The logic of salvation

[Jon_]

I'd be interested to have everyone's insight into this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1589870-the-logic-of-salvation.html

Because the Arminian camp, highly ironically, deceives itself with Scripture, I have taken another approach to showing their theology to be incorrect: logic. The plain and simple truth of our status as imperfect creatures prevents us from chosing God.

Comments, corrections, suggestions, or otherwise are welcome.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Knight]

Not bad. I'd be cautious about referencing too much of Geisler's book.

He's a skilled theologian in many areas but this is not one of them.....

 

[Jon_]

Not bad. I'd be cautious about referencing too much of Geisler's book.

He's a skilled theologian in many areas but this is not one of them.....

Actually, I don't reference any of Geisler, his book was the inspiration for the post. He bases his book on the faulty premise that man was made inherently good, which is precisely what I disagree with. In fact, I realize that this puts me at odds with the Reformers, as well. If I'm not mistaken, they thought that Adam (and Lucifer, *gulp*) had the ability to not sin before the fall. I reject that view. My stance is that our very status as creatures makes it impossible for us to ever have the ability to not sin. Only God's grace can provide that.

Provocative, yes?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ClementofRome]

Actually, I don't reference any of Geisler, his book was the inspiration for the post. He bases his book on the faulty premise that man was made inherently good, which is precisely what I disagree with. In fact, I realize that this puts me at odds with the Reformers, as well. If I'm not mistaken, they thought that Adam (and Lucifer, *gulp*) had the ability to not sin before the fall. I reject that view. My stance is that our very status as creatures makes it impossible for us to ever have the ability to not sin. Only God's grace can provide that.

Provocative, yes?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Yes it is provocative! ...and I Love It!

Geerhardus Vos said that the PURPOSE of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was to bring our first parents to religious maturity! AMEN!

 

[Knight]

Actually, I don't reference any of Geisler, his book was the inspiration for the post. He bases his book on the faulty premise that man was made inherently good, which is precisely what I disagree with. In fact, I realize that this puts me at odds with the Reformers, as well. If I'm not mistaken, they thought that Adam (and Lucifer, *gulp*) had the ability to not sin before the fall. I reject that view. My stance is that our very status as creatures makes it impossible for us to ever have the ability to not sin. Only God's grace can provide that.

Provocative, yes?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Aha, gotcha.

I'd be interested to know which of the Reformers believed what you say....

 

[Jon_]

I'd be interested to know which of the Reformers believed what you say....

That's the thing. What I am proposing is not only a radical departure from how the Reformers understood the nature of man, but it's radically different than most theologies. In fact, the only other person I've found that seems to agree with my conclusions is L. Ray Smith of bible-truths.com, and from what I can tell, the guy's a universalist. The problem is that I can't disprove it.

I keep arriving at a contradiction if I try to enable man any semblance of righteousness without grace, either after, or before the fall. The law of noncontradiction states that A cannot be the same as B in the same sense and at the same time. Additionally, the law of cause and effect states that all effects must have a cause. Let us apply this to sin and God's sovereignty over it:

Man wills that he steal a candy bar. He intends it for selfish reasons. He gets caught and reprimanded for the action.

God wills that man steal a candy bar. He intends it for righteous reasons. He wants the man to get caught, so that he will learn from his transgression.

We have one effect: the theft of a candy bar, but we have two causes. Man's cause was imperfect (unrighteous). God's cause was perfect (righteous). This is known as compatibilism. This is the "mechanism" by which God uses our own free will choices to sin for his greater good and glory. It is by compatibilism that we explain God's righteous and just punishment of Israel through Assyria, Babylon, etc.

Now, we know that man is imperfect and God is perfect. According to the law of noncontradiction, man can never do anything righteous at all. Let's look at the law of noncontradiction and the law of cause and effect applied to salvation.

Man is willing to receive Christ. He wants Christ because he realizes that he needs a Savior.

God is willing for man to receive Christ. He wants man to receive Christ because he has chosen man.

We have a contradiction here. Man's cause for receiving Christ is different from God's. This makes man's cause unrighteous, because God alone is righteous. Furthermore, man's cause cannot be the same as God's, because then God's cause would be identical to man's, but we know according to the law of noncontradiction that A cannot be B at the same time in the same sense. This means that a perfect Creator cannot share the same cause as an imperfect creature. Black cannot share any part of white, else they would both become gray. God cannot be gray.

What this means is that it is impossible for man to accept Christ of his own cause, because it would make the effect of receiving Christ unrighteous. Basically, we don't have a choice in receiving Christ. We can't have a choice because it would prevent us from receiving him. God has to do the choosing, because it would be unrighteous for us to believe in Christ of our own free will.

What I am still having difficulty concluding is how, even in Christ we can do anything righteous. If we accept the conclusion that man is totally incapable of doing anything perfectly simply because of his creature status, then it follows that man could never do anything righteous of his own free will. The Bible teaches us that we are righteous in Christ, though. This is true. Since we are one with the Son just as the Son is one with the Father, we are totally righteous in him; however, by what mechanism can we do anything righteous?

If these conclusions are correct, it follows that we really, truly are puppets. Only God would be able to work righteousness through us. We could not do anything good from our own will. It would have to be God working through us. Indeed, there are passages in Scripture that affirm this, Phil. 2:13, for instance. But this flies in the face of the general theology of Christianity. Almost everyone agrees that we are not simply puppets, yet, that is precisely the conclusion that I am arrived at.

Can someone prove me wrong? (I hope...)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[James1979]

Jon_

You are asboluetly correct. Man have made up this idea that God sits on his throne and wait upon sinners who are spiritually dead and somehow accept God as their personal savior but the fact is that they are dead in sins and they are incapable of turning to God.

If you read John 11... this is a perfect perfect of salvation. Larazus in a way who represents all of us who are dead in their sins are laying in the tomb and have no life whatsoever in us. So here comes Jesus as God the Savior calls Lazarus out of the tomb. Lazarus responsed to Jesus call and came out of the tomb. Could Lazarus actually hear and come out of the tomb by himself without Jesus intervne for him. Of course not, Jesus had to intervne and give Lazarus life in order for him to hear and respond to the call.

In Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen

Their is a calling for everyone but only the few will be able to come out of the tomb just as Lazarus did and simply the others who were not chosen will simply lay in that tomb and will never come out of the tomb because God holds that indiviual accountable to come out of that tomb, but he/she will not be able to(God have them to die in their sins) and will be found guilty on Judgment Day. This is a hard doctrine to accept and it brings our pride down and make us feel hopeless. But there is hope for us and we too could be one of God's elect(If we aren't not sure that we are one of God's elect, God saves us through his word, so continue to read and be under the hearing of God's word so that he can quicken our spirit to make us his child if it is God good pleasure to save us). We can't dictate to God about our destiny because in the beginning God has already made up his mind on who will be with him for forever and for those who will have to pay for theirs sins for an eternity(it would have been better if these indiviuals were not born.)

 

[Imblessed]

That's the thing. What I am proposing is not only a radical departure from how the Reformers understood the nature of man, but it's radically different than most theologies. In fact, the only other person I've found that seems to agree with my conclusions is L. Ray Smith of bible-truths.com, and from what I can tell, the guy's a universalist. The problem is that I can't disprove it.

...........


If these conclusions are correct, it follows that we really, truly are puppets. Only God would be able to work righteousness through us. We could not do anything good from our own will. It would have to be God working through us. Indeed, there are passages in Scripture that affirm this, Phil. 2:13, for instance. But this flies in the face of the general theology of Christianity. Almost everyone agrees that we are not simply puppets, yet, that is precisely the conclusion that I am arrived at.

Can someone prove me wrong? (I hope...)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Jon, I struggle with exactly the same thing! (glad to know I"m not the only one......) You are right, the guy at bible-truths.com is very good, but he is most definately a universalist, and I tried very hard to believe him, but I've come to reject that view(universalism).

Now as far as the puppets thing....that is hard. I think we have alot of "free-will" within our own little world, although in the end it's all ordained by God. Even after conversion, we have a "choice" to grow in our faith right? We can choose to read the bible everyday, or not--or choose to listen to our pastor, or not---or choose to do wrong things still, or not. I think from our point of view, we are free to do as we wish, but from God's POV it's gonna happen the way it's gonna happen and he uses our "choices" as they are, to help us grow or uses it to His good. Does that make any sense? So, we are not puppets because we do what we most desire at any given point in time, but it's a logical fallacy(i think that's the right term.lol ) to assume that we could change what we are going to do at any given time, because that would be going outside God's ordained will.

ack...look at the time....gotta go.....hope that made sense......gotta get the kids to pre-school!