Jesus did not come to save the ((world))

[Another Lazarus]

John 17:9I pray for them: I pray not for the world

Its your Job to pray for the world.

 

[Monk Brendan]

He's got all eternity to woo people into a love relationship with Him. No one has to have their wills "forced" or "overridden". Love for God can come about the same, authentic way it does for one's children, spouse, parents, etc.

Forgive me, but I thought that once the judgement is over, it's over. There are no do-overs or second chances--again, based on hours I have sat in evangelical charismatic churches, where it is preached that once life is done, your chance is gone. Now you're saying that God has all eternity. If God has all eternity, then the whole world CAN be saved!

But I don't believe it, and based on your former postings, neither do you.

 

[Monk Brendan]

A figure of speech ought never to be applied literally to the fullest possibility.
Jesus as the Door is one metaphor.
And the choice to open the door of the heart to Him is another metaphor.
Each of those are perfectly Biblical.
Don't try to meld those two metaphors into one.

I wasn't the one melding metaphors. I was working off of THIS statement

I'm sorry

You have no control over THE DOOR

HE gets to decide to whom HE opens the DOOR and to whom
HE closes it

HE does however say HE stands at the DOOR and any man who hears HIS VOICE and opens THE DOOR, HE will come in and "eat/fellowship" with him and he with HIM


But HES's THE DOOR

Please take stylistic complaints to the originator of stylistically incorrect posts.

 

[PollyJetix]

I wasn't the one melding metaphors. I was working off of THIS statement

Oh wow. I'm sorry. I didn't take the time to read all 20 pages of commentary. LOL.
Yeah. good job.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

We simply disagree on this.

Faith is central to the gospel, so understanding what it is is imperative - not an 'agree to disagree' matter. We can only be declared just (by the imputed righteousness of Christ) by faith (Rom 3:30, Rom 5:1); we can only be covered by Christ's atoning sacrifice through faith (Rom 3:25); we can only hold eternal life if we have faith (Jn 3:16), we are only shielded by God's power through faith (I Pet 1:5); we only rise with Christ through faith (Col 2:2); only through faith may Christ dwell in our hearts (Eph 3:7); we must hear with faith to receive the Spirit; and so forth. Faith is the method God gave man to enter the new covenant, vs. works arbitrary choice any other method.

So how does scripture say that man comes to faith?:

II Tim 3:5 - the scriptures can make us 'wise for salvation through faith.'
Acts 4:12 - Christ's name was given to those under heaven that we might be saved
Rom 10:17 - Faith comes out of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ

Faith means the inner persuasion that something is true, based on secondary evidence vs. 'sight.' Scripture lists many of the things that can give persuading evidence: Scripture, Christ, the Spirit, testimonies, the gospel, signs and wonders, etc.

The Father draws us to the Son

The Father draws all things in the universe, including all people, to the Son by Christ's Ressurection (Jn 12:32, Matt 28:18, I Cor 15:25-27). That doesn't mean all people will respond to the gospel in faith, for many love the darkness and refuse the light. Yet without Christ, we would have no one to put our faith in. The draw of Christ's death and ressurection is essential for anyone to come to faith, as faith in anyone besides Christ has no power to save, and without the revelation of the gospel no man would know that salvation was available.

the Son loses none of what the Father gives Him.

The full quote of Jn 17:12 disproves your claim. "Not one of them perished except the son of perdition so that Scripture would be fulfilled." Jesus was speaking of the 12 disciples, one of whom was indeed lost! We see others whose condemnation was written of long ago, who 'transferred' their grace into licentiousness and disowned Christ whom they once followed in Jude 1:4, and others like them who had personal relationship with Christ for a time, but then fell away. God knows all these 'temporary believers' - they are not among those who God gives Christ.

Also, quoting part of Jn 6:39 while leaving out its context also changes the point. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that as given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”… Jn 6:39-40

It is God's will that those who believe (continuously, this is a present active participle in the Greek) be raised by Christ on the last day. Those God knows will only believe for a time, but later reject Christ, are not counted among the believers God has given Christ - for it is not God's will that those defectors be raised up (Indeed, to those people Christ will say, 'I never knew you' and their names will be blotted from the book of life as if they were never there.)

Our salvation doesn't depend on human will or exertion but on the mercy of God.

True, for no man could 'will himself' to be saved nor 'exert himself' to be saved. The offer of salvation through faith was God's merciful will, not man's idea. Continue reading through Rom 9 to find the point:

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone." Rom 9:30-32

Faith is contrasted in Rom 9 with human will and human exertion, not lumped in with them.

You cannot choose salvation for yourself, you simply don't have that authority.

Christ offers salvation to everyone through His own blood. That was by God's authority, not mine or any other humans. Acts 4:12, Jn 14:6, Jn 10:17-18, Jn 3:14-18, etc.

So I am not sure what you mean by your statement. Are you implying that doing 'the work God requires' - that is, following His command to believe on the one He sent (Jn 6:28-29), would somehow be acting on our own authority?

The gospel, the whole of the bible, is God's breath and those who are chosen are the ones who honestly hear it and believe.

I agree. We become part of God's people when we hear and believe.
Who are the elect of God?

Would you disagree that it is better to be saved than condemned?

Certainly not. However, a better status (saved, eternal life, personal relationship with Christ, etc.) doesn't mean that status somehow stemmed from your

Or to be more receptive to God's voice than not to be? If you had a choice, which trait or path would you choose? Would you consider your choice to be the 'better' of the two?

No one has yet addressed the problem that if, as the Bible claims, no one can resist God's will, and God, according to some, wishes to save every person, why does He fail so much? And if we're free agents, does that mean there was/is no assurance of God's plans or decrees? Could Mary have declined to carry Christ of her own will, and if so, did God have a backup plan? Free will makes no sense in the face of the omniscient, omnipotent God of scripture.[/QUOTE]

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

It's amazing to me how many people here on this Christian forum that state -- that the whole world will be saved.

John 17:9

I pray for them: I pray not for the world

M-Bob

"For God so loved the world..." John 3:16, one of the most well known verses of the New Testament. The word there ο κοσμος actually means, not only the planet earth, but also the inhabitant of the earth. So, yes, Jesus did come to offer salvation to the whole world.

 

[Strong in Him]

Anything over which we don't have control would be an example of limitations to our free will.

Again, we can choose to do certain things, but only within Divinely-set parameters.

I can't choose to fly without a plane, for instance.

That's not free will. We can't choose to do something for which we don't have the power/ability.
We are not designed to fly like birds - i.e without a plane. So for a person to say that they choose to do it, is clearly ludicrous.

I can will, with all my might, to change the fact that I was born in the U.S.A., but I won't be successful.

Again, that's not free will; that's a fact.
You have a choice about continuing to live in America, and, if you moved abroad, you could be given a choice about remaining an American citizen. But no one can say to you, "you need to choose whether or not to change the place of your birth." There's no choice involved. It happened, and can't be undone.

I can will till I'm blue in the face that rivers flow uphill rather than downhill, but chances are it won't happen.

Free will is about choice; that's not a choice you can, or have to, make.

So I simply place the ultimate restoration of all in the same category as those other things for which God didn't ask for my vote. But this doesn't mean He has to override our wills in some kind of forceful way to accomplish that.

Free will, to me, is about choice. Do we get to decide certain things - jobs, marital status, children,attending a specific church - for ourselves, or has God already chosen these things for us and decided what we will do and then arranges things so that there is no option but for us to do as he has planned?
Did God command Adam not to eat from the tree, put a huge fence around the tree and zap him with a bolt of lightning if he tried to go near it? Was Adam created in such a way that disobedience to his Maker was as impossible as flying like a bird? Or did God say, "Don't touch that tree" and then leave it to Adam to decide what he wanted him to do?

I find it interesting, though, how many Christians seem more concerned about not having assurance of free will than assurance of salvation. Is God's will really that repulsive to them? Is the whole "Not my will but Thine be done" thing really so bad? For Christians? Really?

No, of course not.
But the question is; has God already decided the details of our life, like job, church, living conditions etc and we need to find his plan, or blueprint, before we are able to do his will?
And in this debate; has he already decided who, and how many, will be saved? If we walk into church and hear the Gospel, was it our choice to walk into that church and respond, or were we always destined to do it? Is "being saved" something we have a choice over, or has God already decided; "Jo Brown has just been born, she WILL be saved. Fred Black has just been born, I haven't saved him"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

"For God so loved the world..." John 3:16, one of the most well known verses of the New Testament. The word there ο κοσμος actually means, not only the planet earth, but also the inhabitant of the earth. So, yes, Jesus did come to offer salvation to the whole world.

The concept of kosmos is a complex one, and the New Testament itself presents us with several different uses of the word.

In its most basic sense kosmos means "order" or "arrangement"; the ancient Greek philosophers prior to Socrates were very interested in understanding how everything worked, how was everything arranged. Kosmos therefore can refer to the entire created order, the natural order, the natural arrangement of everything. It's also here that it can refer to our "world", i.e. it can refer to the oikumene, the inhabited or civilized world, it can possibly indicate the earth. But it can also refer to the current and present order of how things are--the state of affairs which currently govern the present age, the temporal powers and principalities, the world in which sin, death, violence, etc are dominant.

It is in these different senses that, on the one hand, we read that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, and that God did not send His Son to condemn the world but to save the world; and on the other hand we can read "Whoever is friends with the world is at enmity with God", and the word kosmikos (of the world, worldly) is a bad thing.

In reference to the created order, and the inhabitants thereof, we can say that God loves the world, that God in Christ has given Himself to the world, and that we are by Christ's command called to be in the world, to love the world as God so loved the world, etc.

In reference to the current and present arrangement in which sin and death reign, where might makes right, etc, this is a wicked and faithless age which is destined for fire and we are not to have any part of it, called out from it.

The coming conflagration, the consuming of the heavens and the earth with fire, is not about the destruction of creation but the destruction of the present order:

"But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed." - 2 Peter 3:7-10

The purgatorial fires of God's judgment are not to the cessation or annihilation of creation, but the consummation of this age and the putting to end the wickedness and evil things which cause God's creation to groan in pain (Romans 8:22).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Monk Brendan]

Again, we can choose to do certain things, but only within Divinely-set parameters.

I can't choose to fly without a plane, for instance. That only happens in dreams...

I can't shape-shift...

I can will, with all my might, to change the fact that I was born in the U.S.A., but I won't be successful.

I can will till I'm blue in the face that rivers flow uphill rather than downhill, but chances are it won't happen.

These evidences are not available to free will choices. You don't need to ask a hammer whether it chooses to go up or down when you release it. The Law of Gravity, which is a physical law, and that is in God's sovereign will, will pull that hammer down, whether you want it to go up or down or any other direction.

You cannot choose to defy any of the physical laws that God set up. (Rather, you can attempt to defy them, but it's a bit like spitting into the wind. I remember a play on Broadway back in the 70's, the title was "Your Arms Too Short to Box with God." I don't know much about the play, but the title itself is evocative of what you are saying. No, rivers only flow downstream. Light travels in vacuum at 186,000 miles per second.

However, God is NOT going to stop you from using your free will. If you are about to order a large triple pepperoni pizza with meatballs and extra cheese, God can suggest that maybe this is a not a good, nutritious meal for one counting her calories. God won't stop you from ordering that. And when it is delivered, God is not going to stop you from eating it in one helping, although He may suggest cutting that pizza into smaller pieces and having ONE piece. But the consequences of eating that whole pizza in one sitting will be weight gain, more bad cholesterol in your system, and almost definitely the Mother of all Bellyaches.

Just so, God will not intervene. He may suggest that it is a wonderful thing to begin cooperating with Him, but if you say no, then He will let you go to hell.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

The concept of kosmos is a complex one, and the New Testament itself presents us with several different uses of the word.

In its most basic sense kosmos means "order" or "arrangement"; the ancient Greek philosophers prior to Socrates were very interested in understanding how everything worked, how was everything arranged. Kosmos therefore can refer to the entire created order, the natural order, the natural arrangement of everything. It's also here that it can refer to our "world", i.e. it can refer to the oikumene, the inhabited or civilized world, it can possibly indicate the earth. But it can also refer to the current and present order of how things are--the state of affairs which currently govern the present age, the temporal powers and principalities, the world in which sin, death, violence, etc are dominant.

It is in these different senses that, on the one hand, we read that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, and that God did not send His Son to condemn the world but to save the world; and on the other hand we can read "Whoever is friends with the world is at enmity with God", and the word kosmikos (of the world, worldly) is a bad thing.

In reference to the created order, and the inhabitants thereof, we can say that God loves the world, that God in Christ has given Himself to the world, and that we are by Christ's command called to be in the world, to love the world as God so loved the world, etc.

In reference to the current and present arrangement in which sin and death reign, where might makes right, etc, this is a wicked and faithless age which is destined for fire and we are not to have any part of it, called out from it.

The coming conflagration, the consuming of the heavens and the earth with fire, is not about the destruction of creation but the destruction of the present order:

"But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed." - 2 Peter 3:7-10

The purgatorial fires of God's judgment are not to the cessation or annihilation of creation, but the consummation of this age and the putting to end the wickedness and evil things which cause God's creation to groan in pain (Romans 8:22).

-CryptoLutheran

Context determine the definition used. It has a range of meaning but does not mean everything at once.

 

[Rajni]

Forgive me, but I thought that once the judgement is over, it's over.

And I thought Jesus had taken away the sin of the world, but given how Christians carry on about it and its impact even on one's eternal destiny, you'd never know it.

There are no do-overs or second chances--again, based on hours I have sat in evangelical charismatic churches, where it is preached that once life is done, your chance is gone.

Depending on which church you sit in, you'll hear all sorts of things.

Now you're saying that God has all eternity. If God has all eternity, then the whole world CAN be saved!

And that seems to terrify many people. Go figure.

But I don't believe it, and based on your former postings, neither do you.

Now this is quite a presumptuous statement. Got any examples for your claim?

Thanks in advance.

That's not free will. We can't choose to do something for which we don't have the power/ability.
We are not designed to fly like birds - i.e without a plane. So for a person to say that they choose to do it, is clearly ludicrous.

You cannot choose to defy any of the physical laws that God set up.

Precisely. Both of your posts simply prove my point. Like I said before, while we have choices, we can't go beyond God's Divinely-set parameters. It really makes the "free" in "free-will" rather meaningless. We have limited room to implement our will, but our will is only as free as our ability to execute it. Beyond that, it's just creative imagining. Or awesome dreaming such as in the whole flying thing.

People are going to oppose the concept of apocatastasis till they're blue in the face (I've had years of experience witnessing this) because Christian Partialism is so popular—a broad road, one could say. Not only does the salvation of all mean that one would be spending eternity with those one wants nothing to do with (currently—that can change), but the backlash from families and congregations if one were to espouse the idea, at least publicly, might make it too much to even consider. That's a couple of reasons why folks will argue against this till they're blue in the face.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

We simply disagree on this.

Faith is central to the gospel, so understanding what it is is imperative - not an 'agree to disagree' matter. We can only be declared just (by the imputed righteousness of Christ) by faith (Rom 3:30, Rom 5:1); we can only be covered by Christ's atoning sacrifice through faith (Rom 3:25); we can only hold eternal life if we have faith (Jn 3:16), we are only shielded by God's power through faith (I Pet 1:5); we only rise with Christ through faith (Col 2:2); only through faith may Christ dwell in our hearts (Eph 3:7); we must hear with faith to receive the Spirit; and so forth. Faith is the method God gave man to enter the new covenant, vs. works arbitrary choice any other method.

So how does scripture say that man comes to faith?:

II Tim 3:5 - the scriptures can make us 'wise for salvation through faith.'
Acts 4:12 - Christ's name was given to those under heaven that we might be saved
Rom 10:17 - Faith comes out of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ

Faith means the inner persuasion that something is true, based on secondary evidence vs. 'sight.' Scripture lists many of the things that can give persuading evidence: Scripture, Christ, the Spirit, testimonies, the gospel, signs and wonders, etc.

The Father draws us to the Son

The Father draws all things in the universe, including all people, to the Son by Christ's Ressurection (Jn 12:32, Matt 28:18, I Cor 15:25-27). That doesn't mean all people will respond to the gospel in faith, for many love the darkness and refuse the light. Yet without Christ, we would have no one to put our faith in. The draw of Christ's death and ressurection is essential for anyone to come to faith, as faith in anyone besides Christ has no power to save, and without the revelation of the gospel no man would know that salvation was available.

the Son loses none of what the Father gives Him.

The full quote of Jn 17:12 disproves your claim. "Not one of them perished except the son of perdition so that Scripture would be fulfilled." Jesus was speaking of the 12 disciples, one of whom was indeed lost! We see others whose condemnation was written of long ago, who 'transferred' their grace into licentiousness and disowned Christ whom they once followed in Jude 1:4, and others like them who had personal relationship with Christ for a time, but then fell away. God knows all these 'temporary believers' - they are not among those who God gives Christ.

Also, quoting part of Jn 6:39 while leaving out its context also changes the point. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that as given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”… Jn 6:39-40

It is God's will that those who believe (continuously, this is a present active participle in the Greek) be raised by Christ on the last day. Those God knows will only believe for a time, but later reject Christ, are not counted among the believers God has given Christ - for it is not God's will that those defectors be raised up (Indeed, to those people Christ will say, 'I never knew you' and their names will be blotted from the book of life as if they were never there.)

Our salvation doesn't depend on human will or exertion but on the mercy of God.

True, for no man could 'will himself' to be saved nor 'exert himself' to be saved. The offer of salvation through faith was God's merciful will, not man's idea. Continue reading through Rom 9 to find the point:

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone." Rom 9:30-32

Faith is contrasted in Rom 9 with human will and human exertion, not lumped in with them.

You cannot choose salvation for yourself, you simply don't have that authority.

Christ offers salvation to everyone through His own blood. That was by God's authority, not mine or any other humans. Acts 4:12, Jn 14:6, Jn 10:17-18, Jn 3:14-18, etc.

So I am not sure what you mean by your statement. Are you implying that doing 'the work God requires' - that is, following His command to believe on the one He sent (Jn 6:28-29), would somehow be acting on our own authority?

The gospel, the whole of the bible, is God's breath and those who are chosen are the ones who honestly hear it and believe.

I agree. We become part of God's people when we hear and believe.
Who are the elect of God?

Would you disagree that it is better to be saved than condemned?

I would not disagree. However, a better status (saved, eternal life, personal relationship with Christ, etc.) doesn't mean that status somehow stemmed from one's own inherent 'superiority' any more than someone accepting a gift of a million dollars means they were 'better' than others who rejected the offer or somehow responsible for the gift itself.

Or to be more receptive to God's voice than not to be?

I assume you mean receptive in the sense of 'humbly willing to listen and admit one's sin and God's power and mercy.' Certainly, it is better to be humble and listen to God than pridefully boasting in our own works. That doesn't somehow make humility pride! A cannot be 'not A' at the same time.

If you find a scripture claiming that faith is akin to pride, please share. it. What does it mean in Rom 3:27 that boasting is excluded because of the law that requires faith?

If you had a choice, which trait or path would you choose? Would you consider your choice to be the 'better' of the two?

Humans already stand condemned - its not a choice. Christ offers a 'rescue' in the form of deliverance, but we must have faith in Him. 'Choice' might not be the best word for responding in faith, since faith is the persuasion that something is true or not - not a 50/50 gamble or wishful thinking. Do you consider your belief that the Earth revolves around the sun to be a 'choice,' or do you simply consider it 'true' based on the secondary evidence you have gathered through life? Now, there are certainly elements of choice involved. It's a choice to listen to the gospel, it's a choice to keep a humble heart seeking God, it's a choice to hold fast to faith in the face of persecution, etc. However, Scripture never treats any of those things as negatives, nor are they grouped in with dead works of the law, etc.

No one has yet addressed the problem that if, as the Bible claims, no one can resist God's will, and God, according to some, wishes to save every person, why does He fail so much?

Though God, in His revealed will to us, does wish to save every person (II Pet 3:9, I Tim 2:3-4, etc), He also wills that it be done through faith in order to satisfy His will for justice (Rom 8:3-4.) It's also God's will that we abstain from sin, (I Thess 4:3) but how often do we succeed 100%? Is that a failure on God's part, or ours? God never willed for people to burn their children in the fire to Molech, yet they did so (Jer 19:5.)

Your partial quote, 'but who can resist his will?' is again out of context (and is a hypothetical question by the Israelites, not a dogmatic decree that every command and wish of God must be followed by man.) Rom 9 is about God's sovereign choice to offer the Gentiles a righteousness by faith, showing them mercy, while putting a stumbling stone (the law) in the path of Israel. "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring." Rom 9:8

Rom 11 also gets into this very topic - the partial hardening of Israel, with grace shown to the Gentiles, so that God's purpose that we join the vine via faith - not works- would stand.

(As a side note on Pharoah, did you know that the Jews interpret the hardening of Pharoah's heart as God preserving, not overriding, his free will? The Jews believed the plagues would have driven any man emotionally to fear and capitulation, so by hardening Pharoah's heart, God was leaving Pharoah's own choice to harden his own heart intact and leaving the man able to make choices based off his own selfishness and reason, but uninfluenced by fear.)

And if we're free agents, does that mean there was/is no assurance of God's plans or decrees?

Again, man has limitations. There are only finite courses we can take in thought or deed. Yet God is limited only by His own Character and sovereign decreed plan. He can interfere as needed with miracles, softening or hardening hearts, signs, changing circumstance, etc. to ensure His plan continues - plus, He already *knows* the end from the beginning. It is not as if he could be 'shocked' with a surprise variable. Man's actions are not a hurdle in any way to the promises, assurances, and prophecies of God.

Could Mary have declined to carry Christ of her own will, and if so, did God have a backup plan?

Mordecai gives a hint to this in Esther 4:14: "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?"

Now, Mary didn't decline. And God, seeing the end from the beginning, already knew that she would not decline. Note that Mary didn't even protest, just asked, 'how can this be?' God also knows our hearts and characters. So wondering what would have happened had she declined is a bit like the futility of wondering whether God could microwave a burrito so hot He couldn't eat it.

That said, one book of the Bible is dedicated to the story of a man who declined to do God's will - Jonah. "The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.” But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the Lord.

God didn't somehow make Jonah agree to go to Ninevah. Jonah, like all of us, had the will to obey or disobey. He disobeyed, to the point of actually attempting to run from God.

How did God react? Did he teleport Jonah to Ninevah? Did He throw Jonah into the sea? No - He sent a storm. It was Jonah who recognized that the storm was from God. "He answered, “I am a Hebrew and I worship the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land...“Pick me up and throw me into the sea,” he replied, “and it will become calm. I know that it is my fault that this great storm has come upon you.” Jonah 1:9-12

God provided a large sea creature to swallow Jonah (Jonah 1:17). Jonah then prayed, and from the prayer it shows that the fish swallowing Jonah was probably not immediate. Jonah's life was 'ebbing away' before he remembered God in prayer (Jonah 2:7). Only after Jonah had thoroughly repented did God have the fish vomit Jonah onto the dry land. Yet even then, Jonah's heart was not truly changed! He was still angry at God's mercy for allowing the evil Ninevites to repent and escape judgement - much as the Israelites were later angered at the idea that those heathen Gentiles were being offered mercy while their own good works dismissed as worthless.

We see then a couple of ways that scripture shows what God might do if someone declines to follow a specific order of God: God could intervene in their life circumstances, even perhaps send them to the brink of death, to get them to recognize their foolishness and obey. Or, He could in some cases choose a different person to fulfill the plan. (We also see this with the anointing of Saul, which was later revoked and the anointing given to David and not Saul's own family line for the fulfillment of the promise.)

Free will makes no sense in the face of the omniscient, omnipotent God of scripture.

God is not just omnipotent and omniscient, He is omnibenevolent and binds Himself by His own character. So while God certainly had the 'power' to make Adam only 100%, or the power to make every person on the planet 100% obedience, that course of action is not within His character of mercy and wisdom. Consider God's treatment of discipline: "For those the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son who He receives" (Heb 12:6) and suffering, "Surely it was for my benefit that I suffered such anguish. In your love you kept me from the pit of destruction; you have put all my sins behind your back." Isa 38:17, "In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer various trials, so that the authenticity of your faith—more precious than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ." I Pet 1:6-7

God has the 'power' to keep all His children 100% safe and make them 100% obedient. But would that be the best way to show His love? Would that truly be for our benefit? Would that be the best for the praise and glory of God?

Also, consider the many passages showing that Jesus wants a personal, growing relationship with us (II Pet 1:3-11, Eph 4:14-16, etc.) Our relationship with God is likened to a growing body, not a completed one. It's likened to precious metals in a refiner's fire that grows stronger through burning and testing - not metals directly made 100% perfect by God's power. It's likened to branches bearing more and more fruit over time.

Perhaps it makes no sense in the philosophies of man, but God's sovereignty and power go far beyond what He 'could' theoretically do. We serve a God who is merciful, loving, and just - not just powerful. And the paltry and finite actions of man (limited by man's physical and moral nature) are hardly a stumbling block to the plans of an infinitely powerful, wise, and loving God.

 

[Noscentia]

First @Jennifer Rothnie , I apologize, but I'm going to focus on the argument of Arminian free-will vs Calvinism primarily because the rest of this falls into place once that is established. I don't have enough free time to argue on multiple fronts. Also, I wasn't agreeing to disagree on faith, I just don't think either of us are going to convince the other to switch positions on this.

So God calls all men, but only some heed His call. God knows from the beginning who will answer and who won't, but according to you there is nothing better or worse about one sinner or another and therefore we are all morally neutral, neither totally depraved nor more righteous than anyone else. So then we have to ask, what really is the difference between those who end up in righteousness and those who turn away from it and are condemned? I'd argue there are only two options.

Option 1, all sinners are not truly created equal. Some, like Hank has claimed about himself, are more receptive to God's voice and will follow Him when called while others simply aren't. God would of course know this ahead of time (He is all-knowing and created them after all), and you've basically arrived at a weaker form of election.

Option 2, God doesn't call everyone with the same amount of zeal. Do some get a more persuasive call than others? If so, God would have to be the one deciding who gets which form of the message and that brings you back to election.

Arminian free-will, I'll say again, makes no sense. We, as created creatures, are bound by creature-ly "free will." We who have sinned are slaves to sin and we cannot escape our 'deadness' ourselves, we can only be resurrected by a divine will. Our will is entirely separate from the divine free will and Arminian synergism doesn't just put these two wills on the same level as each other, it subjugates God's free will to man's.

There is none righteous, none who understands, none who seeks for God, etc. and this applies to Jews and gentiles alike. As Paul spends most of that chapter helping us to understand, there is only righteousness found in those who are already with Christ. If you are not righteous, you are not a God seeker. If you are righteous, you are only righteous because of Him as no one can be righteous apart from Him. There is no semi-regeneration in scripture, no prevenient grace. Where does scripture gives us an example of someone receiving God's grace causing them to be partially regenerate? Jesus speaks of knowing whether one is righteous or not by our fruits. Well, what kind of fruit does a semi-regenerate tree produce? If we're all morally neutral thanks to that prevenient grace, do we have hearts of stone or hearts of flesh? Can a heart of stone be morally neutral? Is it capable of choosing Christ the same way a heart of flesh can?

The idea that man, in his rebellion and sin, is just as capable of doing good before God without Christ goes against everything the bible teaches about the nature of unbelievers.

Also I don't think it's futile to argue about whether Mary could have declined God's offer or not, in fact it gets to heart of the entire thing. If God works with foreknowledge within His own creation then everything that occurs is exactly as He planned for it to be (according to the counsel of His will, so to speak.) That is the biblical teaching. If God is hoping that free-agents will do as He pleases with no guarantee of success, then that is frightening and rattles to the core our entire understanding of the nature of God. If Mary had no choice then she had no free will, if she had a choice then God was taking a gamble, simple as that. Or, if you prefer, if everyone still has free will, but God is still omniscient, then He is simply working things out the best that He can with what He's been given (since he cannot override our will), instead of doing precisely as He created/intended and that is an incredibly weak place to put God and goes against what we're taught about Him.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

First @Jennifer Rothnie , I apologize, but I'm going to focus on the argument of Arminian free-will vs Calvinism primarily because the rest of this falls into place once that is established. I don't have enough free time to argue on multiple fronts. Also, I wasn't agreeing to disagree on faith, I just don't think either of us are going to convince the other to switch positions on this.

Since I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, then I have no problem leaving those arguments aside.

So God calls all men, but only some heed His call.

All are invited, but few respond in faith and are chosen. Matt 22:1-14.

God knows from the beginning who will answer and who won't

Yes, and He also knows those who will answer and later defect, those who will simply pretend to answer, those who will refuse but later answer, etc.

but according to you there is nothing better or worse about one sinner or another and therefore we are all morally neutral, neither totally depraved nor more righteous than anyone else.

Not exactly. We are all fallen short of the glory of God, yes. We are all fallen sinners, yes. But even God makes distinctions between unbelievers between the upright and wicked, those that fear God vs. those who are prideful, etc. and mentions sins having different severity. So, while all men are incapable of being completely righteous or achieving salvation via their own work or will, and thus equally under the condemnation of the law, that doesn't mean that there is no relative difference of morality and action between people.

So then we have to ask, what really is the difference between those who end up in righteousness and those who turn away from it and are condemned?

The difference is that some aknowledge their sin, believe in the Saviour, and turn from their sin to follow God. Others either love their sin and refuse to aknowledge it, disbelieve the testimony of Christ, or believe but refuse to follow God.

I'd argue there are only two options.

Option 1, all sinners are not truly created equal. Some, like Hank has claimed about himself, are more receptive to God's voice and will follow Him when called while others simply aren't. God would of course know this ahead of time (He is all-knowing and created them after all), and you've basically arrived at a weaker form of election.

Option 2, God doesn't call everyone with the same amount of zeal. Do some get a more persuasive call than others? If so, God would have to be the one deciding who gets which form of the message and that brings you back to election.

You can claim there are only two options, but that would not make it so. There are many options as to the 'why' which man has theorized, and may be even more options that man has not thought of!

However, we are not all created with identical personalities and skills. That doesn't mean God would prevent some from believing or mandate that others believe, but it does lead to some people being slightly more predisposed to religion or fearing God than others. Yet, a genetic predisposition towards religion can also be a stumbling block - such as with the Pharisees or those who grow up under false religions where one is taught not to question.

Nor does everyone receive the same opportunity in hearing the gospel or seeing evidence for it. This is one reason God commands us to go out into the world and preach! Some might hear the gospel 1,000 times and be surrounded by living testimonies, but never believe. Other's might hear the gospel once and believe. The 'persuasiveness' of the call does not always reflect on the response - else all the Pharisees would have believe Christ and His miracles!

Arminian free-will, I'll say again, makes no sense. We, as created creatures, are bound by creature-ly "free will." We who have sinned are slaves to sin and we cannot escape our 'deadness' ourselves, we can only be resurrected by a divine will. Our will is entirely separate from the divine free will and Arminian synergism doesn't just put these two wills on the same level as each other, it subjugates God's free will to man's.

I'm not Arminian so I can't answer as to their views. However, in what way is having faith in the work of Christ 'escaping our deadness by ourselves'? In what way does the divine will prevent man from obeying or disobeying?

As to claims of 'synergism,' that is an earthly philosophy and not something scripture claims about man's ability to be saved through faith.

Monergism/Synergism are not even strict premises of themselves [such as God alone saves vs. Man saves himself], but are rather theological buzzwords. 'Monergism' is a theory describing factors surrounding salvation, 'Synergism' is a strawman theory created to show what anyone not believing the monergist theory 'must' believe in.

As such, the terms themselves must be analyzed and the false dichotomy of the two theories presented before the real topic; salvation; can be studied.

Monergism, in theology, is the theory that *because* God alone saves, then God 'must' subsequently bring salvation about by the spiritual regeneration of certain individuals, without their consent or control, so that they may have faith.

Note that this is not a premise of itself, but rather a conclusion a couple steps away:

Premise: God alone saves (All Christians would agree with this)
Premise: If man can choose to be convinced/have faith then he would be participating in his own salvation (Not all Christians agree with this)
Conclusion: Man cannot have faith of his own volition.
Premise: The Spirit could regenerate man so he could have faith.
Conclusion: God must regenerate certain men through the spirit so they will have faith.

The above is vastly simplified, but you can see that Monergism is not as simple as the idea "God alone saves". Instead it is a theory developed from that starting point.

Synergism is a buzzword usually used to describe how Calvinists perceive any non-Calvinist presentation of salvation; namely that any view contrary to monergism must hold that man contributes to saving himself.

As such, it is not a theory people hold of themselves (usually), but rather a "prop" theory to argue against.

In the monergist view, claiming sinful man could have faith is equivalent to claiming that man saves himself, at least in part, and hence the idea that man can obey/have faith without prior spiritual regeneration is branded 'synergism'.

This is what is known in logic as a "false dichotomy". Two ideas are presented, and one is asked to decide 'either/or'. One is pressured to choose a "side", vs. Examining the actual premise or the definitions involved. Often, these 'sides' are presented by a person who only believes one, and so the view he/she opposes is often a false presentation, a characterization, or presented through a distorted lens.

This leads to factions and divisions, as those just beginning to study an issue are told that one idea or another is more Biblical, more spiritual, more humble, etc. This may lead to the further consequence of scripture being redefined or ignored in order to hang onto the chosen theory, and errors become more and more entrenched over time, as the person who has taken a side feels he "must" hold to it, lest he fall into the "even worse" errors of the other side.

Some resolve this simply by choosing not to resolve the problem, saying "It's a mystery", or "It's unknowable", and then doing their best not to think about it. Others resolve this, partially, by becoming experts in where the "other side" is wrong. The best resolution is to avoid, as far as possible, the trap that any Biblical concept can be completely summed up by a theory of man or popular buzzword; or that any one person or theory will have all the answers.

God alone accomplishes salvation, as man cannot save himself.
But what is salvation? Salvation is deliverance. It has connotations both of what one is delivered from (sin, affliction, poverty, captivity, etc.) and of what one is delivered into (righteousness, welfare, prosperity, freedom, etc.)

Yet, there is nothing inherent in the concept of salvation that would mean a captive accepting salvation 'works with' the savior.

Is monergism or synergism correct?
Is salvation created by faith or is faith created by salvation?
How are we to understand the sequence and part that man plays in his salvation?

There is none righteous, none who understands, none who seeks for God, etc. and this applies to Jews and gentiles alike.

Read the verse directly before. "What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin." Rom 3:9 is the verse Rom 3:10 expands upon. We are all under condemnation. No human seeks salvation by his own mental enlightenment (the offer of salvation was extended by God, and Christ had to come down to man. Man did not request salvation nor go up to heaven to seek it.) Left to our own devices we would make ourselves gods and seek no salvation. It's also poetic, about the fool vs. the true people of God, Psalm 53 NIV, and does not contradict other passages like, "“Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the Lord" Isa 51:1.

As Paul spends most of that chapter helping us to understand, there is only righteousness found in those who are already with Christ.

The imputed righteousness of Christ only comes through faith, so sure. We aren't declared just due to the holiness of Christ until we come to Him through faith. If you are speaking of generic righteous deeds or good living, however, even unbelievers can engage in righteous deeds sometimes without having the imputed righteousness of Christ. Specific righteous (correct) actions are not the same as being declared fully righteous or just before God, as scripture re-iterates several times.

If you are not righteous, you are not a God seeker.

Not having the imputed righteousness of Christ does not prevent one from seeking God. Remember, God has not left us to our own devices - He has revealed Himself in Christ. He has given us the Spirit to convict us. He has given us the gospel, etc.

Cornelius was not a believer, but "He and all his household were devout and God-fearing. He gave generously to the people and prayed to God regularly." (Acts 10:2) Paul said, "From one man He made every nation of men, to inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. His purpose (will) was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him--though he is not far from any one of us." (Acts 17:26-27)

If you are righteous, you are only righteous because of Him as no one can be righteous apart from Him.

No one can have the imputed righteousness of Christ apart from Him. No one can be declared fully righteous outside of Christ. That, again, is a very different topic from if someone can 'do' anything righteous. Scripture did not say that people were incapable of doing any work of the law, but that those righteous works were incapable of saving, and that transgressing the smallest law in thought or deed would make one a lawbreaker no matter how many other righteous works one committed."

Consider this passage:

"And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, 'The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.' If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done." Ezek 33:12-13

It is not righteous works that save, no matter how many - but that doesn't mean that man is incapable of righteousness. There is a huge difference between performing righteous acts and actually being righteous in the eyes of God.

[/QUOTE]There is no semi-regeneration in scripture[/QUOTE]

I never claimed there was. Those of faith are regenerated by the Spirit and become heirs capable of entering the kingdom of God. (Tit 3:3-8) Those in Christ become new creations (II Cor 5:17).

no prevenient grace.

Almost every Christian school of theology, including the theory of Calvinism, teaches prevenient grace (irrisitable grace, in TULIP). I am not sure why you disagree with the concept that God gives some graces to man -before- He comes to faith? (Perhaps you meant 'pre-regenerating grace' or 'resistable grace' or some more restrictive term).

Here are just a few of the graces God gives to man prior to conversion:

- The Holy Spirit working through the preaching of the gospel (John 6:45)
- The Holy Spirit convicting the sinner (John 16:8)
- The Holy Spirit opening the heart and mind in some cases (Acts 16:14, Luke 24:45)
- God drawing all men to Christ by Jesus' death aRessurectionion (John 6:44, 12:32)
- God revealing Himself in Christ to all men (Heb 1:3, I Cor 1:4-5, John 4:10)
- The offer of salvation through Christ revealed to men (Titus 2:11, John 12:3-33, Matt 4:12-17, Psalm 67:1-3)
- Christ delivered to death so that man might live: (Rom 4:25, Gal 2:20-21, Rom 5:6-8)
- The offer of eternal life given along with the revealed method of holding it, faith (John 3:16-17, Rom 6:23, John 1:1-3)
- Signs, wonders, and other miracles to testify to Christ's authenticity (Heb 2:3-4, Jn 10:37-38)
- The testimony of John the Baptist (Jn 1:7, Jn 5:31-33)
- The testimony of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40)
Etc.

Where does scripture gives us an example of someone receiving God's grace causing them to be partially regenerate?

Scripture never speaks of partial-regeneration, so I am not sure why you think anyone is claiming that. Faith does not require the regeneration of the Spirit - it is simply believing (and acting on that belief). Men do not need to be regenerate to believe the Earth revolves around the sun, to believe they are sinners (which many heathen kings and peoples acknowledged), to believe God is real (even the demons believe, and I know many people who believed in God but refused to follow Christ for some time), etc. Scripture says the Spirit is given to us after we believe, and that it is only those in Christ who are new creations. It never demands we somehow get the Spirit or become new creations prior to faith.

Jesus speaks of knowing whether one is righteous or not by our fruits. Well, what kind of fruit does a semi-regenerate tree produce?

I already went through this in a previous post with the relevant scripture. Individual good works are not 'fruit' - fruit is spiritual growth and spiritual traits. Even believers can do bad things and sin - that does not make our fruit bad so long as we are growing in Christ. Even unbelievers can do good things, such as the Pharisees who performed many good works of the law - that doesn't make their 'fruit' good, and indeed was a sham as Jesus showed by cursing the fig tree.

If we're all morally neutral thanks to that prevenient grace

I am not sure how to even begin to parse this sentence. If you don't believe it, and I don't believe it, why discuss it? No man is 'morally neutral' - we are all corrupted by sin and under condemnation, unless we have faith in Christ and subsequently have His righteousness imputed to our account, and are given the Spirit to guide us morally. And prevenient grace doesn't remove our condemnation do to sin or our corrupt flesh (even Christians are still affected by the flesh) - it simply is the many graces God gives to those without faith to draw them to faith.

, do we have hearts of stone or hearts of flesh?

While that metaphor seems particularily used of Israel in scripture, we receive the Spirit and a new heart if we believe in Jesus' name for the remission of our sins. (Not before)

Can a heart of stone be morally neutral?

Again, this question makes no sense. For the first, the 'heart of stone' is a metaphor for Israel's unfaithfulness and obstinacy towards God (Ezek 36) - not a literal description of our physical or emotional heart. The heart of flesh is a metaphor for the Spirit we receive after we have faith (not before) that leads us to grow in Christ and follow God. For the second, 'morally neutral' is a nonsense phrase (as Jesus says, you can't serve two masters or stay in the middle). Scripture does not require that man be morally neutral to have faith.

Is it capable of choosing Christ the same way a heart of flesh can?

Again, this is a nonsense statement. Those with the 'heart of flesh' are already followers of Christ who have received the Spirit and have already been made clean. The Spirit is so they can follow God's decrees and laws - things directly contrasted with coming to God through faith. (Ezek 36)

The heart of stone vs. flesh is a metaphor of obedience. Obedience doesn't achieve salvation - only faith does.

The idea that man, in his rebellion and sin, is just as capable of doing good before God without Christ goes against everything the bible teaches about the nature of unbelievers.

Capable of doing good, but not especially successful, and certainly not capable of avoiding evil. Scripture certainly shows that men sometimes do good, and *can* obey, but they cannot obey perfectly and they more often choose to do evil. Note that Eve ate of the fruit of the 'knowledge of good and evil' - not 'the fruit that only lets you do evil.' Man often knows the right choice. Sometimes he does it, and oftimes he ignores it.

An unbeliever also does not have the Spirit to help guide him in the will of God.

Also I don't think it's futile to argue about whether Mary could have declined God's offer or not, in fact it gets to heart of the entire thing. If God works with foreknowledge within His own creation then everything that occurs is exactly as He planned for it to be (according to the counsel of His will, so to speak.)

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that everything happens as God planned or willed it to be. Foreknowledge (all knowledge of events in the future) does not imply causation or desire for all those events and thoughts. God specifically rejects that line of thinking in a number of passages (Jer 19:5, Jer 32:5, Heb 10:8, etc.) and redirects it: It is not all actions of man that God 'planned', but rather that God planned a response to all the abominable actions of man - Christ! (Heb 10:5, Eph 3:7-13, etc.)

That is the biblical teaching.

I am curious as to the scripture you believe teaches that God purposefully planned for every and all evil that He knew would occur, vs. taking it into account and providing a remedy.

If God is hoping that free-agents will do as He pleases with no guarantee of success, then that is frightening and rattles to the core our entire understanding of the nature of God.

We are limited agents, limited by the laws of physics, our fallen nature, etc. Finite variables are no obstacle to an infinitely powerful God. Plus, going back to foreknowledge, God already knows the actions we will take. He is outside of time. That doesn't mean He had to 'pick' each action we took, nor does it mean that He planned for a bunch of stuff to happen then pressed a 'start' button. He already sees the end - it is the reality, not a potential. It can help to think of space-time as a dimension we are physically traveling through, which God sees all at once and is everywhere at once, rather than through the framework of a ticking clock on the wall.

If Mary had no choice then she had no free will, if she had a choice then God was taking a gamble, simple as that.

Gabriel said to her, "you WILL conceive when the Holy Spirit comes on you" - not, 'Do you want to have baby Jesus? He gave her a prophecy, not a request. She agreed, "as the Lord wills" rather than fighting it - but it isn't as if she could circumvent the prophecy by disagreeing any more than Jonah could circumvent God's will by fleeing to Tarshish.

Or, if you prefer, if everyone still has free will, but God is still omniscient, then He is simply working things out the best that He can with what He's been given (since he cannot override our will), instead of doing precisely as He created/intended and that is an incredibly weak place to put God and goes against what we're taught about Him.

? Since God in His will -gave- Adam the choice to obey or disobey, why is God allowing man to take action within his limits a violation of God's revealed will? Since God intended, from the very beginning, that Christ be sacrificed to cover our sins and that salvation by faith be revealed, why is man's ability to believe or disbelieve a violation of God's initial intentions? Your philosophical speculation makes little sense. God delegating tasks to angels, requesting man to obey even while they can and often disobey - what about that would make God 'weak' or be in opposition to His revealed character of mercy, wisdom, lovingkindness, etc.?

 

[Noscentia]

Yes, and He also knows those who will answer and later defect, those who will simply pretend to answer, those who will refuse but later answer, etc.

Except I don't believe any who truly believe can be lost.

Not exactly. We are all fallen short of the glory of God, yes. We are all fallen sinners, yes. But even God makes distinctions between unbelievers between the upright and wicked, those that fear God vs. those who are prideful, etc. and mentions sins having different severity. So, while all men are incapable of being completely righteous or achieving salvation via their own work or will, and thus equally under the condemnation of the law, that doesn't mean that there is no relative difference of morality and action between people.

Those distinctions are irrelevant to salvation. The point I was making was that if you don't accept that we don't all start on even footing, if we're not on equal terms when it comes to being able to choose or reject Christ then it creates a lot of problems for a free-will perspective.

The difference is that some aknowledge their sin, believe in the Saviour, and turn from their sin to follow God. Others either love their sin and refuse to aknowledge it, disbelieve the testimony of Christ, or believe but refuse to follow God.

This is a good example of that. You're not answering the question by telling what they do, the question is why they are the ones who do it. When God knocks, who are the ones that open the door? What makes them special? And does God take that into account if He truly is sending out a universal invitation to salvation? If His call is evenly distributed, then the fault is with the creation, which God created with intent knowing well in advance what each individual's circumstances would be, what it would take to persuade them, etc. Those who are not convinced or who reject Christ do so with God's full knowledge. Those who believe are the same. So again, even if I accept that premise it ends with a weaker version of election.

However, we are not all created with identical personalities and skills. That doesn't mean God would prevent some from believing or mandate that others believe, but it does lead to some people being slightly more predisposed to religion or fearing God than others. Yet, a genetic predisposition towards religion can also be a stumbling block - such as with the Pharisees or those who grow up under false religions where one is taught not to question.

I agree, we are not all created identical, and God knows this. If some are more predisposed towards righteousness than others, you have a free-will problem. Either God is not taking that into account, or He is and is doing so in the full-knowledge of who will invariably end up in the kingdom with Him. Those who will believe were always going to believe, it was decided eternally by God before there were even creatures around to make those decisions. How then, can we say we had anything to do with it? It's like a painting claiming it chose freely to be painted thusly even though the painter had conceived its form before he ever picked up a paintbrush.

Nor does everyone receive the same opportunity in hearing the gospel or seeing evidence for it. This is one reason God commands us to go out into the world and preach! Some might hear the gospel 1,000 times and be surrounded by living testimonies, but never believe. Other's might hear the gospel once and believe. The 'persuasiveness' of the call does not always reflect on the response - else all the Pharisees would have believe Christ and His miracles!

So the first sentence suggest that it's up to men to save men by preaching the gospel. Do we bear responsibility and condemn people by doing so? The evidence of God is clear in creation, the law is written on our hearts, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. We are without excuse. Does that opportunity to hear make a difference to salvation? The rest of your statement suggests that it doesn't matter if you hear it or not, some are going to believe and some won't. So that again takes us back to the same question.

If it isn't about opportunity (since some may hear 1000x and not believe and others 1x and believe), if it isn't about predisposition (since, as you say, some seemingly positive attributes may act as stumbling blocks), then who or what makes the difference? You seem to be learning towards God if none of these other things are universally positive.

I'm not Arminian so I can't answer as to their views. However, in what way is having faith in the work of Christ 'escaping our deadness by ourselves'? In what way does the divine will prevent man from obeying or disobeying?

I apologize for conflating your views with the commonly held understanding on this particular issue. I was debating with Arminians before and so I assumed you were one too once you replied to me since you never claimed otherwise or explained your exact theology on this issue. Honestly I haven't seen much so far that differs from it, though. I'd actually be more curious to understand how a creature dead in its sins could resurrect itself, believe, and achieve justification all by itself.

As such, it is not a theory people hold of themselves (usually), but rather a "prop" theory to argue against.

I have honestly never seen a monogerism/synergism debate where it was considered a strawman. The existence of such debates at all actually suggests it isn't some strawman or slur, they use the term to define their own position.

The best resolution is to avoid, as far as possible, the trap that any Biblical concept can be completely summed up by a theory of man or popular buzzword; or that any one person or theory will have all the answers.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I'm sure you don't either. That doesn't mean you can't lay out what you do know, what the bible teaches, in a coherent, organized form of some kind.

God alone accomplishes salvation, as man cannot save himself. But what is salvation? Salvation is deliverance. It has connotations both of what one is delivered from (sin, affliction, poverty, captivity, etc.) and of what one is delivered into (righteousness, welfare, prosperity, freedom, etc.)

Yet, there is nothing inherent in the concept of salvation that would mean a captive accepting salvation 'works with' the savior.

The difference is I don't believe the captive can free themselves or that they free themselves with assistance. As you seem to agree, God alone does all the work of salvation.

Read the verse directly before. "What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin." Rom 3:9 is the verse Rom 3:10 expands upon. We are all under condemnation. No human seeks salvation by his own mental enlightenment (the offer of salvation was extended by God, and Christ had to come down to man. Man did not request salvation nor go up to heaven to seek it.) Left to our own devices we would make ourselves gods and seek no salvation. It's also poetic, about the fool vs. the true people of God, Psalm 53 NIV, and does not contradict other passages like, "“Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the Lord" Isa 51:1

And who are those that pursue righteousness and who seek the Lord? Those whom He chose before the foundation of the world.

The imputed righteousness of Christ only comes through faith, so sure. We aren't declared just due to the holiness of Christ until we come to Him through faith. If you are speaking of generic righteous deeds or good living, however, even unbelievers can engage in righteous deeds sometimes without having the imputed righteousness of Christ. Specific righteous (correct) actions are not the same as being declared fully righteous or just before God, as scripture re-iterates several times.

No, I was only speaking of righteousness given by faith that justifies.

Cornelius was not a believer, but "He and all his household were devout and God-fearing. He gave generously to the people and prayed to God regularly." (Acts 10:2) Paul said, "From one man He made every nation of men, to inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. His purpose (will) was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him--though he is not far from any one of us." (Acts 17:26-27)

Cornelius is a great example. Where do you suppose his righteousness came from? Where did his ability to seek God come from if 'none seek for God?'

Almost every Christian school of theology, including the theory of Calvinism, teaches prevenient grace (irrisitable grace, in TULIP). I am not sure why you disagree with the concept that God gives some graces to man -before- He comes to faith? (Perhaps you meant 'pre-regenerating grace' or 'resistable grace' or some more restrictive term).

There are two definitions for prevenient grace. In the context of a debate of Arminian theoloy and Calvinism, it refers to the distinctly Arminian system (aka resistable grace). That prevenient grace is not the same as irresistible grace. Prevenient grace is grace which allegedly allows those dead in their sins to choose Christ of their own will and participate in their own salvation. I assume you already understand how both that and irresistible grace work.

- The Holy Spirit working through the preaching of the gospel (John 6:45)
- The Holy Spirit convicting the sinner (John 16:8)
- The Holy Spirit opening the heart and mind in some cases (Acts 16:14, Luke 24:45)
- God drawing all men to Christ by Jesus' death aRessurectionion (John 6:44, 12:32)
- God revealing Himself in Christ to all men (Heb 1:3, I Cor 1:4-5, John 4:10)
- The offer of salvation through Christ revealed to men (Titus 2:11, John 12:3-33, Matt 4:12-17, Psalm 67:1-3)
- Christ delivered to death so that man might live: (Rom 4:25, Gal 2:20-21, Rom 5:6-8)
- The offer of eternal life given along with the revealed method of holding it, faith (John 3:16-17, Rom 6:23, John 1:1-3)
- Signs, wonders, and other miracles to testify to Christ's authenticity (Heb 2:3-4, Jn 10:37-38)
- The testimony of John the Baptist (Jn 1:7, Jn 5:31-33)
- The testimony of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40)
Etc.

I haven't parsed through all of this yet. Generally speaking when referring to blessings or grace given, it's not given for everyone or for all, but for the elect.

Scripture never speaks of partial-regeneration

Again, most of this was directed at Arminian theology, so we can leave all that behind.

Capable of doing good, but not especially successful, and certainly not capable of avoiding evil. Scripture certainly shows that men sometimes do good, and *can* obey, but they cannot obey perfectly and they more often choose to do evil. Note that Eve ate of the fruit of the 'knowledge of good and evil' - not 'the fruit that only lets you do evil.' Man often knows the right choice. Sometimes he does it, and oftimes he ignores it.

That's why there's a distinction between justification and sanctification.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that everything happens as God planned or willed it to be.

Are you saying everything hasn't happened as God planned or willed it to be?

We are limited agents, limited by the laws of physics, our fallen nature, etc. Finite variables are no obstacle to an infinitely powerful God. Plus, going back to foreknowledge, God already knows the actions we will take. He is outside of time. That doesn't mean He had to 'pick' each action we took, nor does it mean that He planned for a bunch of stuff to happen then pressed a 'start' button. He already sees the end - it is the reality, not a potential. It can help to think of space-time as a dimension we are physically traveling through, which God sees all at once and is everywhere at once, rather than through the framework of a ticking clock on the wall.

Again, God did not make due with our decisions and work with what we give Him. He sees the end from the beginning. He is sovereign, He holds all things and all things are according to the counsel of His will. He is not some chessmaster trope who is simply smart enough to accomplish what He wants despite our 'immutable' free-will. He decreed from the beginning and it was so, as are all things in His creation.

Gabriel said to her, "you WILL conceive when the Holy Spirit comes on you" - not, 'Do you want to have baby Jesus? He gave her a prophecy, not a request. She agreed, "as the Lord wills" rather than fighting it - but it isn't as if she could circumvent the prophecy by disagreeing any more than Jonah could circumvent God's will by fleeing to Tarshish.

So if Mary didn't want Jesus, He'd have just told her oh well? That could've happened? Or is it more likely that God decreed and then it happened? Again, you say it's not a potential because from God's perspective it already happened, but if there are no other potential outcomes then your free-will is an illusion. Perhaps, to you, not an illusion because God overrides it, but an illusion nonetheless.

Anyhow, I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me and so thoroughly, but I think I'm good on this subject for the time being, lol. I get burnt out pretty fast debating like this. I will read your reply though if you take the time to respond again, so I hope you don't think I'm being rude.

 

[stealthsaint]

God can accomplish anything: Matt 19:26 ".....WITH men this is impossible, but "WITH" God "all things are possible"! Humor me with an explanation on thought. Bottom line Lord use thoughts to accomplish His purposes and our response to those thoughts is what creates of destroys. Our free will is the only block to allow Lord to "temporarily" be blocked form accomplishing His will. I lightly struggle with,God desires that all would be saved be saved as we understand the word with our thoughts or understandings. My only resolve is if I do my part He can do His Part through me. That must be my only concern: listening, hearing and allowing to be led.
<> <> food for thought <> <>
I SUGGEST: There are 2 sources for thought; the Spirit of God or the spirit of evil sourced in the “fruit we eat” in our spiritual intake/die-t. Life or death are in the tongue; words spoken start with thoughts received AND ACTED UPON with speech. The world give us speech but Lord gives US utterance (His words/Spirit) separating our soul from the “spirit” of the world to allow Spirit of OUR Lord to be source to control our soul, to create as we choose, as in the beginning, a living soul. <> <> The thoughts we receive and act upon, are from world authority or OUR still small voice of God-thought He uses to re-create US into a living soul where death has no authority, ie eternal life resides.

All manKIND are NOW created birthed nturally through "seed after it's own kind" after the “mind of the flesh”. Birthed after Adam we are a dying soul also rebellious and no longer a "living soul". Only when the “Spirit of truth enters our body/soul expression as a fresh light to shine on to eliminate darkness will we begin to experience a NEW SPIRIT CONNECTION to give US “love based thoughts”, NOW “rebellious to thoughts of indwelling spirit of EVIL we call the dEVIL. Ever hear: "The d-EVIL made me do it". <> <> To "do it" requires action from a thought. A spirit (word) given to our mind from the Spirit of Truth or the spirit of a lie/deception from the truth, so as not to believe in truth.

1st step: discern if a thought is from Lord? 2nd step commit to act. 3rd step out in faith.

WE MUST ALWAYS BE ASKING OURSELF IS LORD GLORIFIED WITH MY ACTION?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Read on if interested; All man has a mind controlling our soul, our mind, will, emotion influencing all our actions. Our behavior is base mostly on past experience. Past experience affects our "will"-ingness to act associated with the emotion IN the experience An action with positive emotion of love joy peace etc. opens a willing attitude to repeat the action. A thought toward a negative past experience may cause fear, hate, worry, anxiousness and an unwillingness to act on it.

To grow from death experiences to life experience require discernment of source of thought; by holding “ALLTHOUGHTS” in wait until source is determined: will this action bring peace love and joy to another, am I acting with self control in humility considering other more Excellent than self? Am I modelling kindness with the situation pleasing to

 

[Blade]

Hi Mountainmanbob I understand what your saying.. and sad yet true is the whole world wont be saved.

Yet.. have you ever wondered how HE sees it.. sees all this? He is a faith God.. that called those things that BE NOT as though they were. Its ALWAYS faith with Him. Like you and me right now.. how does He see you now? Most would be shocked. We see only the moment and sin..

We really need to study when God said Jacob have I loved Easu have I hated". Its not hate.. For Easu..God even helped/blessed.. anyway..

 

[Monk Brendan]

Precisely. Both of your posts simply prove my point. Like I said before, while we have choices, we can't go beyond God's Divinely-set parameters. It really makes the "free" in "free-will" rather meaningless. We have limited room to implement our will, but our will is only as free as our ability to execute it. Beyond that, it's just creative imagining. Or awesome dreaming such as in the whole flying thing.

AND now you're missing MY point. God has given us free will, and by that, we are able to choose where we want to spend eternity. As much as I would like to believe your easy believism, it isn't so easy. There is a price for our salvation, and while Jesus paid for the world's salvation, it comes down to our free will, and our cost for our salvation. Jesus does not ask merely for a place to live in your heart, and maybe a little bit of your mind. He wants all of you, from the top of your head to the tip of your toes. He wants ALL of your heart, so that He can conform it to His. He wants ALL of your mind, not just the part that does church on Sunday morning.

The price each of us has to pay is, basically, our life! Nothing else is going to satisfy. He has given us life, but we, in turn have to give Him OUR life, or we are doomed.

Twelve or more years ago, I took the extra step and gave Him my life. I was tonsured a Rassaphore Monk by Bp. Basil for the Life Giving Fountain Hermitage. Now, this is after I began to cooperate with God in 1977, when I was 26 years old. I was born-again, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and I have followed Jesus for 40 years, now. I have spoken in tongues, prophesied, laid hands on the sick, cast out demons, etc.

I have also, (and this is much harder in my mind) cleaned up and helped change a man's diaper when he was having bowel trouble. I have spent a lot of time writing, typesetting, and proofreading all sorts of documents. I have washed dishes, cooked meals, and so on. On top of that, I have tried to join in on the prayers of the community at every opportunity.

I tell you these things, not to boast on my own, but to point out what I have been given to Jesus for that eternal life.

People are going to oppose the concept of apocatastasis till they're blue in the face (I've had years of experience witnessing this) because Christian Partialism is so popular—a broad road, one could say. Not only does the salvation of all mean that one would be spending eternity with those one wants nothing to do with (currently—that can change), but the backlash from families and congregations if one were to espouse the idea, at least publicly, might make it too much to even consider. That's a couple of reasons why folks will argue against this till they're blue in the face.

But YOUR road seems so much BROADER. You are saying the whole world WILL be saved. Unfortunately, it will not be saved. Only those that have given Jesus their whole lives will make it to heaven.

 

[Rajni]

AND now you're missing MY point. God has given us free will, and by that, we are able to choose where we want to spend eternity. As much as I would like to believe your easy believism, it isn't so easy. There is a price for our salvation, and while Jesus paid for the world's salvation, it comes down to our free will, and our cost for our salvation. Jesus does not ask merely for a place to live in your heart, and maybe a little bit of your mind. He wants all of you, from the top of your head to the tip of your toes. He wants ALL of your heart, so that He can conform it to His. He wants ALL of your mind, not just the part that does church on Sunday morning.

The price each of us has to pay is, basically, our life! Nothing else is going to satisfy. He has given us life, but we, in turn have to give Him OUR life, or we are doomed.

Twelve or more years ago, I took the extra step and gave Him my life. I was tonsured a Rassaphore Monk by Bp. Basil for the Life Giving Fountain Hermitage. Now, this is after I began to cooperate with God in 1977, when I was 26 years old. I was born-again, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and I have followed Jesus for 40 years, now. I have spoken in tongues, prophesied, laid hands on the sick, cast out demons, etc.

I have also, (and this is much harder in my mind) cleaned up and helped change a man's diaper when he was having bowel trouble. I have spent a lot of time writing, typesetting, and proofreading all sorts of documents. I have washed dishes, cooked meals, and so on. On top of that, I have tried to join in on the prayers of the community at every opportunity.

I tell you these things, not to boast on my own, but to point out what I have been given to Jesus for that eternal life.



But YOUR road seems so much BROADER. You are saying the whole world WILL be saved. Unfortunately, it will not be saved. Only those that have given Jesus their whole lives will make it to heaven.

Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree. You evidently have faith in free will and your own good works for salvation.

I'm still waiting for proof of your claim regarding me which you had made in your other post (#402). Otherwise, the bearing of false witness is something I'd consider not worthy of someone who makes the lofty claims about themselves that you have made above.

 

[ClementofA]

But YOUR road seems so much BROADER. You are saying the whole world WILL be saved. Unfortunately, it will not be saved. Only those that have given Jesus their whole lives will make it to heaven.

I believe a person can have given the devil their whole life until the bitter end when on their death bed they are miraculously saved by amazing grace.

But for the grace of God, there go I.

Eph.2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.