Question for Arminians [Archive]

Sozo

March 26th 2003, 11:42 AM

[i]Today @ 09:17 AM God doesn't drag in unwilling people to heaven, if you are suggesting that is what I believe. He changes their nature so that they will choose Him.
Joel

I believe that all are unwilling until God moves on the heart of man. This is true on both sides of the argument. Whether you believe that God changes their nature, or reveals the truth to their hearts and minds.

But even if he does give this same amount of grace to every single person, then the question still remains why some reject and others don't. You are left with salvation being the result of man's will, which it is clearly not. (Rom 9:16)

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

This does not contradict my point. It is not within ourselves to choose God, nor to choose how we shall be saved, it is solely at God's descretion. God chooses to save man by grace through faith, and it is by His mercy that He makes this choice. All men are given the revelation of the message concerning Christ as God wills, and it is at that point(s) that man accepts or rejects God's solution to man's problem.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

I am sure you will agree that all men were under condemnation (not just an elect). It is the same all men that the justification of life is available to.

"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

yxboom

March 26th 2003, 11:44 AM

Excellent Sozo.

Jaltus

March 26th 2003, 06:32 PM

why did Joe accept Christ and Bob did not?You would have to ask them, for they decided by free will.

mustbenothing

March 30th 2003, 12:19 AM

(Arminian) So, Joel, the question is Have you ever sinned? If you have, was it because God didn't provide a way out? Why did you sin, but someone else did not? Are you going to claim that determinism somehow caused you to sin? If so, God didn't deal with it so as to provide a way out? No, tacitly we understand that God did provide a way out, so you made the decision of your own LFW. Otherwise, God is not faithful.

(Me) God provided the escape, <i>if</i> we were to take hold of that escape. However, we didn't. I don't see how compatibilism is any less viable here than libertarianism.

(geebob) alot of us posted at the same time scroll up and see my elaboration on mystery. It's because JOE did though not by necessity and BOB didn't though not by necessity. you can't reduce it further than that

(Me) The point is simply this: Joe was saved because he was better than Bob (e.g., salvation by grace plus merit, rather than salvation by grace alone). Your answers were exactly as expected.

(Sozo) "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

This does not contradict my point. It is not within ourselves to choose God, nor to choose how we shall be saved, it is solely at God's descretion. God chooses to save man by grace through faith, and it is by His mercy that He makes this choice. All men are given the revelation of the message concerning Christ as God wills, and it is at that point(s) that man accepts or rejects God's solution to man's problem.

(Me) It was said above that the differentiating factor was the man who willed: "You would have to ask them, for they decided by free will."

(Sozo) "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

I am sure you will agree that all men were under condemnation (not just an elect). It is the same all men that the justification of life is available to.

(Me) The question is simply this: how many of the "all men" are actually capable of connecting with that justification, of having faith?

(Sozo) "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(Me) Note: "all men, for kings and..." Paul again points to the universality of the New Covenant, which transcends race, gender, and societal status.

(Sozo) "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

(Me) Are you telling me, then, than all men have received eternal salvation? If not, I don't see how you've presented a problem for Calvinism.

Sozo

March 30th 2003, 01:15 AM

Today @ 10:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48219#post48219)
mustbenothing:

(Sozo) "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

(Me) Are you telling me, then, than all men have received eternal salvation? If not, I don't see how you've presented a problem for Calvinism.

No, I'm not telling you anything, but Paul is.

By grace, God has brought salvation to all men, but not all have received it.

Am I missing your point?

The question is simply this: how many of the "all men" are actually capable of connecting with that justification, of having faith?

Whosoever will.

mustbenothing

March 30th 2003, 02:54 AM

(Sozo) No, I'm not telling you anything, but Paul is.

By grace, God has brought salvation to all men, but not all have received it.

Am I missing your point?

(Me) The point is simply this: as I said above, "I don't see how you've presented a problem for Calvinism," unless you're saying that this verse teaches universalism.

(Previous) “ The question is simply this: how many of the "all men" are actually capable of connecting with that justification, of having faith? ”

(Sozo) Whosoever will.

(Me) So, only "whosoever will" is "actually capable of... having faith?" In other words, only those who will have faith are capable of having faith. This is what the Augustinian tradition affirms and those following in semi- and pure Pelagian traditions reject. "Freewill" (e.g., Arminian) thought focuses on every person as being truly and practically (not possibly and hypothetically) capable of having faith. However, here you're telling me that only "whosoever will" have faith was capable of having faith. Are you, indeed, a Calvinist?

Arminian

March 30th 2003, 04:30 AM

Must,

(Arminian) So, Joel, the question is Have you ever sinned? If you have, was it because God didn't provide a way out? Why did you sin, but someone else did not? Are you going to claim that determinism somehow caused you to sin? If so, God didn't deal with it so as to provide a way out? No, tacitly we understand that God did provide a way out, so you made the decision of your own LFW. Otherwise, God is not faithful.

(Me) God provided the escape, <i>if</i> we were to take hold of that escape. However, we didn't. I don't see how compatibilism is any less viable here than libertarianism.

On the contrary, the verse says he will provide a way out. Compatiblism doesn't provide a way of escape because if the person did sin, they did so because it was determined to happen. Therefore, there was no way out and God was not faithful because he determined it to happen.

geebob

March 30th 2003, 12:31 PM

(geebob) alot of us posted at the same time scroll up and see my elaboration on mystery. It's because JOE did though not by necessity and BOB didn't though not by necessity. you can't reduce it further than that

(Me) The point is simply this: Joe was saved because he was better than Bob (e.g., salvation by grace plus merit, rather than salvation by grace alone). Your answers were exactly as expected.

Not at all. Both joe and bob were sinners before the offer and in that they were not different. Joe was not better than Bob because it was truly possible and truly could have turned out that joe rejected and bob accepted. There was no difference between the two in that they both had an opportunity and again, seeking a difference would be to reduce the irreducable.

yxboom

March 30th 2003, 01:13 PM

I apologize if this is an aside but if not then how is it that one making a choice to say accept God's salvation is "better, stronger, smarter" and all that. All men are sinners with righteousness as filthy rags (Is 64:6). Someone who chooses not to go to grandma's for Christmas dinner isn't any better, smarter, stronger than someone who chooses to. It is a choice. One makes a choice to have to go to grandma's for Christmas dinner based on many factors just as one makes a choice to accept or deny God's gospel is based on many factors. Being bigger, smarter, prettier and better has...........NOTHING to do with the equation.

joelkaki

March 30th 2003, 04:21 PM

yxboom, my point in this thread was that most Arminians will say that so and so is saved over so and so because he recognized his sinful state and need of Christ. Then the question remains, why did #1 recognize and #2 did not? Was it because #1 was smarter, for if he was smarter, he might realize his own sinfulness? Obviously no one actually thinks that.
Basically my point is that Arminianism leaves the effectiveness of salvation resting squarely on the shoulders of man's will.

Joel

Sozo

March 30th 2003, 04:36 PM

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48646#post48646)
joelkaki:

Basically my point is that Arminianism leaves the effectiveness of salvation resting squarely on the shoulders of man's will.

Joel

Perhaps Arminianism does, but not the truth. Salvation rests clearly on God's will, which is by grace through faith. God presents His plan of salvation (justification and reconcilliation through the death, and salvation through the resurrected life).

All men are fully capable of making the choice, because God has made all men capable, they just say no.

Arminian

March 30th 2003, 04:54 PM

Joel,

As someone alluded above, the phenomenon of human existence cannot be reduced via minimalism. Any understanding will be tacit.

Tacitly, we know that only truly free will can explain our existence. Let's take for example 1 Cor 10:13:

No temptation has seized you except that which is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

So, Joel, the question is Have you ever sinned? If you have, was it because God didn't provide a way out? Why did you sin, but someone else did not? Are you going to claim that determinism somehow caused you to sin? If so, God didn't deal with it so as to provide a way out? No, tacitly we understand that God did provide a way out, so you made the decision of your own LFW. Otherwise, God is not faithful.

As such, we understand how the Holy Spirit can be grieved.

yxboom

March 30th 2003, 05:03 PM

Thanks joel but it seems that it continues to return to this break down when in fact as Sozo has said God has made this "revelation" to ALL men and again he rightly says......."they just say no." Why men choose or deny is the nature of a reciprocal relationship otherwise Isaiah 5 would amount to a pack of lies.

mustbenothing

March 30th 2003, 09:21 PM

(Previous) God provided the escape, if we were to take hold of that escape. However, we didn't. I don't see how compatibilism is any less viable here than libertarianism. ”

(Arminian) On the contrary, the verse says he will provide a way out. Compatiblism doesn't provide a way of escape because if the person did sin, they did so because it was determined to happen. Therefore, there was no way out and God was not faithful because he determined it to happen.

(Me) All you've done is repeat the assertion above, so I'll repeat my response: Why is it that compatibilism has a problem and libertarianism does not, with denying foreknowledge? For, in either view, God provides the way of escape if the person will take hold of it. And yet, in either view, God knows whether or not that person will take hold of it. Therefore, I can see no difference: God no more failed to provide the way of escape for the Calvinist than the Arminian.

(Arminian) So, Joel, the question is Have you ever sinned? If you have, was it because God didn't provide a way out? Why did you sin, but someone else did not? Are you going to claim that determinism somehow caused you to sin? If so, God didn't deal with it so as to provide a way out? No, tacitly we understand that God did provide a way out, so you made the decision of your own LFW. Otherwise, God is not faithful.

(Me) You keep making this assertion over and over, but will never show how compatibilist freewill is any less viable than libertarian under an Arminian/Molinist view of God. Please present arguments rather than making unsupported claims.

(geebob) Not at all. Both joe and bob were sinners before the offer and in that they were not different. Joe was not better than Bob because it was truly possible and truly could have turned out that joe rejected and bob accepted. There was no difference between the two in that they both had an opportunity and again, seeking a difference would be to reduce the irreducable.

(Me) In other words, they both had roughly comparable external factors going for them. However, as I've pointed out above, making the connection with adoption, justification, atonement, and so forth contingent upon man's will is to say that ultimately, salvation rests upon whether or not a man properly exercises his will, of and by himself. This is, of course, to say that salvation ultimately hangs upon man in every respect -- thus, Joe was saved because his will did something much better than Bob's. In other words, Joe's will was morally superior to Bob's. In other words, Joe was better than Bob.

(yxboom) Thanks joel but it seems that it continues to return to this break down when in fact as Sozo has said God has made this "revelation" to ALL men and again he rightly says......."they just say no." Why men choose or deny is the nature of a reciprocal relationship otherwise Isaiah 5 would amount to a pack of lies.

(Me) Where exactly is the proposed problem in Isaiah 5? Please be more respectful than this in your replies; how would you like it if I ended all of my posts with "Otherwise the Gospel of John, and Paul's epistles to the Ephesians and Romans would be a pack of lies?" Could you be a little more specific on what problem you see?

(yxboom) I apologize if this is an aside but if not then how is it that one making a choice to say accept God's salvation is "better, stronger, smarter" and all that. All men are sinners with righteousness as filthy rags (Is 64:6). Someone who chooses not to go to grandma's for Christmas dinner isn't any better, smarter, stronger than someone who chooses to. It is a choice. One makes a choice to have to go to grandma's for Christmas dinner based on many factors just as one makes a choice to accept or deny God's gospel is based on many factors. Being bigger, smarter, prettier and better has...........NOTHING to do with the equation.

(Me) So... you're telling me that, according to the Arminian system, man's eschatological life (i.e., eternal salvation) is completely dependent on whether or not he chooses something that isn't even good?? Rather, when Christ was asked, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God," He answered, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." In other words, the right thing to do is to believe in Christ. The good thing to do is to believe.

(Sozo) All men are fully capable of making the choice, because God has made all men capable, they just say no.

(Me) Honestly, you can keep making this assertion all day, but when will you show it to me in Scripture? The one quote you did make ("Whosoever will") I showed to reduce to Calvinism. If you will not base your arguments on Scripture, I will take the opposing view (though it is strange that I should carry the burden of proof, given that you made the positive claim).

The Scripture indicates that the sinful man does not desire to please God, nor is he even capable of it (Romans 8:7). We are sinful from conception (Psalms 51:5). All of our own “righteousness” is filthy and wicked (Isaiah 64:6). Both the mind and conscience of the unregenerate is defiled (Titus 1:15). None seek God on their own (Romans 3:12). Those walking in darkness hate the light and will not come to it (John 3:19). The minds of those in sin are blind to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4). They can no more do good than a leopard can change his spots (Jeremiah 14:23). Lost man cannot accept or understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). To him, the word of the cross is foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18), and he will not come to know God (1 Corinthians 1:21). He is not sick in his trespasses, but dead (Ephesians 2:4), for he is, by nature, a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Also, why will no one answer the one Calvinist argument (i.e., not Calvinist question/response) present: Romans 9:16? It indicates that election (thus salvation, Rom 8:28ff) is not based on the man who wills or runs, but on God who unconditionally has mercy. This seems to throw a kink in the Arminian view of conditional election.

Sozo

March 30th 2003, 09:51 PM

Honestly, you can keep making this assertion all day, but when will you show it to me in Scripture?
mustbenothing...

My mistake, I had thought you had read through this thread...

Posted earlier by sozo...

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

This does not contradict my point. It is not within ourselves to choose God, nor to choose how we shall be saved, it is solely at God's descretion. God chooses to save man by grace through faith, and it is by His mercy that He makes this choice. All men are given the revelation of the message concerning Christ as God wills, and it is at that point(s) that man accepts or rejects God's solution to man's problem.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

I am sure you will agree that all men were under condemnation (not just an elect). It is the same all men that the justification of life is available to.

"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

It isn't that we have not used scripture, it is that the Calvinists twist it to prove their erroneous beliefs.

All the passages you used prove what I have been saying.

Man is dead (separated from the life of God through the spirit), but his soul and body are not dead. Man reasons, he moves, he communicates, and he is wholly unrighteous. But, we are capable of choice...

".And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

" I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved"

If it is through the Calvinists version of "predestination" than the previous passage makes no sense. "Whosoever God calls shall be saved" would be more accurate.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

mustbenothing

March 31st 2003, 05:53 PM

(Previous) Honestly, you can keep making this assertion all day, but when will you show it to me in Scripture? ”

(Sozo) My mistake, I had thought you had read through this thread...

(Me) I did read the thread, actually. I answered each of your arguments, and you have refused to answer the relevant points and exegesis. If you're going to keep making this assertion, you're going to have to provide a sustained, cogent argument for it, or I'm going to call you out.

(Sozo) It isn't that we have not used scripture, it is that the Calvinists twist it to prove their erroneous beliefs.

All the passages you used prove what I have been saying.

(Me) Again, you can assert that I've twisted Scripture all day -- but where are you going to rebut my arguments?

(Sozo) Man is dead (separated from the life of God through the spirit), but his soul and body are not dead. Man reasons, he moves, he communicates, and he is wholly unrighteous. But, we are capable of choice...

".And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

" I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved"

(Me) These speak nothing of ability, only of the necessity of belief. Yet, Jesus says, "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (John 3:19-20).

The light has come, but people love the darkness rather than the light (19). Therefore, they do not come to the light (20). They must believe, but they will not on their own.

(Sozo) If it is through the Calvinists version of "predestination" than the previous passage makes no sense. "Whosoever God calls shall be saved" would be more accurate.

(Me) Indeed, "Whosoever God calls shall be saved" is accurate, as Jesus says the following: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). Again, He says, "No one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him" (Matthew 11:27). Romans 8:29 tells us that all whom God calls are justified. Christians are frequently referred to as "the called" (e.g., Romans 1:6-7; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Ephesians 4:4; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 17:14). However, improperly emphasizing God's calling, to the exclusion of man's response according to His grace, is unnecessary. Yet, as Christ says:

John 6:35-37 (ESV)
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

They must believe; yet, they have not believed because they have not been given. They must be drawn (John 6:44). Christ can easily refer to both sides: effectual calling/election, as well as belief.

(Sozo) "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

(Me) I showed above that the interpretation you offered is Calvinistic. Please respond to my arguments, rather than repeating the ones I've already answered.

Jin-Roh

March 31st 2003, 07:05 PM

Intresting thread. I'm not sure if its good apolegtics, or meaningless Christain banter.

Not that I mean to insult anybody who is discussing this. BUt I do admit, aren't we just chasing eachother's tails a bit?
:argue:
All that said I agree with the Arm's on this one, but all my reasoning has already been aptly stated. I suppose it makes for good conversation.

Arminian

March 31st 2003, 07:10 PM

Must,

All you've done is repeat the assertion above, so I'll repeat my response: Why is it that compatibilism has a problem and libertarianism does not, with denying foreknowledge? For, in either view, God provides the way of escape if the person will take hold of it. And yet, in either view, God knows whether or not that person will take hold of it. Therefore, I can see no difference: God no more failed to provide the way of escape for the Calvinist than the Arminian.

My response was directed at your comment concerning compatibilism, so I was not repeating what I said, nor was it a mere assertion.

The difference between pure foreknowledge in LFW and determinism is obvious. Knowledge doesn't cause things to happen. On the other hand, if sin is determined by God to happen, then he has not been faithful to provide a way out. In fact, God has been unfaithful.

So the issue is God's faithfullness, and not his knowledge. So you say that God provided the escape "if" we take it, yet he determined that we would not. That, on its face, is not esacape and clearly conflicts with the intent of the verse. God's faithfulness is the issue here.

Sheepdog

March 31st 2003, 09:51 PM

Question:

it is suggested that if Joe received Jesus and Bob didn't, that somehow Joe is better than Bob, and thus Joe merited salvation. however, in order to receive salvation, Joe had to realize that he couldn't merit salvation, but instead must rely on grace by faith. so, how does accepting that you cannot merit you own salvation mean you merited salvation?

PuritanD

April 1st 2003, 01:53 AM

This is a facsinating thread.

Sozo points out that we are all saved by grace through faith. And then states that most men choose, "no." My question, how does one obtain this faith is it by man's decision or was it given to man by God so that they will believe? In other words, the very faith it takes to believe is not inherent within man but has to be given by God. This faith is referred to as salvific faith so only those God has elected has been given such faith in order to respond to God's grace.

All of the salvific process must be from God or else we could boast (Eph 2:9-10). If we chose "yes," or "no," then it should be obvious that the following statement must be true: "I have chosen Christ for my salvation." This is no more than boasting in man's ability which is prohibited in Scripture. If we boast, we boast in the Lord. If we even have 1% activity in our salvation, then we have every reason to boast of making the "right" choice.

This does not seam to square with Jer. 9:24.

Just a couple of thoughts to throw into this ring:smile:

PuritanD

Sozo

April 1st 2003, 11:37 AM

Salvation is God's idea, not man's. Man has nothing to say about how he is saved, it is not merited, and it is not by his choosing.

I did not choose to be saved. God choose to save me, as He did all men. There was nothing within in me that sought God, and there was certainly no righteousness in me. I was completely foreign to God in every way. God had to "make me" a believer through His grace, and He did this through the power of the gospel message (Rom 1:16). God revealed His righteousness through Christ, and He revealed my unrighteousness through the Law (Rom 3:20). Jesus died for my unrighteousness, so that I could be the righteousness of God in Christ through faith (2 Cor 5:21). I believe the gospel and therefore put my faith in Jesus (Gal 3:22). Why do I believe the gospel and another does not? Because, God gives grace to the humble, and is opposed to the proud. The proud don't have grace, because the proud won't receive grace.

Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed." Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

People refuse to believe because they want to come to God their own way, through their own efforts. Believing the gospel causes a complete denial and death of self, and a complete surrendering into the arms of a loving God who is wholly trustworthy, and competent to save. This is our faith in action, and it is by God's grace that we have access into this salvation.

Sheepdog

April 1st 2003, 02:09 PM

Today @ 12:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50026#post50026)
PuritanD:

Sozo points out that we are all saved by grace through faith. And then states that most men choose, "no." My question, how does one obtain this faith is it by man's decision or was it given to man by God so that they will believe?

faith is man's decision to surrender his all to God. it is trust of or loyalty to God, by definition. i have yet to see any context where trust/loyalty is forced, and not earned. other than in oppressive societies... until upheavals occur.

In other words, the very faith it takes to believe is not inherent within man but has to be given by God.

Scripture, please? while it is true faith is not inherent in the natural man, God grants the ability to have faith. (John 15:1-8)

All of the salvific process must be from God or else we could boast (Eph 2:9-10). If we chose "yes," or "no," then it should be obvious that the following statement must be true: "I have chosen Christ for my salvation."

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10.

funny, i see nothing in the above that clasifies faith as a work. can you please point it out to me?

i asked once, i ask again:
it is suggested that if Joe received Jesus and Bob didn't, that somehow Joe is better than Bob, and thus Joe merited salvation. however, in order to receive salvation, Joe had to realize that he couldn't merit salvation, but instead must rely on grace by faith. so, how does accepting that you cannot merit you own salvation mean you merited salvation?
i have yet to see any Calvinist or otherwise reformed person answer this question, and i doubt they can.

This is no more than boasting in man's ability which is prohibited in Scripture. If we boast, we boast in the Lord. If we even have 1% activity in our salvation, then we have every reason to boast of making the "right" choice.

clasification error: faith is not an "activity." i can say "salvation is 100% God's activity" despite the fact that i chose salvation, because God did all the work-- at the cross.

boasting about man's ability? is the fact that you realize you are as good as dead without God really something to boast about?

This does not seam to square with Jer. 9:24.

...but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD. Jeremiah 9:24.

let a man boast that he understands the Lord? i don't think this verse sugggests what you think it does.

joelkaki

April 1st 2003, 06:22 PM

how does accepting that you cannot merit you own salvation mean you merited salvation?

That kind of misses the point. Why should anyone accept that they cannot merit their own salvation? Is it because they are somehow smarter? Or better?

Joel

joelkaki

April 1st 2003, 06:22 PM

joelkaki

April 1st 2003, 06:30 PM

I did not choose to be saved. God choose to save me, as He did all men.

I take it by all men you mean every single man. If he did, then man thwarted his efforts.

There was nothing within in me that sought God, and there was certainly no righteousness in me. I was completely foreign to God in every way. God had to "make me" a believer through His grace, and He did this through the power of the gospel message (Rom 1:16). God revealed His righteousness through Christ, and He revealed my unrighteousness through the Law (Rom 3:20). Jesus died for my unrighteousness, so that I could be the righteousness of God in Christ through faith (2 Cor 5:21). I believe the gospel and therefore put my faith in Jesus (Gal 3:22). Why do I believe the gospel and another does not? Because, God gives grace to the humble, and is opposed to the proud. The proud don't have grace, because the proud won't receive grace.

Sozo, you have here proved my exact point. You say God gives this grace to everyone, and some accept and some reject--obviously my first problem is that I don't see that in Scripture anywhere. Now, as to how you proved my point:
You say that you received the grace because you were humble, and those who don't receive it do not because they are proud. Now you would admit that humility is good and pride is bad. So basically, you were better than the proud person. Hence you accepted the gospel because you were better than the other person. You have totally destroyed your own view in your own words. What you have just said cannot be true, because you put the emphasis on man. The good men accept Christ and the bad men reject him. Which was exactly my point to begin with. And that is totally contrary to Scripture. Before God sovereignly regenerates us and GIVES US FAITH (Eph 2:8), we are all proud against him and will not accept him.

Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed." Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

People refuse to believe because they want to come to God their own way, through their own efforts. Believing the gospel causes a complete denial and death of self, and a complete surrendering into the arms of a loving God who is wholly trustworthy, and competent to save. This is our faith in action, and it is by God's grace that we have access into this salvation.

You have proven my point completely. You may not admit it, but your own words condemn you. Your view necessarily says that some men accept because they are better than others.

Joel

Sher

April 2nd 2003, 03:05 AM

Yesterday @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50453#post50453)
joelkaki:

Sozo, you have here proved my exact point. You say God gives this grace to everyone, and some accept and some reject--obviously my first problem is that I don't see that in Scripture anywhere.Romans 1:18-22For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.Since all men fall short of the glory of God, and God is revealed to all men, obviously God revealed Himself to Joe (or was it Bob?), but he "suppress[ed] the truth in unrighteousness", and now he is without excuse. If God only revealed Himself to a select few, the others would have excuse, wouldn't they? :huh: "God didn't reveal Himself to me" would be an excuse ...

Sheepdog

April 2nd 2003, 03:07 AM

joelkaki:

how does accepting that you cannot merit you own salvation mean you merited salvation?

That kind of misses the point. Why should anyone accept that they cannot merit their own salvation? Is it because they are somehow smarter? Or better?

ok. let me get this straight. you would be smarter or better because you admit you are a fool, a wicked sinner, and can only be saved by the gift of God (grace). i don't even know where to begin.

it may mean you are more humble, but i don't recall humility being something one can brag about. (i.e. if you brag about being humble, are you really humble?).

Sher

April 2nd 2003, 03:17 AM

Today @ 02:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50789#post50789)
Sheepdog:

“joelkaki: That kind of misses the point. Why should anyone accept that they cannot merit their own salvation? Is it because they are somehow smarter? Or better?"

ok. let me get this straight. you would be smarter or better because you admit you are a fool, a wicked sinner, and can only be saved by the gift of God (grace). i don't even know where to begin.

it may mean you are more humble, but i don't recall humility being something one can brag about. (i.e. if you brag about being humble, are you really humble?). Not to mention the fact that so many come to God when they are completely broken. They feel their lives are over, and someone tells them and shows them that God loves them ...

Was Moses who had a speech problem better or smarter than Pharaoh who was ... well, pharaoh? Moses certainly didn't think so.

Arminian

April 2nd 2003, 03:47 AM

joel,

Before God sovereignly regenerates us and GIVES US FAITH (Eph 2:8), we are all proud against him and will not accept him.

Faith is not the gift.

The prepositional phrases are subordinate. This "salvation" is a "by grace-through faith" salvation. "Salvation" is the abstraction (antecedent to the neuter) with these qualifiers.

And so it is "salvation" which is the gift. Which salvation? The "by grace through faith salvation." That is the "gift."

The gift is not "grace" and "faith" and "salvation." We do not find a series of coordinates as the antecedents. We find an abstraction.

It is this type of salvation that is God's gift to all.

yxboom

April 2nd 2003, 03:49 AM

Excellent Arminian :thumb:

joelkaki

April 2nd 2003, 10:24 AM

“ Yesterday @ 05:30 PM post located here
joelkaki:

Sozo, you have here proved my exact point. You say God gives this grace to everyone, and some accept and some reject--obviously my first problem is that I don't see that in Scripture anywhere. ”

Romans 1:18-22
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Since all men fall short of the glory of God, and God is revealed to all men, obviously God revealed Himself to Joe (or was it Bob?), but he "suppress[ed] the truth in unrighteousness", and now he is without excuse. If God only revealed Himself to a select few, the others would have excuse, wouldn't they? "God didn't reveal Himself to me" would be an excuse ...

SherBear, we are not talking about common grace. We are talking about special grace, namely, the grace given by the Holy Spirit leading to salvation. The verses you presented are not speaking of special grace. They refer to God's attributes being seen in the world--common grace. Men are without excuse, because the Creator's work is clearly seen in the world around us. The grace we are referring to in this discussion is the grace of the gospel, not merely the world around us.

Joel

joelkaki

April 2nd 2003, 10:28 AM

ok. let me get this straight. you would be smarter or better because you admit you are a fool, a wicked sinner, and can only be saved by the gift of God (grace). i don't even know where to begin.

You would be smarter because you would see your true character, and the other guy wouldn't. He wasn't smart enough to see it.

it may mean you are more humble, but i don't recall humility being something one can brag about. (i.e. if you brag about being humble, are you really humble?).

Who said anything about bragging about it? I just said if person A chose because he was humble, and Person B rejected because he was prideful, then the inescapable conclusion is that Person A accepted because he is better than Person B.

Joel

Sheepdog

April 2nd 2003, 01:06 PM

Today @ 02:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50796#post50796)
SherBear:

Not to mention the fact that so many come to God when they are completely broken. They feel their lives are over, and someone tells them and shows them that God loves them ...

Was Moses who had a speech problem better or smarter than Pharaoh who was ... well, pharaoh? Moses certainly didn't think so.

excellent comparison. thank you, Sherbear

Sheepdog

April 2nd 2003, 01:12 PM

Today @ 09:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50953#post50953)
joelkaki:

SherBear, we are not talking about common grace. We are talking about special grace, namely, the grace given by the Holy Spirit leading to salvation. The verses you presented are not speaking of special grace. They refer to God's attributes being seen in the world--common grace. Men are without excuse, because the Creator's work is clearly seen in the world around us. The grace we are referring to in this discussion is the grace of the gospel, not merely the world around us.

so, there are two kinds of grace? i must have missed where Paul exhorted on the difference between common grace and justifying grace.

both are likely the same grace, God's grace. you would have to assume Irresistable Grace is true to separate them, but of course [i]I[/b] isn't quite that biblical.

Sheepdog

April 2nd 2003, 01:29 PM

Today @ 09:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50955#post50955)
joelkaki:

ok. let me get this straight. you would be smarter or better because you admit you are a fool, a wicked sinner, and can only be saved by the gift of God (grace). i don't even know where to begin.

You would be smarter because you would see your true character, and the other guy wouldn't. He wasn't smart enough to see it.

uuh, and you would know this how? how do you know he was smarter? if he had knowledge of this, it had to be from God (hence, it isn't him being smart, but God being smarter). this is because the natural man can't figure this out on his own-- the fact that you are a wicked sinner is spiritually discerned (cf. 1Cor. 2).

it is also probable that God revealed this to both, but only the one made a conscious decision on it. if you think this would mean he was smarter, you will have to show us why you have to be smart in order to make a right decision (even fools get it right from time to time)

Who said anything about bragging about it? I just said if person A chose because he was humble, and Person B rejected because he was prideful, then the inescapable conclusion is that Person A accepted because he is better than Person B.

Scripture says... the reason why God values humility is because in its very nature humility cannot boast. hense we see passages like 1Cor. 1:26-31.

if you don't have something to brag about, you aren't really any better. humility is not a "better" trait in any respect. and that is precisely why God gives grace the humble, but destroys the prideful-- all humility is as a trait is being able to admit your aren't any better.

but dont take my word for it, let's look at Scripture:

When God arose to judgment, To save all the humble of the earth. Psalm 76:9.

does God save the humble because they are better than the prideful?

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." James 4:6.

does God oppose the proud, because they are not as good as the humble? does God give his grace to the humble because they are better than the prideful?

joelkaki

April 3rd 2003, 08:10 PM

joel,

“ Before God sovereignly regenerates us and GIVES US FAITH (Eph 2:8), we are all proud against him and will not accept him. ”

Faith is not the gift.

The prepositional phrases are subordinate. This "salvation" is a "by grace-through faith" salvation. "Salvation" is the abstraction (antecedent to the neuter) with these qualifiers.

And so it is "salvation" which is the gift. Which salvation? The "by grace through faith salvation." That is the "gift."

The gift is not "grace" and "faith" and "salvation." We do not find a series of coordinates as the antecedents. We find an abstraction.

It is this type of salvation that is God's gift to all.

I disagree. Though certainly salvation is the gift of God, I believe that this passage means that faith is the gift of God. (And for those that say we Calvinists practically worship Calvin and say his writings are infallible, here's a news flash--in his works, he said Eph 2:8 does not refer to faith being the gift, so I don't agree with him on everything.)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..."

Arminian, before I finish replying to this, could you answer me this question? Do you believe that phrase, "and that not of yourselves" to refer to the "by grace through faith type of salvation"?

Joel

Arminian

April 3rd 2003, 08:48 PM

Joel,

I disagree. Though certainly salvation is the gift of God, I believe that this passage means that faith is the gift of God.

It isn't gramatically possible.

(And for those that say we Calvinists practically worship Calvin and say his writings are infallible, here's a news flash--in his works, he said Eph 2:8 does not refer to faith being the gift, so I don't agree with him on everything.)

Correct. That was his understanding of the verse.

Arminian, before I finish replying to this, could you answer me this question? Do you believe that phrase, "and that not of yourselves" to refer to the "by grace through faith type of salvation"?

I believe that "and not of yourselves" is a reference to the Jewish boast of having the flesh of Abraham. They believed that they were born covenant members via phusis. Circumcision was the badge of covenant membership. It was a "work done by hands" indicating that they were Abraham's heirs. That's why Paul argues against circumcision. Paul argues for a circumcision of the heart, which involves works of the Spirit.

Paul really twisted some tails with those comments!

Sheepdog

April 3rd 2003, 11:37 PM

good point Arminian... also, let's not forget the immediate context where Paul says not of works, so that no one may boast. "not of works" here is set up parallel to "not of yourselves." hence, "not of yourselves" refers to works, specifically.

mustbenothing

April 8th 2003, 06:38 PM

(Previous) All you've done is repeat the assertion above, so I'll repeat my response: Why is it that compatibilism has a problem and libertarianism does not, with denying foreknowledge? For, in either view, God provides the way of escape if the person will take hold of it. And yet, in either view, God knows whether or not that person will take hold of it. Therefore, I can see no difference: God no more failed to provide the way of escape for the Calvinist than the Arminian.

(Arminian) My response was directed at your comment concerning compatibilism, so I was not repeating what I said, nor was it a mere assertion.

The difference between pure foreknowledge in LFW and determinism is obvious. Knowledge doesn't cause things to happen. On the other hand, if sin is determined by God to happen, then he has not been faithful to provide a way out. In fact, God has been unfaithful.

So the issue is God's faithfullness, and not his knowledge. So you say that God provided the escape "if" we take it, yet he determined that we would not. That, on its face, is not esacape and clearly conflicts with the intent of the verse. God's faithfulness is the issue here.

(Me) The Arminian position provides no recourse. For, if God determintes to give an insufficient provision, by the standard you've here offered, God was unfaithful in His provision. So, since the Arminian affirms that God knows that His provision will be insufficient when He gives it, by your reasoning, God has truly given an insufficient provision.

(JoelKaki) I disagree. Though certainly salvation is the gift of God, I believe that this passage means that faith is the gift of God. ”

(Arminian) It isn't gramatically possible.

(Me) I don't think the verse requires that faith be the reference of 'gift' either, but I can't see how it's grammatically impossible. What I see is Paul looking back to vv. 4-5 ("by grace you have been saved"). This grace apparently took "children of wrath," who were "dead in [their] transgressions," and made them "alive together with Christ." Verse 8 tells us that this was through faith, not on account of faith (as the genitive, not accusative, is used). Arminians seem to think that we are saved on account of faith. Rather, as Paul shows us, we are saved through faith, but on account of God's love (1:4), the purpose of His will (1:5), to the praise of His glorious grace (1:6), according to the riches of His grace (1:7), in all wisdom and insight (1:8), according to His purpose (1:9), as a plan for the fullness of time (1:10), according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will (1:11). Paul's account of the basis for salvation is election, and Paul's account of the basis for election is God's purpose, love, plan, glory, and will. No mention is made of man's faith as being the basis for salvation. Every mention is made of man's faith as being an instrument through which God effects His plan.

(Sheepdog) it is suggested that if Joe received Jesus and Bob didn't, that somehow Joe is better than Bob, and thus Joe merited salvation. however, in order to receive salvation, Joe had to realize that he couldn't merit salvation, but instead must rely on grace by faith. so, how does accepting that you cannot merit you own salvation mean you merited salvation?

(Me) I submit that, to Arminians, it does. This is why Calvinists continually charge that Arminian salvation is salvation by grace plus some, rather than salvation by grace alone.

(Sozo) "how does accepting that you cannot merit you own salvation mean you merited salvation?"

i have yet to see any Calvinist or otherwise reformed person answer this question, and i doubt they can.

(Me) Equivocation. Indeed, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that the Arminian position is not Pelagian -- in other words, that the modern, broad evangelical "freewill" position does not teach that we earn heaven and salvation by our works alone. I realize that Arminianism teaches us the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins for all. However, I charge that this is where the Arminians jump ship. They agree that we need God's grace. However, they believe that God's grace is appropriated or distributed according to something of man. Whether it be man's freewill decision, man's faith, man having a receptive heart, or whatever, the Arminian position teaches that whether or not a person is saved is, ultimately, up to their own choice. However, Paul teaches us that election, therefore salvation, has nothing to do with the man who wills or runs (Romans 9:16). In other words, election, and therefore salvation, are a) not based on works ("the man who runs"), as if man could somehow completely earn his salvation, and b) not based on man's will, as if God's grace is dispensed on the grounds of man's willingness.

(Sozo) Salvation is God's idea, not man's. Man has nothing to say about how he is saved, it is not merited, and it is not by his choosing.

I did not choose to be saved. God choose to save me, as He did all men.

(Me) Then why are not all men saved? Is something sovereign over God's choice?

(Sozo) There was nothing within in me that sought God, and there was certainly no righteousness in me. I was completely foreign to God in every way. God had to "make me" a believer through His grace, and He did this through the power of the gospel message (Rom 1:16). God revealed His righteousness through Christ, and He revealed my unrighteousness through the Law (Rom 3:20). Jesus died for my unrighteousness, so that I could be the righteousness of God in Christ through faith (2 Cor 5:21). I believe the gospel and therefore put my faith in Jesus (Gal 3:22). Why do I believe the gospel and another does not? Because, God gives grace to the humble, and is opposed to the proud. The proud don't have grace, because the proud won't receive grace.

(Me) So you were saved because you were better than other people -- because you were humble, and they were proud? Is this not salvation by works?

Arminian

April 8th 2003, 06:49 PM

Must,

I said:

The difference between pure foreknowledge in LFW and determinism is obvious. Knowledge doesn't cause things to happen. On the other hand, if sin is determined by God to happen, then he has not been faithful to provide a way out. In fact, God has been unfaithful.

So the issue is God's faithfullness, and not his knowledge. So you say that God provided the escape "if" we take it, yet he determined that we would not. That, on its face, is not esacape and clearly conflicts with the intent of the verse. God's faithfulness is the issue here.

Your reply:

The Arminian position provides no recourse. For, if God determintes to give an insufficient provision, by the standard you've here offered, God was unfaithful in His provision. So, since the Arminian affirms that God knows that His provision will be insufficient when He gives it, by your reasoning, God has truly given an insufficient provision.

The Arminian position is that God did provide sufficiet provision. Therefore, He is faithful. Your position is that He did not provide sufficient provision.

joelkaki

April 8th 2003, 07:04 PM

“ Today @ 09:24 AM post located here
joelkaki:

SherBear, we are not talking about common grace. We are talking about special grace, namely, the grace given by the Holy Spirit leading to salvation. The verses you presented are not speaking of special grace. They refer to God's attributes being seen in the world--common grace. Men are without excuse, because the Creator's work is clearly seen in the world around us. The grace we are referring to in this discussion is the grace of the gospel, not merely the world around us. ”

so, there are two kinds of grace? i must have missed where Paul exhorted on the difference between common grace and justifying grace.

Yes, I believe that there are two kinds of grace. Common grace is manifested in the sun that shines on everybody, saved and unsaved alike, etc. "Justifying grace," or special grace, is given to the elect alone.

both are likely the same grace, God's grace. you would have to assume Irresistable Grace is true to separate them, but of course [i]I isn't quite that biblical.[/B]

Not the same grace at all. The grace of God's inward call of the Holy Spirit is given to those who are predestined, and all of those to whom it is given are justified and glorified. That call must then obviously not be given to those who are not finally saved. (Romans 8:30).
I do believe in Irresistible Grace, and I believe it is biblical. I find prevanient grace unbiblical.

"ok. let me get this straight. you would be smarter or better because you admit you are a fool, a wicked sinner, and can only be saved by the gift of God (grace). i don't even know where to begin.

You would be smarter because you would see your true character, and the other guy wouldn't. He wasn't smart enough to see it. ”

uuh, and you would know this how? how do you know he was smarter? if he had knowledge of this, it had to be from God (hence, it isn't him being smart, but God being smarter). this is because the natural man can't figure this out on his own-- the fact that you are a wicked sinner is spiritually discerned (cf. 1Cor. 2).

YEs, but you say that God gives the same to all, and some reject and some accept, thus the ones that accept would be either smarter or better.

it is also probable that God revealed this to both, but only the one made a conscious decision on it. if you think this would mean he was smarter, you will have to show us why you have to be smart in order to make a right decision (even fools get it right from time to time)

Then you place all the emphasis on man's will when Romans 9:16 says it is exactly the opposite.

“ Who said anything about bragging about it? I just said if person A chose because he was humble, and Person B rejected because he was prideful, then the inescapable conclusion is that Person A accepted because he is better than Person B. ”

Scripture says... the reason why God values humility is because in its very nature humility cannot boast. hense we see passages like 1Cor. 1:26-31.

I know, but I never mentioned anything about boasting in the humility. I was saying that if you chose salvation because you are humble, and someone else didn't because they were proud, then it is because you were better.

if you don't have something to brag about, you aren't really any better. humility is not a "better" trait in any respect. and that is precisely why God gives grace the humble, but destroys the prideful-- all humility is as a trait is being able to admit your aren't any better.

Humility is certainly a better trait. It is GOOD to be humble. You are playing word games. Being humble is good and being proud is bad.

but dont take my word for it, let's look at Scripture:

When God arose to judgment, To save all the humble of the earth. Psalm 76:9.

does God save the humble because they are better than the prideful?

No. God saves them because they are his people.

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." James 4:6.

does God oppose the proud, because they are not as good as the humble? does God give his grace to the humble because they are better than the prideful?

Is that grace the grace of the call of the Holy Spirit unto salvation? I don't think so. James 4 is not talking about salvation at that point.

Joel

joelkaki

April 8th 2003, 07:08 PM

“ I disagree. Though certainly salvation is the gift of God, I believe that this passage means that faith is the gift of God. ”

It isn't gramatically possible.

I believe it is. "...through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..." I don't see how it is grammatically impossible.

“ (And for those that say we Calvinists practically worship Calvin and say his writings are infallible, here's a news flash--in his works, he said Eph 2:8 does not refer to faith being the gift, so I don't agree with him on everything.) ”

Correct. That was his understanding of the verse.

“ Arminian, before I finish replying to this, could you answer me this question? Do you believe that phrase, "and that not of yourselves" to refer to the "by grace through faith type of salvation"? ”

I believe that "and not of yourselves" is a reference to the Jewish boast of having the flesh of Abraham. They believed that they were born covenant members via phusis. Circumcision was the badge of covenant membership. It was a "work done by hands" indicating that they were Abraham's heirs. That's why Paul argues against circumcision. Paul argues for a circumcision of the heart, which involves works of the Spirit.

Paul really twisted some tails with those comments!

That is a different interpretation than I have heard before; and I disagree with it. That doesn't seem to fit in quite right. But I won't take the time to debate you on it at the moment unless you desire to.

Joel

mustbenothing

April 8th 2003, 07:27 PM

(Arminian) The Arminian position is that God did provide sufficiet provision. Therefore, He is faithful. Your position is that He did not provide sufficient provision.

(Me) Then what do you mean by "sufficient provision"? By that phrase, I would mean "Enough provision so that, if man chose to will it so, it would happen." And yet, you clearly reject this definition, for this fits the Calvinistic position. You seem to think that my position cannot see God's provision as sufficiently faithful because God knows that His provision will not actually keep that person from sin. Of course, the Arminian must also say that God's provision will not actually keep that person from sin, as well!

At best, it looks like the problem you perceive is either:
1. A complaint against Hyper-Calvinism, or
2. A complaint again any Christian view (including Open Theism, as far as I can tell)

Arminian

April 8th 2003, 07:35 PM

Must,

By that phrase, I would mean "Enough provision so that, if man chose to will it so, it would happen."

And man can't chose it, because God determined it, so it wouldn't be a provision at all.

You seem to think that my position cannot see God's provision as sufficiently faithful because God knows that His provision will not actually keep that person from sin.

The intent of the verse can't possibly be that God is faithful to provide a way out that can't be taken. Clearly, the intent of the verse is that God will work within and outside of the believer so as to provide a way of escape that can be taken. God isn't faithful if he has provided a way of escape and also determined that the person can't take. The verse speaks of standing up under temptation, not standing up under a lack of options. Increasing the options doesn't help at all, does it?

Of course, the Arminian must also say that God's provision will not actually keep that person from sin, as well!

I rest my case.

Arminian

April 8th 2003, 07:38 PM

Joel,

I believe it is. "...through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..." I don't see how it is grammatically impossible.

The pronoun is neuter, and faith is feminine.

Sheepdog

April 9th 2003, 01:40 AM

Yesterday @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59483#post59483)
mustbenothing:

(Sheepdog) it is suggested that if Joe received Jesus and Bob didn't, that somehow Joe is better than Bob, and thus Joe merited salvation. however, in order to receive salvation, Joe had to realize that he couldn't merit salvation, but instead must rely on grace by faith. so, how does accepting that you cannot merit you own salvation mean you merited salvation?

(Me) I submit that, to Arminians, it does. This is why Calvinists continually charge that Arminian salvation is salvation by grace plus some, rather than salvation by grace alone.

plus some what? if you Calvinists do not tell us how choice can be meritous, your objection has the value of a bucket without a bottom. you cannot, either, because there is no biblical precedence of choice being meritous.

joelkaki

April 9th 2003, 02:05 AM

Yesterday @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59561#post59561)
Arminian:

Joel,

The pronoun is neuter, and faith is feminine.

Are you talking about "it"?

Joel

Sheepdog

April 9th 2003, 02:08 AM

Yesterday @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59511#post59511)
joelkaki:

“ Today @ 09:24 AM post located here
joelkaki:

SherBear, we are not talking about common grace. We are talking about special grace, namely, the grace given by the Holy Spirit leading to salvation. The verses you presented are not speaking of special grace. They refer to God's attributes being seen in the world--common grace. Men are without excuse, because the Creator's work is clearly seen in the world around us. The grace we are referring to in this discussion is the grace of the gospel, not merely the world around us. ”

so, there are two kinds of grace? i must have missed where Paul exhorted on the difference between common grace and justifying grace.

Yes, I believe that there are two kinds of grace. Common grace is manifested in the sun that shines on everybody, saved and unsaved alike, etc. "Justifying grace," or special grace, is given to the elect alone.

the problem is, i have not seen a single suggestion in scripture of two different forms or types of grace. perhaps different extents or amounts.

both are likely the same grace, God's grace. you would have to assume Irresistable Grace is true to separate them, but of course [i]I isn't quite that biblical.[/B]

Not the same grace at all. The grace of God's inward call of the Holy Spirit is given to those who are predestined, and all of those to whom it is given are justified and glorified. That call must then obviously not be given to those who are not finally saved. (Romans 8:30).

oops. we are talking about grace as it is offered, not as it is given. obviously the lost haven't been *given* grace because they refuse to receive it.

I do believe in Irresistible Grace, and I believe it is biblical. I find prevanient grace unbiblical.

well, you are entitled to your opinion. however, there is no indication of irresistable grace in Scirpture. indeed, it is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms: Paul, in using the Greek term charis for grace, doesn't create a new theological concept; he uses a word that existed in secular Greek literature. the concept is, grace is a gift/favor offered, and either accepted or refused. few people would refuse a free gift-- however it does occur, as some people with pride find it offensive to be accepted a "hand out."

"ok. let me get this straight. you would be smarter or better because you admit you are a fool, a wicked sinner, and can only be saved by the gift of God (grace). i don't even know where to begin.

You would be smarter because you would see your true character, and the other guy wouldn't. He wasn't smart enough to see it. ”

uuh, and you would know this how? how do you know he was smarter? if he had knowledge of this, it had to be from God (hence, it isn't him being smart, but God being smarter). this is because the natural man can't figure this out on his own-- the fact that you are a wicked sinner is spiritually discerned (cf. 1Cor. 2).

YEs, but you say that God gives the same to all, and some reject and some accept, thus the ones that accept would be either smarter or better.

sorry, you still haven't shown us the reasoning behind this bit. how do you know they are smarter of better?

it is also probable that God revealed this to both, but only the one made a conscious decision on it. if you think this would mean he was smarter, you will have to show us why you have to be smart in order to make a right decision (even fools get it right from time to time)

Then you place all the emphasis on man's will when Romans 9:16 says it is exactly the opposite.

what depends on God? context, d00d. read the previous verse, and then tell us what Paul means when he says, So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

“ Who said anything about bragging about it? I just said if person A chose because he was humble, and Person B rejected because he was prideful, then the inescapable conclusion is that Person A accepted because he is better than Person B. ”

Scripture says... the reason why God values humility is because in its very nature humility cannot boast. hense we see passages like 1Cor. 1:26-31.

I know, but I never mentioned anything about boasting in the humility. I was saying that if you chose salvation because you are humble, and someone else didn't because they were proud, then it is because you were better.

you still haven't defined how it makes you better. and even if you are right, the Bible is loaded with passages where God is merciful to the humble, while he destroys the prideful.

if you don't have something to brag about, you aren't really any better. humility is not a "better" trait in any respect. and that is precisely why God gives grace the humble, but destroys the prideful-- all humility is as a trait is being able to admit your aren't any better.

Humility is certainly a better trait. It is GOOD to be humble. You are playing word games. Being humble is good and being proud is bad.

:argh: while i admit, yes it is good to be humble, but you still haven't shown us why it makes someone better. in fact, it is self defeating to say so: i am better because i admit i am no better?

but dont take my word for it, let's look at Scripture:

When God arose to judgment, To save all the humble of the earth. Psalm 76:9.

does God save the humble because they are better than the prideful?

No. God saves them because they are his people.

:argh: :argh: wow, it must be easy just to skirt around Scripture like that. tell me, which were God's people: the Jews who were prideful, the Jews who were humble, or both? now same question, but replace "Jew" with "Gentile."

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." James 4:6.

does God oppose the proud, because they are not as good as the humble? does God give his grace to the humble because they are better than the prideful?

Is that grace the grace of the call of the Holy Spirit unto salvation? I don't think so. James 4 is not talking about salvation at that point.

ah i see. evade the clear teaching of Scripture by creating a false dichotomy between two instances of grace. hmm. two can play this game:

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29. Here, Paul refers to the group predestination (the elect as a group are predestined, based on what God foreknew), not individual predestination. [for the record, i do not hold to that position; i merely make the point to show how your reasoning can be applied to other doctrines to invalidate the truth of Scripture]

Arminian

April 9th 2003, 05:27 AM

joel,

Are you talking about "it"?

Yes, it is singular and neuter.

joelkaki

April 9th 2003, 12:00 PM

“ Are you talking about "it"?
”

Yes, it is singular and neuter.

That is rather a moot point, for, unless I am mistaken, "it is" is not in the original Greek. It is simply a clarification for translation. "It" would therefore be used in english to denote the "faith."

Joel

Arminian

April 9th 2003, 07:20 PM

Brian

April 9th 2003, 08:39 PM

Hello Guys!

I thought I would jumpin with some ideas on Eph. 2:8...

According to Gordon Clark in his commentary on 1 John, “even in classical Greek as well as Koine Greek, not only may abstract feminine nouns have a neuter relative or demonstrative; even concrete feminines may.” Also, William Hendrikson commenting on A.T. Robertson’s treatment of this passage said, “…Robertson knew that in the original the demonstrative (this), though neuter, by no means always corresponds in gender with its antecedent.” I say all this to point out that the gender issue concerning “this” does not necessarily preclude any antecedent of a different gender.

Paul begins many of his epistles giving thanks to God for the love and faith of the Christians he is writing to. For example Col 1:3-4 reads…

We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints;

2 Thess. 1:3 says that we ought to give thanks to God because of our faith and love. Why should we thank God for our faith and love? Why should we thank God for the love and faith of others? If faith is within the capacity of the unregenerate man, who is by definition a hater of God, why would we thank God when someone exercises that faith? However, if faith is from God, then God being the object of our thanks makes sense. Ephesians 6:23-24 reads…

Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with incorruptible love.

Notice, peace, love, and faith are from God. In Gal 5:22, Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit as being love, peace, …faithfulness. This word translated “faithfulness” is the Greek word for “faith.” Philippians 1:29 says that we have been granted to believe in Him (Christ) for Christ’s sake! The Greek word translated “granted” is from the Greek word charizomia, “to give as a gift.” The verse also says that we have been granted to suffer for His sake. Is this suffering an act of our free will? Obviously not. If this “granting” is not an act of our free will, then it seems consistent that the “granting to believe” would not be of our free will either!

Hebrews 12:1-2 declares Jesus to be “the author and perfecter” of faith. The Greek word for “author” is archegon which refers to the origin, source, or beginning. The Greek word “perfecter” is teleiotes which refers to one who completes or perfects. Look what this is saying. Jesus is the beginning of faith, and the one who completes or perfects faith. It reminds me a little of Philippians 1:6, “He who began a good work in you, will perfect it…” These verses do not speak of a faith that we in and of ourselves exercise with Jesus being the object. These verses speak of a faith that is from Jesus the author and perfecter. Does this leave any room for us to contribute something by an act of free will? Note: this explanation follows right after the great “Hall of Faith” in chapter 11.

Acts 3:16 explicitly says that the faith that healed the lame beggar found its origin in Jesus. Once again “origin” is the focus and not “object.” The same is said in 1 Timothy 1:14. The origin of our faith is in Christ. 2 Peter 1:1 says that we have received “a faith of the same kind as ours” by God. Likewise, repentance is shown to be a gift of God, and because of the close correlation between repentance and faith, this idea supports faith being a gift (2 Tim 2:24-26 and Romans 2:4). There are many more passages such as these, for instance Romans 12:3, but I think you get the point. I would now like to turn my attention to Ephesians 2:8-10.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Paul’s purpose in this passage is to lay the responsibility of salvation solely on God. The idea that this verse refers to God making someone “savable” is completley foreign. It speaks of a work that necessarily comes to fruition. Paul’s readers have been saved and not just made savable. The means of this salvation is said to be grace. They have been saved through faith.

Most people at this point agree. The rub comes with the phrase “and that not of yourselves.” The issue is what does “that” refer to. People have made make the case that touto is neuter and not feminine, and therefore cannot refer to grace or faith which are both feminine terms. Touto is actually the neuter singular demonstrative pronoun, and the basic rule of thumb is to look for a singular neuter noun in the immediate context as the antecedent. Yet, there are none! Grace is feminine, faith is feminine, and “have been saved” is a masculine participle. The best answer to this dilema seems to be that “that” refers to the entirety of the phrase. Paul’s point is that the entirety of the work of salvation does not find its basis in men but in God. All of it is free, all of it is divine. There is no contextual or grammatical reason to accept the fact that 2 of the three elements (i.e. salvation and grace) are “gifts,” while the third, faith, is a strictly human contribution. In light of the scriptural support for faith being a gift and Paul’s view that faith is granted (Phil. 2:9), this would indicate that all three elements constitute a singular gift of God. Grace is God’s freely to give. Salvation is His freely to give. Likewise, saving faith is the gift of God given to the elect. Notice that the whole context of 8-10 concerns divine actions, and its purpose is to preclude human action. It does not make sense contextually to see faith as something that we contribute to the process.

Sincerely,

Brian

Arminian

April 9th 2003, 09:34 PM

Brian,

According to Gordon Clark in his commentary on 1 John, “even in classical Greek as well as Koine Greek, not only may abstract feminine nouns have a neuter relative or demonstrative; even concrete feminines may.” Also, William Hendrikson commenting on A.T. Robertson’s treatment of this passage said, “…Robertson knew that in the original the demonstrative (this), though neuter, by no means always corresponds in gender with its antecedent.” I say all this to point out that the gender issue concerning “this” does not necessarily preclude any antecedent of a different gender.

First of all, Clark appealed to Attic Greek because he couldn't find any in Koine (I can comment on the glaring errors of his source concerning the Attic at a later time). In fact, in Clark's article, he actually insinuates that the rules of grammar are illogical. That's how illogical his argument was.

As for your comments, there are no coordinating conjunctions, so Paul can't be making your point. Also, the word in question is SINGULAR, so it isn't referring to all the things you claim. Follow the same rules for your proof-text from Philipians.

The prepositional phrases are subordinate. This "salvation" is a "by grace-through faith" salvation. "Salvation" is the abstraction (antecedent to the neuter) with these qualifiers.

And so it is "salvation" which is the gift. Which salvation? The "by grace through faith salvation." That is the "gift."

The gift is not "grace" and "faith" and "salvation." We do not find a series of coordinates as the antecedents. We find an abstraction.

As for context, I see my pervious comments.

(And Arminian's generally don't reject that idea that faith is received, but that's another issue.)

Brian

April 9th 2003, 10:20 PM

Hello Arminian!

Concerning "faith" being the antecedent of "that" in Eph. 2:8 yopu wrote...

It isn't gramatically possible.

In response to Joel's saying that he does not see how it is gramatically impossible you wrote...

The pronoun is neuter, and faith is feminine.

If your argument is "faith" cannot be the antecedent of "that" because of the gender differences (which for all intents and purposes seems to be what you were saying), then you are flat out wrong. Even if you take issue with some of Clark's writings, that does not make him wrong in this instance. Also, I provided the quote by Hendrikson that backed up Clark's assertion, and I can provide quotes from several other scholars as well. The point being, the reason you gave Joel for why "it is gramatically impossible..." is wrong. The other issues you brought up I will deal with later.

Sincerely,

Brian

Arminian

April 9th 2003, 10:34 PM

Brian,

If your argument is "faith" cannot be the antecedent of "that" because of the gender differences (which for all intents and purposes seems to be what you were saying), then you are flat out wrong. Even if you take issue with some of Clark's writings, that does not make him wrong in this instance. Also, I provided the quote by Hendrikson that backed up Clark's assertion, and I can provide quotes from several other scholars as well. The point being, the reason you gave Joel for why "it is gramatically impossible..." is wrong. The other issues you brought up I will deal with later.

You can quote all the theologains you like, but keep in mind that we aren't voting. Rather, we are discussing the grammar.

Now, you quote Hendrikson, who is commenting on what Robertson said, but you failed to notice that Hendrikson is arguing against Robertson, who is making my point. (I'm holding Hendrikson's commentary and Robertson's Word Pictures in my hands).

I'll comment on Clark's attempt to fool his audience concerning the Attic later, after I look up the title of the article that he used as his source. (It really was an attempt to fool his audience.)

Arminian

April 9th 2003, 10:44 PM

And one more thing...

Hendrickson quotes Robertson's grammar where Robertson is commenting on the use of houtos "in general," and not specifically the neuter, touto. This will be important in later discussions.

joelkaki

April 10th 2003, 12:23 AM

joel,

I have no idea what translation you are looking at. I speak of the touto which I am looking at. I believe various translations say "it," "this," or "that." Obviously only one is good Greek, but that's not the issue here.

Touto is "that." "And that not of yourselves. I was not referring to touto. Rather, I was referring to "it is", which I thought you also were referring to, since I asked, "Are you talking about "it"?" to which you replied, "Yes, it is singular and neuter." I was not referring to "that" but "it." IT IS is not in the original Greek. It is added for convenience in reading.

Joel

Arminian

April 10th 2003, 01:40 AM

joel,

IT IS is not in the original Greek. It is added for convenience in reading.

OK, thanks. I thought we were talking about the same thing. My bad.....

joelkaki

April 10th 2003, 11:28 AM

OK, thanks. I thought we were talking about the same thing. My bad.....

No problem. But would you have to agree then, that it is grammatically possible for "it is the gift of God" to refer to "faith"?

Joel

Arminian

April 10th 2003, 05:55 PM

joel,

No problem. But would you have to agree then, that it is grammatically possible for "it is the gift of God" to refer to "faith"?

No, it would definitely have to refer to the same thing as "kai touto."

joelkaki

April 11th 2003, 10:00 AM

No, it would definitely have to refer to the same thing as "kai touto."

How does the neuter refer back to "You have been saved by grace through faith", though?

Joel

Arminian

April 11th 2003, 08:35 PM

How does the neuter refer back to "You have been saved by grace through faith", though?

The anticedent is the concept to which "and this" refers.

joelkaki

April 12th 2003, 12:35 AM

OK, but how come the problem with the neuter case does not apply to your antecedent?

Joel

Arminian

April 12th 2003, 01:10 AM

joel,

OK, but how come the problem with the neuter case does not apply to your antecedent?

I'm saying that they both refer to the same thing.

joelkaki

April 12th 2003, 10:04 AM

Yesterday @ 11:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63642#post63642)
Arminian:

joel,

I'm saying that they both refer to the same thing.

I'm afraid I'm a little slow today. What do you mean by "both"? What is the other one (the first one being "that" correct?)?

Joel

Arminian

April 12th 2003, 09:39 PM

joel,

I'm going on vacation for two weeks, so I'll post some more details on this later, if you like (perhaps I will get back sooner, if I can get to a computer without my wife noticing).

The gift and "this" are BOTH in reference to the same thing. "It is" is an elipsis, which would help clarify and refer to the same thing.

mustbenothing

April 13th 2003, 05:42 PM

(Previous) By that phrase, I would mean "Enough provision so that, if man chose to will it so, it would happen." ”

(Arminian) And man can't chose it, because God determined it, so it wouldn't be a provision at all.

(Me) Honestly, you can sit over there and hack at a Hyper-Calvinistic straw-man all day, and I'm just going to watch. The Reformed faith has always seen God's decree in regards to sin and evil as being permissive. As Charles Hodge says,

"Some things He purposes to do, others He decrees to permit to be done. He effects good, He permits evil. He is the author of the one, but not of the other" (Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 541).

(Previous) You seem to think that my position cannot see God's provision as sufficiently faithful because God knows that His provision will not actually keep that person from sin.

(Arminian) The intent of the verse can't possibly be that God is faithful to provide a way out that can't be taken. Clearly, the intent of the verse is that God will work within and outside of the believer so as to provide a way of escape that can be taken. God isn't faithful if he has provided a way of escape and also determined that the person can't take. The verse speaks of standing up under temptation, not standing up under a lack of options. Increasing the options doesn't help at all, does it?

(Me) Again, God has provided the way of escape such that if that person decided to take it, that way would be there. However, we choose not to take it, and we bear the blame.

(Previous) Of course, the Arminian must also say that God's provision will not actually keep that person from sin, as well!

(Arminian) I rest my case.

(Me) There's no resting when you haven't even tried to interact with most of my arguments! Tell me, very plainly: how is it that God has really provided a way of escape, if that provision isn't enough for that person to escape, and God knows it?

(joelkaki) I believe it is. "...through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..." I don't see how it is grammatically impossible.

(Arminian) The pronoun is neuter, and faith is feminine.

(Me) A neuter pronoun like this can have a feminine referent.

(Previous) I submit that, to Arminians, it does. This is why Calvinists continually charge that Arminian salvation is salvation by grace plus some, rather than salvation by grace alone.

(Sheepdog) plus some what? if you Calvinists do not tell us how choice can be meritous, your objection has the value of a bucket without a bottom. you cannot, either, because there is no biblical precedence of choice being meritous.

(Me) First, that is beside the point. Grace to man is of God and of God alone. If grace were of man to himself, it would not be grace. Therefore, if man is saved by grace alone, man's salvation cannot in any way be dependent upon something of himself. However, Arminian theology (and beyond) would tell us that man is saved by God's grace plus something. Perhaps that something is works. Perhaps that something is perseverance. Perhaps that something is being receptive to God. Perhaps that something is faith. However, whatever that something is, it is something of man. Unless election is unconditional and absolute, man is not saved by grace alone.

Second, note the following:

John 6:29
Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Arminian

April 17th 2003, 03:20 PM

Must,

There's no resting when you haven't even tried to interact with most of my arguments! Tell me, very plainly: how is it that God has really provided a way of escape, if that provision isn't enough for that person to escape, and God knows it?

It is enough for that person to escape. Where have you been??

And I must ask you, if God provides no way of escape or a million ways of escape that can't be taken because it has been sovereignly decided that the other ways WON'T be taken, what's the difference? There is none.

The idea that Paul is writing to tell people that a longer list of options will be provided that can't be used is simply an act of violence to the intent of the passage.

A neuter pronoun like this can have a feminine referent.

And what special type of neuter pronoun is this? :huh:

I'll post on Clark's dishonest comments when I get back. Perhaps I'll post a survey of the pronoun as well.

mustbenothing

April 28th 2003, 10:28 PM

(Previous) There's no resting when you haven't even tried to interact with most of my arguments! Tell me, very plainly: how is it that God has really provided a way of escape, if that provision isn't enough for that person to escape, and God knows it?

(Arminian) It is enough for that person to escape. Where have you been??

And I must ask you, if God provides no way of escape or a million ways of escape that can't be taken because it has been sovereignly decided that the other ways WON'T be taken, what's the difference? There is none.

The idea that Paul is writing to tell people that a longer list of options will be provided that can't be used is simply an act of violence to the intent of the passage.

(Me) What I'm saying is simply this: The avoidance of sin clearly did not obtain. How are you going to define 'enough' here such that it's going to cause me a problem and not you? How was it is enough? Was it enough in that, had the person chosen to take hold of it, the avoidance of sin would have obtained? If so, my view can say exactly the same thing. If not, you've got to offer some account of how your view can handle this verse but mine can't.

You completely misrepresent my view. Please decrease your use of straw men, prejudical language, emotional rhetoric, and strong-arming. I had hoped to discuss the Word of God with someone in a civil, contrite manner, rather than spite thrown on my convictions.

(Previous) A neuter pronoun like this can have a feminine referent.

(Arminian) And what special type of neuter pronoun is this?

I'll post on Clark's dishonest comments when I get back. Perhaps I'll post a survey of the pronoun as well.

(Me) It's no special type.

Arminian

April 29th 2003, 04:04 AM

Must,

I said:
It is enough for that person to escape. Where have you been??

And I must ask you, if God provides no way of escape or a million ways of escape that can't be taken because it has been sovereignly decided that the other ways WON'T be taken, what's the difference? There is none.

You said:
What I'm saying is simply this: The avoidance of sin clearly did not obtain. How are you going to define 'enough' here such that it's going to cause me a problem and not you? How was it is enough? Was it enough in that, had the person chosen to take hold of it, the avoidance of sin would have obtained? If so, my view can say exactly the same thing. If not, you've got to offer some account of how your view can handle this verse but mine can't.

Your view is that God did not provide "enough" or the person would have taken it. The fact that God did not is the very reason that it did not happen. See below...

You completely misrepresent my view. Please decrease your use of straw men, prejudical language, emotional rhetoric, and strong-arming. I had hoped to discuss the Word of God with someone in a civil, contrite manner, rather than spite thrown on my convictions.

I'm sorry that you see my words as being so extreme. However, they best describe what I see you doing. The words Paul wrote were clearly written for the comfort and the practical application of the reader. Here is what Paul said:

"God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able to bear."

Now I ask, if God has determined that you sin, and has given you an infinite number of options which he has determined that you will not take, how has he been faithful? How has he NOT allowed you to be tempted above what you are able to bear? Would it help to look at the meaning of the words Paul used in the Greek? I just don't see how your interpretation does justice to the purpose and meaning of the text!

You say that God's will for people to sin is deterministic AND "permissive," yet the very text we are reading says God won't "allow" temptation to be more than you can bear. How is it, Must, that you will be able to bear what God has determined that you do?

Paul continues:

but will with the temptation provide a way to escape so that you may be able to bear it."

God's purpose for providing a way out is "that" you may be able to bear it. Again, how has God been faithful if the way of escape is one that he has determined "that" you won't take? How can you, Must, bear up under the temptation that God had DETERMINED that you not bear up under?? No, I must insist that your explanation does not reflect the meaning or the purpose of the text. Rather, it reflects your personal philosophy.

Now, under my view, "enough" can come in two forms:

1) God will always give you a way out and will always determine that you take it, and therefore you will never sin.

or

2) God gives all his children, themselves, the ability to escape sin which is equal to the ability to sin, yet some reject it.

If #2 is correct, then God's faithfulness is maintained. Option #2 doesn't explain how this can happen, any more than it explains how God does what he does. However, it does defeat your position, and support the tacit understanding of LFW.

You said:
A neuter pronoun like this can have a feminine referent.

I asked:
And what special type of neuter pronoun is this?

You said:
It's no special type.

Were you bluffing before about a pronoun "like this"? Or did you have some information to share concerning that neuter pronoun?