Speaking of being consistent, if you "do not accept the notion the Gospel is a "free offer"", then there is a price that man must pay; what would that be?
But I am being consistent. The price that ALL MEN must pay is
an eternity in the same fire prepared for Satan and his demons
[Mat 25:41]. However, God wanted a people for Himself and
"elected" (in time, before Adam was created) those who He
would save. Those people have a Savior and need not pay
for their own sins.
Man has no ability to purchase anything of God. Nothing man could ever do can, in itself, obligate God to respond positively to man! It is impossible! God does what he does freely and without obligation to anything outside of himself!
I agree. However, I was talking about the theology of many who
claim they can initiate the salvation process by some work; saying
a sinner's prayer or making an altar call or "inviting" Jesus into their
hearts or repenting of some sins or doing good more good works
then bad or "believing" in Jesus, etc, etc,
Those people absolutely teach that man can do something to
initiate the salvation process (accept or reject a "free offer")
and THEN God will SEE what a good thing they have done and
God is then OBLIGATED to save them.
"the notion that fallen man can believe and be saved"...
I thought I made it clear that was a FALSE gospel, but it is a
gospel nonetheless.
Why does it seem "like a personal opinion rather than a Scripture"?
Because you stated an opinion without any supporting Scripture...
and a contradictory opinion at that. You argued that rejecting the
"free offer" was a choice/decision/work but then argued that
accepting the same offer was NOT a work... can't have it both
ways simply by stating acceptance is not "meritorious", THAT
is using one opinion to support another opinion.
It seems to me the issue is simple enough.
(1) Did God elect those He would save based ONLY on His own
good pleasure? or (2) Did God present a "free offer" to men where
their choice/decision/work determines their salvation?
A monergistic Gospel (the narrow way few find) preaches a
Sovereign God. A synergistic gospel (the BROAD WAY MANY TAKE)
preaches man decides his own fate.
And I differentiate " action" and "work", works being implied as meritorious and action's being merely acts without intent of merit. In other words, man can be required to do something without that act being meritorious in nature.
Again you express your OPINION there is a difference between
and "action" and "work" that MAN performs... what Scripture
teaches that I wonder?
And saying an "action" does not have an "intent of merit"
is just foolishness.
All our "actions" are based (if we are logical and sane people) on
risk/reward or cost/benefit calculation. It is simply theological
mumble-jumble to try to separate a "work" and "action" by
putting the word "meritorious" in front of one and not the other.
God only responds to man because he has promised to do so if man repents!
But that is just HALF of the story.
God also says that fallen man is not able to repent.
So we are back to the question of whether God is Sovereign
and saving faith is a GIFT (a monergistic Gospel) or whether
man produces that saving faith of himself choice/decision/work
and God SEES what a good thing that man has done and He is
then OBLIGATED to finish the salvation process (synergistic gospel).
We both know this is not a new argument.... does regeneration
RESULT in repentance or does repentance RESULT in regeneration?
It appears you choose the later synergistic gospel while I hold to
the former monergistic Gospel... in fact, I go a step further and
proclaim man is SAVED when elected because God cannot fail
to accomplish what He has purposed.
Repentance is a change of mind, A decision to go in a different direction based on new information or realization of truth previously unknown. Changes of mind are not meritorious in themselves, and the obedience that follows is just the expression of the truthfulness of the change of mind.
Doug
Without getting into the question of whether (fallen) man is ABLE
to "change his mind" about his sin nature or his captivity to Satan,
just look at your argument.... you argue that making a "change"
based on wanting to go to heaven instead of hell is NOT meritorious.
That does not even pass the giggle test.
Doug, please be honest with yourself.
ANY choice/decision/change of mind to follow God and go to
heaven - instead of spending an eternity in hell MUST be meritorious
and self-serving.
Jim
.