Age of Accountability

[Fencerguy]

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.

Nope, you've missed my point...........people are all equally fallen and equally wretched and hopeless.......but we all have the same two options: accept Christ or not. Not everyone accepts Christ, despite all of God's urgings and guidance.....no one is better able or more inclined to acccept Christ....the choice is the same regardless of who you are....

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.

Then if its all up to God, why doesn't he actually save all of man? The Bible clearly says that He wants to....
2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance"
notice how it says God wants everyone saved.....not that He saves everyone.....

Can you show me where, in the Bible, it teaches that God merely woos or persuades?

see above...

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?

If man does not accept God's offer of grace, then God has not failed....He has sovereignly allowed that person to not choose Him....

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.

It is mind boggling to me that you have this view of God that clearly defies his character as a Loving God.....A truly loving God would not allow anyone to perish if there was truly no participation by the person in salvation and it was all up to Him...
In my view, God is totally loving, because He offers the same grace to all people, and gives them the option to either accept that grace or reject it. God "makes sure" that all people are saved, provided that they accept the grace that He has offered to them.....

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.

Dude, your view requires that man has no free will....
Suppose that you have four children; how would you feel if God revealed His mind to you that only two of your children were elect, and that there was absolutely nothing that they, or you, or anyone else could to to change that. No amount of church or sunday school or prayer or dedication would change the fact that two of your children simply aren't elect.....How is God being loving there?
Whereas; in my view God wants to save all of your children... He offers all of them Grace that they don't deserve to save them from an eternal punishment that they do deserve. He gives them people (you, teachers, pastors, friends), events (coincidences, near-death experiences, spiritual experience), and the mind (created in His own image) to know that He is the way for them to be saved. All your children have to do is accept the Grace that God has offered to them and encouraged them to take.....Only two of your children become saved....How is God cruel here? He gave all of them the same opportunities to accept His grace and become saved, but only two actually accepted it......they chose not to accept God, and they were then responsible for all of their actions and sinful deeds...

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

Man chose his fate......was Adam "saved"? Did adam not choose to sin against God? Why are we thus unable to choose God if we are clearly able to choose sin?
Man can choose God because God makes Himself known to Man....Not that God saves man without any of man's participation, but that God shows man that he needs to be saved, to accept God...

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

Jesus also says "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." ("Matthew 11:28)
The Father must show us the way to Christ, but He does not force along that way.....he shows us the way, encourages us to take the way, but does not force us to take it...

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.

It is not one or the other.........Man and God cooperate to bring the natural man to saving knowledge of God....It is both, it has to be both....or else we are just lemmings going wherever God forces us to go......We are not R/C cars....we are thinking beings that God desires to have a relationship with, not control....

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?

Here is a link that discusses this question well, better words than I can form at the moment....What If They Never Heard if Jesus?

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.

Except that God is the ultimate salvation for people......Jesus did one thing, He died on the cross and rose again.....All that is left is for people to accept the grace that Jesus merited on the cross....To say that God leaves this up to chance is a straw man created because you cannot accurately answer my argument

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.

totally responsible, ok....directly responsible, not so much........You still have the glaring problem of how a God who obviously wants to save everyone (2 Peter 3:9) doesn't.......why not? That makes God either not all powerful (he can't save everyone) or Cruel and dishonest (he doesn't actually want to save everyone)

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.

Which is interesting how you have changed your comparison here...........all of your suggestions of what my position is are that its either all God or all man........Now you are saying that its all God and affirming that man has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.....which is counter to scripture.....
It is a cooperation; man can only cooperate/participate because God has shown him how (I am the Way...)

 

[Hupomone10]

Trying to catch up. I’ve been spending too much time arguing with the Village Atheists on creation/evolution forum.

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....

(will comment below)

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....

(will comment below)

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?

We are told that we cannot believe. We are also told that we need our spiritual eyes opened and that there is a problem with our will.

Scripture tells us plainly, no ambiguous language or questionable passages, that God opens the spiritual eyes, illumines man to see his sin and his need of the Savior. This happens before salvation. Scripture tells us plainly, no ambiguous passages that the will is in bondage to sin and needs God’s intervention to be free (Romans 7:18). This happens at salvation.

However, we notice a difference in the way these three are dealt with by Scripture in general, and by Jesus in particular.

Illumination, opening the eyes: although we need our eyes opened, we do not find an abundance of passages exhorting us to “open our own eyes.”

The will: although we need our will freed from bondage to sin, we do not find an abundance of passages exhorting us to “free your will.”

Faith, believing: although we are told we can’t believe unless faith is given to us by God, we do find an abundance of passages exhorting us to “believe in Me.”

I know you see the difference. Those that don’t are simply clouded by the filter of their thelogical system. Pre-adopted theological presuppositions can be a great hindrance to our truly seeing what scripture is inductively teaching in context. This is true of everyone, including me. But I do notice the difference with which these three things are addressed by Christ.

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...

This was in response to:

Originally Posted by Skala
“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”

This seems to be a common reaction by 5-point Calvinists to any suggestion that man participates by his response of faith in salvation, and has a responsibility to do so. No matter how many times you tell them that never have you known someone who fled for refuge to the cross of Christ, who stopped trusting in Self and relied totally on Christ and His finished work, to claim credit for their salvation because they trusted Christ or boast in their faith, because of what they’ve constantly been told they THINK the other person boasts and claims credit. IOW, they are ready to tell you that you do, regardless of your word to them that you don’t. This is what happens when your trust becomes stronger in a theological system than it is in the Word and when eisegesis based on doctrinal systems becomes more important than exegesis of Scripture itself.

It is truly an example of erecting a Straw Man, telling you in spite of your words to the contrary that you are the Straw man, then tearing it down.

If we have nothing to do with our salvation whatsoever, why does the Bible say things like this?

So that only 5-point Calvinists will be able to decipher it.

Same as all the passages used to try to show we can lose eternal life, so that only Arminians can decipher them.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Fencerguy]

We are told that we cannot believe. We are also told that we need our spiritual eyes opened and that there is a problem with our will.

not even that there is a problem with out will, but that our will will never even consider that God is a good choice....

Scripture tells us plainly, no ambiguous language or questionable passages, that God opens the spiritual eyes, illumines man to see his sin and his need of the Savior. This happens before salvation. Scripture tells us plainly, no ambiguous passages that the will is in bondage to sin and needs God’s intervention to be free (Romans 7:18). This happens at salvation.

Illumination, opening the eyes: although we need our eyes opened, we do not find an abundance of passages exhorting us to “open our own eyes.”

we need our eyes opened.....but where does scripture say that we need God to choose Jesus for us?

Faith, believing: although we are told we can’t believe unless faith is given to us by God, we do find an abundance of passages exhorting us to “believe in Me.”

suggesting that, rather than being incapable of faith in anything, we become a new creation with a faith that can endure and grow like no other type of faith in the rest of human existence...

This seems to be a common reaction by 5-point Calvinists to any suggestion that man participates by his response of faith in salvation, and has a responsibility to do so. No matter how many times you tell them that never have you known someone who fled for refuge to the cross of Christ, who stopped trusting in Self and relied totally on Christ and His finished work, to claim credit for their salvation because they trusted Christ or boast in their faith, because of what they’ve constantly been told they THINK the other person boasts and claims credit. IOW, they are ready to tell you that you do, regardless of your word to them that you don’t. This is what happens when your trust becomes stronger in a theological system than it is in the Word and when eisegesis based on doctrinal systems becomes more important than exegesis of Scripture itself.

Same as all the passages used to try to show we can lose eternal life, so that only Arminians can decipher them.

careful we have talked about this some......

 

[Hupomone10]

The Christian that learns that along with the body fallen and the spirit dead, his mind is fallen as well, AND that just because his spirit is regenerated doesn't mean that God opens up his head and pours a new mind into it, he will be ready to make great strides in the Christian life and against all adversaries.

This means it takes RENEWING of the mind to think God's thoughts and discern His teaching. The mind of man, entrenched with faulty thinking reinforced through years of depending on his own thinking and resources, is not formatted and programmed with God's concepts and responses to life's situations. It is incredibly entrenched with its own thinking and beliefs, reinforced hundreds and hundreds of times.

The spirit is regenerated, but the mind must be renewed through a process throughout this life. We either cooperate with this or we don't. But it explains why we see such different things from the same scripture passages. We get things from Scripture partly because of the filters we have over our proverbial "eyes" going into it. The process of growth and renewal of the mind is God's process of removing these filters.

Scripture calls this knowing the Old Man is crucified with Christ, the New Man reckoning the Old Man dead, and then the New Man by the power of the Spirit putting to death the deeds (and thoughts) of the flesh.

If we follow God's process, we will arrive at the truth. If we follow the flesh, even the good sanctified cleaned up flesh, we will stay in fleshly thinking.

The ability to believe in something is a function of the mind. That's why we grow in faith. God doesn't open up your head and put a new mind in there, and He doesn't open up your head and place faith in there that wasn't there before. Your faith is your ability to believe in anything, a function of being a creature made in the image of God, just like your ability to will something. You cannot will to do God's will apart from the work of the Cross, but you can will to read the Word which will open up to you this way of the Cross and give the Holy Spirit what He needs to work - God's truth. You cannot properly believe something you don't see; the Holy Spirit opens the eyes and removes the blinders, then this inherent ability to believe in something, just like your inherent ability to will something, is freed and may believe in Christ just as the New Man may will to do God's will.

God bless,
H.

 

[AndOne]

It IS up to God to change our hearts.

 

[Fencerguy]

It IS up to God to change our hearts.

How do you mean that? God does not save us unilaterally as though there is no participation on our part

 

[Hupomone10]

It IS up to God to change our hearts.

How do you mean that? God does not save us unilaterally as though there is no participation on our part

Some people believe that the Israelites sat in their houses and God went around painting the passover blood on the doorposts, and that the Israelites sat on the shore of the Red Sea in their chairs and God wheeled them across the dry sea bed to the other side; because if they had participated by putting the blood on the doorposts themselves or if they went across the sea bed themselves, they would have something to boast about. Or so I'm told regarding the salvation of which these things are pictures.

Having said that, we still cannot change our own hearts. It is once again a participation thing. As I understand it, the heart is the part where man's spirit meets his soul, or his mind, will,and emotions. Some believe it is a mixture of the emotions and will. I go with the former, because everyone who is truly converted has a changed or new heart for the Lord. He thinks differently toward God than he did before. Our spirit is regenerated at salvation and in that sense it is a new spirit, united with the Holy Spirit. Yet we do not get a new mind. So there is a part or sense in which the heart is new, being the union point of the spirit; and there is also a part or sense in which it is renewed by the man's participation, being the union point of the mind. So, once again whether we see it or not, I believe it is a new heart given to us by God and also a participation thing where the person is called to respond in faith moment by moment.

Sincerely,
H.

 

[Hammster]

How do you mean that? God does not save us unilaterally as though there is no participation on our part

There is as much participation in the second birth as there is in the first. All we do is respond to what's been done.

 

[Hammster]

Some people believe that the Israelites sat in their houses and God went around painting the passover blood on the doorposts, and that the Israelites sat on the shore of the Red Sea in their chairs and God wheeled them across the dry sea bed to the other side; because if they had participated by putting the blood on the doorposts themselves or if they went across the sea bed themselves, they would have something to boast about. Or so I'm told regarding the salvation of which these things are pictures.

Having said that, we still cannot change our own hearts. It is once again a participation thing. As I understand it, the heart is the part where man's spirit meets his soul, or his mind, will,and emotions. Some believe it is a mixture of the emotions and will. I go with the former, because everyone who is truly converted has a changed or new heart for the Lord. He thinks differently toward God than he did before. Our spirit is regenerated at salvation and in that sense it is a new spirit, united with the Holy Spirit. Yet we do not get a new mind. So there is a part or sense in which the heart is new, being the union point of the spirit; and there is also a part or sense in which it is renewed by the man's participation, being the union point of the mind. So, once again whether we see it or not, I believe it is a new heart given to us by God and also a participation thing where the person is called to respond in faith moment by moment.

Sincerely,
H.

You sure do like your straw men, don't you?

 

[AndOne]

How do you mean that? God does not save us unilaterally as though there is no participation on our part

I mean that anything you do to contribute to your own salvation is worthless. And that includes belief. You can't believe until God makes it possible.

 

[Fencerguy]

You sure do like your straw men, don't you?

Why don't you explain to us (with some authoritative sources) why this is a straw man?

There is as much participation in the second birth as there is in the first. All we do is respond to what's been done.

How then do you know you are oje of the ones that God has elected?

I mean that anything you do to contribute to your own salvation is worthless. And that includes belief. You can't believe until God makes it possible.

How do you explain all of the people who believe in other religions? Or how do you explain people who believe in Christ from another tradition? Has God caused everyone to believe regardless of their denominational preference? And if you do absolutely nothing to cooperate in the salvation process, how do you know that you are saved? Do you have any assurance at all?

 

[AndOne]

How do you explain all of the people who believe in other religions? Or how do you explain people who believe in Christ from another tradition? Has God caused everyone to believe regardless of their denominational preference? And if you do absolutely nothing to cooperate in the salvation process, how do you know that you are saved? Do you have any assurance at all?

The people who "believe" in other religions have not been regenerated. They believe a lie because the human heart loves wickedness and not the truth.

I embrace any Christian - regardless of their theological persuasion as a brother or sister in Christ. If they believe in and love Jesus and trust in HIM alone for salvation it is because God has enabled them to be able to do so - regardless of denomination.

My assurance is in Christ alone and what HE has done - not in anything that I have done. I'm a sinner and I have no power unto salvation - it is by HIS grace alone that saves. If I cooperated in any way in my salvation at all - I would have no assurance - ever.

 

[Fencerguy]

I embrace any Christian - regardless of their theological persuasion as a brother or sister in Christ. If they believe in and love Jesus and trust in HIM alone for salvation it is because God has enabled them to be able to do so - regardless of denomination.

What about the Christians who believe that salvation is a product of the cooperation of God and Man... God offers saving grace to the man and the man accepts God's offer of grace, and the man's faith is subsequently justified by works that demonstrate it......Would you embrace that Christian as well

My assurance is in Christ alone and what HE has done - it is by HIS grace alone that saves. If I cooperated in any way in my salvation at all - I would have no assurance - ever.

So......what actual assurance do you have? How do you know that God elected you?

I have discovered that there seems to be greater assurance when the individual has a responsibility to live a holy life, and that his salvation is something that God requires him to maintain....God gives man the tools to maintain his faith, and God will never abandon man forcing him to rely on his own efforts; but God does require that man maintain his faith (and thus, his salvation)....

 

[AndOne]

What about the Christians who believe that salvation is a product of the cooperation of God and Man... God offers saving grace to the man and the man accepts God's offer of grace, and the man's faith is subsequently justified by works that demonstrate it......Would you embrace that Christian as well

No

So......what actual assurance do you have? How do you know that God elected you?

I have faith and I believe the Bible.

I have discovered that there seems to be greater assurance when the individual has a responsibility to live a holy life, and that his salvation is something that God requires him to maintain....God gives man the tools to maintain his faith, and God will never abandon man forcing him to rely on his own efforts; but God does require that man maintain his faith (and thus, his salvation)....

I have discovered that a holy life lived out of gratitude is more productive than a holy life lived in order to gain merit.

 

[Fencerguy]

No

interesting.....so there are people that you see who are not saved, but most likely think they are?

I have faith and I believe the Bible.

how does that give you assurance?

I have discovered that a holy life lived out of gratitude is more productive than a holy life lived in order to gain merit.

Never said that it was to "gain merit..." man cannot gain merit...But Scripture supports the idea that man has a responsibility to maintain his faith and his salvation

 

[AndOne]

interesting.....so there are people that you see who are not saved, but most likely think they are?

Yes - bunches and bunches. The dividing line is faith in Christ alone for salvation.

how does that give you assurance?

Because I believe the Bible. If you don't buy it - say so and lets move on.

Never said that it was to "gain merit..." man cannot gain merit...But Scripture supports the idea that man has a responsibility to maintain his faith and his salvation

Scripture actually teaches that it is impossible for man to maintain his faith and salvation. Also - if you have a responsibility to maintain salvation - it's not grace but works. Living like this is living to gain favor and YES merit with God. No one will be able to boast before the Lord that he somehow contributed to his own salvation.

 

[Hammster]

Why don't you explain to us (with some authoritative sources) why this is a straw man?

Why don't you drop the "authoritative sources" comments until everything YOU post contains them? And if you knew anything about Calvinism "which H does, you would know why it's a straw man.

 

[Hammster]

How then do you know you are oje of the ones that God has elected?

Because my faith has been counted as righteousness. How about you?

 

[Skala]

@Fencer, sorry for being gone so long my friend.

Seeing as how our conversation has split off into like a million different topics, and it is becoming strenuous to respond to every single sentence, one at a time, do you mind if I try to lay out the important issues, as I see them?

First, let's talk about the Bible, as that's probably the most important

I said I can't find free will in the Bible (the way Arminians mean free will - Libertarian Free Will)
You responded by saying we cant' find the Trinity in the Bible either, for example.

My response is: But there are verses that are used to demonstrate the Trinity. There are verses that prove that Jesus, the HS, and the Father are all God, and all exist simultaneously, but that there is still only 1 God.

However, there are no verses that describe human libertarian free will.

Please understand, the following are not proofs of Libertarian free will

1) The Bible holds men responsible for their actions, and holds them accountable for believing
2) The Bible urges, commands, beckons men to choose Christ, to believe in Christ, etc
3) The Bible blames men for their unbelief

All of those are things I believe in.

So let me tie this argument with my next argument so you can see what I'm saying.

Perhaps a good word for what we are discussing is conversion.

I'm defining conversion as follows: when a man moves from a state of unwillingness to embrace Christ to a state of willingness to embrace Christ.

In my view, God's grace alone is directly responsible for conversion. That is, it is God's grace that is to be credited for the fact that a man is willing to embrace Christ. (That he is willing to believe, willing to repent, willing to trust, etc)

In your view, what is credited for mans' conversion? If man A is willing to believe and man B is unwilling, what can be credited for man A's willingness? From what you've been typing so far, man A's will is what is credited for his willingness. He simply made himself willing. So he converted himself.

He converted himself, or he at least prepared himself for conversion.

In your view, based on what you've been saying to me, God's grace alone cannot be credited, cannot be what made the difference between man A and man B, because both men had equal prevenient grace (Grace that allows men to make a choice).

Since both men had the same grace, grace cannot be what made the difference between man A and man B.

So in your view, what made the difference?

I answer by saying man A must have had some better qualities. He was more humble, less blind to spiritual things, more smart, more spiritual, etc. He used his better qualities to get his will to become willing.

Man B must have lacked these qualities, or he would have also became willing to believe.

So man A's salvation is ultimately dependent on himself, not on God's grace.

But in my view, man A's salvation is ultimately depending on God's grace. It is God's grace that is credited for man A's willingness.

That is the issue as I see it. Can you please explain your view to me, if this is incorrect?

The next thing I want to address is your use of 2 Peter 3:9. This verse is constantly plucked from its context brother. If you read the verse in its setting, and don't pluck it away from the surrounding text, it says something quite different than what it appears to say when in isolation.

2 peter 3:9 says "God is patient towards YOU, not willing that any perish.."

Who, grammatically, is the "you"?

Well, the prior 8 verses answer the question:


2Pe 3:1-8
(1) This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
(2) that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,
(3) knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.
(4) They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."
(5) For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
(6) and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
(7) But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
(8) But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(9) The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

It is the beloved that God is patient towards, not willing that they perish. It is "those to whom Peter is writing his second letter" that God is patient towards. The "you" is not "every single individual in human history", grammatically.

Who did Peter write both letters to? He tells us himself:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Or as the NIV words it: "To God's elect...".

So the "you" is the same group of people that Peter refers to as "the elect", "the beloved", etc.

Finally, I want to leave you with an analogy, sort of. We are obviously viewing salvation differently from each other, and conversion, etc.

You are viewing salvation like this: Man is sick and needs medicine, and God offers the medicine, and then man can take it or reject it.

I am viewing salvation like this: Man is dead and needs life. God revives the man, and the man is now alive.

So you see, you keep charging my view with God "forcing" this and that onto people, but you can't force a dead man. His volition is not involved. If you poke a dead man and say "yo dude, you want to live? Make the choice!" how will he respond? He wont respond. He's dead!

The problem is the Apostle Paul describes salvation the way I believe it. "You were dead, and God made you alive..by grace you have been saved". (Eph 2)

So, obviously, the major point of distinction between us is that I believe man needs spiritual life in order to respond to God (he's dead by nature and needs to be born again) or he won't respond. And you believe man is still able to respond to spiritual stimuli. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't, but if he does, it has nothing to do with God's grace being the deciding factor.

In fact you haven't even told me what the deciding factor is, in your view. So what is it?

To reiterate: What we are not debating is whether man is held responsible for his unbelief, and is commanded to believe, and that man willingly makes the choice to believe.

We are both in agreement on all of those points.

What we are debating is this: What is the cause of one man's willingness to believe when another man does not?

That's what I'm trying to find out from you. What is the decisive cause, what can be credited for the fact that you believed, but not your unbelieving neighbor? It cannot be grace because God gives the same grace to you both, according to your own statements above. So are you better, smarter, more spiritual than your neighbor? That's what I'm trying to find out.

(As for your assertion that "grace" is the "gift" in Eph 2:8-9, well, you are just plain wrong brother. I can say that with certainty because while I don't know Greek grammar, I know how to listen to those that do know. Any Greek expert will tell you that when Paul says "this is not your doing", the word "this" is pointing to the collective phrase, not any one thing in particular, thus not grace in particular, for example. The word "this" is a neuter pronoun, and grace, faith, and salvation all have genders (male/female) so it is literally impossible for that to happen. In Greek grammar a pronoun must match its antecedent in gender) )

 

[Fencerguy]

Because my faith has been counted as righteousness. How about you?

Did God Himself come down and tell you that your faith has been counted as righteousness? Because as Behe's Boy has said, there are people who have faith, but still aren't saved....

Why don't you drop the "authoritative sources" comments until everything YOU post contains them? And if you knew anything about Calvinism "which H does, you would know why it's a straw man.

So rather than provide an authoritative source, you simply turn it around and try to attack me for it? That is not refuting my argument or defending yours....

Yes - bunches and bunches. The dividing line is faith in Christ alone for salvation.

so everyone who says that they believe that Christ saved them is saved? But those who think that anything else is involved arent? Where do you derive this idea from?

Because I believe the Bible. If you don't buy it - say so and lets move on.

You do know that the Bible says men will be judged by their works right? Where in Scripture does your assurance of salvation come from?

Scripture actually teaches that it is impossible for man to maintain his faith and salvation. Also - if you have a responsibility to maintain salvation - it's not grace but works. Living like this is living to gain favor and YES merit with God. No one will be able to boast before the Lord that he somehow contributed to his own salvation.

You should read the book of James.....
"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 2:14-18