God's Ability To Save

depthdeception said:

Are you really trying to ask, "Is grace something that God chooses to bestow upon all equally?

Click to expand...

Any action performed by a conscious, sentient being has its origin in a choice, DD. Can you disprove that?

You're playing a game, and purposely being coy. Why don't you just come out and say what it is you want to say? Or are you making it up as you go along?

msortwell said:

Is your answer then that God cannot save whosoever he chooses to save . . . In other words at least one of the five necessary elements that you listed is beyond God's control?

Just to clarify . . . Which one (or more) of them do you consider to be outside of God's control?

Mike

Click to expand...

Noah was saved because of what god saw in him (Genesis,7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.)

However, take away the gopher wood, the pitch and Noah's obedience and Noah could not have been saved. My point is that God provides all the elements for our salvation the same as he provided all the needs for Noah to be saved. However, Noah built the ark not God. God provided the means - man provided the works.

with love and respect, andy153

msortwell said:

No . . . in your case, I am trying to ascertain your view of God exercising his grace without attributing to God a choice regarding the matter.

So?

Click to expand...

Again, you use words like "exercising" which latently imply "choice." Therefore, your question is still be cast as I reinterpreted it in my last post.

nobdysfool said:

Any action performed by a conscious, sentient being has its origin in a choice, DD. Can you disprove that?

Click to expand...

Can you prove that? Your position assumes that causality is a static reality. However, there is no philosophically compelling reason to hold this belief.

You're playing a game, and purposely being coy.

Click to expand...

No, I'm just trying to avoid the semantic landmines which reformed posters like to plant in these threads. I already know where this thread is going--therefore, it is quite easy to step over the tripwires.

Why don't you just come out and say what it is you want to say? Or are you making it up as you go along?

Click to expand...

No, I am not making it up as I go along. Moreover, as I was responding to someone's question, and not raising the questions myself, I hardly see why I should have to "come out and say what it is I want to say" as there is not really anything in particular that I have an agenda to say. I was merely responding to the OP.

Quote
Since God gives Grace to whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens, it cannot be said that God does not choose to save some and not save others, since Grace is involved in salvation, and Grace always and only comes from God. Hardening them involves withholding saving Grace from them.

depthdeception said:

Purely unsubstantiated philosophical conjecture. Such a position indicates that you have an exhuastive understanding of the mechanisms of grace, which is humanly impossible.

Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated philosophical conjecture?! Then explain Romans 9:14-26:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:

"I will call them `my people' who are not my people;and I will call her `my loved one' who is not my loved one,"and,"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,`You are not my people,'they will be called `sons of the living God.' "

depthdeception said:

Can you prove that? Your position assumes that causality is a static reality. However, there is no philosophically compelling reason to hold this belief.

Click to expand...

So actions just "happen", with no reason or prior cause or intent? Please explain why causality, and the principle of cause and effect have no objective reality, and/or no philosophically compelling reality.

I asked you to prove your statement. Instead of proof, you offer nothing but sophistry.

DD said:

No, I'm just trying to avoid the semantic landmines which reformed posters like to plant in these threads. I already know where this thread is going--therefore, it is quite easy to step over the tripwires.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those darn semantic landmines like words meaning something, and logical consistency. You assume that semantic landmines have been planted. Maybe the only thing being done is to draw out what others believe, for reason of discussion. Since you "already know where this thread is going", then to participate is an exercise in futility for you, is it not?

DD said:

No, I am not making it up as I go along. Moreover, as I was responding to someone's question, and not raising the questions myself, I hardly see why I should have to "come out and say what it is I want to say" as there is not really anything in particular that I have an agenda to say. I was merely responding to the OP.

Click to expand...

Responding to the OP even though you know it's not going in the direction you would like to see it go? What's the point, then? Or do you just like to be contrary to be contrary?

msortwell said:

Do you hold to a grace + works doctrine of justification?

Mike

Click to expand...

No ! I believe that we are rewarded for our works not saved because of them.

Noah was saved not because he built the ark but because God told him and showed him how to do it. God used what was in Noah to build the ark (righteouness) God chooses our works for us therefore any works we do with regards to our salvation are really the Lords.

God has prepared all that is required for our salvation. However, if any, even one of the elements are removed then salvation is not possible.

with love and respect, andy153

GrinningDwarf said:

Quote

Since God gives Grace to whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens, it cannot be said that God does not choose to save some and not save others, since Grace is involved in salvation, and Grace always and only comes from God. Hardening them involves withholding saving Grace from them.

Unsubstantiated philosophical conjecture?! Then explain Romans 9:14-26:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:

"I will call them `my people' who are not my people;and I will call her `my loved one' who is not my loved one,"and,"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,`You are not my people,'they will be called `sons of the living God.' "

Click to expand...

As long as the Reformed reply to everything is Romans 9:14-26, the conversation will go nowhere. You think that by simply quoting this passage, you are somehow substantiating your position. However, not all interpret this passage in the Reformed manner, as many of us attempt to understand the context of Paul's words, not simply import our own meanings into Paul's words. After all, it is most likely that Paul is not even talking about what you think he is talking about in this passage. A reading of 9:14-26 in light of the entire movement of Romans shows this immediately.

nobdysfool said:

So actions just "happen", with no reason or prior cause or intent? Please explain why causality, and the principle of cause and effect have no objective reality, and/or no philosophically compelling reality.

Click to expand...

Again, you entire manner of speaking about "events" and "happening" presume some objective, causal relationship between intent and action. This is my point about the language you use--it is loaded and therefore can only lead to predetermined conclusions. My point is not necessarily to undermine "causality"--I am simply trying to clear the road of leading words in order to properly frame the issues involved. If you want to talk about the non-reality of causality, read Hume. He does a fine job of deconstructing the easy modernistic perceptions of the relations of reality to its objects.

I asked you to prove your statement. Instead of proof, you offer nothing but sophistry.

Click to expand...

And I asked you to prove yours. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Yeah, those darn semantic landmines like words meaning something, and logical consistency.

Click to expand...

Words having meaning and being logically consistent is not the problem. The problem is when words are hijacked and loaded with meaning they might not normally contain, but are then held to be normative to determining the necessary conclusions of logical statements.

For example, we could return to my original example of the word "choice" when used in reference to God. When one uses the simple word of "choice," one drags along all the supposed human experiences of causality, consequence, intention, etc. However, all of these experiences are colored by human finitude and our relation to the universe of space/time in which we live. To simply export the word "choice" when speaking of God's actions drags along all of the meanings and nuances that accompany the word when describing human action. However, as must be admitted, it is quite likely that "choice," when spoken of in divine terms, is going to have a qualitatively and quantitatively different meaning than it would when applied to the human. Nonetheless, these words are often inappropriately exported without clarification/redefinition. Therefore, what we say about God when using these unqualified word amounts to little more than saying something about ourselves. Unfortunately, even this fails for the definition is attempted to be cast into an entirely different plane of existence. Therefore, we not only fail to reasonably describe that about God which we wish to understand, we also fail to understand ourselves for our perceptions of human reality are countenanced in a realm of existence quite foreign to our nature/accesibility.

The same can be said of the all words used thus far: "Choice," "power," "ability," etc.

You assume that semantic landmines have been planted. Maybe the only thing being done is to draw out what others believe, for reason of discussion.

Click to expand...

No, as has been my experience, traps are being set. This is a classic tactic--to back one's opponent into a semantic corner. It's already been done on this very thread!

Since you "already know where this thread is going", then to participate is an exercise in futility for you, is it not?

Click to expand...

Futility, perhaps. However, works kind of slow today, so why not?

Responding to the OP even though you know it's not going in the direction you would like to see it go? What's the point, then? Or do you just like to be contrary to be contrary?

Click to expand...

I mostly just like to get you fired up.

msortwell said:

If you have nothing to say - then why would you respond? You have in the past, and continue to find faults with questions, some of which may be valid, but refuse to move the discussion forward by addressing what the person asking the question is clearly trying to address.

Click to expand...

I am simply trying to get you and others to understand that the questions might not be valid, as the object of the question might not even be pertinent to the conclusion you are wishing to reach. Until you define what "choice" and "ability" mean for God, and if they are actually relevant to human salvation, I hardly see why your criticism of my approach is valid. To not define the nature of the problem (i.e., what it actually means for God to "choose" or to be "able" to do something) is like using a map of North Dakota to navigate the Sahara. Sure, the map provides a guide, but the guide is not applicable to environment which one seeks to explore.

In this case is seems (I have to say 'seems' because you haven't come out and said anything directly) that you hold a view of God's involvement in contemporary salvific activities as passive.

Click to expand...

Well, this definitely depends upon what you mean by "passive." As this word, much less its antonymn, has yet to be accurately defined in relation to God, you may certainly be right about my position. However, it would be difficult for either of us to know that until we arrive at an appropriate definition.

If you wish to address (directly) your views on whether or not God made, or continues to make, "choices" in the saving of persons, please do.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that you put "choices" in quotation marks. However, we still have not yet arrived at a definition of what "choice" means for God, and whether or not it has any salvific importance.

But if your contribution would continue to be limited to criticizing the terminology of the question without offering more precise or pertinent terminology . . . I guess what I am requesting, is that if you have nothing productive to say, say nothing. Otherwise, I will be compelled to simply ignore your posts.

Click to expand...

In response to the OP, I offered what I felt was a more appropriate question to ask to clarify the issues which you raised in the OP.

msortwell said:

We have spent much time and energy discussing the ability (or inability) of man (regenerate and unregenerate) to believe unto salvation. I would like to ask a related question.

Is GOD ABLE to justify/save whosoever He chooses to justify/save?

Click to expand...

Indiscriminantly?
Interesting.

There are certain things that God cannot do. We know that.
For example -

God cannot lie -
NU 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

He cannot change -
JAS 1:16 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Yet he certainly is able ("technically" speaking) to save -
ISA 59:1 Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear.

What is the follow up for this question?

Thanks,
Ed

msortwell said:

The follow up question would be, does God opt against exercising that ability in the case of some persons?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Follow up?

depthdeception said:

Again, you entire manner of speaking about "events" and "happening" presume some objective, causal relationship between intent and action. This is my point about the language you use--it is loaded and therefore can only lead to predetermined conclusions. My point is not necessarily to undermine "causality"--I am simply trying to clear the road of leading words in order to properly frame the issues involved. If you want to talk about the non-reality of causality, read Hume. He does a fine job of deconstructing the easy modernistic perceptions of the relations of reality to its objects.

Click to expand...

This is nothing more than playing word games. The real problem here is that folks can't abide any Calvinist actually making a clear and definitive statement about anything. Their problem is not with the words, it's with Calvinists. That much is crystal clear.

DD said:

And I asked you to prove yours. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Click to expand...

Since I posed the question first, the protocol would be for you to answer my question first. Answering a question with a question is not ordinarily a valid method of discussion, because implicit in such an approach is a bias against the first question, and a desire to avoid answering it.

DD said:

Words having meaning and being logically consistent is not the problem. The problem is when words are hijacked and loaded with meaning they might not normally contain, but are then held to be normative to determining the necessary conclusions of logical statements.

Click to expand...

It is your assumption that the words are being hijacked. You are ascribing all sorts of nefarious motives to the OP's author, and to those who respond in any way you deem to be Calvinist, so you base your opposition on what you assume that all Calvinists must be doing all the time.

DD said:

For example, we could return to my original example of the word "choice" when used in reference to God. When one uses the simple word of "choice," one drags along all the supposed human experiences of causality, consequence, intention, etc. However, all of these experiences are colored by human finitude and our relation to the universe of space/time in which we live. To simply export the word "choice" when speaking of God's actions drags along all of the meanings and nuances that accompany the word when describing human action. However, as must be admitted, it is quite likely that "choice," when spoken of in divine terms, is going to have a qualitatively and quantitatively different meaning than it would when applied to the human. Nonetheless, these words are often inappropriately exported without clarification/redefinition. Therefore, what we say about God when using these unqualified word amounts to little more than saying something about ourselves. Unfortunately, even this fails for the definition is attempted to be cast into an entirely different plane of existence. Therefore, we not only fail to reasonably describe that about God which we wish to understand, we also fail to understand ourselves for our perceptions of human reality are countenanced in a realm of existence quite foreign to our nature/accesibility.

Click to expand...

Seeing that we are made in the image of God, there are bound to be some common points of reference with regard to actions, and "choices". If you wish to push this point, you're going to have to come up with and defend a workable alternative to what is commonly meant by the word "choice", a definition that demonstrably applies to God. Personally, I don't think you can do so.

DD said:

The same can be said of the all words used thus far: "Choice," "power," "ability," etc.

Click to expand...

Then offer some viable alternatives.

DD said:

No, as has been my experience, traps are being set. This is a classic tactic--to back one's opponent into a semantic corner. It's already been done on this very thread!

Click to expand...

If you want to consider logical discussion of concepts as "laying traps", then be prepared to be perceived as paranoid by other posters. If we cannot use the words you object to because YOU feel they are biased, inaccurate, or in some other way not suitable, then understand that we also have the choice (there's that word again) to tell you to keep your peace, and go play somewhere else. You're not going to hi-jack this discussion just because you have a problem with the Calvinist world-view.

DD said:

Futility, perhaps. However, works kind of slow today, so why not?

Click to expand...

Perhaps your boss might have a different view of your participation.....

DD said:

I mostly just like to get you fired up.

Click to expand...

Me? I'm cool as a cucumber, calm as can be. I actually find your sophistry and convoluted meanderings funny, in a sick sort of way. They are not worthy of serious consideration beyond simply pointing out the underlying motivation for them, and the weak attempts to pass yourself off as a deep thinker...you're not.

Please be so good as to pull the door shut behind you as you leave....

andy153 said:

No ! I believe that we are rewarded for our works not saved because of them.

Click to expand...

Okay. Let's see if that's what you really believe.

Noah was saved not because he built the ark but because God told him and showed him how to do it.

Click to expand...

This smacks of the same type of underlying theme that I see in those infomercials. You know the ones, "buy this, get a second one for free." You know what happens if you call the company and ask them if you can get just the "free one?" They say, "Oh no. Sorry. We can't do that." Why is that, do you think? Maybe, possibly because it's not actually free? So, now let's apply that same understanding to your statement. You say that Noah was not saved because He built the Ark but, rather, because God told him and showed him how to do it. Let me ask you a very pointed, and very telling, question. If the "because" of Noah's salvation from the flood was none other than "God telling him and showing him how to build the Ark," does that mean that you believe Noah would have been saved even if he didn't actually build the Ark? After all, if the reason that he was saved which, according to you, is that "God told him and showed him how to build the Ark," then he would have still been saved, yes?

God has prepared all that is required for our salvation. However, if any, even one of the elements are removed then salvation is not possible.

Click to expand...

Andy, what do you mean He has "prepared all that is required for salvation?" For whom did He "prepare" it? Is the "preparation" that the Lord has accomplished, in and of itself, the reason anyone is actually saved?

God bless

depthdeception said:

Again, you entire manner of speaking about "events" and "happening" presume some objective, causal relationship between intent and action. This is my point about the language you use--it is loaded and therefore can only lead to predetermined conclusions. My point is not necessarily to undermine "causality"--I am simply trying to clear the road of leading words in order to properly frame the issues involved. If you want to talk about the non-reality of causality, read Hume. He does a fine job of deconstructing the easy modernistic perceptions of the relations of reality to its objects.

And I asked you to prove yours. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Words having meaning and being logically consistent is not the problem. The problem is when words are hijacked and loaded with meaning they might not normally contain, but are then held to be normative to determining the necessary conclusions of logical statements.

For example, we could return to my original example of the word "choice" when used in reference to God. When one uses the simple word of "choice," one drags along all the supposed human experiences of causality, consequence, intention, etc. However, all of these experiences are colored by human finitude and our relation to the universe of space/time in which we live. To simply export the word "choice" when speaking of God's actions drags along all of the meanings and nuances that accompany the word when describing human action. However, as must be admitted, it is quite likely that "choice," when spoken of in divine terms, is going to have a qualitatively and quantitatively different meaning than it would when applied to the human. Nonetheless, these words are often inappropriately exported without clarification/redefinition. Therefore, what we say about God when using these unqualified word amounts to little more than saying something about ourselves. Unfortunately, even this fails for the definition is attempted to be cast into an entirely different plane of existence. Therefore, we not only fail to reasonably describe that about God which we wish to understand, we also fail to understand ourselves for our perceptions of human reality are countenanced in a realm of existence quite foreign to our nature/accesibility.

The same can be said of the all words used thus far: "Choice," "power," "ability," etc.

No, as has been my experience, traps are being set. This is a classic tactic--to back one's opponent into a semantic corner. It's already been done on this very thread!

Futility, perhaps. However, works kind of slow today, so why not?

I mostly just like to get you fired up.

Click to expand...

Umm...dd, while I am a great admirer of your extensive vocabulary, you've spent this entire thread talking without actually doing anything other than telling us all what's wrong with the questions. So, for my own edification, if you do not approve of the way the word "choice" or "power" or "ability" are being employed in a discussion about God, could you at least offer something productive and enlighten us as to how they are properly defined when discussing God? I ask because, if I go by your posts, it would not appear that I could ever understand a single thing about God, for words, or at least how we apply their meanings in our finite method of communicating about people, are simply not an adequate basis for discussion about the nature of God.

Thanks,
God bless