- Jul 13, 2021
- 75
- 14
- 31
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Hello,
This is a question to those who hold to predestination as meaning salvation is by destiny (God being the determiner of it) apart from men's will playing any role to be able change his doomed fate, since really all christians believe in some form of predestination because the apostles taught it.
I've noticed that the spirit of those who hold to it is such that they view themselves as those who truly championed the doctrine that salvation is a gift not of works lest any man should boast. This they are able to do (at least how they perceive it) is by saying that all things whatsoever in them that might witness to their adoption as sons, or simply put, their salvation, is not anything considered "work" (as used in the context of St. Paul's comparison with the righteousness after the law/good works and the righteousness of faith) because God is really the one Who behind the scenes determines man's will to do these things so that this can no longer be ascribed unto themselves.
Let me try to explain what I'm saying better here, since I know some are already are going to reply by saying that this blunt statement is unnecessary because our works that we do and our righteousness can never meet God's standard to be saved. And I agree, for after this latter manner the apostle speaks of these things, and not after the former. However, the reformed will normally resort to the former to reprove those that do not hold to their predestinarian view, saying that to believe in the gospel is a good work (John 6:29), and thus making the difference between their soteriology and ours, theirs being free from "trusting in themselves" and "boasting" while ours being in error by ascribing the "only due honor that is to God unto man".
To further clarify this, both the monergism and synergism views entail the fact that if one is wicked and has all the signs showing his fruit is that of an evil tree, he is to be excommunicated and put without the church, so that all christians/denominations (except perhaps those that think one may live like a devil and still be saved, a heresy I don't want to deal with here) in reality believe in a righteousness that is acceptable with God and perceivable by man, and therefore this fact tends to sound reminiscent of a righteousness after the law (although I'm not saying that it is) and the church must exercise careful judgment in these matters and at the same time reconcile it with the doctrines of the righteousness that is by faith not of works. But those that subscribe to Calvinistic theology get an easy way out by thinking that anything that witnesses to their acceptance with God is His doing without their cooperation, for otherwise you can have one choose to not cooperate and therefore change his destiny. If this isn't the case, what difference is there ultimately between one side and the other? Are not those in the synergism camp attacked of frustrating the grace of God by ascribing works unto themselves? And great video that illustrates this is attached below:
I would like then to ask those who are so minded that they find examples of this line of thinking from the scriptures (which would primarily be from Paul's writings), since when he speaks of our good works and of the law, he differentiates it with that of faith, and does not speak of it being grace for the reason of our will being dormant or overwritten by Him, for actually it is our faith that makes our good works acceptable unto Him since they are ever short of the glory of God without Christ's righteousness. Now I know that there will be things said like that faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8), which it is, just like any other good gift is (James 1:17), for this is teaching that all good things including faith are only possible by His aiding, since it is man's sins and pride that refrain him from believing the word of God in the first place. But I know this answer would not be satisfactory to many, but even then, however, will you consent then that this line of thinking of yours objected to in this post rests primarily in the "proper understanding of faith being the gift of God" and cannot be drawn from Paul's writings in differentiating the righteousness of man and the law with that of the righteousness which is by faith, since faith is used in contrast there to show how it negates boasting in man's righteousness?
This is a question to those who hold to predestination as meaning salvation is by destiny (God being the determiner of it) apart from men's will playing any role to be able change his doomed fate, since really all christians believe in some form of predestination because the apostles taught it.
I've noticed that the spirit of those who hold to it is such that they view themselves as those who truly championed the doctrine that salvation is a gift not of works lest any man should boast. This they are able to do (at least how they perceive it) is by saying that all things whatsoever in them that might witness to their adoption as sons, or simply put, their salvation, is not anything considered "work" (as used in the context of St. Paul's comparison with the righteousness after the law/good works and the righteousness of faith) because God is really the one Who behind the scenes determines man's will to do these things so that this can no longer be ascribed unto themselves.
Let me try to explain what I'm saying better here, since I know some are already are going to reply by saying that this blunt statement is unnecessary because our works that we do and our righteousness can never meet God's standard to be saved. And I agree, for after this latter manner the apostle speaks of these things, and not after the former. However, the reformed will normally resort to the former to reprove those that do not hold to their predestinarian view, saying that to believe in the gospel is a good work (John 6:29), and thus making the difference between their soteriology and ours, theirs being free from "trusting in themselves" and "boasting" while ours being in error by ascribing the "only due honor that is to God unto man".
To further clarify this, both the monergism and synergism views entail the fact that if one is wicked and has all the signs showing his fruit is that of an evil tree, he is to be excommunicated and put without the church, so that all christians/denominations (except perhaps those that think one may live like a devil and still be saved, a heresy I don't want to deal with here) in reality believe in a righteousness that is acceptable with God and perceivable by man, and therefore this fact tends to sound reminiscent of a righteousness after the law (although I'm not saying that it is) and the church must exercise careful judgment in these matters and at the same time reconcile it with the doctrines of the righteousness that is by faith not of works. But those that subscribe to Calvinistic theology get an easy way out by thinking that anything that witnesses to their acceptance with God is His doing without their cooperation, for otherwise you can have one choose to not cooperate and therefore change his destiny. If this isn't the case, what difference is there ultimately between one side and the other? Are not those in the synergism camp attacked of frustrating the grace of God by ascribing works unto themselves? And great video that illustrates this is attached below:
I would like then to ask those who are so minded that they find examples of this line of thinking from the scriptures (which would primarily be from Paul's writings), since when he speaks of our good works and of the law, he differentiates it with that of faith, and does not speak of it being grace for the reason of our will being dormant or overwritten by Him, for actually it is our faith that makes our good works acceptable unto Him since they are ever short of the glory of God without Christ's righteousness. Now I know that there will be things said like that faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8), which it is, just like any other good gift is (James 1:17), for this is teaching that all good things including faith are only possible by His aiding, since it is man's sins and pride that refrain him from believing the word of God in the first place. But I know this answer would not be satisfactory to many, but even then, however, will you consent then that this line of thinking of yours objected to in this post rests primarily in the "proper understanding of faith being the gift of God" and cannot be drawn from Paul's writings in differentiating the righteousness of man and the law with that of the righteousness which is by faith, since faith is used in contrast there to show how it negates boasting in man's righteousness?
