Works?

[RussT]

While I agree that salvation is unmerited, I think that God's own promise to bless with salvation those who have put their faith in Him is our assurance that God cannot go against Himself and deny that which He promised by faith. I don't say this to imply an obligation on God's part but, rather, an acknowledgement that God is a covenant keeper.

I think it's a fair question and, in answer, I believe only God's own promises obligate Him, but only in the sense that His very nature requires that He remain true to His righteousness. I don't necessarily feel that "obligate" is appropriate verbiage because of the general connotation that the obligation is imposed from without, rather than within. In God's case, however, He does obligate Himself when He promises something covenantly.

I have the same sort of uneasiness in us as creatures saying, ‘God cannot do such and such’, or ‘God must do such and such’, as in using the word ‘obligate’. I used the word ‘obligate’ because that is the word used in the post by Ryft that I was responding to, and because I wasn’t sure what other word to use. I myself prefer to use words like ‘will not go against Himself’, rather than ‘cannot’, and even then I hesitate to say definitively that ‘God will not do such and such’, because it comes across as presumptuous on our part that we know beyond a shadow of doubt how God will act. Fortunately for us, God has revealed an immense amount about Himself and His nature, and so we can speak with some sense of certainty, but I don’t think we can speak with absolute certainty concerning what God must or must not do. That is partly what faith is, the conviction of things not seen, and this is why of faith, hope, and love, love is the greatest. Abraham’s faith, that which was credited to him as righteousness, was precisely that he had faith that God would do what He said He would.

As far as the idea of "obligation" goes, with regard to God, it isn't that He is obligated to any man (He's not), He is obligated to Himself.

He is a God of Covenants, and any covenant is only as good as its guarantor. Since He does not change ( a self-proclaimed attribute He Himself has stated), if He has promised to do something, there is no possibility that He won't do it.

By saying He does not change, He is saying that He will not say one thing, and do another, or fail to fulfill that which He has promised.

However, He may fulfill that which He has promised in ways that to us are/were not anticipated or even seen as possibilities. In the case of Job, Job argued his case with God precisely because what was happening to him flew in the face of what he understood the nature of God to be, i.e. fair and just in His dealings with His creatures. God punished evil and rewarded righteousness; therefore, because Job was experiencing punishment, he must have sinned in some way to merit what was happening to him. Job didn’t think he had sinned so as to merit what was happening to him; but, he also wasn’t willing to believe that God was unjust, unrighteous in His dealings, and therefore his desire and determination to discuss matters face to face with God. Job’s friends sided with their notions of God’s nature, which then meant that Job must have sinned, because if God was just He wouldn’t be punishing Job unless he had sinned.
We of course have access to the interchange that took place between God and Satan, which Job did not have while his trials were taking place, and can understand what was happening; but, I have no doubt we would have been mistaken too about what God 'could not do' based on what we understood of His nature.
One might also look at Peter’s rebuke of Jesus found in Matt. 16:22. It was inconceivable to Peter that Jesus, who was the Christ, the Son of the living God, could suffer and be killed. After Jesus' death and resurrection, Peter understood, but his prior notion of what could and could not happen turned out to be wrong.

I believe too that if God promises something, He is faithful to carry it out in accord with who He is. Sometimes God’s promises are unconditional, sometimes they are conditional. An example of the former would be His promise to Noah that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood(Gen. 9:11); an example of the latter would be God’s covenant with the children of Israel through Moses(Deut.28). In that case, God stated that if they would keep His commandments, then God would bring about all the blessings with which He had promised to bless them(vss. 1,2,9 especially); however, if they did not obey the LORD their God, then all the curses which He warned them about would come upon them. Here we see God promising either blessings or curses, with the outcome being determined in large part by how the children of Israel responded. He does not violate His promises, but His particular course of action is based on the actions of His ‘chosen people’. And we see throughout the OT how this played out, with the Israelites sometimes obeying and being blessed, but more often disobeying and being cursed.
Or take God’s covenant promise to David, “If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.” (2 Kings 2:4) This same promise is repeated by the LORD to Solomon after he had built the house of the LORD, adding a promise concerning the house of the LORD, “I have consecrated this house which you have built by putting My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually.”(1 Kings 9:3) That seems like a pretty clear cut promise, one that the LORD would be obligated to honor; but, He goes on and we find in vss. 6-7 God saying, ”But if you or your sons shall indeed turn away from following Me...then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them, and the house which I have consecrated for My name, I will cast out of My sight.” In 1 Kings 11, we see what God did because Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD(vs. 6,9); He took away the kingdom and gave it to Jeroboam, his servant, except for two tribes for the sake of David and for the sake of Jerusalem. Then God also made a covenant with Jeroboam, similar to the one He had made with David(vs. 38). We know though that Jeroboam did evil in the sight of the LORD and His kingdom did not endure.
To me, these are examples of the interplay between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Any free will which we have is God-given and is constrained ultimately by His overarching sovereignty. Within God’s overarching sovereignty, we have been given decision making abilities, and how we exercise those abilities and how we choose does influence the outcome of God’s actions towards us, as did the choices of David, Solomon, and Jeroboam.
God bless

 

[RussT]

So your contention is that all people have faith in God, some just choose to not put that faith in Him? IOW, faith in God is an inherent and inalienable element of our constituent nature, is that it?

Tell me, when the non-believer adamantly denies the existance and authority of God, are they simply lying about their true belief in God?

If what I posted implied to you that I thought all people have an inherent faith in God, then I must not have articulated myself very well. My contention is that all people have the God-given faculty to make choices, whether small or great. How God responds to the choices people make is determined by Him. Perhaps it was my use of the phrase, 'put their faith' that miscommunicated to you what I meant. Unfortunately, in English, there is not the verbal form of 'faith' as there is in the Greek, and so the verbal form is usually rendered in English by 'believe'. Unfortunately, 'believe' doesn't convey the whole sense of the Greek word for faith, or else our translations would consistantly use 'belief' for the noun form of 'faith'. When I used the phrase 'put their faith', I was not intending to imply that 'faith' was inherent to 'them'. I would perhaps been better understood had I said, 'choose to believe in Him', or 'choose to trust in Him'.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

My contention is that all people have the God-given faculty to make choices, whether small or great.

When I used the phrase 'put their faith', I was not intending to imply that 'faith' was inherent to 'them'. I would perhaps been better understood had I said, 'choose to believe in Him', or 'choose to trust in Him'.

Hey Russ. I hope I didn't sound like I was quibbling over semantics. Thank you for clarifying. So, if I understand your explanation, you are saying that all people have the ability to make choices and some choose to believe/trust in Him. Is that right? If so, why do some make that decision and others, obviously, choose to not do so? It's not random is it? Is there something inherently different about those that choose to trust Him than those who trust in themselves for their security?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[RussT]

Hey Russ. I hope I didn't sound like I was quibbling over semantics. Thank you for clarifying. So, if I understand your explanation, you are saying that all people have the ability to make choices and some choose to believe/trust in Him. Is that right? If so, why do some make that decision and others, obviously, choose to not do so? It's not random is it? Is there something inherently different about those that choose to trust Him than those who trust in themselves for their security?

It is not 'random' in my way of thinking, but I'm not sure what you consider 'random'. For you, is it random when someone decides to wear black, and another decides to wear blue? Is it random when one person chooses to go to work on a particular day, while another wakes up and says, "I think I'll call in sick", and chooses to stay home? God created us as sentient beings, and life is filled with constant choices; I'm not sure I can envision going very long without needing to make a choice of one sort or another. One could even choose not to choose in certain instances. And so if you are asking why some people choose to faith(vb.) in Jesus and others don't, I would respond that they do so for the same reasons that some choose to go to work or saty home, for the same reasons that some couples choose to have children and others don't, for the same reasons we are posting on Christian Forums and others are not. What people each base their individual choices on is unique to each individual, but not unrelated. They are influenced by events external to themselves, they are influenced by events internal to themselves such as feelings/emotions, chemical imbalances, volitional thought processes, etc. The internal and external are often intertwined and even a result of each other. For instance, if a dog were to come running at me with teeth bared, that would cause responses within me, some innate like an adrenelin rush, some conditioned like a memory I have of once being bit, and an intellectual volitional response to either run or perhaps stand my ground and kick; and in return how I respond to the dog attack might influence what the dog does next which then changes the external influence on me and may result in a different choice on my part. External influences can be impersonal like a rock falling down a mountain onto the road in front of me, or personal like someone asking me to do something I know to be wrong.

You also asked if there is something inherently different about those that choose to trust in Him and those who choose to trust in themselves. I would need to know more about what you mean by 'inherently different'. Each person who decides is in some respects different from another facing the same choice, and the internal and external forces which influence the decision that each individual makes are in some respects different from those influencing another. I would tend to think though that the God-given faculty to make choices at all is probably not that different from one individual to another.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

For you, is it random when someone decides to wear black, and another decides to wear blue? Is it random when one person chooses to go to work on a particular day, while another wakes up and says, "I think I'll call in sick", and chooses to stay home?

I certainly do not think those things are necessarily random, though you do not give me enough information to make that call. Why did the person choose black over blue? Did that person have anything blue that was clean? For that matter, did that person own anything that was blue. Is the person color blind? Was the person actually sick or were they lying? All of those questions play a part in determining whether they are random decisions. As a general rule, and in answer to your question, I acknowledge that people are, by nature, desire driven. Therefore, if they choose black clothing over blue on a particular day, generally speaking it's because they wanted to wear black instead of blue that day. Does that answer your question about my understanding of random?

God created us as sentient beings, and life is filled with constant choices; I'm not sure I can envision going very long without needing to make a choice of one sort or another.

I agree. Would you then say that choosing is a necessity for volitional, rational creatures, at least in the case of those things about which we can choose? That is, they must choose. What do you think drives us to choose one way or the other?

One could even choose not to choose in certain instances.

Which would, in and of itself, be a choice, right?

And so if you are asking why some people choose to faith(vb.) in Jesus and others don't, I would respond that they do so for the same reasons that some choose to go to work or saty home, for the same reasons that some couples choose to have children and others don't, for the same reasons we are posting on Christian Forums and others are not. What people each base their individual choices on is unique to each individual, but not unrelated. They are influenced by events external to themselves, they are influenced by events internal to themselves such as feelings/emotions, chemical imbalances, volitional thought processes, etc. The internal and external are often intertwined and even a result of each other.

Okay, but these events, these "influences" do not cause one to choose one way or another, right? For instance, only having clean black clothes may influence you to choose to wear black but, if you wanted to, you could wear a dirty blue outfit, right?

For instance, if a dog were to come running at me with teeth bared, that would cause responses within me, some innate like an adrenelin rush, some conditioned like a memory I have of once being bit, and an intellectual volitional response to either run or perhaps stand my ground and kick; and in return how I respond to the dog attack might influence what the dog does next which then changes the external influence on me and may result in a different choice on my part. External influences can be impersonal like a rock falling down a mountain onto the road in front of me, or personal like someone asking me to do something I know to be wrong.

So would you say, in the case of the dog coming after you, you would choose to run/stand your ground because of your desire to prevent being bitten?

You also asked if there is something inherently different about those that choose to trust in Him and those who choose to trust in themselves. I would need to know more about what you mean by 'inherently different'. Each person who decides is in some respects different from another facing the same choice, and the internal and external forces which influence the decision that each individual makes are in some respects different from those influencing another. I would tend to think though that the God-given faculty to make choices at all is probably not that different from one individual to another.

Okay, let's consider a common scenario. Two people, from similar backgrounds, attend a church service at the behest of a friend. In fact, unbeknownst to each other, they both attend service at the same church, at the same time. Both hear the same truth preached from the pulpit. Both are encouraged to repent and come to Christ. Both are told of their need for a Savior. Only one repents and is saved. Tell me, were the regulative factors that influenced the one to embrace the Lordship of Christ random or were they guided by the hand of God Himself? Naturally, both men have a will. Both have the inherent ability to choose. They prove that by the very act of volition in submitting to/denying Christ. What I'm asking is, to what do you attribute the pliability of the one, who came in supplicative humility, recognizing his estrangement from God, in contrast to the pridefulness of the other, who remained steadfast in his rebellion, presuming to stand before the Almighty, chest puffed out in arrogance, assuming that he was without need of a Redeemer?

In short, why did one submit and the other continue to rebel?

God bless