moral agent, and his 'valid spiritual choice' is always at enmity with God, even when he fools himself into thinking he has chosen Christ and not rejected him. He is indeed able to choose between the two alternatives, but in choosing either one, he is still at heart rejecting Christ because he is unable to do otherwise, being at enmity, as Romans 8 shows.

Click to expand...

In Eph 2 I believe it's to be understood it's by faith we were made alive v.5, as it is described in Rom 3 and 5. Been justified is the same as been made alive. We are not justified before faith, but when we receive Christ through faith. That's the moment we are made alive.

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
— Romans 3:21-25

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
— Romans 5:1

Mark Quayle said:

Can you show all this from scripture? It seems awfully temporal-centered. This life is not for this life.

Click to expand...

Yes, the new life begins in this life. So what we do here determines what the next life will be for us, as we work out our salvation with He who works in us- as we remain in Him, a daily choice.

Mark Quayle said:

Do you know anyone who can do these? We won't see his burning purity until we see him as he is.

Click to expand...

It begins here, in faint glimmerings within faith which itself is a gift of His near presence. But, yes, He also shows Himself more immediately in profound "glimpses", as He wills to do so.

Mark Quayle said:

This life is not for us. It is for Christ.

Click to expand...

It's for both, because Christ is love and the nature of love is to share in its goodness. There would be no reason for God to create us at all unless He had the very best existence in mind for those who love Him. This is basic Christianity.

To put it another way, the fact that a human being, because he has a rational mind and freedom, can experience and know and come to appreciate love, they can eventually, with Him pulling them onwards and upwards, finally come to know a happiness so deep and all-encompassing that it cannot be expressed in words. We're far off here, in this life, but hopefully making progress until we meet 'face to face" in the next life when this life's miseries will end, and we will fully know Him just as we're fully known-1 Cor 13.

Mark Quayle said:

No. The kindly grandfather is suffering from a bit of cognitive decline. He is coasting along, helping out where he can.

Click to expand...

God acts in His creation according to His discretion, in wisdom and love, for our highest good helping in precise manner as the need calls for with the strict and wise purpose of not overwhelming but rather drawing man into rectitude. He wants us to be something like Himself, not a bunch of automatons who nod their heads on call; He wants our hearts, our desire for Him, for truth and righteousness.

Mark Quayle said:

God does not create anyone merely for the purpose of suffering eternally. See Romans 9:22, for one explanation of why he created them—(to show his glory to the objects of his mercy). I'm not sure why you would mention the true God of love and justice as if I had posited something else.

Click to expand...

Um...because I refuse to engage in double-speak, or double-think to put it better,

Mark Quayle said:

God does not create anyone merely for the purpose of suffering eternally. See Romans 9:22, for one explanation of why he created them—(to show his glory to the objects of his mercy). I'm not sure why you would mention the true God of love and justice as if I had posited something else.

Click to expand...

Ask a person who exists in eternal torment for no other reason than that he was created-without regard to a free response to God's calling him, whether love and justice had been served.

Mark Quayle said:

I agree about the freedom to sin, depending on what you mean by freedom, there. We certain have the ability to choose to sin. But why would you ask me if that means that God is unholy?? Have I even begun to intimate such a thing? Is something I say implying that he is alright with the presence of evil?

Click to expand...

That was in response to your stating:
"All day long we see sin; though rationally we know it is ALL OF IT resulting from God having created all fact, we have to invent ways to distance him from the sin we see, because we think him having anything to do with it is to blame him for it."

You've seemed to vacillate somewhat on whether or not He's ultimately blameworthy- or you've simply stated that we have no right to ask, both of which are understandable. Either way, the question of evil is both a valid one to ask and a difficult one to address. I'm only maintaining that while we understand that God is ultimately responsible for everything because He created everything, we must keep the distinction that He's innately opposed to evil even though He foreknows it and it would not exist unless for Him. Augustine approached it this way, from a catechetical teaching in this case:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? "I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution", said St. Augustine, and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For "the mystery of lawlessness" is clarified only in the light of the "mystery of our religion". The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.