Saved based on God's foreknowledge or God's random choice?

[bling]

Unless you are one of the elect. In this case, God caused the prodigal to do the right thing by making him miserable, and to recognize his only hope was in returning to his father.

All mature adults are spiraling down to the pigsty of their life, we do not need to blame God since they are our own doing.

All mature adults have times in their life in which their own bad choices bring them to their senses and it is at these moments we make the free will choice to seek charitable help or continue to be macho, self-reliant, pay the piper and hang in there.

There is nothing in the story that even suggest God “caused” the son to return (the father did not send servants after him) and in fact it tells us why the son returned and it was not for some righteous reason (this would be a reason God would use), but for selfish reasoning.

The “only hope” for all sinners is to turn to God and they can come to that conclusion, but that requires humbly accepting of your own free will God’s charity as charity and most people will do almost anything to avoid accepting pure sacrificial charity.

Jesus could use ant words He want, yet he has the father (representing God) to twice say the son was in a “dead” state, so can the “elect” be in a dead state?

Also while in this dead state the son can still make the choice to return.

 

[royal priest]

All mature adults are spiraling down to the pigsty of their life, we do not need to blame God since they are our own doing.

All mature adults have times in their life in which their own bad choices bring them to their senses and it is at these moments we make the free will choice to seek charitable help or continue to be macho, self-reliant, pay the piper and hang in there.

There is nothing in the story that even suggest God “caused” the son to return (the father did not send servants after him) and in fact it tells us why the son returned and it was not for some righteous reason (this would be a reason God would use), but for selfish reasoning.

The “only hope” for all sinners is to turn to God and they can come to that conclusion, but that requires humbly accepting of your own free will God’s charity as charity and most people will do almost anything to avoid accepting pure sacrificial charity.

Jesus could use ant words He want, yet he has the father (representing God) to twice say the son was in a “dead” state, so can the “elect” be in a dead state?

Also while in this dead state the son can still make the choice to return.

Like the old divines used to say, "A text without a context is a pretext." The only responsible way to interpret Scripture is by interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

 

[bling]

But your motive is off and in itself sinful apart from the New birth.

We are in agreement here "the motive is off", since the unbeliever does not have Godly type Love compelling them.
God is not looking or expecting the unbeliever to act out of righteous motivation, but for selfish reasoning is expected at that point.
All the nonbeliever needs to "want" is pure undeserving unconditional charity (God's Love in the form of forgiveness) and be willing to accept that charity as charity, so it can be for selfish reasons.
God's not going to "force" His Love on you if you do not want it.

 

[bling]

Like the old divines used to say, "A text without a context is a pretext." The only responsible way to interpret Scripture is by interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

Some of this does come from just looking around and seeing what is happening, but this world was spoken into existence and is thus part of God's words.
We are talking about Luke 15 and the prodigal son story.

 

[Dave L]

We are in agreement here "the motive is off", since the unbeliever does not have Godly type Love compelling them.
God is not looking or expecting the unbeliever to act out of righteous motivation, but for selfish reasoning is expected at that point.
All the nonbeliever needs to "want" is pure undeserving unconditional charity (God's Love in the form of forgiveness) and be willing to accept that charity as charity, so it can be for selfish reasons.
God's not going to "force" His Love on you if you do not want it.

The problem is, unbelievers love sin more than any concept of a God who demands holiness.

Can you find anything in the flesh that will aspire towards God?

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19–21)

 

[Bobber]

So you admit you can't answer the question?

You question was answered by the scritpure,

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom 10;17

If the word was preached to ALL then it CAME to them.

So now answer my question does anyone have any excuse for their not having faith after the word of faith has been preached? I could be wrong but I suspect you're going to run away from this for reasons you and I both know.

 

[royal priest]

Some of this does come from just looking around and seeing what is happening, but this world was spoken into existence and is thus part of God's words.
We are talking about Luke 15 and the prodigal son story.

There is a will in Heaven which controls not only Heaven but the earth as well.
Proverbs 16:9
The heart of man plans his way,
but the Lord establishes his steps.

 

[Bobber]

Although salvation is monergistic, God uses means to accomplish it. Faith and repentance included

You've steered away from what we're talking about here. Yes faith and repentance are a part of the theme of salvation but we've been told by Calvinists that God puts faith and repentance INTO people in a irrepressible grace sort of way.

So why did Peter tell them they needed, THEY NEEDED to make their calling and election sure? How could you get any more sure than irresistible grace?

And if they did the things that Peter said to make their calling and election sure and after doing so they found they had no assurance....why would Peter ask them to do it anyway? To create a life long nightmare of sorrow, fear and grief because according to Calvinism they could never do anything to become the elect?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Neither. You are saved based on your choice to receive God's gift of salvation.

Agreed that we are saved based on our choice to receive God's free Gift of salvation.

Just a few questions:
(1) Who does the saving?
(2) And, what do you do with someone who decides he no longer wants to follow God, if it is based on a one-time choice (and thereby excluding the foreknowledge of God)? Is he forced to remain "saved" because he committed to God once or is he allowed to walk away?
(3) Will God take back His Holy Spirit or did He never give the Holy Spirit to the one who He knew would eventually walk away (or have you seen both)?

Just curious how you see these things.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

People cannot repent unless they are saved. The flesh cannot stop being the flesh.

Dave, this is just not consistent with the Word of God. Even in Scripture, people who still didn't have the new nature, believed and followed Jesus or genuinely acknowledged Him as Lord while He was here on earth. For example: the healed blind man (John 9), at least one Mary, the demon-possessed man (Luke 8:38-39). Even Peter, who God allowed to be sifted like wheat by satan, acknowledged Jesus as His Lord and Messiah and acknowledged Him as having the words of life. That's a whole lot by a man whose "flesh cannot stop being the flesh" if we think of the flesh as inherently and totally evil by definition (which is what you seem to suggest).

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Actually, the Calvinist would acknowledge they would not have received the inheritance unless they had been chosen by an outside party. Then they would do everything in their power to make their calling and election sure. Of course, it might not work out in the end, but that would be okay, because that too would have been according to the will of God.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand how this idea brings God glory. If God takes total control and just makes some be saved and others not saved AND neither subset of humanity has the freedom to make any choice that corresponds to which group they end up in, how exactly does that bring glory to God?

And, if our free will is not exploited and developed here, I'm guessing that your glorious vision of heaven is that we simply retain our puppethood--unable to choose for or against God? So, we aren't really even "like angels" like Jesus said, because even angels could make choices (see satan and his third).

And, the idea that making a choice for God is somehow stealing His glory must mean that the 2/3 of the angels that chose to remain when lucifer rebelled also are stealing God's glory, because they didn't rebel. Abraham was obedient. Is he also stealing God's glory? Moses was obedient, save once. Was he stealing God's glory, too? When Stephen chose to say "Father forgive them...." as he was getting stoned to death, was he also stealing God's glory by saying virtually the same thing that our Lord and Savior said on the Cross? Or was he bringing God glory by making the choice to do so? Or do you simply believe that Stephen was controlled by God to say that--like a puppet on a string?

 

[Dave L]

Dave, this is just not consistent with the Word of God. Even in Scripture, people who still didn't have the new nature, believed and followed Jesus or genuinely acknowledged Him as Lord while He was here on earth. For example: the healed blind man (John 9), at least one Mary, the demon-possessed man (Luke 8:38-39). Even Peter, who God allowed to be sifted like wheat by satan, acknowledged Jesus as His Lord and Messiah and acknowledged Him as having the words of life. That's a whole lot by a man whose "flesh cannot stop being the flesh" if we think of the flesh as inherently and totally evil by definition (which is what you seem to suggest).

This is not true. Only the born again followed Jesus in a persevering manner.


“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,” (John 6:65–68)

 

[1stcenturylady]

Free will = salvation by self-righteousness.

If we are commanded to not quench the Spirit, doesn't that take free will?

We need to choose to follow after the Spirit, but we can choose not to too. I would say, anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit, their righteous deeds are self-righteousness. But cooperating with the Spirit is not self-righteousness, it is obedience.

 

[stephen pollard]

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

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
Rom9:15&16

 

[Dave L]

If we are commanded to not quench the Spirit, doesn't that take free will?

We need to choose to follow after the Spirit, but we can choose not to too. I would say, anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit, their righteous deeds are self-righteousness. But cooperating with the Spirit is not self-righteousness, it is obedience.

As I understand, before we experienced the Holy Spirit we had only the flesh to draw from. So we were not free to choose beyond the limits of the flesh. But we are now free to walk after the flesh or Spirit. We quench the Spirit by walking after the flesh. But we learn through trial and error it is best to remain in the Spirit continually. We can avoid outward sin altogether, and limit the flesh to temptation, which is not sin unless yielded to. We do this by censoring impure thoughts and imaginations making them conform to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5).

 

[royal priest]

I'm sorry, I still don't understand how this idea brings God glory. If God takes total control and just makes some be saved and others not saved AND neither subset of humanity has the freedom to make any choice that corresponds to which group they end up in, how exactly does that bring glory to God?

And, if our free will is not exploited and developed here, I'm guessing that your glorious vision of heaven is that we simply retain our puppethood--unable to choose for or against God? So, we aren't really even "like angels" like Jesus said, because even angels could make choices (see satan and his third).

And, the idea that making a choice for God is somehow stealing His glory must mean that the 2/3 of the angels that chose to remain when lucifer rebelled also are stealing God's glory, because they didn't rebel. Abraham was obedient. Is he also stealing God's glory? Moses was obedient, save once. Was he stealing God's glory, too? When Stephen chose to say "Father forgive them...." as he was getting stoned to death, was he also stealing God's glory by saying virtually the same thing that our Lord and Savior said on the Cross? Or was he bringing God glory by making the choice to do so? Or do you simply believe that Stephen was controlled by God to say that--like a puppet on a string?

Gods omnipotence is not limited to man's will. He can and will save every single soul He desires to. He is not frustrated by the free will of man in His desire that " all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
Free will doctrine robs God of His glory by subjecting His desire to man's.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Gods omnipotence is not limited to man's will. He can and will save every single soul He desires to. He is not frustrated by the free will of man in His desire that " all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
Free will doctrine robs God of His glory by subjecting His desire to man's.

This I can't agree with. It is hyper-Calvinism.

 

[royal priest]

You've steered away from what we're talking about here. Yes faith and repentance are a part of the theme of salvation but we've been told by Calvinists that God puts faith and repentance INTO people in a irrepressible grace sort of way.

So why did Peter tell them they needed, THEY NEEDED to make their calling and election sure? How could you get any more sure than irresistible grace?

And if they did the things that Peter said to make their calling and election sure and after doing so they found they had no assurance....why would Peter ask them to do it anyway? To create a life long nightmare of sorrow, fear and grief because according to Calvinism they could never do anything to become the elect?

Preaching is also a means which God uses to manifest His workmanship in us.

 

[royal priest]

This I can't agree with. It is hyper-Calvinism.

Hyper-Calvinists reject the need for evangelism and the like.

 

[Pneuma3]

Gods omnipotence is not limited to man's will. He can and will save every single soul He desires to. He is not frustrated by the free will of man in His desire that " all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
Free will doctrine robs God of His glory by subjecting His desire to man's.

And His will is to save ALL MEN , yet you do not believe He will, go figure.