Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Received]

How would you define sin?

See this for a complex psychological/phenomenological interpretation of sin (i.e., a useful one that isn't just esoteric to itself).

Biblically, sin is whatever faith isn't (Romans 14:23, and no, the context doesn't refer exclusively to diet).

 

[Tree of Life]

See this for a complex psychological/phenomenological interpretation of sin (i.e., a useful one that isn't just esoteric to itself).

Biblically, sin is whatever faith isn't (Romans 14:23, and no, the context doesn't refer exclusively to diet).

Upon reading I gather that sin is rebellion against God. A refusal to trust and acknowledge him as God. Is this a fair summary?

 

[Received]

Upon reading I gather that sin is rebellion against God. A refusal to trust and acknowledge him as God. Is this a fair summary?

Sure! But Kierkegaard breaks sin into two categories: defiance and weakness. Even though each have a bit of the opposite in them, most people aren't evil defiant people who intentionally rebel against God with every fiber of their being; rather they're the types of people who seem to be too weak to push through with living out faith.

 

[Tree of Life]

Sure! But Kierkegaard breaks sin into two categories: defiance and weakness. Even though each have a bit of the opposite in them, most people aren't evil defiant people who intentionally rebel against God with every fiber of their being; rather they're the types of people who seem to be too weak to push through with living out faith.

I have questions about the above but I don't want to derail the conversation. So maybe from here our conversation will become two conversations.

Here's my question from the above: So there's three types of people? Those who live by faith, those who rebel against God, and those who are weak?

Continuing our conversation about the nature of sin: Why is rebellion against God a problem? Why is "salvation" from this state relevant or desirable?

 

[Received]

Loving your questions so far.

I have questions about the above but I don't want to derail the conversation. So maybe from here our conversation will become two conversations.

Here's my question from the above: So there's three types of people? Those who live by faith, those who rebel against God, and those who are weak?

I'd say it's two types of people, those who live in faith and those who live in sin, but the latter can be broken into defiance and weakness.

Continuing our conversation about the nature of sin: Why is rebellion against God a problem? Why is "salvation" from this state relevant or desirable?

From our perspective, rebellion against God is a problem in the same way that rebellion against a benevolent earthly father is a problem. We've lost our true home, our identity as this father's son or daughter. Salvation is desirable because it's the correction of this misrelationship. And it makes us happier.

 

[Tree of Life]

Loving your questions so far.



I'd say it's two types of people, those who live in faith and those who live in sin, but the latter can be broken into defiance and weakness.

What causes a person to live in faith? What causes a person to live in sin? What can end the defiance? What can strengthen the weakness?

From our perspective, rebellion against God is a problem in the same way that rebellion against a benevolent earthly father is a problem. We've lost our true home, our identity as this father's son or daughter. Salvation is desirable because it's the correction of this misrelationship. And it makes us happier.

Blessedness and misery. I agree that this is the Christian assessment. Salvation is blessedness that comes from friendship with God. This is represented today by a Spirit-filled life of faith, hope, and love. Damnation is misery that comes from sin. This is represented today by suffering and death.

How does one fall into a state of sin? On what does this salvation depend? How is this salvation applied to me?

 

[bhsmte]

Loving your questions so far.



I'd say it's two types of people, those who live in faith and those who live in sin, but the latter can be broken into defiance and weakness.



From our perspective, rebellion against God is a problem in the same way that rebellion against a benevolent earthly father is a problem. We've lost our true home, our identity as this father's son or daughter. Salvation is desirable because it's the correction of this misrelationship. And it makes us happier.

Since I consider myself an atheist towards personal Gods, that would mean I am living in sin according to you, correct?

Tell me, what exactly does it mean to live in sin? If you knew a person for a period of time and never discussed faith beliefs, would you be able to tell if they were living in sin?

 

[Received]

What causes a person to live in faith? What causes a person to live in sin? What can end the defiance? What can strengthen the weakness?

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. This isn't the written word only, but the incorporeal word, Christ as Logos, which breaks down practically as the commands of our conscience. This means that anyone can live in faith, but the reason for being a Christian is you correctly name that commandment collection in your conscience as Christ, and so you're able to have continuity with faith; if you don't value your conscience as that through which you're saved, you're much less likely to take it seriously. Ultimately faith is freedom: the hard freedom of the will required to become who you are. Sin is the easy way, the letting pass of what you know to do, with rationalizations coming later. Nothing causes a person to live in faith or sin; that is the requirement of freedom. What ends the defiance and weakness is faith, given that both are sin. Faith cures sin like sunlight cures darkness.

Blessedness and misery. I agree that this is the Christian assessment. Salvation is blessedness that comes from friendship with God. This is represented today by a Spirit-filled life of faith, hope, and love. Damnation is misery that comes from sin. This is represented today by suffering and death.

How does one fall into a state of sin? On what does this salvation depend? How is this salvation applied to me?

One falls into a state of sin by losing the narrow path by the infinite distractions brought on by the broad one. I'm following the will of God, usually preconsciously, and feel the contentment that comes with it, watering the fruits of the spirit by doing so. Then a work worry comes about, and two days later I'm still lost in my dread, contentment gone, fruits withering up (but still present). The salvation is applied to you particularly and concretely depending on the specific commandments or direction God has for you at this moment. Which hopefully involves writing this post. By fulfilling these commandments you become who you are, which is who God has made you to be. But God can't make you be something without your consent.

BTW, apropos Calvinism and grace, I would say (Kierkegaard leading the way) that salvation is always given by grace, given that we're incapable of providing a direction for ourselves by ourselves. It just isn't irresistible grace, given that we need in every moment to choose the command given by grace.

 

[Tree of Life]

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. This isn't the written word only, but the incorporeal word, Christ as Logos, which breaks down practically as the commands of our conscience. This means that anyone can live in faith, but the reason for being a Christian is you correctly name that commandment collection in your conscience as Christ, and so you're able to have continuity with faith; if you don't value your conscience as that through which you're saved, you're much less likely to take it seriously. Ultimately faith is freedom: the hard freedom of the will required to become who you are. Sin is the easy way, the letting pass of what you know to do, with rationalizations coming later. Nothing causes a person to live in faith or sin; that is the requirement of freedom. What ends the defiance and weakness is faith, given that both are sin. Faith cures sin like sunlight cures darkness.







One falls into a state of sin by losing the narrow path by the infinite distractions brought on by the broad one. I'm following the will of God, usually preconsciously, and feel the contentment that comes with it, watering the fruits of the spirit by doing so. Then a work worry comes about, and two days later I'm still lost in my dread, contentment gone, fruits withering up (but still present). The salvation is applied to you particularly and concretely depending on the specific commandments or direction God has for you at this moment. Which hopefully involves writing this post. By fulfilling these commandments you become who you are, which is who God has made you to be. But God can't make you be something without your consent.

BTW, apropos Calvinism and grace, I would say (Kierkegaard leading the way) that salvation is always given by grace, given that we're incapable of providing a direction for ourselves by ourselves. It just isn't irresistible grace, given that we need in every moment to choose the command given by grace.

All interesting. I'm going to try to boil it down. So the word that we must hear is the commands of God. These commands come through the law or through the conscience. Faith is obedience to these commands. Sin is disobedience to these commands. The difference between faith and sin is hearing and willpower. If someone is living in sin it's because they're not hearing or because they're hearing and intentionally rebelling, or hearing and too weak to respond with obedience.

This seems to me to be the antithesis of the gospel. You're teaching obedience to the law by willpower. If you obey you'll be blessed. If you disobey you'll be cursed. This was the message of the Pharisees. But somehow you have a universalist twist. Apparently everyone will eventually get their act together and obey.

The gospel on the other hand teaches that all have rebelled against God and disobeyed because of unbelief - a denial of the Lord's benevolence and goodness. This rebellion is an assault on God's majesty and on his creation. Rebellion against God results in injustice in the world. And the Lord, as a defender of the weak, is terribly angry against injustice and unbelief. He will surely call it to account and punish it.

Only a demonstration of God's love can cure unbelief. This love has been demonstrated in the cross of Christ. While we were weak Christ died for the ungodly - becoming a man to represent sinful humanity and take judgment in the place of sinners so that sinners could have the blessedness of Jesus. God poured out judgment on himself so that sinners could be saved. It's this word that we need to hear in order to cure rebellion and strengthen weakness. And it's faith in Christ as our representative that we need to have in order to be saved. On our own we are all weak - unable to obey because of indwelling sin. Christ, on the other hand, is strong on our behalf. So our faith is in Christ.

The faith you're putting forward is a demonstration of our own strength and willpower apart from the grace of God. This is anti gospel. A false gospel. Don't you think?

 

[Received]

All interesting. I'm going to try to boil it down. So the word that we must hear is the commands of God. These commands come through the law or through the conscience. Faith is obedience to these commands. Sin is disobedience to these commands. The difference between faith and sin is hearing and willpower. If someone is living in sin it's because they're not hearing or because they're hearing and intentionally rebelling, or hearing and too weak to respond with obedience.

Pretty much. We also have another category not yet considered alongside faith and sin: death, which is the consequence of sin. Death in what sense? Not physical death, spiritual death. What is spiritual death? If the spirit is that by which one relates to God (through faith or sin), then spiritual death means the spirit just isn't functioning. Kierkegaard calls this "spiritlessness", a backwater sort of regression where the self isn't even a self at all, just a floating passivity collection of atoms with no consciousness of what it needs to do as given down by God.

This seems to me to be the antithesis of the gospel. You're teaching obedience to the law by willpower. If you obey you'll be blessed. If you disobey you'll be cursed. This was the message of the Pharisees. But somehow you have a universalist twist. Apparently everyone will eventually get their act together and obey.

There's salvation by willpower, salvation by grace and willpower, and salvation solely by grace. Pelagianism, Kierkegaardianism, Calvinism. The Pharisees were more in line with the former. The point here is that you can't just live by hearing, but also by obeying: "blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:28), and, "so faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17). The implication is clear: faith by definition entails works, or else it negates itself. Faith is acquired by a command, but by itself the command doesn't save (actually, it opens up the possibility for condemnation if you don't obey), hence the need for "works". And so the question is: who does these works? If it's up to God, it's absurd for James to be condemning his readers for not following through! Therefore, it's logically about human freedom. Faith is the command (given by God through grace) followed through (works by man). The fallacy of Calvinism, IMHO, is that it omits the importance of work by focusing exclusively on grace.

The universalist twist isn't directly relevant to our discussion here, but involves judgment, at which people will realize God as God and not be willing at all to say no.

The gospel on the other hand teaches that all have rebelled against God and disobeyed because of unbelief - a denial of the Lord's benevolence and goodness. This rebellion is an assault on God's majesty and on his creation. Rebellion against God results in injustice in the world. And the Lord, as a defender of the weak, is terribly angry against injustice and unbelief. He will surely call it to account and punish it.

Interestingly, you'll not find but one or two (at most) references to "belief" in nominal form in a good NT translation. Why? Because "belief" is exactly identical to "faith", which is the preferred nominal form for the verbal, "to believe". Both "to believe" and "faith" (or rarely "belief") have the same Greek morpheme, "pist". So it's not about believing in a conceptual sense at all, but about having faith, about living your life in a certain relational way (or not) with God.

The faith you're putting forward is a demonstration of our own strength and willpower apart from the grace of God. This is anti gospel. A false gospel. Don't you think?

Not at all. If anything it's the correct middle way between Pelagianism and Calvinism, between salvation by works without grace and salvation by grace without works, neither of which are Biblical, and according to your terminology would be antigospel.

 

[Tree of Life]

There's salvation by willpower, salvation by grace and willpower, and salvation solely by grace. Pelagianism, Kierkegaardianism, Calvinism. The Pharisees were more in line with the former. The point here is that you can't just live by hearing, but also by obeying: "blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:28), and, "so faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17). The implication is clear: faith by definition entails works, or else it negates itself. Faith is acquired by a command, but by itself the command doesn't save (actually, it opens up the possibility for condemnation if you don't obey), hence the need for "works". And so the question is: who does these works? If it's up to God, it's absurd for James to be condemning his readers for not following through! Therefore, it's logically about human freedom. Faith is the command (given by God through grace) followed through (works by man). The fallacy of Calvinism, IMHO, is that it omits the importance of work by focusing exclusively on grace.

I believe that you mistakenly conflate Calvinism with fideism or what we would call "easy believeism". Calvin and his ilk have a very high view of God's law and obedience to that law. Dr John Frame, probably the most preeminent Calvinist theologian, defines salvation by the law. Salvation is obedience to the law. His meaning is not that obedience to the law by willpower is what saves a person, but that a saved person grows into a state of total obedience to the law. Glorification is a state of perfect obedience that will not be achieved until after the resurrection. From a reformed perspective, true, saving faith is a faith that submits to the Lordship of Christ. But that faith has an object. It's a living and active trust in Jesus, not just as Lord but also as savior and mediator. It's a living union with Christ.

The universalist twist isn't directly relevant to our discussion here, but involves judgment, at which people will realize God as God and not be willing at all to say no.

I would like to believe that this is true but I don't think that the biblical datum allows for it. If the Holy Spirit does not illumine a person in this age, what makes you think that he will illumine a person at the time of judgment?

Interestingly, you'll not find but one or two (at most) references to "belief" in nominal form in a good NT translation. Why? Because "belief" is exactly identical to "faith", which is the preferred nominal form for the verbal, "to believe". Both "to believe" and "faith" (or rarely "belief") have the same Greek morpheme, "pist". So it's not about believing in a conceptual sense at all, but about having faith, about living your life in a certain relational way (or not) with God.

I'm well aware of this and I don't understand "belief" or "faith" in the saving sense to be merely intellectual assent to some proposition. Pistis means living trust. Obedient union. But the object of faith must be reliable. It seems to me that your understanding of faith grasps the obedience but sees no need for the reliability of Christ - the gift of Christ. His obedience. His sacrifice. His resurrection. My faith needs Christ for those things. Your faith does not seem to need Christ as savior. Maybe Christ as example or Christ as law, but not Christ as savior.

Not at all. If anything it's the correct middle way between Pelagianism and Calvinism, between salvation by works without grace and salvation by grace without works, neither of which are Biblical, and according to your terminology would be antigospel.

Calvinism does not believe in what you call a "salvation by grace without works".

 

[Received]

I believe that you mistakenly conflate Calvinism with fideism or what we would call "easy believeism". Calvin and his ilk have a very high view of God's law and obedience to that law. Dr John Frame, probably the most preeminent Calvinist theologian, defines salvation by the law. Salvation is obedience to the law. His meaning is not that obedience to the law by willpower is what saves a person, but that a saved person grows into a state of total obedience to the law. Glorification is a state of perfect obedience that will not be achieved until after the resurrection. From a reformed perspective, true, saving faith is a faith that submits to the Lordship of Christ. But that faith has an object. It's a living and active trust in Jesus, not just as Lord but also as savior and mediator. It's a living union with Christ.

Fideism is the philosophical position that you can't prove God. And Calvin is arguably much different than the Calvinists who followed him; many a Wesleyan I've talked to rave over the Institutes.

And I don't think salvation is fulfilling the law; the law is the course of righteousness, but not the source of righteousness. Which makes the law a sort of Virtue Ethics, Aristotelean sort of thing, which fleshes out how a person should look and act *if* they were to follow God through faith. Salvation in this sense isn't fulfilling the law, because the law is impersonal, abstract; salvation is relating to God through faith, which brings with it the changes the law delineates, and if you claim to have faith but your life is such that it contradicts the law, you're doing something wrong. That's the incredibly and indispensable value of the law, in my view.

I would like to believe that this is true but I don't think that the biblical datum allows for it. If the Holy Spirit does not illumine a person in this age, what makes you think that he will illumine a person at the time of judgment?

Because the judgment burns away all the stuff that isn't the foundation in Christ, the implication being that there is something in each and every one of us that is "saveable". Judgment simply unveils this part and kicks off the rest.

I'm well aware of this and I don't understand "belief" or "faith" in the saving sense to be merely intellectual assent to some proposition. Pistis means living trust. Obedient union. But the object of faith must be reliable. It seems to me that your understanding of faith grasps the obedience but sees no need for the reliability of Christ - the gift of Christ. His obedience. His sacrifice. His resurrection. My faith needs Christ for those things. Your faith does not seem to need Christ as savior. Maybe Christ as example or Christ as law, but not Christ as savior.

Christ as logos doesn't annul the value of Christ as historical figure. The fault of the church has been in idealizing the historical Christ and forgetting the incorporeal, Logos Christ. His obedience, sacrifice, and resurrection paint the epistemic way for how a person should live; hence Kierkegaard calls Christ the "paragon". Christ as savior probably means Logos as savior, which necessarily involves accepting certain propositions (here's the epistemic part) about him, particularly his historical existence. For me it all goes together fine.

Calvinism does not believe in what you call a "salvation by grace without works".

So what's your perspective on my exegesis of James 2, then? I've yet to find a Calvinist who takes that verse seriously without contradicting the meaning of the context or his own theology (usually the former).

 

[Tree of Life]

So what's your perspective on my exegesis of James 2, then? I've yet to find a Calvinist who takes that verse seriously without contradicting the meaning of the context or his own theology (usually the former).

James is concerned with defining saving faith. He asks: "what good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works (obedience to the law)? Can that faith save him?"

According to James (and Paul, Jesus, and the other apostles) true faith is obedient faith. If someone says: "Jesus is Lord and savior" but does not live a life in line with that confession then his confession is invalidated. He doesn't truly believe. He only says that he believes.

It's not a difference between intellectual faith and active faith. It's a difference between a false profession of faith and a true profession of faith.

 

[Received]

James is concerned with defining saving faith. He asks: "what good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works (obedience to the law)? Can that faith save him?"

According to James (and Paul, Jesus, and the other apostles) true faith is obedient faith. If someone says: "Jesus is Lord and savior" but does not live a life in line with that confession then his confession is invalidated. He doesn't truly believe. He only says that he believes.

It's not a difference between intellectual faith and active faith. It's a difference between a false profession of faith and a true profession of faith.

And to me he's saying that faith by itself isn't faith at all, given that it doesn't involve works. Hence faith without works is dead. So the question becomes, for any moment of faith (which invites the possibility of sin or salvation), is man or God responsible for works? If God is responsible, this fits with Calvinism (man isn't working out his own salvation), but the major problem here is that James is putting the responsibility on his listeners to work out their faith, not God. So this leaves the alternative: if man is responsible, then Calvinism can't be the case, given that Calvinism, jiving with irresistible grace unto salvation, by definition precludes the very idea of working out faith unto salvation.

 

[Tree of Life]

And to me he's saying that faith by itself isn't faith at all, given that it doesn't involve works. Hence faith without works is dead. So the question becomes, for any moment of faith (which invites the possibility of sin or salvation), is man or God responsible for works? If God is responsible, this fits with Calvinism (man isn't working out his own salvation), but the major problem here is that James is putting the responsibility on his listeners to work out their faith, not God. So this leaves the alternative: if man is responsible, then Calvinism can't be the case, given that Calvinism, jiving with irresistible grace unto salvation, by definition precludes the very idea of working out faith unto salvation.

For Paul (and Calvin) it's both.

Philippians 2:12-13 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

1 Corinthians 15:10 - But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

 

[Received]

For Paul (and Calvin) it's both.

Philippians 2:12-13 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

1 Corinthians 15:10 - But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

It logically can't be both. It must either be the case that salvation involves faith (given by God) which is actualized by man (works), or that both faith and works are given by God (leading to the contradiction mentioned above).

So with Philippians "working out your salvation" means working out the glimmer given by God through grace, which is called faith. It's as if people have this commandment or light within them that is given by God completely against their will, and it's what people do with this light that determines sin or salvation. With 1 Corinthians, I think Paul is hitting a Kierkegaardian vein perfectly: by the grace of God I have a sense of my ideal self (or those actions that God gives me through grace), and as such I am capable of being who I am. This grace (here probably meaning the Logos, command, or light) is the necessary cause which overhauls any sufficient causes (works) in getting credit for things. Just like if I were to give you a rope while you're drowning, I and the rope both get credit even if you worked your tail off to stave off death.

 

[Received]

Since I consider myself an atheist towards personal Gods, that would mean I am living in sin according to you, correct?

No, not by definition and all the time. I see it as a continuum. Given that sin and faith are preconceptual sorts of things, ascertained through conscience (go do this, go do that), it follows that one doesn't have to epistemically buy Christianity or even theism in order to not living in sin constantly. A person like Chomsky, an atheist, is vastly less sinful than someone like, I don't know, Jonathon Edwards, who was a Christian with absurdly bad theology (and therefore likely a bad inner life), given that Chomsky is just a righteous dude with his fearless fighting for what is right politically, all the stuff Christians and Jews are supposed to be doing as illustrated in literally thousands of verses in the Bible. But I don't see it as possible at all to really have a continuous sort of faith, or non-sinning, without seeing conscience as a God-filled sort of thing. If I were an atheist, I'd follow conscience when I clearly got how it could help things, and ignore it when I didn't really get it. It's when things aren't entirely clear when following conscience involves a higher level of faith.

Tell me, what exactly does it mean to live in sin? If you knew a person for a period of time and never discussed faith beliefs, would you be able to tell if they were living in sin?

Subtle answer: to live in sin means having a sense of God which has its cash value as commandments mediated by your conscience, which you're usually aware of in a preconscious rather than conscious sort of way; indeed, we're usually aware of conscience the most when we're most reluctant to follow through with it. But for many, perhaps most (especially these days, when nobody has inwardness, partly because death has become an imaginary thing with very little stinging power), the problem isn't sinfulness, because sin presupposes ascertaining how one should act via conscience. The problem these days is spiritlessness, or spiritual death, or not even being aware of conscience as a thing to be taken seriously. That's the problem of passivity and consumerism and sensationalism we're seeing run amuck now, unfortunately way too much in Christian churches, despite their adherence to the "right ideas" about God.

Faith in Biblical times was decidedly not conceptual, and most certainly it wasn't so during the Old Testament, where concepts of atheism didn't even exist. Hence, "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Psalm 14:1) means that the fool acts in certain ways that imply that God doesn't exist, which is to say: he disregards conscience, which is, again, preconceptual in bringing God to us. One theologians whose name I've forgotten speaks more correctly (IMO) of practical atheism, which is along these lines.

 

[Received]

C'mon, Tree of Life, I can't let you off that easily.

 

[Tree of Life]

It logically can't be both. It must either be the case that salvation involves faith (given by God) which is actualized by man (works), or that both faith and works are given by God (leading to the contradiction mentioned above).

So with Philippians "working out your salvation" means working out the glimmer given by God through grace, which is called faith. It's as if people have this commandment or light within them that is given by God completely against their will, and it's what people do with this light that determines sin or salvation. With 1 Corinthians, I think Paul is hitting a Kierkegaardian vein perfectly: by the grace of God I have a sense of my ideal self (or those actions that God gives me through grace), and as such I am capable of being who I am. This grace (here probably meaning the Logos, command, or light) is the necessary cause which overhauls any sufficient causes (works) in getting credit for things. Just like if I were to give you a rope while you're drowning, I and the rope both get credit even if you worked your tail off to stave off death.

God, by his grace, works in a person to motivate them to obey. The person does indeed obey of their own free will, but this will is strengthened and enabled by the grace of God. Apart from God's grace man would never choose God. So it's both. God gives grace that empowers man to obey. Man obeys thanks to the grace of God. Who gets the glory for man's obedience? It can only be God. Yes man is responsible for his obedience but God is the one who brought it about and on whom it depends.

 

[Received]

God, by his grace, works in a person to motivate them to obey. The person does indeed obey of their own free will, but this will is strengthened and enabled by the grace of God. Apart from God's grace man would never choose God. So it's both. God gives grace that empowers man to obey. Man obeys thanks to the grace of God. Who gets the glory for man's obedience? It can only be God. Yes man is responsible for his obedience but God is the one who brought it about and on whom it depends.

I'm seeing two main premises here:

1) God motivates a person to be saved but doesn't override their will, and just makes it easier.
2) Without God's grace man would never choose God.

So the conclusion here is that either grace is resistible, in that it makes choosing easier, which means you're not down with Calvinism; or that grace is irresistible (good so far), without which man would never choose God, in which case he isn't free to accept or reject him. I'm only responsible for something I'm free to accept or reject, not something I can't help but do or something I'm forced to do.