Random or Conditional

[bling]

Because their humility is, in your system, self-wrought by the sinner, rather than a product of the new heart that God gives in monergistic, effectual regeneration.

Thus they have room to boast that they were more humble than unbelievers. And they were therefore saved because of a righteousness of their own that other sinners lacked.

What? If you are “boasting” then you are not being humble and if you are not being humble you are not humbly accepting the charity, but think you are getting the gift by some other means?

Look at the best example we could have with the prodigal son. What could the young son “boast” about “doing”? If the young son had any “pride” he would have taken his deserved punishment like a real man and starved to death in the pigsty and not bothered his father/ brother/ family any more. This is the way it is for all of us, if we will just come to our senses, and consider the alternatives.

God puts every mature adult in some humbling situation that will allow them to come to their senses, but it is up to them to humbly accept God’s charity or be prideful and continue to depend on self. God does give the ability to everyone to be humble and prideful, but that is their choice.

 

[bling]

God is not obligated to show mercy. That is the very definition of mercy. Mercy cannot be demanded or owed.

God would be just if He decided to save zero people.

Yet God has chosen to save some people (but not all), and it still remains just of God to do that. If God would be just to save zero people, how can you cry injustice if He saves some, but not all?

Rom 9 tells us that God is glorified in both salvation and damnation. Thus God has a purpose in saving some, but not all. Since it's a purpose/reason, it cannot be said to be arbitrary.

God tells us He does not lie and through others describes Himself are merciful, so if God wants to remain true, God has to be merciful. That is not the same as saying God is obligated to show mercy as the result of what others do, but has obligated Himself by saying He does not lie and is merciful.

Again God has obligated Himself to do what he says he will do unless he also gave Himself an out. The only “out” I see for God giving Himself is Jer.18: 7-10, but that “out” is dependent/contingent on the future actions of humans. So yes, God has obligated Himself to “save” people that accept His Charity (John 3:16, Acts 2: 38).

I have gone through Romans 9 many times on this board and yes the whole “system” happening on earth is glorious to God’s design, but can man do stuff that does not bring glory to God?

Psalms 4:2 How long will you people turn my glory into shame? How long will you love delusions and seek false gods?

Did Adam and Eve bring “glory” to God by sinning?

Would it be “more” Loving on God’s part to save more people and why would this not be at least the same “glory” for God?

 

[Skala]

What? If you are “boasting” then you are not being humble and if you are not being humble you are not humbly accepting the charity, but think you are getting the gift by some other means?

Look at the best example we could have with the prodigal son. What could the young son “boast” about “doing”? If the young son had any “pride” he would have taken his deserved punishment like a real man and starved to death in the pigsty and not bothered his father/ brother/ family any more. This is the way it is for all of us, if we will just come to our senses, and consider the alternatives.

God puts every mature adult in some humbling situation that will allow them to come to their senses, but it is up to them to humbly accept God’s charity or be prideful and continue to depend on self. God does give the ability to everyone to be humble and prideful, but that is their choice.

You miss the point. If they have room to boast, that's enough. They don't actually have to be boasting. But they have room to boast, because they contributed something to their salvation.

But the Bible says many times that God designed salvation to remove grounds of human boasting. Therefore any soteriological view that leaves room to boast is unbiblical.

So yes, God has obligated Himself to “save” people that accept His Charity (John 3:16, Acts 2: 38).

God saving people that accept his "charity", and God saving every single individual, are two different things. Those are two different groups of people, thus, I think you missed the point of the post you were arguing against (post #12). You may want to go back and read it

 

[Musicc]

If there is no choice, is there love?

 

[bling]

In other words, those that aren't saved by grace are condemned by sin, just as those saved by grace WERE condemned by sin.

Is it wrong to think: “those lost were lost because of their sins”, since everyone sin and the only “difference” is God forgives some and not others for some internal issue God has and only God knows?

The condemnation comes because God did not forgive their sins, so how is that the “fault” of those condemned?

Does it seem fair/just to you that some of your friends and family are lost, when you have done the exact same thing?

 

[bling]

You miss the point. If they have room to boast, that's enough. They don't actually have to be boasting. But they have room to boast, because they contributed something to their salvation.

“Room to boast” Is there more room to boast in the fact that a person never had to humbly accept God’s charity in order to receive God’s charity or to "boast" that you had to humbly accept God’s charity?

There were two sons in the story of the prodigal son which one best fits the person that never had to humbly accept the father’s charity?

God saving people that accept his "charity", and God saving every single individual, are two different things. Those are two different groups of people, thus, I think you missed the point of the post you were arguing against (post #12). You may want to go back and read it

The point is: “Is God obligated to do save people?” And because God does not lie, God is obligated to save: “whoever believes”. I would say: God has gifted every mature adult with the ability to believe something and turn (like the prodigal son) that believe in the form of “trust” toward the Father enough to accept the Father’s charity.

 

[bling]

If there is no choice, is there love?

Godly type Love requires a free will choice or it is a robotic type love.

 

[Skala]

Godly type Love requires a free will choice or it is a robotic type love.

Thankfully, Calvinism believes that we make a free will choice to love God.

So not sure what you are talking about.

Of course, we believe that it is only because by grace, God changes our heart, as no natural, unregenerate fallen rebel of Adam's descent would ever willingly do such a thing.

 

[Verona]

Thankfully, Calvinism believes that we make a free will choice to love God.

So not sure what you are talking about.

Of course, we believe that it is only because by grace, God changes our heart, as no natural, unregenerate fallen rebel of Adam's descent would ever willingly do such a thing.

Surely once God has changed the heart man is irresistibly drawn. No free will choice involved. Seems you saying man can choose to reject.

 

[Skala]

Surely once God has changed the heart man is irresistibly drawn. No free will choice involved. Seems you saying man can choose to reject.

Actually, the natural inclination of the unregenerate heart is to rebel against God, thus, men freely and willingly rebel, because it's what their heart desires to do.

But when God quickens us by the Spirit, our new heart's natural inclination is to obey and believe. It can now see Christ's beauty, and since God has granted repentance, it sees seen and repents, desiring reconciliation. Thus, they freely and willingly obey the gospel and come to Christ, because it's what they desire to do.

So you see, it's a matter of the heart. Who changes our heart? Who converts us? Ourselves, or God?

 

[Verona]

Actually, the natural inclination of the unregenerate heart is to rebel against God, thus, men freely and willingly rebel, because it's what their heart desires to do.

But when God quickens us by the Spirit, our new heart's natural inclination is to obey and believe. It can now see Christ's beauty, and since God has granted repentance, it sees seen and repents, desiring reconciliation. Thus, they freely and willingly obey the gospel and come to Christ, because it's what they desire to do.

So you see, it's a matter of the heart. Who changes our heart? Who converts us? Ourselves, or God?

Seems to me man does not freely choose until God has done something. So it is not really free otherwise there is the chance man will not choose what God is drawing him to.

I have no problem with that.

What bothers me is the notion of mans responsibility as mentioned before. Lot of loose ends, not just for me.

 

[Skala]

Seems to me man does not freely choose until God has done something. So it is not really free otherwise there is the chance man will not choose what God is drawing him to.

I have no problem with that.

What bothers me is the notion of mans responsibility as mentioned before. Lot of loose ends, not just for me.

The will is always active. At no point is any person without their will doing something. The will is always choosing. The will is always choosing what the heart is inclined towards. That's its job.

Unbelievers are, at this very moment, not neutral to God, but are actively rebelling, choosing to disobey the gospel and choosing to NOT come to Jesus and repent of their sins.

But we rely on God's grace to change our hearts so that we have new wills, and new desires. I leave you with some powerful quotes:

To will is of nature, but to will aright is of grace.
- Augustine

To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect.
- John Owen

It is entirely the work of grace and a benefit conferred by it that our heart is changed from a stony one to one of flesh, that our will is made new, and that we, created anew in heart and mind, at length will what we ought to will
- John Calvin

Also, did you ever see my post about Compatiblism? I thought I addressed the "responsibility" question you had? What did you think about it? (if indeed you saw it)

 

[Verona]

...

Also, did you ever see my post about Compatiblism? I thought I addressed the "responsibility" question you had? What did you think about it? (if indeed you saw it)

I do recall it but only vaguely due to reading many posts. Apologies again.

I get the impression that tis is all one big circle. Monergists and synergist not poles apart but just different points on a circle. Argue fervently for one position get into difficulties. God totally omniscient then no free will then no responsibility. No need to worry about sinning as one will definitely make it to heaven due to election. Keep going around to the 'forseen' position but then if God foresaw why did he not choose to change that person but leave them. Is God not loving. Around and around.


Many people her post a lot of scripture but then ignore the other side scripture. 'Context, context, context' seems the catchphrase when one want a different interpretation.


I think you all miss something big. I not know the answer but both side cannot be right, least totally right.

 

[Skala]

No need to worry about sinning as one will definitely make it to heaven due to election. Keep going around to the 'forseen' position but then if God foresaw why did he not choose to change that person but leave them. Is God not loving. Around and around.

Not sure what you mean by this statement.

Election does not mean that people will enter heaven regardless of how they live or what they do.

It means that since God elected them, he will also grant them faith and repentance, and put them in the sanctification process, which means they will grow to be more and more Christlike because of His work in us.

As the bible says we are 'saved to do good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them' Eph 2:10

The point of being saved is so that God's work in us produced fruit which then turns around and glorifies God.

I do recall it but only vaguely due to reading many posts. Apologies again.

That is unfortunate because it pretty much proves that the Bible teaches that God does decree things and yet justly holds wicked men responsible for their actions.

Anyone who denies this is simply denying the Bible's clear teaching on the matter. (it may be hard to swallow and reconcile, but it's not hard to see that the Bible teaches it, imo)

Here's the post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7669429-10/#post61133486

 

[Verona]

Not sure what you mean by this statement.

Election does not mean that people will enter heaven regardless of how they live or what they do.

It means that since God elected them, he will also grant them faith and repentance, and put them in the sanctification process, which means they will grow to be more and more Christlike because of His work in us.

As the bible says we are 'saved to do good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them' Eph 2:10

The point of being saved is so that God's work in us produced fruit which then turns around and glorifies God.



That is unfortunate because it pretty much proves that the Bible teaches that God does decree things and yet justly holds wicked men responsible for their actions.

Anyone who denies this is simply denying the Bible's clear teaching on the matter. (it may be hard to swallow and reconcile, but it's not hard to see that the Bible teaches it, imo)

Here's the post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7669429-10/#post61133486

Thanks for the reminder Skala.

The Bible does teach what you say and I am not wanting to change that. However I think there is more to it. I do not see that the synergists are totally wrong.

I do not understand election. Some say elected to a future adoption. Some say elected before the world began. Here some big issues come up.

If God elected some to a future heaven then he elected others to a future hell. As you say, hard to swallow and reconcile. Especially as it is God who 'imputes' sin on man.

As I said before, justness - fairness - etc, is not in question. Also the 'foreknown' argument does not help as (i think it was you that pointed this) it leaves the question of why did God not encourage more those foreknown to be lost .


If we go back to the idea that before time God fixed who would be born and who of those would get saved and who would not. I.e predestination.

Here is where I stumble :

1. Why need evangelism ? All is prefixed.
2. Why need repentance ? All is prefixed.
3. How can man be held accountable for not turning to God when God closed that man's eyes and ears, withheld a new heart ?

I do not understand.

It also undermine assurance. I not understand so then does it mean I am not actually saved. If it does then there is nothing I can do about it. No works will be good enough. So to bad for me.

 

[bling]

Thankfully, Calvinism believes that we make a free will choice to love God.

So not sure what you are talking about.

Of course, we believe that it is only because by grace, God changes our heart, as no natural, unregenerate fallen rebel of Adam's descent would ever willingly do such a thing.

It is good that you realize Godly type Love requires free will and Godly type Love makes all the difference in man (1 Cor 13: 1-4). I would add that our understanding of free will are most likely different, but that is another discussion.
I fully agree that sinful man cannot chose to Love God or do anything “worthy” since sinful man does not have Godly type Love, so all he does is of no value to others (1 Cor 13: 1-4).

The one sentence robotic analogy does not do our differences justice.

The whole Calvinist description of the universe seems very robotic where everything follows a God predetermined path, for the purpose of bringing glory to God without the possibility of not bringing glory to God.

I will admit the gifting of Godly type Love is somewhat “automatic” since all those forgiven much “automatically” Love much.

A robot does not “own” anything, nor can a robot go against his programmer’s desires.


Our differences in this area, has to do with the acceptance of God’s Love. You limit God’s Love to a few people (for some unexplainable [inconsistent to unconditional] reason) and I do not limit God’s Love for anyone, but allow man the free will to accept or reject God’s love. If man does not have a God given power to accept or reject God’s Love then someone else is making that decision for man and it is not man’s decision nor can he really “posses” Godly type Love. If a person cannot reject, sell or give it away; do they really posses it or are you just a steward of someone else’s “possession”? Godly type Love is possessed by God, so if we are to “have” Godly type Love, we would have to posses it. If we are just “stewards” of God possessed “Love” than we are not Loving God with the Love we posses, but are just returning His own Love. Do you not have to give your own money away to be given charity to someone or can you give someone else’s money to a person and have it be your charity for another?

 

[Skala]

The Bible does teach what you say and I am not wanting to change that. However I think there is more to it. I do not see that the synergists are totally wrong.

Wrong about what?

I do not understand election. Some say elected to a future adoption. Some say elected before the world began. Here some big issues come up.

Election simply means to be chosen. When talking about salvation, the qeustion between monergists and synergists is this:

Are we chosen to be saved (monergists)?
Or are we chosen because we are saved (synergists?)

It seems to me that the bible is speaking of chosen to be saved, anytime it talks about predestination or choosing. For example Acts 13:48 says that the gentiles heard the gospel message and "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" They believed because they were appointed to eternal life. They were not appointed to eternal life because they believed.

And again in John 10 Jesus syas to some unbelievers "The reason you do not believe is because you are not my sheep". Notice, he does not say "The reason you are not my sheep is because of your unbelief". But rather, he declares that unbelief is evidence of not being a sheep, and belief is evidence of bieng a sheep. In other words, the sheep WILL believe, because they are sheep. He does not say "the reason you are not my sheep is because you dont believe", but rather, he says "The reason you don't believe is because you are not my sheep". His sheep, he says "hear my voice, and follow me...because my Father gave them to me"

If God elected some to a future heaven then he elected others to a future hell. As you say, hard to swallow and reconcile. Especially as it is God who 'imputes' sin on man.

All of creation is God's own possession, and He can use it to glorify himself however He wants.

Here is where I stumble :
1. Why need evangelism ? All is prefixed.

With these questions, again you misunderstand. The elect will not be in heaven willy-nilly, regardless of whether or not they hear the gospel message, believe it, and turn to Jesus. But rather, God uses means to bring about our salvation. Evangelism is a tool that God uses, a means, that He uses to bring about our salvation. He not only elects us, but puts into place tools and means to bring our salvation to fruition. He elects us, and in time, during our lives, sends a messenger our way with the gospel message. Through that message, God then works on our hearts to produce faith and repentance, so that we believe the gospel.

Look at Paul's attitude about evangelism and election. Paul was an amazing evangelist who suffered many hardships such as imprisonment, shipwreck, persecution, etc. Yet he says:

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Paul's reason, his motivation, for evangelism was to see the elect get saved. In other words, election is the cause for evangelism. Rather than election deterring evangelism, it is the driving force behind it! Many of the greatest evangelists in history (Charles spurgeon, george whitfield, william carey) are Calvinists who evangelized because they believed in election.

They knew that God had an elect people, and they felt privileged to be used by God to bring about the salvation of God's elect.

The person who believes in election has all the reason int he world to evangelise. Because we know that our mission will not be in vain. We know that every single person that God intends to save will be saved through our efforts.

The synergist has no such assurance. he could go his entire life and evangelize yet there is no guarantee that even a single person will be saved by their efforts, because there is no positive decree of God to save even a single person. It's pure chance whether some people believe or not, in their system.

I honestly don't know how I could sleep at night if I was a synergist evangelist. I would feel like my success depended on how convincing my gospel message was. If I was not very good at evangelism, men's souls would be at stake.

However the Calvinist sleeps well knowing that God has a 100% success rate through our global efforts, and we are privileged to be used by God to see His elect saved. We know that 100% success is waiting for us. Every single elect person that hears the gospel, God will, without fail, bring them to salvation sometime in their lives. Why? Because it's God that does conversion.

2. Why need repentance ? All is prefixed.

Same answer as above.

3. How can man be held accountable for not turning to God when God closed that man's eyes and ears, withheld a new heart ?

I do not understand.

God is not obligated to give the new heart. It is man's fault (morally) for his heart that is unwilling to turn. We know that much. God judges men for their unwillingness. So we know that God holds man accountable.

If a teacher assigns homework, and some students get drunk and are unable to do the homework (physically unable), then the teacher is not at fault for his/her refusal to move the homework due date back. In like manner, we as sinners are unable to come to God without a new heart, but God is not at fault for his refusal to grant the new heart. He is not obligated to do so. If the teacher moves the due-date back, it is pure mercy for her to do that. And if God gives a new heart, it is pure mercy for Him to do that. He is not obligated to do that and nobody can demand it, because mercy by definition is non-obligatory, cannot be owed and cannot be demanded.

It also undermine assurance. I not understand so then does it mean I am not actually saved. If it does then there is nothing I can do about it. No works will be good enough. So to bad for me.

If you believe in Jesus, you know for a fact you are among the elect. Only the elect believe in Jesus.

(this is true whether synergist or monergist, so I'm not sure what your argument is)

 

[Skala]

It is good that you realize Godly type Love requires free will and Godly type Love makes all the difference in man (1 Cor 13: 1-4). I would add that our understanding of free will are most likely different, but that is another discussion.
I fully agree that sinful man cannot chose to Love God or do anything “worthy” since sinful man does not have Godly type Love, so all he does is of no value to others (1 Cor 13: 1-4).

The one sentence robotic analogy does not do our differences justice.

The whole Calvinist description of the universe seems very robotic where everything follows a God predetermined path, for the purpose of bringing glory to God without the possibility of not bringing glory to God.

I will admit the gifting of Godly type Love is somewhat “automatic” since all those forgiven much “automatically” Love much.

A robot does not “own” anything, nor can a robot go against his programmer’s desires.


Our differences in this area, has to do with the acceptance of God’s Love. You limit God’s Love to a few people (for some unexplainable [inconsistent to unconditional] reason) and I do not limit God’s Love for anyone, but allow man the free will to accept or reject God’s love. If man does not have a God given power to accept or reject God’s Love then someone else is making that decision for man and it is not man’s decision nor can he really “posses” Godly type Love. If a person cannot reject, sell or give it away; do they really posses it or are you just a steward of someone else’s “possession”? Godly type Love is possessed by God, so if we are to “have” Godly type Love, we would have to posses it. If we are just “stewards” of God possessed “Love” than we are not Loving God with the Love we posses, but are just returning His own Love. Do you not have to give your own money away to be given charity to someone or can you give someone else’s money to a person and have it be your charity for another?

But you see, in your view, God doesn't guarantee the salvation of a single person. It's all up in the air. It could have very well turned out that zero people in the human race would be saved.

In my view God absolutely decrees and guarantees the salvation of billions of people.

How is God more loving and merciful in your view?

To remind you:

# of people guaranteed to be saved:

Your view: zero
My view: billions, a great multitude, too many to number.

 

[bling]

But you see, in your view, God doesn't guarantee the salvation of a single person. It's all up in the air. It could have very well turned out that zero people in the human race would be saved.

God guarantees the salvation of all those that believe (accept His Charity).

Right! Zero people could have accepted God’s help, so does that mean “God failed”?

If God Loves man unconditionally, than it is unconditional.

In my view God absolutely decrees and guarantees the salvation of billions of people.

How is God more loving and merciful in your view?

If God’s love is such that; His love is inconsistently limited to just some (your understanding), than that “love” is lesser then a Love (totally unselfish/unconditional/undeserving) that extends out to everyone.

To remind you:

# of people guaranteed to be saved:

Your view: zero
My view: billions, a great multitude, too many to number.

My view has a logical, just, fair reason for whom God is saves and your view has this unknowable (reason/cause/condition) internal to God himself for saving some.

 

[Skala]

God guarantees the salvation of all those that believe (accept His Charity).

Right! Zero people could have accepted God’s help, so does that mean “God failed”?

If God Loves man unconditionally, than it is unconditional.



If God’s love is such that; His love is inconsistently limited to just some (your understanding), than that “love” is lesser then a Love (totally unselfish/unconditional/undeserving) that extends out to everyone.


My view has a logical, just, fair reason for whom God is saves and your view has this unknowable (reason/cause/condition) internal to God himself for saving some.

My view has a knowable reason: God's own purpose.

Is that not good enough for you? I guess not.

Paul labors to teach in both Romans, Ephesians, and 1 Corinthians that the reason God designed salvation such that He chooses us (and not vice versa) is because it is for His own glory, and removes grounds for us to boast.

Your view is the complete opposite: We choose God, not for God's glory and not because of God's purpose, but because some people are just smarter than other people and God got lucky.

Makes no sense how anyone could believe such a thing.