Age of Accountability

[Fencerguy]

Continuing my thoughts along with that passage from Timothy.....What are we laboring and striving for if we are drafted into the faith be the Act of God?

 

[Skala]

Hupo, I do not disagree with Augustine. Since Christ's atoning work is infinite in value, it is sufficient to save ten billion worlds of men.

But it is only efficient for believers, aka the elect.

I think every Christian would agree with that.

The question really is how does Christ's atonement relate to the faith of believers?

Calvinists believe all of salvation, completely and totally, is found in Jesus Christ, and specifically, his atoning work.

To quote JI Packer:

"The saving power of the cross does not depend on faith being addded to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it"- J I Packer

In other words, my very faith was purchased and secured by Christ's atonement. Also, my regeneration was (Heb 8:10)

If you read Heb 8:10 you will see that God describes the New Covenant as "I will put my law on their minds and hearts, and I will be their God..."

Couple this with how Christ described how his atoning work would bring about the new covenant:

Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

In other words, Christ's atoning work purchased the new covenant, purchased the regeneration we need, which is more or less Irresistible Grace, for His sheep, whom he died for: "I lay down my life for the sheep" (Jn 10)

So, long story short, in Calvinism, all of salvation is wrapped up in, purchased, and secured by Jesus Christ's efforts alone. My regeneration, my faith, and all other spiritual gifts.

I do not believe Arminians can say the same. They say Christ did part of it, but their own efforts must be added to it. Since they deny that faith is a gift from God, and deny that faith is the result, not the cause, of the new birth, then by necessity they believe they contribute to their salvation.

 

[Skala]

Continuing my thoughts along with that passage from Timothy.....What are we laboring and striving for if we are drafted into the faith be the Act of God?

Fencer, I think you're viewing this all wrong brother.

Let it be said that anyone, anywhere, who is willing to turn to Jesus Christ to be saved, can do so, and they will find him to be a perfect savior.

The question for you, then is: "Is anyone naturally willing to do that? Or must God intervene?"

I believe the Bible is clear when describing fallen, unregenerate man. They are hostile towards God, rebellious, they find the gospel foolishness, they hate holiness and love sin.

Thus, if left to themselves, nobody would ever be willing to come to Christ. If God simply said "here's Christ, come get it, if anyone is willing", and he sat back and folded his arms to see what would happen, zero people would be saved.

So I believe God intervenes, by grace and mercy. He elects billions of people that He will compel towards Christ (John 6:37, 44, 65) He predestined them for adoption as sons, chose them before the foundation of the world to be holy (Eph 1:4-11), predestined them to be conformed to Christ's image (Rom 8:30), appointed them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), chose them for salvation from eternity past (2 Thess 2:13), etc etc.

In other words, brother, without election, nobody would ever be saved.

Election is mandatory for anyone at all to be saved and go to heaven.

 

[Fencerguy]

Fencer, I think you're viewing this all wrong brother.

Let it be said that anyone, anywhere, who is willing to turn to Jesus Christ to be saved, can do so, and they will find him to be a perfect savior.

But according to Calvinism, no one is "willing" to turn to Jesus though.....So how can they find Jesus at all.....unless they are externally brought into such willingness?

The question for you, then is: "Is anyone naturally willing to do that? Or must God intervene?"

I would say that since we are created in the image of God, we actually long for a relationship with God, but apart from God, we will never on our own achieve that relationship....hence all of the other religions in the world....

I believe the Bible is clear when describing fallen, unregenerate man. They are hostile towards God, rebellious, they find the gospel foolishness, they hate holiness and love sin.

But they are also created in God's image, and thus they have that internal sense that there is something supernatural to be achieved and strived for....

Thus, if left to themselves, nobody would ever be willing to come to Christ. If God simply said "here's Christ, come get it, if anyone is willing", and he sat back and folded his arms to see what would happen, zero people would be saved.

not necessarily.....as I stated above, our very essence is a product of God, and so we still have an innate sense of God......whether or not we find the right God is where he intervenes i think....

So I believe God intervenes, by grace and mercy. He elects billions of people that He will compel towards Christ (John 6:37, 44, 65) He predestined them for adoption as sons, chose them before the foundation of the world to be holy (Eph 1:4-11), predestined them to be conformed to Christ's image (Rom 8:30), appointed them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), chose them for salvation from eternity past (2 Thess 2:13), etc etc.

so....God elected everyone? Why isn't everyone saved then?

In other words, brother, without election, nobody would ever be saved.

not necessarily

Election is mandatory for anyone at all to be saved and go to heaven.

I would simply say that salvation is mandatory for anyone to get into heaven, because for God to elect some and not others goes against God's character...

 

[Skala]

But according to Calvinism, no one is "willing" to turn to Jesus though.....So how can they find Jesus at all.....unless they are externally brought into such willingness?

That's not according to Calvinism bro, that's according to the Bible. iI it's according to the Bible, then that is the only reason Calvinists believe it!

Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."


Psa 14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
Psa 14:3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

1Co 1:22-24
(22) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
(23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
(24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerne

I would say that since we are created in the image of God, we actually long for a relationship with God, but apart from God, we will never on our own achieve that relationship....hence all of the other religions in the world....

But they are also created in God's image, and thus they have that internal sense that there is something supernatural to be achieved and strived for....

not necessarily.....as I stated above, our very essence is a product of God, and so we still have an innate sense of God......whether or not we find the right God is where he intervenes i think....

I agree with you, but only half-way. Let me explain. You are leaving out man's fallen nature from your arguments.

I would say that it is built into humans to know there is a god, and the creation exists as evidence that there is. But since man is fallen, he doesn't want the God of the Bible, but he wants his own god, an unholy god, a god he makes after his own liking and preferences. Thus all the other religions. However, due to the above verses I think it is clear that nobody seeks the actual God of the Bible, because God is Holy and man is a sinner. In other words, a man looks for the actual God about as much as a criminal looks for a police officer. Man, by fallen nature, hates the Holy God of scripture and thus invents his own gods.

I think the bible is crystal clear on this teaching.

You cannot make sweeping statements about man without a reference to his fallen nature. The doctrine of sin and man's corruption in his sinful, fallen nature is one of the most important teachings of the bible. You have to filter everything through that, in my opinion.

so....God elected everyone? Why isn't everyone saved then?

Why do you think everyone is elected? I never said that, and neither did the Bible..?

Skala said: Without election nobody would be saved...
You said: not necessarily

So man can be saved without God's grace? That's what you're asserting here. When I speak of election, I'm saying is an act of grace on God's part.

I would simply say that salvation is mandatory for anyone to get into heaven, because for God to elect some and not others goes against God's character...

If it goes against God's character, why does the Bible teach it? Perhaps you need to do more study on God's character? It sounds like you might believe God is a way he really isn't, or that he only acts in a certain way, when the Bible actually describes him in another way.

There is nothing against God's character for him to save one man and not another. Because both men deserve hell. If God saved zero people, he would be perfectly fair and just in doing so.

If God saved zero people and let all humans go to hell, would you say that's against God's character? If so, then you are saying it is wrong of God to be just?

 

[Fencerguy]

That's not according to Calvinism bro, that's according to the Bible. iI it's according to the Bible, then that is the only reason Calvinists believe it!

Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

Matt 11:28 "Come to me you who are weary and burdened, and I shall give you rest."
~How can we come to Jesus if we have nothing to do with our salvation? Why does He ask us to come to Him if He knows we never will?
John 5:40 "...yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
~Why would Jesus lament people not coming to Him if God was the only way people could come to Him?
John 7:37 "On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink."
~Why would Jesus tell people to come to Him if it is only through God's intervention that people could come to Him?

Scripture can mean whatever meaning we put into it....All of these requests of Jesus seem supefluous if God is the only reason that people come to Him. Why does Jesus even bother to ask?

I agree with you, but only half-way. Let me explain. You are leaving out man's fallen nature from your arguments.

I would say that it is built into humans to know there is a god, and the creation exists as evidence that there is. But since man is fallen, he doesn't want the God of the Bible, but he wants his own god, an unholy god, a god he makes after his own liking and preferences. Thus all the other religions. However, due to the above verses I think it is clear that nobody seeks the actual God of the Bible, because God is Holy and man is a sinner. In other words, a man looks for the actual God about as much as a criminal looks for a police officer. Man, by fallen nature, hates the Holy God of scripture and thus invents his own gods.

I think the bible is crystal clear on this teaching.

You cannot make sweeping statements about man without a reference to his fallen nature. The doctrine of sin and man's corruption in his sinful, fallen nature is one of the most important teachings of the bible. You have to filter everything through that, in my opinion.

I was not leaving out man's fallen nature, simply emphasizing the fact that we are created in God's image. It was a deliberate emphasis for the sake of this discussion. Of course Man's fallen nature is the reason that he does not find God on his own. Man is incapable of finding the True God on his own power. But I would also agree with you only half-way. It must be a cooperation; man cannot fathom the things of God based on his own power or understanding, but by being made in the image of God, man can respond and recognize the True God when he encounters Him....and that is what I have seen in scripture. It cannot (and should not) be emphasized too far in either direction. Salvation is not all of Godl, nor is it all of man and his own efforts.....It is in the median.

Why do you think everyone is elected? I never said that, and neither did the Bible..?

Didn't say I did think that, I asked why everyone isn't given your understanding of election and the knowledge that God is Love.....Wouldn't the being who is the definition of Love want to save everyone?

So man can be saved without God's grace? That's what you're asserting here. When I speak of election, I'm saying is an act of grace on God's part.

So wait, is election the gift of grace that God gives to everyone? Or is election the giving of faith by God that allows people to be saved? I'm confused

If it goes against God's character, why does the Bible teach it? Perhaps you need to do more study on God's character? It sounds like you might believe God is a way he really isn't, or that he only acts in a certain way, when the Bible actually describes him in another way.

So, God is not love? Why would God describe Himself as the definition of love and then choose not to elect some people and thus watch them burn in hell?

There is nothing against God's character for him to save one man and not another. Because both men deserve hell. If God saved zero people, he would be perfectly fair and just in doing so.

But since man (according to the Calvinist idea) has nothing to do with his salvation whatsoever, does that not make God a cruel being by choosing not to save one or another? Unless man has the free will to accept the grace that God offers, God is being cruel (i.e. not loving) by sending one person to hell instead of another, thats not justice....

If God saved zero people and let all humans go to hell, would you say that's against God's character? If so, then you are saying it is wrong of God to be just?

I'm saying its wrong of God to be cruel; operating on the assumption that God is the only force at work in saving someone.....If there is nothing you or I do that contributes or cooperates with our salvation, if it is all an act of God.....Then God truly is a cruel being and not very loving at all...not to mention unjust

 

[Hammster]

Why do you not address the texts we provide, but instead jump to others that you think support your view? Why should we address them when you just ignore what we say?

 

[Fencerguy]

Why do you not address the texts we provide, but instead jump to others that you think support your view? Why should we address them when you just ignore what we say?

It would appear to me that I did address Skala's scriptures, and the meaning that he gave to them, by providing other Scriptures that supported the meaning that I gave to them..........My point there was to show that if someone thinks that the Bible says something; then they are going to find that in the Bible....

I have not ignored anything you say, or that Skala has said. This is how a discussion/debate/dialogue is conducted Hammster. One side presents their arguement, and the other side listens and gives their perspective as well. I did not realize that by responding to Skala's arguments and providing my own perspective and questions that I was actually ignoring him...Rather it seems to be you who ignores what I say, especially if you have no reasonable answer....

 

[Hammster]

It would appear to me that I did address Skala's scriptures, and the meaning that he gave to them, by providing other Scriptures that supported the meaning that I gave to them..........My point there was to show that if someone thinks that the Bible says something; then they are going to find that in the Bible....

I have not ignored anything you say, or that Skala has said. This is how a discussion/debate/dialogue is conducted Hammster. One side presents their arguement, and the other side listens and gives their perspective as well. I did not realize that by responding to Skala's arguments and providing my own perspective and questions that I was actually ignoring him...Rather it seems to be you who ignores what I say, especially if you have no reasonable answer....

Okie dokie.

 

[Hammster]

Actually, I only ask you why God wants a relationship with us, since we are no more than clay in His hands? Surely he could fashion beings with which to have a relationship that would be more meaningful that lumps of clay that He can do whatever with....

This response only confirms in my mind that we really have no assurance of our salvation, because maybe we are just fooling ourselves into thinking we are saved....We may not be......Its up to God to decide after all....

Is your question to me, or the Apostle Paul? Because he already gave a response to your objection.

Do you hate his response?

Here's an example.

 

[Skala]

Bro as Ham pointed out it seems you are fond of not addressing the texts I present, and discussing what they teach, but you ignore them and jump to other verses, as if putting verse A on the table disproves verse B.

If Verse A teaches such-and-such, then it is true regardless of what verse B teaches. I know that is not your goal, but I'm just saying, it would be nice if we could discuss texts one at a time, and if we could respond to the texts themselves.

Since I have asked this of you, I will obviously address the texts you presented as well my friend

Matt 11:28 "Come to me you who are weary and burdened, and I shall give you rest."
~How can we come to Jesus if we have nothing to do with our salvation? Why does He ask us to come to Him if He knows we never will?

It is perfectly fine for Jesus to ask all who are willing to come to Him, to come to him. Jesus was an evangelist. Just like he commanded us to be. We go out and cry: if anyone wants to come to Jesus for salvation, go to him!

How does this disprove or even address the fact that the Bible teaches that nobody, by fallen nature, seeks for God? If a man is willing to come to Christ, it seems that that is evidence of God's working in them to compel them to Christ.

To answer your question, he asks, nay, commands sinners to come to Him because they are sinners. How could God do less? His holy nature requires him to command sinners to repent. They are held accountable for not repenting because it is their sinful nature and rebellion that prevents them from doing so.

However, when a man does repent, it's because God granted it to them:

2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

In other words, God can command a man to repent, because he is obligated to repent, because he is a sinner. But God is not required or obligated to grant that man repentance. That action is a free, unearned, unmerited act of grace.

Consider this:

If you get drunk, and are not of sound mind to do your homework, it is your own fault that you can't do your work. It's not your teacher's fault for commanding you to do your homework. You are obligated to do it, but the teacher is not obligated to lift the requirement from you (or even help you do it). If the teacher helps you with your homework, then she has done something purely out of grace and mercy. It was unearned, and freely given.

John 5:40 "...yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
~Why would Jesus lament people not coming to Him if God was the only way people could come to Him?

Because as I said above, it is man's own fault that he is unable to come to God.

John 7:37 "On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink."
~Why would Jesus tell people to come to Him if it is only through God's intervention that people could come to Him?

Deja vu? Brother, ANYONE who is thirsty can come and drink. That is a fact. That is what Jesus says here. But notice, Jesus is not teaching, in this passage, why or how people become thirsty or willing, does He? He teaches that in a different part of the Bible, say, John 6, or John 10, or John 17. You are trying to find inconsistence where there are none, my friend. If Jesus in one area asks whoever is willing to come to Him, and in another area explains why or how people become willing in the first place, that is perfectly fine.

To answer your questions you should go to those areas, not a passage that doesn't address it. You have to go to the part of the Bible that actually addresses the topic at hand. For example if you want to learn about creation you go to Genesis 1, not Romans 9.

Scripture can mean whatever meaning we put into it....All of these requests of Jesus seem supefluous if God is the only reason that people come to Him. Why does Jesus even bother to ask?

That is simply your opinion brother, and our opinions have no bearing on what is actually true or not.

In fact it is not logically meaningless for Jesus to ask people to come to Him, or command people to come to Him, or lament over the fact that people don't come to him.

Men refuse to come because they are unwilling by fallen nature.
Men become willing by God's grace alone.

Man cannot take any credit for his salvation. That much is sure.

It seems to me that your view is that man can and should take some credit for his salvation. He is the one that converts himself of cooperates with his own conversion. To me, that makes no sense. Not only does it make no sense, it's not what Baptists historically believe:

Baptist Confession of Faith 1690

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to perform any of the spiritual good which accompanies salvation. As a natural man, he is altogether averse to spiritual good, and dead in sin. He is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself for conversion.

Paul describes salvation as a spiritaully dead man being resurrected.

Tell me, can a dead man help or assist in his own resurrection? IF you walked up to a corpse and said "Hey, do you want to be made alive?" will the corpse respond? No. He's dead! A dead man is the recipient of life. He cannot deny being resurrected nor assist in his resurrection.

Salvation is the same way. If God saves you, God saves you. Your response to Christ in embracing him is the evidence that you are born again, spiritually resurrected, not the cause of your regeneration. That makes no sense.

That's like the blind man regaining sight by choosing to see! Makes no sense. The blind man must be given sight first, and his ability to see is the result of it, not the cause of it.

So, God is not love? Why would God describe Himself as the definition of love and then choose not to elect some people and thus watch them burn in hell?

Paul answers this question brother. If The Apostle Paul's inspired-by-God answer isn't good enough for you, I don't know what is.


Rom 9:15-23
(15) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
(16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
(17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
(18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
(19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
(20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
(21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
(23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

Your objection is the same objection that Paul anticipated in verse 19 brother. You are saying "If God chooses, then how can He hold us accountable? How is that fair?"

But notice Paul's answer. He doesn't try to sugar coat it or water it down. He reminds the creature that he is clay in the Potter's hands and has no claims on the Potter's grace. The Potter is the Almighty Sovereign God who fashions into vessels of mercy or wrath as He sees fit, because His goal is to have his grace and wrath both glorified and demonstrated.

God is love, yes, but God is not just love. God is also wrath, justice, holiness, righteousness, etc.

Here's what God did:

The entire human race fell. He should have let them all go to hell because it's what they deserve.

But He intervened and saved billions and billions of humans, rescuing them out of sheer mercy and undeserved grace. He did this purely out of love and mercy.

That's an EXTREMELY loving God if you ask me.

I'm saying its wrong of God to be cruel; operating on the assumption that God is the only force at work in saving someone.....If there is nothing you or I do that contributes or cooperates with our salvation, if it is all an act of God.....Then God truly is a cruel being and not very loving at all...not to mention unjust

You need to listen to what you are saying brother. Let me give you an analogy and put yourself in different shoes for a minute.

Let's say you are the king of a kingdom. While you are away on a trip, a gang of bandits breaks into your castle and rapes and tortures your wife and daughter for hours and hours, and then finally murders them.

You discover this when you come home, you send your police force to capture the 10 bandits. You give them the death sentence because that's what their crimes deserve.

However, to show your kingdom you are a merciful king, you pardon 1 of the 10 men, but leave the other 9 to their just condemnation. In fact, you take the forgiven bandit into your home and feed him and clothe him and befriend him for the rest of your life.

The kingdom is in awe of your decision to have mercy on the 1 bandit.

Brother, according to you, the king is cruel for not pardoning all 10 men. He is not loving at all because he didn't pardon the other 9 men. He is unjust for not pardoning the other 9 men.

Does that make any sense to you? Absolutely not. The other 9 men received justice for their crimes. The 1 man received free mercy, that you were not obligated to give, but freely did of your own accord.

Nobody received injustice at the king's hands in this story. The 9 men got what they deserved, and the 1 man got mercy.

Thus your assertions make no sense. God does injustice to nobody. All men deserve hell, and God saves some of them. He is not then obligated to save the other men, too. If God is obligated to save them, then that's not grace anymore, because grace cannot be owed or demanded or obligated. Grace is free, by definition.

I hope this makes sense brother

 

[Fencerguy]

Matt 11:28 "Come to me you who are weary and burdened, and I shall give you rest."
Why does He ask us to come to Him if He knows we never will?
John 5:40 "...yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
John 7:37 "On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink."
Scripture can mean whatever meaning we put into it....

Please notice how I observe your scripture examples and the meaning that you apply to them, and then proceed to show you how I can do the same thing with other verses....

Bro as Ham pointed out it seems you are fond of not addressing the texts I present, and discussing what they teach, but you ignore them and jump to other verses, as if putting verse A on the table disproves verse B.

I am not ignoring your posts or the texts that you cite, please see above how I told you what I was doing by putting those other verses up. I was pointing out how if we look for a certain meaning in Scripture, we will find it, even if that isn't what the original text necessarily meant....

It is perfectly fine for Jesus to ask all who are willing to come to Him, to come to him. Jesus was an evangelist. Just like he commanded us to be. We go out and cry: if anyone wants to come to Jesus for salvation, go to him!

But no one will want to come to Jesus, you and Hammster have said as much yourselves.....So I ask what the point of evangelization is?

How does this disprove or even address the fact that the Bible teaches that nobody, by fallen nature, seeks for God? If a man is willing to come to Christ, it seems that that is evidence of God's working in them to compel them to Christ.

Then why use words such as "willing" or "come?" Such words would seem to be almost deceptive since we really don't do anything in order to have faith in Christ....

To answer your question, he asks, nay, commands sinners to come to Him because they are sinners. How could God do less? His holy nature requires him to command sinners to repent. They are held accountable for not repenting because it is their sinful nature and rebellion that prevents them from doing so.

But since sinners are not responsible in any way for believing in Christ or coming to faith in Him, it seems disingenuous or downright cruel of God to hold sinners accountable for something that they ultimately have no control over....

However, when a man does repent, it's because God granted it to them:
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
In other words, God can command a man to repent, because he is obligated to repent, because he is a sinner. But God is not required or obligated to grant that man repentance. That action is a free, unearned, unmerited act of grace.

I'll give you that God guides the sinner to repentence and without God's guidance the sinner would not truly repent. But that verse you cite does not use language as strong as command....It says "grant," not "command."
How can a loving God oblige a sinner to repent (assuming thus that the sinner is totally incapable of even being aware of wrongdoing, and expressing remorse thereof), but not be responsible if that sinner does not repent. Since repentence, or the lack thereof, comes from God and not the sinner; is God not then being cruel (and thus contrary to His character of being loving) by allowing that sinner to be condemned to hell?

Consider this:
If you get drunk, and are not of sound mind to do your homework, it is your own fault that you can't do your work. It's not your teacher's fault for commanding you to do your homework. You are obligated to do it, but the teacher is not obligated to lift the requirement from you (or even help you do it). If the teacher helps you with your homework, then she has done something purely out of grace and mercy. It was unearned, and freely given.

This analogy is not entirely accurate, because it should indicate that you would not be able to do the homework at all (or conversely not do the homework) except that the teacher allows you to do it. To make this comparison, your ability to do the homework (or not do the homework) comes entirely from the teacher, not you. So this analogy fails because you are incapable of doing the homework regardless of your mindset....

Because as I said above, it is man's own fault that he is unable to come to God.

The more you think about it though, it becomes more apparent that its actually God's actions that either bring a man to Him (or not).....because regardless of man's fault, God determines whether he comes to Him or not...

Deja vu? Brother, ANYONE who is thirsty can come and drink. That is a fact. That is what Jesus says here. But notice, Jesus is not teaching, in this passage, why or how people become thirsty or willing, does He? He teaches that in a different part of the Bible, say, John 6, or John 10, or John 17. You are trying to find inconsistence where there are none, my friend. If Jesus in one area asks whoever is willing to come to Him, and in another area explains why or how people become willing in the first place, that is perfectly fine.

still begs the question of why He uses such words at all. If God causes people to become thirsty for Him or willing to come to Him, why phrase the request and invitation in such non-concrete terms? Why would Jesus want to create an idea that people can come to God or be thirsty for God, if He knew all along that God caused those people to be that way. Why would Jesus not simply say "blessed are you who have been caused to thirst for me, and blessed are you who have been made willing to believe in me..." Why does He use words that seem to indicate that people might not come to Him even if God has caused them to be thirsty for Him?

That is simply your opinion brother, and our opinions have no bearing on what is actually true or not.

As I have said before, but in the absence of some objective, infallible source of information, our opinions about what scripture says are all we have to go off of....

In fact it is not logically meaningless for Jesus to ask people to come to Him, or command people to come to Him, or lament over the fact that people don't come to him.
Men refuse to come because they are unwilling by fallen nature.
Men become willing by God's grace alone.

Right, so if God is the only reason that people become willing, why not make them all willing and remove the confusing passages about people not coming to Christ?

Man cannot take any credit for his salvation. That much is sure.

Of himself, of course not...

It seems to me that your view is that man can and should take some credit for his salvation. He is the one that converts himself of cooperates with his own conversion. To me, that makes no sense. Not only does it make no sense, it's not what Baptists historically believe

I never said that man could or even should take any credit for his salvation....But man has to cooperate with God. What doesn't make sense to me is this idea that God chooses whom He will save at random, and that the people who are not lucky enough to be "made willing" are just doomed....That does not seem to be congruent with the message of scripture...
If we are totally unable to receive God out of our own free will, then we are really doing nothing more than sitting around, hoping that God will decide to save us, or make us "willing..." That is a very scary way to live, and I can't fathom it...

Paul describes salvation as a spiritaully dead man being resurrected.

James also says that faith without works is dead, and how can that faith save him? So if there is absolutely nothing that we can to do cooperate with our salvation in any way, how can we ever know that God has chosen to save us?

Tell me, can a dead man help or assist in his own resurrection? IF you walked up to a corpse and said "Hey, do you want to be made alive?" will the corpse respond? No. He's dead! A dead man is the recipient of life. He cannot deny being resurrected nor assist in his resurrection.

Scripture still affirms that the man has at least a minimal part to play in accepting the gift of grace....In James 2:20-22 it says, "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works."
If we have nothing to do with our salvation whatsoever, why does the Bible say things like this?

 

[Fencerguy]

Salvation is the same way. If God saves you, God saves you. Your response to Christ in embracing him is the evidence that you are born again, spiritually resurrected, not the cause of your regeneration. That makes no sense.

What would happen then, in a hypothetical situation, that if God chose to save a person, but that person did not change in their lifestyle or deeds at all.....Did God make a mistake in choosing to save that person? Or did that person instead have some responsibilities (some minimal requisite cooperation) involved with their salvation?

That's like the blind man regaining sight by choosing to see! Makes no sense. The blind man must be given sight first, and his ability to see is the result of it, not the cause of it.

This analogy then indicates that the gift of God is faith, rather than Grace...I'm not sure if I agree with that necessarily....

Paul answers this question brother. If The Apostle Paul's inspired-by-God answer isn't good enough for you, I don't know what is.
Rom 9:15-23
(15) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
(16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
(17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
(18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
(19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
(20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
(21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
(23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

Your objection is the same objection that Paul anticipated in verse 19 brother. You are saying "If God chooses, then how can He hold us accountable? How is that fair?"

But notice Paul's answer. He doesn't try to sugar coat it or water it down. He reminds the creature that he is clay in the Potter's hands and has no claims on the Potter's grace. The Potter is the Almighty Sovereign God who fashions into vessels of mercy or wrath as He sees fit, because His goal is to have his grace and wrath both glorified and demonstrated.

Powerful verses, but I don't know that I am totally persuaded by Paul's answer. He basically is saying that just because we don't understand, we have no right to ask God about it.....I feel as though that was Paul's understanding based on what was available to him. The only scriptures that they had at Paul's time were the Old Testament, where people's salvation depended on fulfilling the Law. It makes more sense that God would have a more sovereign role in making people willing or unwilling to follow Him since follwing Him meant following the Law.....With the New Covenant the focus becomes more on an intimate relationship with God rather than fulfilling some set of Laws, and so it seems to me that our response to God gets a new emphasis; not to take away from Gods glory or to allow us any credit for saving ourselves, but rather to show that we are no longer under a taskmaster (the Law), but that the responsibility of the believer is in cooperating with God and allowing God to work in our lives...

God is love, yes, but God is not just love. God is also wrath, justice, holiness, righteousness, etc.

God is also not cruel, that would create an impossible paradox of character....

Here's what God did:
The entire human race fell. He should have let them all go to hell because it's what they deserve.
But He intervened and saved billions and billions of humans, rescuing them out of sheer mercy and undeserved grace. He did this purely out of love and mercy.
That's an EXTREMELY loving God if you ask me.

And what about those people who God did not save.....The question of "how is that fair?" is irrelevent, the question is simply: How does God retain his dominant characteristic of love by choosing not to save everyone? Such a choice is cruel, no matter how you look at it. If you had the opportunity to save 10 puppies that were trapped in a barrel filling with water, and you chose to save 6 of them out of love and grace that those puppies did not earn from you, how are you not being cruel to the other four puppies that you chose not to save?

You need to listen to what you are saying brother. Let me give you an analogy and put yourself in different shoes for a minute.
Let's say you are the king of a kingdom. While you are away on a trip, a gang of bandits breaks into your castle and rapes and tortures your wife and daughter for hours and hours, and then finally murders them.
You discover this when you come home, you send your police force to capture the 10 bandits. You give them the death sentence because that's what their crimes deserve.
However, to show your kingdom you are a merciful king, you pardon 1 of the 10 men, but leave the other 9 to their just condemnation. In fact, you take the forgiven bandit into your home and feed him and clothe him and befriend him for the rest of your life.
The kingdom is in awe of your decision to have mercy on the 1 bandit.
Brother, according to you, the king is cruel for not pardoning all 10 men. He is not loving at all because he didn't pardon the other 9 men. He is unjust for not pardoning the other 9 men.

The cruelty comes when you consider that the other 9 men might have genuinely been repentent for their crime. It is cruel if the other 9 are genuinely repentent for their crime, but the one that you take home and befriend is never truly repentent, but does so out of the obligation that you placed on him...You operate under the assumption that none of the 10 men would ever be repentent for their crime unless you were to give them the undeserved mercy and obliged them to be repentent....

Thus your assertions make no sense. God does injustice to nobody. All men deserve hell, and God saves some of them. He is not then obligated to save the other men, too. If God is obligated to save them, then that's not grace anymore, because grace cannot be owed or demanded or obligated. Grace is free, by definition.
I hope this makes sense brother

Well, it was a good presentation of your belief, thank you, though I believe that you and I will have to be content to agree to disagree......The assumption made in your last analogy is that there is no chance that the criminals will never come to genuine repentence for their crimes unless they are obliged to....So while the grace and mercy are feely offered, but it still seems like the people receiving the grace have no choice as to whether they accept it or not....

 

[Skala]

Bro, you've said a lot and I don't know how I could further answer them any better than I already have in my previous posts.

Let me say that I realize that this doctrine is tough to come to terms with. It's not like I woke up one day and just outright agreed with it. I had to study it and struggle with it myself, too. I had to seek guidance from people much smarter than myself. I had to read theology books and commentaries from Bible teachers, etc.

I will however address a few things my friend You said you disagreed that faith was a gift. I think there is scriptural proof that in fact, it is:

1Co 12:4-11
(4) Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
(5) and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
(6) and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
(7) To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
(8) For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
(9) to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
(10) to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
(11) All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

It is unmistakable that faith is given to us from the Holy Spirit, as He wills. Faith is described as a spiritual gift, by Paul, in this passage.

Php 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

It is granted to us, given to us, to believe in Christ.


2Ti 2:24-25
(24) And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
(25) correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

Again, repentance is granted (given) by God.

This is a medium-length passage, but please read it to understand what is going on. A call to repentance went out to Israel and Judah. Many men mocked the call and denied it. But some men responded positively to the call, and verse 12 explains why.

2Ch 30:1-12
(1) Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem to keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel.
(2) For the king and his princes and all the assembly in Jerusalem had taken counsel to keep the Passover in the second month--
(3) for they could not keep it at that time because the priests had not consecrated themselves in sufficient number, nor had the people assembled in Jerusalem--
(4) and the plan seemed right to the king and all the assembly.
(5) So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, that the people should come and keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel, at Jerusalem, for they had not kept it as often as prescribed.
(6) So couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes, as the king had commanded, saying, "O people of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria.
(7) Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were faithless to the LORD God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation, as you see.
(8) Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you.
(9) For if you return to the LORD, your brothers and your children will find compassion with their captors and return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him."
(10) So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them.
(11) However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem.
(12) The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.

After all is said and done, the author gives us a clue as to why Judah (and others) obeyed the command to repent: God's hand was on them to give them a heart to obey.

Eph 2:8-9
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

If you do a study on the Greek behind this passage you will discover that the word "this" is a pronoun pointing, not to any one thing in particular, but to the collective phrase. Grammatically, there is just no arguing this point or disagreeing with it. Theologically, one can disagree, but grammatically (which is what matters), you cannot.

The entire experience of "being saved by grace through faith" is "Not of yourselves, but the gift from God, so that no man can boast" (so that no man can take credit for his salvation)

I think these few passages are unmistakably clear that faith is a gift from God. We exercise faith in Christ because it is a spiritual gift given to us by the Holy Spirit.

How does that fit in with your views on soteriology my friend?

One more quick thing: it is curious that this quote is in your signature:

"I, like God, do not play with dice and I don't believe in coincidences."
~V

You affirm here that God leaves nothing up to chance yet you seem to think that in fact, he does, especially when it comes to the eternal destiny of people!

One final thing, you said:

God is also not cruel, that would create an impossible paradox of character....

Bro, in your view, God makes sure nobody at all is saved. He leaves it completely up to chance and luck. He sits back to see what happens. He doesn't intervene at all to effectually save anyone. If anyone is saved, it's because they did it all on their own, because they were smarter than those who didn't choose to believe.

In my view, he makes absolutely sure that billions and billions of people are infallible saved. He saves them without fail.

Which view is God more cruel in?

The fact is, millions of people live full lives and die without ever even hearing the name of Jesus, much less a fully detailed and accurate gospel presentation. How do you explain that in your view? As I said, in your view God leaves salvation up to chance. And luck. Some people are born in america with access to the Gospel and Christian churches on every corner. Other people are born in poverty in pagan cultures where they have no access to the gospel, or a Bible, and Christianity is illegal. Other people are born in tribal situations where they are totally cut off from modern civilization.

Again, in your view, God leaves it up to chance, and luck. In my view, he makes sure that billions of humans in history are saved.

 

[Fencerguy]

Bro, you've said a lot and I don't know how I could further answer them any better than I already have in my previous posts.

Let me say that I realize that this doctrine is tough to come to terms with. It's not like I woke up one day and just outright agreed with it. I had to study it and struggle with it myself, too. I had to seek guidance from people much smarter than myself. I had to read theology books and commentaries from Bible teachers, etc.

Sure, I have done my share of reading and seeking as well, but I still have serious doubts about how far this doctrine should be taken...

I will however address a few things my friend You said you disagreed that faith was a gift. I think there is scriptural proof that in fact, it is:

1Co 12:4-11
(4) Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
(5) and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
(6) and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
(7) To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
(8) For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
(9) to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
(10) to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
(11) All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

It is unmistakable that faith is given to us from the Holy Spirit, as He wills. Faith is described as a spiritual gift, by Paul, in this passage.

This sort of faith seems to be differentiated from saving faith....If the "faith" mentioned in this passage is saving faith, why then do none of the other spiritual gifts mentioned save a sinner? Surely someone who can work miracles would be thusly saved....that is a gift of God too right?

Php 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

It is granted to us, given to us, to believe in Christ.

Interesting interpretation of this verse you have......To me it reads that suffering as martyrs has been granted to the people to whom the letter was written.....Because it says "not only believe in him, but suffer for his sake." The emphasis in that verse seems to be more on the suffering as a martyr than on faith....

2Ti 2:24-25
(24) And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
(25) correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

Again, repentance is granted (given) by God.

Repentence yes, for a sinner will not repent of their own will.....but is this the same thing as "faith"?

This is a medium-length passage, but please read it to understand what is going on. A call to repentance went out to Israel and Judah. Many men mocked the call and denied it. But some men responded positively to the call, and verse 12 explains why.

2Ch 30:1-12
(1) Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem to keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel.
(2) For the king and his princes and all the assembly in Jerusalem had taken counsel to keep the Passover in the second month--
(3) for they could not keep it at that time because the priests had not consecrated themselves in sufficient number, nor had the people assembled in Jerusalem--
(4) and the plan seemed right to the king and all the assembly.
(5) So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, that the people should come and keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel, at Jerusalem, for they had not kept it as often as prescribed.
(6) So couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes, as the king had commanded, saying, "O people of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria.
(7) Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were faithless to the LORD God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation, as you see.
(8) Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you.
(9) For if you return to the LORD, your brothers and your children will find compassion with their captors and return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him."
(10) So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them.
(11) However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem.
(12) The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.

After all is said and done, the author gives us a clue as to why Judah (and others) obeyed the command to repent: God's hand was on them to give them a heart to obey.

The only issue here is that this is from the Old Covenant....The New Covenant was internalized, made more intimate, more like a relationship than a series of regulations. I accept that God moved people's hearts and moved them to repentence, but that does not seem to me that He forcibly changed their wills.....it says he gave them one heart to do what the king commanded......from the way it is phrased it still sounds like they had the option to not obey......But if God elected them, it sounds like you would tell me they had no choice in the matter.....

Eph 2:8-9
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

If you do a study on the Greek behind this passage you will discover that the word "this" is a pronoun pointing, not to any one thing in particular, but to the collective phrase. Grammatically, there is just no arguing this point or disagreeing with it. Theologically, one can disagree, but grammatically (which is what matters), you cannot.[/quote]
Even taken as the entire phrase (not differentiating between the word "grace" or "faith,") This verse still reads in my mind that grace is the gift of God. And that grace is accepted on faith.....

The entire experience of "being saved by grace through faith" is "Not of yourselves, but the gift from God, so that no man can boast" (so that no man can take credit for his salvation)

don't disagree...

I think these few passages are unmistakably clear that faith is a gift from God. We exercise faith in Christ because it is a spiritual gift given to us by the Holy Spirit.

Still havge some problems with it, as i responded above....

One more quick thing: it is curious that this quote is in your signature:

"I, like God, do not play with dice and I don't believe in coincidences."
~V

You affirm here that God leaves nothing up to chance yet you seem to think that in fact, he does, especially when it comes to the eternal destiny of people!

Not chance, human free will.......we have a choice about how we spend our eternal destiny....

Bro, in your view, God makes sure nobody at all is saved. He leaves it completely up to chance and luck. He sits back to see what happens. He doesn't intervene at all to effectually save anyone. If anyone is saved, it's because they did it all on their own, because they were smarter than those who didn't choose to believe.

This is not at all what I have said. You have (either inadvertently or purposefully) ignored human free will. We have a choice. God wants a relationship with us, but that relationship is only good if we also want it. God does not just sit back, He clearly intervenes... Salvation comes from Him after all....But He does not draft anyone into faith in Him. He guides us towards faith in Him, but we have to choose to believe in Jesus.....Its not random and it isn't luck, God shows us the way to Him, and leaves it up to us to decide whether we want it.....God would save everyone if He could, but people must choose Him....

In my view, he makes absolutely sure that billions and billions of people are infallible saved. He saves them without fail.

but not all......where is the love?

Which view is God more cruel in?

The view that takes away a man's free will.....

The fact is, millions of people live full lives and die without ever even hearing the name of Jesus, much less a fully detailed and accurate gospel presentation. How do you explain that in your view? As I said, in your view God leaves salvation up to chance. And luck. Some people are born in america with access to the Gospel and Christian churches on every corner. Other people are born in poverty in pagan cultures where they have no access to the gospel, or a Bible, and Christianity is illegal. Other people are born in tribal situations where they are totally cut off from modern civilization.

this is a very hard question, but the Bible does say that those who have never believed will be judged differently than those who heard and chose not to believe......

Again, in your view, God leaves it up to chance, and luck. In my view, he makes sure that billions of humans in history are saved.

You seem extraordinarily dialed in to this idea that I think God leaves things up to chance........ HE DOES NOT. God does many things to point us towards Himself, but the only way a relationship can be truly good and right is when it is desired by both parties. In reality, it is your view that leaves salvation up to chance....If you are lucky, God chooses to elect you to faith....if you aren't lucky, well....too bad. In my view God offers grace and salvation to everyone, but we must choose to believe in Him....That is not chance...

 

[Hupomone10]

You seem extraordinarily dialed in to this idea that I think God leaves things up to chance........ HE DOES NOT. God does many things to point us towards Himself, but the only way a relationship can be truly good and right is when it is desired by both parties. In reality, it is your view that leaves salvation up to chance....If you are lucky, God chooses to elect you to faith....if you aren't lucky, well....too bad. In my view God offers grace and salvation to everyone, but we must choose to believe in Him....That is not chance...

I wanted to start with this one because in this, to me you have summed it up. How one is looking at it, our presuppositions beforehand, indeed determines how we view such things. What one sees as chance, another sees as personal responsibility. A while back, someone on here said there is more scriptural support for predestination and election than any other doctrine in scripture. I challenged that in a thread, and showed by multiple scriptural passages that God emphasizes man's responsibility in the whole thing - initial salvation and ongoing living of the Christian life - far more than this doctrine of election, as scriptural as it is.

Sure, I have done my share of reading and seeking as well, but I still have serious doubts about how far this doctrine should be taken...

It is the part about how far this doctrine should be taken that has always concerned me on here. It seems to be an absolute obsession.

I've given this analogy before, but I think it's a good one. This obsession about where faith comes from, in spite of the fact that Jesus, Paul, the other writers never obsess over this origin but continually exhort people to believe, is like asking a friend to get into the car and go with you to the store. And the friend asks, "yeah, but where did the gas come from?" At which time, after a 30 minute argument over the supreme importance of the origin of the gas, you get into your car and actually exercise the gas that you have, regardless of where it came from and go to the store yourself.

All this obsession over the origin of faith is exactly that, an obsession, from a Scriptural standpoint anyway. The fact that there are so few verses to try to back it up should indicate that. I suggest you do a one to one with anyone that disagrees with this. Let them post a verse on the importance of where faith came from, and you can post a verse on the exhortation and call to actively believe. This isn't to say the origin verses aren't important, but to identify where God places the emphasis in Scripture.

And where He places the emphasis is where we should.

This sort of faith seems to be differentiated from saving faith....If the "faith" mentioned in this passage is saving faith, why then do none of the other spiritual gifts mentioned save a sinner? Surely someone who can work miracles would be thusly saved....that is a gift of God too right?

The context is definitely different. It is a context of gifts of the Spirit for the edification of the body of Christ. What we don't find is them arguing or even emphasizing where that gift came from. They were exhorted to use those gifts for the edification of the church, and they did so. I liken this to the parable of the talents. It doesn't so much matter that we iron out where the gift, or where the faith, came from, but that we use the faith we have and make it active, doing actions in keeping with that faith.

As you're aware from previous posts of mine, I was a severe alcoholic. I overcame this by one way and one way only: through faith in Christ - His Presence within, which will not change; His accomplished work (dead to sin, self, satan, and the world ) which cannot change; and faith in His Word which cannot fail.

And never once did I have a discussion or question where that faith came from. If I had, it would merely have run me in circles and I would never have found deliverance. I made a decision to walk out by faith alone, in Christ alone, by the power of the Spirit alone, and now have 3 yrs 8 months without a drop of alcohol. It will forever be something that I can look to and know that it is something that He did through me and not something I overcame. I exercised trust, reliance on Christ, and never once ever felt like boasting. Faith excludes boasting. You are sometimes led to believe that faith can boast; it is not so. The testimony of the whole New Testament is that faith in Christ is only boasting in the Lord, not Self.

Interesting interpretation of this verse you have......To me it reads that suffering as martyrs has been granted to the people to whom the letter was written.....Because it says "not only believe in him, but suffer for his sake." The emphasis in that verse seems to be more on the suffering as a martyr than on faith....

Yes. The emphasis in that context is on the suffering. And we don't find them arguing about where the suffering came from. We find them accepting it. When we see the truth of the gospel, when we see the truth of Christ's provision for the victorious life, maybe we should accept it and walk in faith instead of second-guessing where it came from.

Out of time.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hammster]

It seems to me that some are obsessed with their own free will, which apart from Amy work of Christ, is a slave up sin. Such an obsession seems to be counterproductive to a theological discussion.

Yes, we know there are commands to believe. You make it sound as if, when witnessing, we give theological dissertations on faith and its origins. There is a difference between a theological discussion and an evangelical discussion. Please don't confuse the two.

 

[Skala]

This sort of faith seems to be differentiated from saving faith....If the "faith" mentioned in this passage is saving faith, why then do none of the other spiritual gifts mentioned save a sinner? Surely someone who can work miracles would be thusly saved....that is a gift of God too right?

I'm not following your logic here. Only faith is what justifies, not service, or wisdom, etc?

Interesting interpretation of this verse you have......To me it reads that suffering as martyrs has been granted to the people to whom the letter was written.....Because it says "not only believe in him, but suffer for his sake." The emphasis in that verse seems to be more on the suffering as a martyr than on faith....

And? Nothing you said disproves the fact that the Apostle tells his readers that it was given to them to believe in Jesus.

Repentence yes, for a sinner will not repent of their own will.....but is this the same thing as "faith"?

I guess technically not, but the verse says that this repentance "leads to a knowledge of the truth", so it sounds like it leads to faith? Either way, this verse proves that God ultimately decides who repents or not, right? Not each person's will.

The only issue here is that this is from the Old Covenant....The New Covenant was internalized, made more intimate, more like a relationship than a series of regulations. I accept that God moved people's hearts and moved them to repentence, but that does not seem to me that He forcibly changed their wills.....it says he gave them one heart to do what the king commanded......from the way it is phrased it still sounds like they had the option to not obey......But if God elected them, it sounds like you would tell me they had no choice in the matter.....

How could you gather that they had the option to disobey? The verse clearly says that the reason they responded positively is because God gave them a heart to obey.

Even taken as the entire phrase (not differentiating between the word "grace" or "faith,") This verse still reads in my mind that grace is the gift of God. And that grace is accepted on faith.....

I'm sorry bro but you are just plain wrong here. As I said, you can disagree based on your theology, but not based on the Greek grammer. To explain the Greek going on here, imagine if I gave you a car, a complete car. The car is made up of various parts, like tires, a glove box, etc.

That's what this verse is saying. The entire experience of "being saved by grace through faith" is what is "given as a gift, and not your own doing". If you receive the car, you also receive the glove box. If you receive "salvation through faith", then you receive, not only the collective experience, but each individual part, too, like the faith.

It seems you would have this verse read "You are saved by grace, which is the gift, but the faith is your doing". Even though it says "It is not your doing, but a gift from God".

Not chance, human free will.......we have a choice about how we spend our eternal destiny....

Bro, all this talk about free will. But can you provide even a single verse or passage that teaches that man even has a free will (In the sense that you mean it), or that salvation depends on man's will at all?

I have found zero verses in the entire Bible that attribute man's salvation to his will, but in fact there are several verses that say the exact opposite:

Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

This is not at all what I have said. You have (either inadvertently or purposefully) ignored human free will

Probably, but that's not a fault if the Bible doesn't even teach that man has a (libertarian) free will, is it?

We have a choice.

Yes we do. As I've said before, that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not man will ever make the right choice apart from grace being credited for it.

So far it seems that you don't believe grace alone is to be credited for a person making the right choice, but man's will is.

For starters, the Bible doesn't teach that anywhere, but it does teach that grace is responsible, for example, in the OT passage that we discussed earlier.

God wants a relationship with us, but that relationship is only good if we also want it.

Brother, I agree, but I think you still are not understanding my position. My position is that the only reason we want it to begin with is because of Grace alone. Not because my will is stronger or smarter than the will of an unbeliever, or less sinful, or less blind to spiritual things.

The apostle Paul lumps all fallen, unregenerate men into the same category. They are all equally blind, equally deaf, equally hostile to Christ, equally finding the gospel foolish.

It seems your position is some people are just better somehow than others, they can, with their wills, wriggle themselves out of their poor condition and get saved while others cannot.

My position is that all of those men would end up in hell because they'd all reject God consistently, but God's grace actually saves many of them. It doesn't merely try to save, it actually saves.

God does not just sit back, He clearly intervenes... Salvation comes from Him after all....But He does not draft anyone into faith in Him. He guides us towards faith in Him, but we have to choose to believe in Jesus

Can you explain to me how, in your view, God intervenes? What does he do exactly? Can you show me where, in the Bible, it teaches that God merely woos or persuades?

In my view, when God intervenes, he accomplishes things. What's the point of intervening otherwise, only to fail? Can God intervene, and then fail? Can God even set himself up for failure?

I said:

In my view, he makes absolutely sure that billions and billions of people are infallible saved. He saves them without fail.

You responded:

but not all......where is the love?

It is mindboggling that you accused my view of leaving GOd less loving, when it's my view that God actually intervenes to infallibly ensure that any at all are saved, and your view is that he does no such thing. He doesn't make sure a single person is saved.

So right back at, you where is the love?

I asked:

Which view is God more cruel in?

You responded:

The view that takes away a man's free will.....

Since my view doesn't say that God takes away man's free will, I don't see how this charge even relates to me. Again, and the Bible doesn't' even teach that man has a free will, anywhere. He has a will, yes, and he acts as he pleases.

But that will is fallen, enslaved to sin, shackled to the corruption, he is blind, deaf, hostile, unable to understand.

Where's the "Freedom" in the way the Bible describes fallen unregenerate man?

You say: "Anyone can come to Jesus"
But Jesus says "Nobody can come to me unless the Father grants it" - Jn 6:37

You say: "Everyone can understand the things of God and simply needs to respond positively to it"
But the Bible says: "1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

In your view, the natural man does accept the things of the spirit of God, whenever he wants, by an act of his will.

this is a very hard question, but the Bible does say that those who have never believed will be judged differently than those who heard and chose not to believe......

You didn't really answer the question bro In your view, since God doesn't infallibly save anyone, but he tries to save everyone and leaves it up to their wills, how do you explain the people who never even hear the gospel message?

Is God trying to save them?

You seem extraordinarily dialed in to this idea that I think God leaves things up to chance........ HE DOES NOT. God does many things to point us towards Himself, but the only way a relationship can be truly good and right is when it is desired by both parties. In reality, it is your view that leaves salvation up to chance....If you are lucky, God chooses to elect you to faith....if you aren't lucky, well....too bad. In my view God offers grace and salvation to everyone, but we must choose to believe in Him....That is not chance...

Bro, the reason I charged you with believing God leaves it up to chance is because in your view God is not involved at all in the ultimate salvation of people. He is totally out of the equation in the ultimate deciding factor of which people are saved or not.

Thus, from God's perspective, it is totally random, up to chance. Some humans will be saved, some wont, and God had nothing to do with it either way.

In my view, God is completely and totally involved in the salvation of every single person that is saved. It wasn't left up to human will (or all would be in hell), but he comes in by grace and saves them. So every single person that ends up believing in Jesus and is saved, God is totally and directly responsible for it. Thus, it's not up to chance, from God's perspective, but He is totally in control and saving sinners who deserve hell.

Please keep studying brother. You are in the same spot I was in. Either salvation is completely by God, or it's a cooperative effort between God and man leaving man with room to take credit for his salvation.

It can't be both.

 

[Skala]

Hupo:

Calvinism emphatically states that men are responsible to believe. So half of your argument doesn't debunk anything.

Regarding obsession: Calvinists are only obsessed with Giving God 100% of the credit for salvation as much as non-Calvinists are obsessed with not giving God 100% of the credit for salvation.

You cant' convince me that the former is wrong or unbiblical, or that the latter is right and Biblical.

 

[Fencerguy]

I'm not following your logic here. Only faith is what justifies, not service, or wisdom, etc?

if the "faith" being discussed in the verse you posted is saving faith, why is it lumped in with a bunch of other spiritual gifts that do not save the sinner? Shouldn't saving faith be separated from other spiritual gifts so someone will not think that they can be saved by, say, performing miracles or prophesying?

And? Nothing you said disproves the fact that the Apostle tells his readers that it was given to them to believe in Jesus.

The question is what God gave the believers....and this verse is clearly giving an emphasis to the stuggles of the believers whom Paul is writing to.....Look at this commentary on the passage, it shows pretty clearly that the emphasis of this passage (and verse) is about suffering, not whether saving faith is "given" to the believer.....Philippians 1 Commentary - The Appeal: In the Face of Opposition - BibleGateway.com
You are reading your own understanding into the passage...

I guess technically not, but the verse says that this repentance "leads to a knowledge of the truth", so it sounds like it leads to faith? Either way, this verse proves that God ultimately decides who repents or not, right? Not each person's will.

No, actually it doesn't.....repentence leads to a knowledge of the Truth, that most certainly does not guarantee that the person will automatically have faith in the Truth, just that--through repentence--they will come to knowledge of it.....Please don't tell me what the Bible "proves," you are doing nothing more than providing your opinion of these passages, which is obviously a fallible opinion....so refrain from words such as "proves."

How could you gather that they had the option to disobey? The verse clearly says that the reason they responded positively is because God gave them a heart to obey.

The verse does not say that God changed their hearts apart from thier own will (i.e. forcing them to repent and obey)....thus it logically follows that the option to disobey (which they did not take) was still open...

I'm sorry bro but you are just plain wrong here. As I said, you can disagree based on your theology, but not based on the Greek grammer. To explain the Greek going on here, imagine if I gave you a car, a complete car. The car is made up of various parts, like tires, a glove box, etc.
.

how do you receive the "car"? According to your theology, you have no option but to receive the "car" that God offers you...you don't participate in receiving this gift at all.....Again, refrain from using words like "just plain wrong" when we are discussing opinions and interpretations....unless you know for sure that your opinion is infallible...

It seems you would have this verse read "You are saved by grace, which is the gift, but the faith is your doing". Even though it says "It is not your doing, but a gift from God".

No, the verse says that the grace is not of yourself....you have done nothing to earn the grace......that is different than saying, "neither the grace or the faith is of yourself, it all just happens, you sit back and watch"

Bro, all this talk about free will. But can you provide even a single verse or passage that teaches that man even has a free will (In the sense that you mean it), or that salvation depends on man's will at all?

Never said salvation depended on man's will....I said that man had to accept salvation from God of his own will.....not that man did anything, but that he accepts and receives what is offered from God.
On the topic of things not in the Bible, can you give me a scripture that mentions the Trinity by name? Or any passage of scripture that uses the word "incarnation" referring to Christ's body.....

I have found zero verses in the entire Bible that attribute man's salvation to his will, but in fact there are several verses that say the exact opposite:

you have crafted a straw man here. I have never said that salvation comes from man's will; only that man has some responsibility for accepting the saving grace that God offers him....
I agree that man does nothing of himself that can merit salvation. But I believe that God works in a man's heart to cause him to long for God, and to desire salvation, and to desire to be saved by God.....That is different than saying that God does everything and that man has no participation at all.....
Here are a couple verses about what man does....
Matthew 16:27
"For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct."

Matthew 25:34-36
"Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'"

James 2:14-18
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works."

James 2:20-22
"Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works."

Colossians 2:23-24
"Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others, knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance."

Probably, but that's not a fault if the Bible doesn't even teach that man has a (libertarian) free will, is it?

James 4:17....
Here is a discussion about free will....it sums it up pretty well....
What Does the Bible Say About..Free Will?
notice how I give outside sources for my opinions

Yes we do. As I've said before, that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not man will ever make the right choice apart from grace being credited for it.

How do people who are not christians live "good" lives? I think of Ellen DeGeneres, she gives many many extravagant gifts to her audiences on her daily tc show, she is a very kind and caring person. She is also a practicing homosexual. How can Ellen DeGeneres make "right" choices (i.e. her gifts to people of useful items and large sums of money)?

So far it seems that you don't believe grace alone is to be credited for a person making the right choice, but man's will is.

interesting phrasing......I do believe man can make right choices without grace.....just that he can't be saved without grace....he must still accept the grace....and in accepting it, he is making a choice...

Brother, I agree, but I think you still are not understanding my position. My position is that the only reason we want it to begin with is because of Grace alone. Not because my will is stronger or smarter than the will of an unbeliever, or less sinful, or less blind to spiritual things.

I don't disagree that man cannot will himself saved or do anything that saves himself.......but to take your position too far is to remove any participation we have in accepting grace....