Do calvinists believe that God wills them to sin?

[MDC]

The Pelagius camp believes that you are not a sinner until you actually commit a sin, the sin of Adam was his responsibility. This has been condemned outright as heresy by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant traditions but seems to raise it's ugly head from time to time. St. Thomas Aquinas actually debated Pelagius and was very adamant in his denial of this doctrine. While I have reservations about Catholic doctrine from time to time, this isn't one of the things I have a problem with, I think they are spot on, at least in formal doctrine.

So has semi pelagianism and so has Arminianism. They all have been found to be heresy. Because both stem from pelagianism. And the root evil that pushes this debate lies at the heart of pelagianism. Those pushing this “free” will sovereignty are pushing pelagianism

 

[royal priest]

Simple question

There is an interesting piece of Scripture which I have not seen anybody point out yet, but which is very relevant to this question.

Isaiah, chapter 10. Notice, first of all, that God uses wicked Assyria and her King, in particular, as an instrument to afflict His chosen people:
"Isaiah 10:5-6, "Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,
I send it against a godless nation
And commission it against the people of My fury
To capture booty and to seize plunder,
And to trample them down like mud in the streets."

Even though they were sent by God, this does not mean they were robots. They acted freely, according to their own affection, will, and purpose. God's sovereignty over their war campaign was the furthest thing from their minds.
Isaiah 10:7, "Yet it does not so intend,
Nor does it plan so in its heart,
But rather it is its purpose to destroy
And to cut off many nations."

Notice the reason God gives as to why He is going to punish the King. He doesn't say He will punish the king for what he did. Rather, God is going to punish the king for thinking his military success was his own doing.
Isaiah 10:12, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”
For he has said,
“By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this,
For I have understanding;
And I removed the boundaries of the peoples
And plundered their treasures,
And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants..."

You don't have to abandon the doctrine of God's holy character by admitting He is sovereign over all affairs of His creation. You simply need to recognize that His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts. The rightly thinking Calvinist says God wills sin according to His sovereign purpose. But he also recognizes that what we intend for evil, God intends for good to save many people. Genesis 50:20

Consider God's own commentary on the subject:
Isaiah 10:15, "Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it?
Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it?
That would be like a club wielding those who lift it,
Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood."

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

So has semi pelagianism and so has Arminianism. They all have been found to be heresy. Because both stem from pelagianism. And the root evil that pushes this debate lies at the heart of pelagianism. Those pushing this “free” will sovereignty are pushing pelagianism

I am fairly certain that accusing other Christians of promoting heresy does not meet the forum guidelines. The ad-hominem attack is also rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding both of the 5th century of Pelagianism and the reasons many people believe that God's sovereignty is not in contradiction with God allowing men free action.

Pelagianism is an ancient heresy going back to the 5th century, started by the monk Pelagian. Ironically, his beliefs were first formed in response to many of the wrong practices and beliefs of the Catholic church - namely, that he did not believe the system of Catholic priests and the Catholic church were necessary for salvation, nor hold to Augustine's doctrine that man could only gain salvation through the church and its sacraments. Yet his views went to the extreme beyond this, to the level of claiming that man was basically good and had the ability to achieve salvation through works and the law.

The beliefs of Pelagian were systematized by his disciple Caelestius, and it is this systematized version that has come to be known as Pelagianism.

The views of Pelagianism:

1) Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. [While Adam's sin led to spiritual death, not immediate physical death, scripture heavily implies that if Adam had not sinned he could have ate of the tree of life as God had allowed, and lived forever (Gen 3:22). As such, the idea that he 'would have died' is speculation at best.]

2) The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race. [Vs. scripture which states the entire human race was punished for the sin of Adam, as well as the Earth itself (Gen 3:17-19).]

3) Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall. [While infants are as sinless as a human will ever be, this does not mean they -are- sinless or that they escape the penalty of Adam's sin. See What is original sin?.]

4) Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ the whole of men rise again. [This is perhaps the most blatantly heretical of Pelagian's beliefs. Scripture states that "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". Basically, Pelagian believed that man could, potentially, be perfectly righteous and thus achieve salvation. Yet scripture says that -no man- could achieve perfection via the law (Rom 8:3, Rom 4:13-15), and hence Christ was necessary. Only Christ was perfectly sinless and righteous. While God often called people who devoutly followed Him righteous ((Luke 1:5-6), this is not the same thing as saying that those people had achieved salvation via their own merit. Furthermore, while it is true not all men will be saved, all who have faith in Christ (or faith in the promise, such as the OT saints), will rise again.]

5) The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does. [While the law did act as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, it has no ability to save us (Gal 1:6).]

6) Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless. [Only Christ was completely sinless. Men cannot be perfect via the law (Gal 3:10-14)]

Semi-Pelagianism is a spin-off system which also had its start in the 5th century by Casseian at Marseilles as an attempted compromise between the views of Augustine and Pelagian.

The basics of semi-pelagianism are:

1) The sanctifying grace that man receives from God can be merited by human effort, unaided by grace [Contrary to the whole of the gospel, wherein salvation itself is by grace through faith].
2) The beginning of faith can be accomplished by human will alone [Contrary to scripture, wherein faith comes by hearing the gospel and by the sacrifice of Christ, not by the works or intellect of man].
3) One a man has been justified, grace is no longer needed [Contrary to scripture, as God is always at work in us, disciplining us, blessing us, strengthening us, and countless other graces. The seal of the Holy Spirit as a down-payment of our future inheritance is also an act of grace].

[Question: What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism? See Answer: What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?]

Believing that man's free will is compatible with a Sovereign God who gave them that freedom is not related to either heresy (or heresy at all.)
[Question: Is God sovereign or do we have a free will? See Answer: Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?]

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

There is an interesting piece of Scripture which I have not seen anybody point out yet, but which is very relevant to this question.

Isaiah, chapter 10. Notice, first of all, that God uses wicked Assyria and her King, in particular, as an instrument to afflict His chosen people:
"Isaiah 10:5-6, "Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,
I send it against a godless nation
And commission it against the people of My fury
To capture booty and to seize plunder,
And to trample them down like mud in the streets."

Even though they were sent by God, this does not mean they were robots. They acted freely, according to their own affection, will, and purpose. God's sovereignty over their war campaign was the furthest thing from their minds.
Isaiah 10:7, "Yet it does not so intend,
Nor does it plan so in its heart,
But rather it is its purpose to destroy
And to cut off many nations."

Notice the reason God gives as to why He is going to punish the King. He doesn't say He will punish the king for what he did. Rather, God is going to punish the king for thinking his military success was his own doing.
Isaiah 10:12, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”
For he has said,
“By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this,
For I have understanding;
And I removed the boundaries of the peoples
And plundered their treasures,
And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants..."

You don't have to abandon the doctrine of God's holy character by admitting He is sovereign over all affairs of His creation. You simply need to recognize that His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts. The rightly thinking Calvinist says God wills sin according to His sovereign purpose. But he also recognizes that what we intend for evil, God intends for good to save many people. Genesis 50:20

Consider God's own commentary on the subject:
Isaiah 10:15, "Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it?
Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it?
That would be like a club wielding those who lift it,
Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood."

No one is arguing that God isn't sovereign over all creation. The debate is as to what that means. Does it mean He micromanages every thought and decision to ensure that only His ordained will at the tiniest level of molecule and thought is carried out? Does it mean He lets people act freely on small things but still micromanages the destiny and major actions of each person? Does it mean He mostly lets people and nature operate freely within the bounds and limits He set up, but does supercede man and nature as needed to ensure His overall redemptive plan is carried out (Such as calling the nation of Israel, choosing prophets and messengers, generally guiding the rise and fall of nations, etc.?)

Does it mean God must ordain sin, or that people can sin but God has the right and power to punish them later? Does it mean God must pick the evil individual men will do, or that He governs and guides knowing the evil in men's hearts, ordaining that many evils will be turned towards His own purposes and to good, but not ordaining they take evil action? Etc.

 

[MDC]

There is an interesting piece of Scripture which I have not seen anybody point out yet, but which is very relevant to this question.

Isaiah, chapter 10. Notice, first of all, that God uses wicked Assyria and her King, in particular, as an instrument to afflict His chosen people:
"Isaiah 10:5-6, "Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,
I send it against a godless nation
And commission it against the people of My fury
To capture booty and to seize plunder,
And to trample them down like mud in the streets."

Even though they were sent by God, this does not mean they were robots. They acted freely, according to their own affection, will, and purpose. God's sovereignty over their war campaign was the furthest thing from their minds.
Isaiah 10:7, "Yet it does not so intend,
Nor does it plan so in its heart,
But rather it is its purpose to destroy
And to cut off many nations."

Notice the reason God gives as to why He is going to punish the King. He doesn't say He will punish the king for what he did. Rather, God is going to punish the king for thinking his military success was his own doing.
Isaiah 10:12, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”
For he has said,
“By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this,
For I have understanding;
And I removed the boundaries of the peoples
And plundered their treasures,
And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants..."

You don't have to abandon the doctrine of God's holy character by admitting He is sovereign over all affairs of His creation. You simply need to recognize that His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts. The rightly thinking Calvinist says God wills sin according to His sovereign purpose. But he also recognizes that what we intend for evil, God intends for good to save many people. Genesis 50:20

Consider God's own commentary on the subject:
Isaiah 10:15, "Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it?
Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it?
That would be like a club wielding those who lift it,
Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood."

I think someone has but not sure. But great post!

 

[MDC]

I am fairly certain that accusing other Christians of promoting heresy does not meet the forum guidelines. The ad-hominem attack is also rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding both of the 5th century of Pelagianism and the reasons many people believe that God's sovereignty is not in contradiction with God allowing men free action.

Pelagianism is an ancient heresy going back to the 5th century, started by the monk Pelagian. Ironically, his beliefs were first formed in response to many of the wrong practices and beliefs of the Catholic church - namely, that he did not believe the system of Catholic priests and the Catholic church were necessary for salvation, nor hold to Augustine's doctrine that man could only gain salvation through the church and its sacraments. Yet his views went to the extreme beyond this, to the level of claiming that man was basically good and had the ability to achieve salvation through works and the law.

The beliefs of Pelagian were systematized by his disciple Caelestius, and it is this systematized version that has come to be known as Pelagianism.

The views of Pelagianism:

1) Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. [While Adam's sin led to spiritual death, not immediate physical death, scripture heavily implies that if Adam had not sinned he could have ate of the tree of life as God had allowed, and lived forever (Gen 3:22). As such, the idea that he 'would have died' is speculation at best.]

2) The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race. [Vs. scripture which states the entire human race was punished for the sin of Adam, as well as the Earth itself (Gen 3:17-19).]

3) Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall. [While infants are as sinless as a human will ever be, this does not mean they -are- sinless or that they escape the penalty of Adam's sin. See What is original sin?.]

4) Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ the whole of men rise again. [This is perhaps the most blatantly heretical of Pelagian's beliefs. Scripture states that "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". Basically, Pelagian believed that man could, potentially, be perfectly righteous and thus achieve salvation. Yet scripture says that -no man- could achieve perfection via the law (Rom 8:3, Rom 4:13-15), and hence Christ was necessary. Only Christ was perfectly sinless and righteous. While God often called people who devoutly followed Him righteous ((Luke 1:5-6), this is not the same thing as saying that those people had achieved salvation via their own merit. Furthermore, while it is true not all men will be saved, all who have faith in Christ (or faith in the promise, such as the OT saints), will rise again.]

5) The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does. [While the law did act as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, it has no ability to save us (Gal 1:6).]

6) Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless. [Only Christ was completely sinless. Men cannot be perfect via the law (Gal 3:10-14)]

Semi-Pelagianism is a spin-off system which also had its start in the 5th century by Casseian at Marseilles as an attempted compromise between the views of Augustine and Pelagian.

The basics of semi-pelagianism are:

1) The sanctifying grace that man receives from God can be merited by human effort, unaided by grace [Contrary to the whole of the gospel, wherein salvation itself is by grace through faith].
2) The beginning of faith can be accomplished by human will alone [Contrary to scripture, wherein faith comes by hearing the gospel and by the sacrifice of Christ, not by the works or intellect of man].
3) One a man has been justified, grace is no longer needed [Contrary to scripture, as God is always at work in us, disciplining us, blessing us, strengthening us, and countless other graces. The seal of the Holy Spirit as a down-payment of our future inheritance is also an act of grace].

[Question: What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism? See Answer: What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?]

Believing that man's free will is compatible with a Sovereign God who gave them that freedom is not related to either heresy (or heresy at all.)
[Question: Is God sovereign or do we have a free will? See Answer: Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?]

Sure it’s related. And Arminianism is a spin off from semi pelagianism

 

[royal priest]

No one is arguing that God isn't sovereign over all creation. The debate is as to what that means. Does it mean He micromanages every thought and decision to ensure that only His ordained will at the tiniest level of molecule and thought is carried out? Does it mean He lets people act freely on small things but still micromanages the destiny and major actions of each person? Does it mean He mostly lets people and nature operate freely within the bounds and limits He set up, but does supercede man and nature as needed to ensure His overall redemptive plan is carried out (Such as calling the nation of Israel, choosing prophets and messengers, generally guiding the rise and fall of nations, etc.?)

Does it mean God must ordain sin, or that people can sin but God has the right and power to punish them later? Does it mean God must pick the evil individual men will do, or that He governs and guides knowing the evil in men's hearts, ordaining that many evils will be turned towards His own purposes and to good, but not ordaining they take evil action? Etc.

When I think of the term micromanagement, I think of the boss that sometimes compels the employee against their will which God does not.
As far as the destinies and major acts of men, the Bible is clear that we are born and raised according to His appointment Acts of the Apostles 17:26-28.
God has determined what will become of us Jeremiah 29:11
He directs our steps Proverbs 16:9
If God were not in control of our lives, then what would be the basis of our hope of salvation? Romans 8:28

God tests the hearts of men, which, if it were not for God's gracious activity in the heart, provokes man's natural inclination toward sin. Genesis 22:1; Hebrews 11:17; 2 Chronicles 32:31; 2 Samuel 24:1.

 

[mark kennedy]

Heb 12:2 tells us that Jesus Himself is the "pioneer and perfecter of faith". Pioneer is the greek 'archégos' - it means 'the first in a long procession'; the founder of a movement or a file-leader. Jesus is the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:28-30), and through Him we receive the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:13-14).

Author is an unfortunate English translation (as are translations like initiator or source), as the Greek does not have the connotations of source, creator, or maker that the English term 'author' has.

Excellent analysis but I'm concerned about your reservations concerning the use of the English term 'author', it seems appropriate:

Author: translated "Prince" in Act 3:15 (marg., "Author") and Act 5:31, but "Author" in Hbr 2:10, RV, "Captain," RV marg., and AV, and "Author" in Hbr 12:2, primarily signifies "one who takes a lead in, or provides the first occasion of, anything." In the Sept. it is used of the chief of a tribe or family, Num 13:2 (RV, prince); of the "heads" of the children of Israel, Num 13:3; a captain of the whole people, Num 14:4; in Mic 1:13, of Lachish as the leader of the sin of the daughter of Sion: there, as in Hbr 2:10, the word suggest a combination of the meaning of leader with that of the source from whence a thing proceeds. That Christ is the Prince of life signifies, as Chrysostom says, that "the life He had was not from another; the Prince or Author of life must be He who has life from Himself." But the word does not necessarily combine the idea of the source or originating cause with that of leader. In Hbr 12:2 where Christ is called the "Author and Perfecter of faith," He is represented as the one who takes precedence in faith and is thus the perfect Exemplar of it. The pronoun "our" does not correspond to anything in the original, and may well be omitted. Christ in the days of His flesh trod undeviatingly the path of faith, and as the Perfecter has brought it to a perfect end in His own person. Thus He is the leader of all others who tread that path. (G747 ἀρχηγός archēgos. Vine’s Dictionary)
​

The term seems to refer to rank, Christ being the object of faith. Christ being the Exemplar of our faith does constitute him being the source of it, thus faith being a gift. What is more you can't make the insight into who Christ is without special revelation and you certainly can't follow the faith without the revelation of the works of Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Your repentance, confession and certainly your discipleship are all under the guidance of the Spirit, why not the understanding that results in saving faith?

Faith is the firm persuasion that Jesus is who He claims, that He has the authority to forgive sins, that He did die on the cross, etc. Without Jesus, there would not be saving Faith! Faith is the assurance of what we hope for; Jesus gave us this joy when He rose from the grave, becoming the firstborn among many brethren.

"In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters" Heb 2:10-12​

With you so far, 'pioneer of their faith', certainly seems consistent with Christ being the source of faith as well as the object.

Heb 5:7-10 focuses back on the aspect of Jesus enduring great suffering in order to become the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. Here the word is not archégos, but rather 'aitios'. This term means cause or source. "Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect (finished), he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him".

Author: an adjective (cp. aitia, a cause), denotes "that which causes something." This and No. 2 are both translated "author" in Hebrews. Aitios, in Hbr 5:9, describes Christ as the "Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him," signifying that Christ, exalted and glorified as our High Priest, on the ground of His finished work on earth, has become the personal mediating cause (RV, margin) of eternal salvation. It is difficult to find an adequate English equivalent to express the meaning here. Christ is not the merely formal cause of our salvation. He is the concrete and active cause of it. He has not merely caused or effected it, He is, as His Name, "Jesus," implies, our salvation itself, Luke 2:30; 3:6. (G159, αἴτιος aitios).
​

The English term still seems appropriate whether Christ is seen as the Captain of salvation or the 'personal mediating cause'.

Salvation has its source in Christ (Rom 10:13-17), but someone cannot have faith if they never hear the Word about Christ. They must hear, and they must call upon the Lord, and then they will be saved. Again, hearing and obeying!

That does not negate personal responsibility, it requires it by right and title of Christ being the source and authority of the faith, thus author.

[Question: What does it mean that Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith?
See Answer: What does it mean that Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith?]

The discussion there is pretty good, Christ being the authority of the power to forgive us our sins, which comes to us by grace, thus the author.

Jude 3 is not speaking of individual saints each being delivered faith one time. It is speaking of the faith that was "once for all delivered" to the saints. It is this gospel message/common faith (Tit 1:4, Phil 1:7, etc.) they now spread.

Of course it does but the distinction between the individual and the body of Christ doesn't seem like a significant distinction with regards to how salvation is delivered, it is by grace through faith, even that faith being a gift.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[JoeP222w]

Man does not have autonomous free will. First of all, you do not explain yourself thoroughly with regards to what you mean by this

Autonomous meaning man does not have sovereign will. Meaning that God does not bow down to man's will.

Because if you on the one hand say man does not have free will, but then on the other hand you say he can make choices, then you contradict yourself.

That would be true if that was what I said. But that is not what I said. I did not say man does not have free will. I said that man does not have "autonomous free will". As I said, above, as if man does not answer to anyone. A creature can have a will, but his or her decisions are limited to their nature. No matter how much a man wills himself to fly to Mars without a spaceship and space suit, it will never happen, because of the limitations of his human nature (inability to live in the vacuum of space, etc).

So I did not make a hypocritical statement.

But if this is what you truly mean, then provide evidence to support your argument as you yourself have demanded of others.

That would be a Straw Man fallacy since you misunderstood me.

 

[JoeP222w]

How should we respond to that in context of the entire counsel of God?
Or maybe you can give an example?

I do not understand this comment at all.

 

[Jipsah]

Simple question

Simple answer - no.

 

[John tower]

It's because I know the Scriptures and my approach is exegetical, from there I'll simply do an exposition. The numbers of the hairs on your head in that context is don't worry about the cares of this life. That's not a private interpretation. What is more the knowledge of evil somehow being beneficial to us runs diametrically opposed to the message of Genesis 3 and the entire testimony of Scripture.

A nice rule of thumb for you John, a text without a context is a pretext. You can't just splice a couple of verses together in random fashion and make them mean whatever you like, it doesn't work that way. I have long held that the Scriptures will interpret themselves if you let them.

I think you just love to hear yourself talk : Well I have no time for it : I just listen go scripture : not the so called wisdom of man : great swelling words of vanity : because these people are usually so vain

 

[mark kennedy]

I think you just love to hear yourself talk : Well I have no time for it : I just listen go scripture : not the so called wisdom of man : great swelling words of vanity : because these people are usually so vain

You know what I hear in your posts, it's called ad hominem, and you went into the death spiral early. Nothing else, nothing Scriptural, nothing substantive, nothing else. Just a string of personal remarks, that what it boils down to, and the thing is, it's every single time.

 

[HosannaHM]

Quite easily. Jesus is talking about entering the kingdom of God, not about getting faith. We need to be born of the Spirit to enter the kingdom, but we don't need to be born of the Spirit to have faith.

I disagree. I don't think this doctrine is dismissed easily, even though I've seen that posted on this thread several times. We'll disagree about the greek interpretation because salvation belongs to the Lord. At least we agree on that

It's like Jesus' parable of the King's banquet in Matt 22. The people needed several things to be at the banquet: they needed to be invited, they needed to actually come, and they needed to actually put on the provided garments. The gospel is our invitation, faith is our coming to the banquet (Christ,) and Christ's righteousness is the garments we replace our sinful rags with. Yet no one would claim that the people needed the garments *before* they could come to the door and receive them!

Let's look at that parable. In the very account you quoted from Matthew 22, what do you think of verse 3? There were some that wouldn't come. Why wouldn't they come? Jesus says something about the pharisees in John 5:39,40 that I believe sheds some light: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." Why are they refusing Him? Is free will the answer to all this?
Back to the wedding feast, let's look at what the king says after he finds someone without the garment that he provided: "Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mat. 22:13,14) To quote Matthew Henry: "Of the many called to the wedding feast, few are chosen to wear the wedding garment-this is salvation" You have to be cloaked in Christ's righteousness to belong at the feast of the Lamb.

I think He is more active too. He sets the goal, sets the exercise routine, and even provides nutrients for the race itself. But we still have to run the race, watch that we follow the rules, focus on the prize, discipline ourselves, etc. (I Cor 9:24-25.) Likewise, God provides all the armor and the battle plan (Eph 6), but we have to put the armor on and stand firm where He places us. Being strong in the Lord and His mighty power doesn't mean He does everything for us or that we are immune from struggling or disobedience.

Agreed!

Why do you believe that God creating the plan of salvation to require fallen man to place faith in Christ's work mean men save themselves?

I don't. I believe they are obligated to place their faith in Christ. I think we disagree on how they come to Christ. If it boils down to the sinner checking yes or no at the end of the day, who gets the credit for their salvation?

And if scripture says faith is contrary to boasting, then on what basis are you claiming that faith would be equivalent to boasting unless Calvinism was true? That's a philosophical speculation, but not something scripture states.

Points back to the Ephesians passage that we disagree on. Faith is part of the gift. Saved by grace through faith, that not of yourselves so no one can boast. You can boast if faith comes down to a decision on the part of the sinner. Not that you would boast, but there is room for it.

Eph 2 doesn't state "you were so spiritually dead you couldn't have faith" - rather it states we were formerly dead in our trespasses and sins. Eph 2:1-4 explains what is meant by this: We followed the ways of the world and the rule of the air, we gratified the cravings of the flesh, and we were by nature deserving of wrath.

It does continue on in the passage to say that Christ "made us alive". Dead men can't choose without being made alive(regeneration).

Sure, they could boast that God chose them specifically to be regenerated, and that they didn't even have to go through faith in Christ first like God asks everyone else to. They could boast that they must be special and amazing for God to care so much about them so as to choose them and ensure that they would be saved and enter the kingdom.

But there would be no room for boasting, as opposed to what you propose. We are sinners saved by grace that can't even take credit for choosing Christ. I have nothing to boast about. I deserved hell and have been bought by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Left to myself, I would have chose hell. I would never have decided to follow Jesus unless He gave me a new, regenerated heart. There is nothing in the sinner that can take the credit. The only contribution we made to our salvation are the sins that made the cross necessary.

That doesn't mean they cannot have faith. Faith is not something we add by help of the Spirit, rather it is the starting point for our relationship with Christ and walk by the Spirit (II Pet 1:3-11.)

And to the proponents of free will, we are the catalyst of our salvation.

 

[royal priest]

The point here is that if a person is lost or a believer and they do iniquity or deny God or lie etc God does not make the do it. They choose their own ways and not God’s way showing that they have a will that can oppose God’s will.

Whether God hardens a heart, or gives the gift of faith, is He not determining how a person will respond to His will, at least as salvation is concerned?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Whether God hardens a heart, or gives the gift of faith, is He not determining how a person will respond to His will, at least as salvation is concerned?

he is provoking a response in them by His seed or Light that shines, and then He is answering their response. To them that received him to them he gave the power to become the sons of God.

 

[sunlover1]

God's control of space time is absolute.

God has given mankind over to disobedience.

Does this then imply that God forces upon each individual, the very sin that they commit?

For example, was Hitler forced to gas the Jewish children by God Himself?

You believe that it was our God who "ordained" that the Jewish children be killed?

 

[LoveofTruth]

You know what I hear in your posts, it's called ad hominem, and you went into the death spiral early. Nothing else, nothing Scriptural, nothing substantive, nothing else. Just a string of personal remarks, that what it boils down to, and the thing is, it's every single time.

Yes I agree to a point there is his ad hominem fallacy argument and straw man fallacy arguments and many others

 

[klutedavid]

You believe that it was our God who "ordained" that the Jewish children be killed?

I was asking that question?

Does God ordain sin?

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes I agree to a point there is his ad hominem fallacy argument and straw man fallacy arguments and many others

Yea those generally emerge after someone has exhausted a failed argument. The ad hominem being the last resort.