Total Depravity [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

TheFiveSolas

February 4th 2003, 11:52 PM

Smilax wrote:

Total depravity also means that man is completely unable to choose God

I write:

Since this view is often misunderstood I would like to offer a clarification.

Calvinists assert that man is unable to choose God because sinful man is unwilling to subject his will to God's will. In other words, sinful man runs from God just as a criminal runs from the police. Or to put it another way, sinful man has free will, however since his will is SINFUL he only chooses sinful things.

Man makes choices according to his desires. If man's desires are sinful, it necessarily follows that he will ONLY choose according to his sinful desires. That is the problem/dilemma that man finds himself. He, like the leopard who cannot change his spots, cannot change his fallen nature and therefore needs an act of God to change his desires. God's sovereign act of regeneration (raising a dead sinner to newness of life) is necessary for a person to be able to come to Him in faith.

This sovereign act is foreshadowed in Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus was dead, unable to move, breathe, or even hear Jesus calling him forth from the tomb. He needed to FIRST be raised from the dead and then, having been given new life he now had the abillity to walk out of the tomb. In the same way, we are unable (for the reason outlined above) to place faith in Christ (or obey God AT ALL) UNTIL God first changes our sinful nature. Then, just as Lazarus walked out of the tomb (note: Jesus didn't do the walking for him!), we use our NEW WILLS to put our faith in Christ. But remember, Lazarus' cold dead body needed to be given life before he could walk out of the tomb, so we too need our "hearts of stone" to be removed and replaced with a "heart of flesh" before we WILL (pun intended) exercise faith. In this act, God changes our desires so that NOW we freely desire Him. It then is entirely natural and necessarily follows that we choose Him.

Thanks be to our Sovereign God!

smilax

February 5th 2003, 12:01 AM

TheFiveSolas:
Since this view is often misunderstood I would like to offer a clarification.Of course, as a five-point Calvinist and compatibilist, I would completely agree with your clarification, but yes, thanks for bringing that out.

(If you want Scripture for that, go to Romans iii, 11 or Romans viii, 7.)

TheFiveSolas

February 5th 2003, 12:11 AM

Smilax :thumb: :)

efta777

February 6th 2003, 02:06 AM

Lazarus walked himself out of the tomb. Yes. But then I suppose the question is, since he walked out of the tomb of his own power, could he have NOT walked out? Could he have decided that he would rather just stay dead? (I don't know if using Lazarus as a symbol in my particular argument is entirely accurate, but I guess I'll use it anyway). As for prevenient grace - I don't really know, I tend to shy away from limiting God to systems defined by terms, but I suppose I would generally agree with what you said about the term, Smilax. So what is it exactly that you disagree with about it?
I suppose I could use an exact definition of what Total Depravity means exactly: Does it cover every aspect of our life (We can do nothing right - only sin)? Or does it cover only our relationship with God (We cannot choose him)?

Most Calvanists that i know of believe that man has the ability to choose certain things in life (Though some are more extreme), so why is the decision to accept Christ's call not included here?

Okay, okay, too many questions for one post. however many ya'll want to answer is fine by me.

smilax

February 6th 2003, 02:13 AM

efta777:
Lazarus walked himself out of the tomb. Yes. But then I suppose the question is, since he walked out of the tomb of his own power, could he have NOT walked out? Could he have decided that he would rather just stay dead? (I don't know if using Lazarus as a symbol in my particular argument is entirely accurate, but I guess I'll use it anyway).Likewise, can people choose to be "born again"? In any case, at the Final Resurrection, I don't think anyone will have the choice to stay dead. Lazarus foreshadowed that, as his sister's reference to "the last day" shows. Salvation is being made alive in Him. But, eh, I don't much like arguments by analogy.As for prevenient grace - I don't really know, I tend to shy away from limiting God to systems defined by terms,Don't think of it as "limiting." We're simply trying to put a label to a description of revealed truth.So what is it exactly that you disagree with about it?Well, convince me from Scripture that it exists. We believe that salvific grace is irresistible.I suppose I could use an exact definition of what Total Depravity means exactly: Does it cover every aspect of our life (We can do nothing right - only sin)? Or does it cover only our relationship with God (We cannot choose him)?"Total" means extensive (every aspect) depravity, though not intensive (complete inability to know or do good; a counterexample would be Cornelius prior to conversion.)Most Calvanists that i know of believe that man has the ability to choose certain things in life (Though some are more extreme), so why is the decision to accept Christ's call not included here?Sin involves hostility towards God. The ability to choose, yes; but we are not hostile to everything, which is why we can choose those certain things, which do not include the call to repentance.

geebob

February 6th 2003, 10:33 AM

efta, I don't see that a plausible free will theist's answer to the notion that the raising of Lazarus illustrates irresistable grace is that he could've choosen to stay dead or stay in the tomb. The best answer is one of two things.

One is to simply deny that this is a metaphore of saving grace. Jesus demonstrates his power over the dead foreshadowing his own ressurection and he goes further to legitimate his claims to messiahship.

The second is to say, yes this is a metaphore of God's saving grace, but metaphores depict reality in degrees and the extent to which this metaphore represents the reality of our saving grace does not go so far as to demonstrate our libertarian free choice in the matter and should not be construed as evidence against the notion.

joelkaki

February 6th 2003, 11:08 AM

Total Depravity means that sin has affected every area of man's being so that he cannot choose God. Sin did not just partially affect man so that he is sick with isn; he is totally affected so that he is dead in sin. A dead man cannot choose to become alive. It's just not possible. Rom 8:30 tells us that those whom God calls are justified and glorified. If God called everyone by the Spirit (prevanient grace) and enabled all to choose him, and some didn't, then Rom 8:30 is not true. Thus we would reject prevanient grace.

Joel

geebob

February 6th 2003, 12:32 PM

If God called everyone by the Spirit (prevanient grace) and enabled all to choose him, and some didn't, then Rom 8:30 is not true.

or romans 8:30 is not about individuals but about the people of God and it does not negate that individuals can freely enter into the choosen.

joelkaki

February 6th 2003, 01:04 PM

or romans 8:30 is not about individuals but about the people of God and it does not negate that individuals can freely enter into the choosen.

You can't separate individuals from the body, nor the body from the individuals, for the individuals make up the body.

"But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as he pleased."(1 Cor 12:18).

Joel

geebob

February 6th 2003, 01:11 PM

You can't separate individuals from the body, nor the body from the individuals, for the individuals make up the body.

We won world war II.

"But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as he pleased."(1 Cor 12:18).

yeah, now, not then, prior to creation.

joelkaki

February 6th 2003, 02:04 PM

"Just as he chose us in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD..." (Eph 1:4)

Joel

Renegade Drow

February 6th 2003, 02:21 PM

I’m missing something here.

If Total Depravity removes mans ability to choose God, then are you saying the “elect’ are predestined? If God ‘chose us’ before the foundation of the world, then in reality, we have no free will in the spiritual.

:huh:

RD

Captain Ochre

February 6th 2003, 02:57 PM

Renegade Drow:
I’m missing something here.

If Total Depravity removes mans ability to choose God, then are you saying the “elect’ are predestined? If God ‘chose us’ before the foundation of the world, then in reality, we have no free will in the spiritual.

:huh:

RD

You may not be missing anything, depending on what type of Calvinist you're talking to.
Many would reply (in effect): "No free will? So what?"

My brother-in-law guest-taught on Calvinism in a home Bible study at my home.
He's got a graphic that illustrates sin's effect on the human will (with respect to our response to God). It shows a balance scale with a weight on it which causes the scale to tilt toward evil.
Now, afaics (I don't pretend to understand Calvinism extremely well, mind you) that scale isn't just biased in one direction (within Calvinism). That weight is as heavy as you can imagine it. You might as well take away the other side of the scale.

Is there room in Calvinism (or even between Calvinism and Arminianism) for a predisposing sin weight that isn't (might-as-well-be) infinite?
Some of the posts by Calvinists here seem to suggest that this may be the case.
I look forward to reading more.

Jaltus

February 6th 2003, 05:10 PM

Total depravity does necessitate unconditional election, for without it, no one would ever be saved. Those whom God unconditionally elected are regenerated, without which no one shall see the kingdom of God. (John 3:5). The Arminian view of prevanient grace, which God supposedly gives to everyone, and only some respond, is unsupported by Scripture, for look at John 1:13--"Who were born, nor of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Those who receive Christ (vs. 12) are the ones whom God regenerates, for it is not by man's will, for man's will is in bondage to sin.
False.

Ever hear "all are called?" Jesus said it, you know. And according to Romans 8:29-30, those who are called are glorified. Therefore, all Calvinists must be universalistsi since everyone called is glorified, and Jesus said all are called.

Yes, this argument was a parody, showing that slipshod definitions lead to faulty arguments. The above post assumes U in order to prove U, which is obviously circular.

After all, being born of the Spirit does not mean regeneration before acceptance of Christ, which is what Calvinists MUST cling to in order to have their system.

geebob

February 6th 2003, 07:34 PM

Just as he chose us in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD...

right, "us" reffering to the church. there is no set of individuals that is necessary to that description. Whether it is you in that group and not your neighbors or vice versa, the church, the choosen, are still the same.

smilax

February 6th 2003, 08:17 PM

RenegadeDrow:
If God ‘chose us’ before the foundation of the world, then in reality, we have no free will in the spiritual.No libertarian free will, at least.Jaltus:
After all, being born of the Spirit does not mean regeneration before acceptance of Christ, which is what Calvinists MUST cling to in order to have their system.What's the difference between the two, then?geebob:
Whether it is you in that group and not your neighbors or vice versa, the church, the choosen, are still the same.Hypothetically, could the church be empty?

geebob

February 6th 2003, 09:47 PM

Hypothetically, could the church be empty?

The church could be alot of things (and comprised in alot of different ways), but empty is not one of them. Naturally, though, there was no church when the church was predestined. the predestining and calling is the plan, not the thing itself.

smilax

February 6th 2003, 09:50 PM

Let's pose this another way...

Is it possible that every single person reject Christ via libertarian freedom? If not, why not?

geebob

February 6th 2003, 09:53 PM

There's a high risk view and a low risk view. The high risk view says yes. The low risk view says that by statistical necessity, no.

smilax

February 6th 2003, 10:24 PM

Of course, I am asking of possibility, not probability.

Next question: is there a general way to determine when God works persuasively, and when He works coercively?

Hmm... Should we start a thread on corporate election?

geebob

February 6th 2003, 10:40 PM

Of course, I am asking of possibility, not probability.

possibility can be measured in terms of probabability.

Next question: is there a general way to determine when God works persuasively, and when He works coercively?

On that one i'd be speculating. I'd have something to say about the range of interpretation for some specific examples. In any case where one does evil for God's purpose, if it was coerced, that coersion was preceeded by a libertarian moment (or more likely, many libertarian moments) where that person made choices that are consistent with how God coerced him in that future time. Without that, there would be no coersion. Then again, no coersion may be necessary.

Hmm... Should we start a thread on corporate election?

If you want, but It's not my area of expertise. I'd see if I could get arminian to come along who's the expert.

smilax

February 6th 2003, 10:43 PM

geebob:
possibility can be measured in terms of probabability.Err, hmm. I understand possibility as either true or false, ("impossible" meaning "logically impossible"; I think statistics is yucky.) Oh, well.

So back to the analogy... Is resurrection coercive, or persuasive?If you want, but It's not my area of expertise. I'd see if I could get arminian to come along who's the expert.Yay.

geebob

February 6th 2003, 10:59 PM

Err, hmm. I understand possibility as either true or false, ("impossible" meaning "logically impossible"; I think statistics is yucky.) Oh, well.

logical possibility is a useful term but it does not get at our normal prephilosophical use of the term, except when speaking in a hypothetical sense.

So back to the analogy... Is resurrection coercive, or persuasive?

Well, as I said, I don't think the Lazarus metaphore addresses the issue, whether or not it is a metaphore of grace.

smilax

February 6th 2003, 11:10 PM

geebob:
logical possibility is a useful term but it does not get at our normal prephilosophical use of the term, except when speaking in a hypothetical sense.And the possibility of an empty church scares me.Well, as I said, I don't think the Lazarus metaphore addresses the issue, whether or not it is a metaphore of grace.Not Lazarus, but resurrection in general. Why does Paul use such terms as "dead" to describe our situation? Why not "confused" or "about to walk off the cliff"? Seems that depravity is pretty serious.

geebob

February 6th 2003, 11:22 PM

And the possibility of an empty church scares me.

which of course is not necessary in the low risk view, which is what I hold.

Not Lazarus, but resurrection in general. Why does Paul use such terms as "dead" to describe our situation? Why not "confused" or "about to walk off the cliff"? Seems that depravity is pretty serious.

is ressurection applied to the convert? I thought it was merely the reference to an eschatological event.

At any rate, the issue with the limitations of metaphores applies to Paul's usage of terms such as death. Dead men cannot choose God, and neither can they eat, sleep, or contribute to theology forums, and yet the lost do all these things. Death is also used to describe our seperation from God, which is just as reasonable way to take it as the notion of the lack of libertarian free will in choosing him

joelkaki

February 6th 2003, 11:43 PM

False.

Ever hear "all are called?" Jesus said it, you know. And according to Romans 8:29-30, those who are called are glorified. Therefore, all Calvinists must be universalistsi since everyone called is glorified, and Jesus said all are called.

Sorry, not familiar with that reference. You need to give it to me, I guess. There are two different calls--the outward call to the gospel given by men, which many reject, and the inward call of the Holy Spirit, which is irresistible, for it changes a man's heart. Thus the call of Rom 8:30 is the call of the Holy Spirit, not the outward call of the gospel.

Yes, this argument was a parody, showing that slipshod definitions lead to faulty arguments. The above post assumes U in order to prove U, which is obviously circular.

I am nota aware of such faulty arguments--maybe you could further explain.

After all, being born of the Spirit does not mean regeneration before acceptance of Christ, which is what Calvinists MUST cling to in order to have their system.

If being born of the Spirit is not regeneration, then what is it? If we are dead, and we are literally given life, regenerated, are we not born again? Being born of the spirit is an act of the Spirit before acceptance of Christ for look at this verse: "...who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD." (John 1:13). This clearly shows that faith does not precede regeneration.

Joel

Jaltus

February 6th 2003, 11:58 PM

Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Thus the call of Rom 8:30 is the call of the Holy Spirit, not the outward call of the gospel.
Assumption. Please prove there are two different calls from scripture.

Being born of the Spirit means SALVATION, not regeneration. Please show how it comes before acceptance of Christ.

As for John 1:13, you skipped John 1:12

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The children are born of God because He adopted them, which was clearly HIS DECISION. This is not referring to salvation, but to inheritance, the right to be His children.

GrayPilgrim

February 7th 2003, 12:18 AM

The children are born of God because He adopted them, which was clearly HIS DECISION. This is not referring to salvation, but to inheritance, the right to be His children.

Huh? I seem to be not getting what you're getting at. Salvation leads to the inheritance. One cannot have salvation and at the same time not have the inheritance, nor can one have the inheritance and at the same time not have salvation, can they?

(I used have slavation for sake of gramamtical parrallel not to make any particular point)

GrayPilgrim

February 7th 2003, 12:22 AM

Jaltus:
Assumption. Please prove there are two different calls from scripture.

Correct, that is our, Calvinists', assumption that there are two calls, just as your, Arminain (for lack of a better term to include AR & OV together) assumption is:

ASSUMPTION: There is a prevenient grace, which counter acts the effects of Total Depravity, is spread abroad to all humans.

That is the rub, we are talking past each other on this one unless we see what is going on here.

efta777

February 7th 2003, 03:23 AM

ASSUMPTION: There is a prevenient grace, which counter acts the effects of Total Depravity, is spread abroad to all humans.

It doesn't counteract the effects of Total Depravity, because we haven't accurately defined total depravity. I see total depravity as meaning that

All Have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

We cannot achieve salvation on our own, but we can accept Christ and find atonement in His death. Total Depravity doesn't mean that we can't do anything right, just that our nature is sinful, and we need Christ's atoning work in order to be saved.

Therefore, the call of the Gospel is to each and every one of us, apart from this call we could never know Christ (John 6:44), and it is up to us to choose weather or not to accept the call.

The term "reject" and other words like it is used many times in the Bible (Often referrring to the nation of Israel). How can anyone reject something that was never offered to them?

smilax

February 7th 2003, 03:33 AM

efta777:
It doesn't counteract the effects of Total Depravity, because we haven't accurately defined total depravity. I see total depravity as meaning that

All Have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23Agreed. But:

Romans iii, 11: "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Romans viii, 7: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

I Corinthians ii, 14: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Thus:We cannot achieve salvation on our own, but we can accept Christ and find atonement in His death. Total Depravity doesn't mean that we can't do anything right, just that our nature is sinful, and we need Christ's atoning work in order to be saved.I deny that man is able, apart from the Spirit's regenerating work, to accept Christ.Therefore, the call of the Gospel is to each and every one of us, apart from this call we could never know Christ (John 6:44), and it is up to us to choose weather or not to accept the call.

The term "reject" and other words like it is used many times in the Bible (Often referrring to the nation of Israel). How can anyone reject something that was never offered to them?Universal offer and responsibility, no problem. Universal ability and empowerment? Show me.

Renegade Drow

February 7th 2003, 09:22 AM

smilax

No libertarian free will, at least.

Does man have libertarian free will? Or do you accept the notion that we do not because like Calvin and Luther believe that free will gives man freedom outside of his purview?

I deny that man is able, apart from the Spirit's regenerating work, to accept Christ.

Huh?? :huh:

From your own quoted piece; We cannot achieve salvation on our own, but we can accept Christ and find atonement in His death.

So man is able to accept Christ, he is just not able to redeem himself in the eyes of the father without accepting Christ.

smilax

February 7th 2003, 09:33 AM

Renegade Drow:
Does man have libertarian free will?Compatibilist.So man is able to accept Christ, he is just not able to redeem himself in the eyes of the father without accepting Christ.Not according to those verses.

joelkaki

February 7th 2003, 10:15 AM

Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the call of Rom 8:30 is the call of the Holy Spirit, not the outward call of the gospel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumption. Please prove there are two different calls from scripture.

How could there not be two calls? I think you agree that there are two calls, but you disagree who the second one is given to. When someone gets up and preaches an evangelistic sermon in front of unsaved people, they are being called to the gospel. That is an outward call. Obviously the call of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing. I think you would agree. The Holy Spirit calls not merely outwardly, but he calls inwardly to the heart of a man. So there is a difference. The Holy Spirit's call is given to those predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, and all of those who are called are justified and glorified. (Rom 8:30). If the call spoken of in Rom 8:30 was given to every single man, then every single man would be justified and glorified.

Being born of the Spirit means SALVATION, not regeneration. Please show how it comes before acceptance of Christ.

OK, but regeneration is part of salvation, would you not agree? Check out 2 Thess 2:13--God chose us TO salvation THROUGH sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Because how can a dead man be born again apart from an act of God? The Spirit in regeneration gives us a new heart, making us alive, so that we are born again, such action producing faith, for it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8).

As for John 1:13, you skipped John 1:12

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The children are born of God because He adopted them, which was clearly HIS DECISION. This is not referring to salvation, but to inheritance, the right to be His children.

What translation is that? I think it is a little misguided there (and yes, I do know some greek). Yes, all who receive him have the right to become children of God. I agree with that. But those children ARE NOT BORN OF THE WILL OF MAN! They are born of God. Man is DEAD in sin, and cannot choose God, thus God must sovereignly give us new life in Christ.

Joel

GrayPilgrim

February 7th 2003, 11:06 AM

joelkaki:

Being born of the Spirit means SALVATION, not regeneration. Please show how it comes before acceptance of Christ.

OK, but regeneration is part of salvation, would you not agree? Check out 2 Thess 2:13--God chose us TO salvation THROUGH sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Because how can a dead man be born again apart from an act of God? The Spirit in regeneration gives us a new heart, making us alive, so that we are born again, such action producing faith, for it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8).

One thing that causes problems at this point in a discussion with Jaltus on this issue is a differetn definiton for regeneration. I agree with your position Joel taht regeneration is the first step in the saving work of God that does inevitably, necessarily lead to regenration. Or to phrase it differently, the first stage in the ordus salutas is regeenration. Jaltus, and ARs in general, see it rather as the effects of previenient grace that allows them to overcome Total Depravity.

So my earlier post still stands:

Calvinst Assumption:

ASSUMPTION. Please prove there are two different calls from scripture.

Arminian Assumption:
ASSUMPTION: There is a prevenient grace, which counter acts the effects of Total Depravity, is spread abroad to all humans.

IMO both are generally agreed that man's will has been so totally corrupted by sin that they cannot chose God, without his active work. The difference is that Calvinsits says that total depravity is a ruling force over all of life at all times, unless God sheds particular Grace at a particular moment in a particular person's life. That is no corporate redemption, but unconditional election. Whereas the Arminian position states that man would be so mired and blinded by total depravity if God did not shed his prevenient grace abroad to all that allows a human being to chose to follow after him.

Notice that they both hold to total depravity, the rub is really, in what way is man elected? Is election general? Then prevenient grace is the answer. Is election particular? Then unconditional election necessarilly follows. IMHO therein lies the debate and the particulars that need to be sorted out, so that there can be growth and understanding on both sides.

GP

Renegade Drow

February 7th 2003, 02:37 PM

smilax

On second read of your preceding post, I now think you were replying to efta. If so, I misinterpreted your argument. However, I still don’t agree (at the moment anyhow) with your conclusion that we cannot choose Christ.

Compatibilist

Is this view not conflictory to the definition of God (in the classical sense)? As well as it tends to introduce a moral responsibility issue that is difficult to rectify.

I admit I am not intimately aware of all the nuances of Compatibilism vs. Libertarian, it tends to swell beyond the scope of my philosophical limits, and the lines start to blur.

Not according to those verses.

I don’t see the verses you provided convincing of what you are trying to assert. The Romans 3 passage in context deals with those who are (still) concerned with keeping Judaic law. Romans 11 & the Corinth passage appears to deal with those who have decided (by a conscious and deliberate act) to not accept the gospel of Christ, and are therefore, lost in their sinful desires/views.

GP

IMO both are generally agreed that man's will has been so totally corrupted by sin that they cannot chose God, without his active work.

I don’t buy this. Look at mankind in general, there are a myriad of circumstances in one’s life that might make a person call upon God, whether it comes from personal distress or another such emotional event. It may be as simple of a ‘God help me’ cry, or an honest turn to God for guidance/providence. Whether God answers these is another matter and not important in this discussion, it does go to show that people can and do still turn to God for help. If man were unable to, the request could not be made to a God they cannot choose because of their sinfulness.

RD

GrayPilgrim

February 7th 2003, 03:01 PM

Renegade Drow:

GP

I don’t buy this. Look at mankind in general, there are a myriad of circumstances in one’s life that might make a person call upon God, whether it comes from personal distress or another such emotional event. It may be as simple of a ‘God help me’ cry, or an honest turn to God for guidance/providence. Whether God answers these is another matter and not important in this discussion, it does go to show that people can and do still turn to God for help. If man were unable to, the request could not be made to a God they cannot choose because of their sinfulness.

RD

I don't think we are really coming down to far apart on this one. Let me try to be more explicit. What I am reffering to is not the call of the distressed to God for general help. That is something that all can do. I am talking about the specific action of turning to God for salvation. Both the views beleive that it is by grace alone that a person is saved. The question is, in what ways does this grace contribute to and lead to this action?

If that still doesn't answer you question/objection let me know

geebob

February 7th 2003, 03:01 PM

gray pilgrim
Notice that they both hold to total depravity, the rub is really, in what way is man elected? Is election general? Then prevenient grace is the answer. Is election particular? Then unconditional election necessarilly follows. IMHO therein lies the debate and the particulars that need to be sorted out, so that there can be growth and understanding on both sides.

word!

Renegade Drow

February 7th 2003, 03:55 PM

I am talking about the specific action of turning to God for salvation.

Oh I’m on the same page (I think); I just used a distress call to God as an example. I still think that the same rules would apply, if we cannot choose God because of a sin-corrupted nature, we couldn’t choose during a time of crisis either. If you agree that all have the ability (to call upon God) if it is not for the purpose of salvation, then it follows (analogically) that one’s corruption isn’t hampering them, and would be free to turn to God for salvation.

Both the views beleive that it is by grace alone that a person is saved. The question is, in what ways does this grace contribute to and lead to this action?

Define grace for me. I am not sure my view is compatible with yours. I see grace as meaning ‘the love that God has for his children, seeing that they cannot saves themselves, he sacrificially offers his son in place for the sins of all mankind.’ He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (1 Cor 5:21)

That is my understanding of grace, when we are saved by grace, it is not some unconscious will/act that will allow me to choose Christ.

RD

Jaltus

February 7th 2003, 04:28 PM

I think GP answered quite well for me.

Scripture does not show two calls.

Scripture does not show what kind of grace exists.

Thus, we are at an impasse.

geebob

February 7th 2003, 08:18 PM

What I am reffering to is not the call of the distressed to God for general help. That is something that all can do. I am talking about the specific action of turning to God for salvation.

I've got issues with this distinction. This may jeopardize even my beliefe in total depravity (which I'm sure a calvinist wouldn't view as total).

However, that we have crisises at all (thus I do not accept that all individual crisises come from God) is in itself an act of grace as we, even in our sinful state have a context conducive to our turning towards God.

Renegade, you just may have affected my paradigm! :idea: :thumb:

smilax

February 7th 2003, 11:23 PM

Renegade Drow:
Is this view not conflictory to the definition of God (in the classical sense)? As well as it tends to introduce a moral responsibility issue that is difficult to rectify.I don't see the problem. Care to elaborate?I don’t see the verses you provided convincing of what you are trying to assert. The Romans 3 passage in context deals with those who are (still) concerned with keeping Judaic law.Impossible.

Romans iii, 9: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin."Romans 11 & the Corinth passage appears to deal with those who have decided (by a conscious and deliberate act) to not accept the gospel of Christ, and are therefore, lost in their sinful desires/views.Then why "can be"? Why not "chooses not to be"? I cannot see where the text says that the conscious act is what causes them to be lost.

Renegade Drow

February 8th 2003, 02:43 PM

smilax

I don't see the problem. Care to elaborate?

Not really but since you asked…. :)

IIRC this philosophical issue has been debated ad nauseum for much of history. But oh well, here are the little thoughts of the Renegade Drow.

Compatibilism is a philosophical position on free will that simply means is ‘compatible with determinism’. Determinism is the belief that all our choices are (pre) determined, mainly through our environment by external causes. I have also heard that Compatibilism means free will in the manner that we will always make the choices on the basis of whether we ‘want to’ or not.

I find that Compatibilism it is almost reductionistic in that our choices are immediately limited to that which is already determined. Whether you take the hard or soft viewpoint on determinism, by its very nature, determinism has limited some of our choices. We are more like automatons than a creature endowed with true free will. If our free will is not as free as we might think due to external influences that we have no direct control over, the choices we make have little or no responsibility attached, because our choices have become limited by these influences. Hence if there is no responsibility from our choices, moral or otherwise, we cannot be held accountable for them, because in essence, we had no choice.
This is why I find it in conflict with the nature of God. I find it hard to believe that God would go through all the trouble of setting up the universe for us, then obscure our free will to a point where it looks like we don’t exist.

Clear as mud right? I am not sure if I explained myself well, but time will tell.

Impossible.

Romans iii, 9: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin."

On the contrary my friend,

While I certainly agree that both Jew and Gentile are under, I do not believe that this was was Paul was alluding to in Romans 3. In v20 Paul writes his concluding thoughts and we see – Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
From what I remember, in that time (ANE), there were many teachers (of Christ) teaching that one must follow the law as well as Christ to become saved. Paul rebukes these teachers in several of his epistles, including this one here. I don’t think we can separate one verse from this passage and use it theologically this broadly to support your claim. That is why I find it out of context.

Then why "can be"? Why not "chooses not to be"? I cannot see where the text says that the conscious act is what causes them to be lost.

The passage here does not differentiate between the choice itself. It talks of the “sinful mind’ or the ‘spirit mind’, not the choice that would have already taken place. You are right in that the text does not say that a conscious act is what causes them to be lost, but it really doesn’t imply that the opposite is true either. This passage is simply not talking about the choice to make, but rather of the choices already made.

RD

smilax

February 8th 2003, 04:07 PM

Renegade Drow:
We are more like automatons than a creature endowed with true free will.If by "true" you mean "libertarian," keep in mind that even God is bound by His nature.If our free will is not as free as we might think due to external influences that we have no direct control over, the choices we make have little or no responsibility attached, because our choices have become limited by these influences.This is completely untrue, especially from the Jewish mindset.Hence if there is no responsibility from our choices, moral or otherwise, we cannot be held accountable for them, because in essence, we had no choice.Like Esau?Clear as mud right? I am not sure if I explained myself well, but time will tell.Well, I'm glad we at least have our definitions aligned.While I certainly agree that both Jew and Gentile are under, I do not believe that this was was Paul was alluding to in Romans 3. In v20 Paul writes his concluding thoughts and we see – Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. And Romans ii, 13-15 says the conscience becomes the law to the Gentiles.From what I remember, in that time (ANE), there were many teachers (of Christ) teaching that one must follow the law as well as Christ to become saved. Paul rebukes these teachers in several of his epistles, including this one here.Can you show that this refers to those teachers?I don’t think we can separate one verse from this passage and use it theologically this broadly to support your claim. That is why I find it out of context.Why, then, does Paul says "all" fall short? Not, "All those teachers," but "all," making it universal. That's why I find it perfectly fine for the theological theme. There is "none" that seeks God. He doesn't limit it at all.The passage here does not differentiate between the choice itself. It talks of the “sinful mind’ or the ‘spirit mind’, not the choice that would have already taken place. You are right in that the text does not say that a conscious act is what causes them to be lost, but it really doesn’t imply that the opposite is true either. This passage is simply not talking about the choice to make, but rather of the choices already made.Romans viii, 8: "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

Notice the contrast. Paul's argument is that those in the flesh will be carnally minded. Those who are carnally minded cannot be subject to God. Therefore, by syllogism, those in the flesh (as opposed to the Spirit) cannot (not "will not" or "have not") be acceptable in God's sight.

Likewise, I Corinthians does not speak merely of refusing to make a choice. It says such a man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. It is impossible.

I see no discussion of choices, whether in the verses themselves or in their context. Seems to me you are imposing the idea of libertarian freedom upon the texts.

Of course, I may have missed the gist of your argument completely, in which case, feel free to smack me upside the head.

joelkaki

February 8th 2003, 07:37 PM

ASSUMPTION. Please prove there are two different calls from scripture.

OK, I guess you say that there is one call of the gospel, right? One given in the preaching of the word accompanied by the call of the Spirit, right, given to every man? OK but look at this Scripture:

"For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those who are afar off, AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL." (Acts 2:39).

This text clearly indicates that God does not call everyone. AS MANY AS HE CALLS. God calls a certain number. So there must be two calls, for there is obviously the call for all to repent, but this says AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD WILL CALL.

Joel

Jaltus

February 8th 2003, 08:35 PM

Um, reread the verse in question.

and to all those who are afar off

smilax

February 8th 2003, 09:20 PM

Hmm.

The Acts call is universal. The Romans call inevitably leads to justification. "Universal" is not "particular." Therefore, there are two calls.

Response: "Prove there are two different calls..."

How are we supposed to answer?

Jaltus

February 9th 2003, 01:21 AM

Smilax,

Let me get back to you on the Romans one. Origen gave a very interesting discussion of that, essentially saying that it is the difference in foreknowledge that matters, not the call.

smilax

February 9th 2003, 01:31 AM

Cough, apokatastasis, cough.

In all seriousness, though, go for it. We're here to be challenged.

joelkaki

February 9th 2003, 10:50 AM

Um, reread the verse in question.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and to all those who are afar off
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, the "as many as the Lord our God will call" controls the all. You can't just see "all" and suddenly say it means everybody. The fact stands that the promise is to all those afar off, AS MANY AS, the Lord calls. AS MANY AS shows that it is not everybody.

Joel

Renegade Drow

February 10th 2003, 10:52 AM

If by "true" you mean "libertarian," keep in mind that even God is bound by His nature.

By true I would mean in an unrestricted sense. What is your view on the ‘will of God’, would you apply compatibilism to God as well, or do you believe that his choices, or will is entirely free?

This is completely untrue, especially from the Jewish mindset.

Red Herring. The Jewish mindset has no relevance in this discussion, (at present).

Also, an explanation of ‘completely untrue’ would be appreciated, else it is just an unsubstantiated opinion.

Like Esau

Which I find helps to corroborate my point, we are held accountable, because we had a choice.

Well, I'm glad we at least have our definitions aligned.

:yipee: :yipee:

And Romans ii, 13-15 says the conscience becomes the law to the Gentiles.

And?? We are still not declared righteous by observing the law.

Can you show that this refers to those teachers?

It doesn’t. It refers to the teaching.

Why, then, does Paul says "all" fall short? Not, "All those teachers," but "all," making it universal. That's why I find it perfectly fine for the theological theme. There is "none" that seeks God. He doesn't limit it at all.

All do fall short of the glory of God. No one is righteous in his eyes. We cannot achieve salvation on our own. I agree with what is said, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn’t support the idea that we cannot choose God by our own decision.

Romans viii, 8: "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

Notice the contrast. Paul's argument is that those in the flesh will be carnally minded. Those who are carnally minded cannot be subject to God. Therefore, by syllogism, those in the flesh (as opposed to the Spirit) cannot (not "will not" or "have not") be acceptable in God's sight.

IOW, those in the flesh are apart from God, we are all sinners and unacceptable or unrighteous in the eyes of God, without the atonement of the blood of Jesus.

I can agree with that.

Likewise, I Corinthians does not speak merely of refusing to make a choice. It says such a man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. It is impossible.

For the most part, I can agree with this. We are not physically capable to understand the mind of God.
We are but mere mortals, and our limited understanding is just that, limited. Man is extremely intelligent (well, mostly) and ingenious, but we just are not Omniscient.

I see no discussion of choices, whether in the verses themselves or in their context. Seems to me you are imposing the idea of libertarian freedom upon the texts.

Possible, but then again I find libertarianism more logically coherent than determinism. YMMV

Of course, I may have missed the gist of your argument completely, in which case, feel free to smack me upside the head.

Consider yourself smacked. :cheers:

RD

smilax

February 12th 2003, 01:27 AM

Renegade Drow:
What is your view on the ‘will of God’, would you apply compatibilism to God as well, or do you believe that his choices, or will is entirely free?It is impossible for God to do what contradicts His nature. Example: God cannot lie. (Hebrews vi, 18.) Ditto with us.Red Herring. The Jewish mindset has no relevance in this discussion, (at present).So is Western philosophy, which is what your particular argument seems to hinge on.Also, an explanation of ‘completely untrue’ would be appreciated, else it is just an unsubstantiated opinion.All right, let's give this a shot...

Romans ix, 19-21: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"Which I find helps to corroborate my point, we are held accountable, because we had a choice.Ahem.

Romans ix, 11: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth."And?? We are still not declared righteous by observing the law.Huh? You said:While I certainly agree that both Jew and Gentile are under, I do not believe that this was was Paul was alluding to in Romans 3.As your proof, you offered verse twenty. But I noted that this can be universal. So Romans iii, 11 stands as universal rather than being limited to people who try to justify themselves.It doesn’t. It refers to the teaching.But you said...Paul rebukes these teachers in several of his epistles, including this one here.So I'm confused. Oh, well.All do fall short of the glory of God. No one is righteous in his eyes. We cannot achieve salvation on our own. I agree with what is said, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn’t support the idea that we cannot choose God by our own decision.Romans iii, 11 says that no one seeks, with which I agree. What do you say to that?I can agree with that.Good. So what does Romans viii, 7 mean to you in light of this?

Romans viii, 7: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

And because of this, no one can even desire to be righteous. "So then," Paul writes, "they that are in the flesh cannot please God," his reason being what he just specified, the enmity of non-believers with God.

Where do you get the idea that Romans viii, 7 refers to a choice?For the most part, I can agree with this. We are not physically capable to understand the mind of God.I don't think he's talking about ineffability, because I Corinthians ii, 16 goes ahead and says we have the mind of Christ.Possible, but then again I find libertarianism more logically coherent than determinism. YMMVDoes God have libertarian freedom?

TheFiveSolas

February 12th 2003, 02:29 AM

Does God have libertarian freedom?

As I understand it, libertarian freedom refers to a type of freedom where there is absolutely no preceding cause/inclination/desire etc., that determines the choice made. Or to put it another way, a choice is freely made ONLY IF it is utterly free of any determining factor, including the nature of the agent involved.

If the will makes choices without ANY reason or cause, doesn't it necessarily follow that such a "choice" was made arbitrarily? If my assessment is correct doesn't that make all such choices irrational (i.e., no rational reason for choosing one way over another)?

Also, in heaven will we, under the libertarian view, still be able to sin? It would seem to be the case that even when we are made perfectly (and inherently) righteous, holy, and good, we will STILL be FREE to sin against God since freedom means we are even free from our inherent nature (be it sinful or holy). Which would mean that even God cannot guarantee a sinless heaven.

Lastly, how would choice even be possible if a will has no desire one way or another?

What I'm trying to say is that intuitively speaking we seem to make our choices based upon our desires (i.e., which stem from our nature). Therefore, if it is denied that our desires determine why we choose one action over another I can see no other alternative than a neutral will. One that would, if a neutral will is even possible, be unable to make any choice at all.

The view that says, we choose based upon our desires, and that choice is free IF it was not forced or coerced, seems to be logical, whereas the libertarian view cannot even be rationally described (as to WHY or HOW an agent chooses one way over another, but rather, ALL determinative cause is precluded).

Ok, I'll stop there since I feel that I'm rambling. :help:

geebob

February 12th 2003, 12:24 PM

As I understand it, libertarian freedom refers to a type of freedom where there is absolutely no preceding cause/inclination/desire etc., that determines the choice made.

Only one third of your description of lfw is correct.

Here is an accepted definition of libertarian freedom.

If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.
(Taken from Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings by Peterson et al. pg. 267)

You can have reasons, influences, and desires in a libertarian free choice, as long as they don't determine what you will choose. They may make it more likely that you will choose one thing or another, but once the influence is so strong as to determine the choice, the choice can no longer be described as in terms of lfw.

Indeed, we do make arbitrary choices, but even when we choose for reasons, that does not mean that those reasons truly dictated what we will choose. It means that we decided to act for those reasons. In a libertarian picture, even if you act for some reasons, it still may be the case that you could've acted for other reasons and if God were to rewind the clock to the time before you made the choice, it very well could've been the case that you would indeed choose otherwise for the other reasons.

Renegade Drow

February 12th 2003, 02:23 PM

It is impossible for God to do what contradicts His nature. Example: God cannot lie. (Hebrews vi, 18.) Ditto with us.

Huh, we cannot lie? ;)

Impossible…perhaps (& perhaps not, depending on your views), but you have not answered my question.

So is Western philosophy, which is what your particular argument seems to hinge on.

Begging the question, is Western philosophy is incompatible with the word of God.

All right, let's give this a shot...

Romans ix, 19-21: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

???

I am not questioning the motives/actions of God; I am questioning your interpretation of the issue to better my understanding of your position. I am unsure what the above passage says in our context. Please enlighten me.

Romans ix, 11: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth."

You’re not using this verse to support election right? This passage isn’t dealing with our choices or inability to make choices.

As your proof, you offered verse twenty. But I noted that this can be universal. So Romans iii, 11 stands as universal rather than being limited to people who try to justify themselves.

I suppose, if you take it out of context. V20, concludes the thought/point Paul was trying to make, which is the law will not make you righteous in eyes of God. Even in the first verse, his question is what advantage has the Jew. Like I said earlier, there was ample teaching that the law was still sufficient, or you needed to have both the law, and believe in Christ.

This is a completely separate issue of ‘all being under sin’, which is what I do believe, for all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God.

So I'm confused. Oh, well.

Sorry, a lack of clarity on my part. While Paul rebukes several teachers for false teaching or understanding (Peter, teachers in corinth & galatia, etc.), I meant to say in this verse he is rebuking false teaching, not the teacher directly.

Romans iii, 11 says that no one seeks, with which I agree. What do you say to that?

I seek??

Good. So what does Romans viii, 7 mean to you in light of this?

Romans viii, 7: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

Those who are not a current child of God will not accept the law of God, and of course they cannot, else it opens up self-justification. See the next verse, the sinful mind is impossible to please God. One can only be classed as a sinful (carnal) mind by the taking of two roads, a lack of choice to follow Christ, or a conscious decision not to follow Christ.

And because of this, no one can even desire to be righteous.

I don’t see the logic required here to make that leap.

Where do you get the idea that Romans viii, 7 refers to a choice?

See above. It speaks of two minds, the sinful mind and those of spirit minds. The decision has already been made, as I said one can only get to be a mind according to the spirit by a conscious and deliberate decision.

[quote] I don't think he's talking about ineffability, because I Corinthians ii, 16 goes ahead and says we have the mind of Christ.

Huh??
I agree with you when you said; It says such a man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. It is impossible. Then you (try to) discredit my agreement?? So because we have the mind of Christ we are now somehow omniscient? I really don’t think this is what the text is saying.

Does God have libertarian freedom?

Libertarian-like anyway. I get the idea that because one needs to live within certain boundaries, it conflicts with your interpretation of arminianism/libertarianism. My understanding is that God can freely choose (whatever) without being externally influenced, so long as it is not in violation of who he is.

Ball is back in your court. :cheers:

RD

Renegade Drow

February 12th 2003, 02:25 PM

geebob

:thumb:

RD

GrayPilgrim

February 12th 2003, 02:46 PM

Renegade Drow:

Huh, we cannot lie? ;)

Impossible…perhaps (& perhaps not, depending on your views), but you have not answered my question.

For clarifiaction I beleive TFS meant we cannot act agaianst our nature, not that a human cannot lie.

Renegade Drow

February 12th 2003, 03:12 PM

For clarifiaction I beleive TFS meant we cannot act agaianst our nature, not that a human cannot lie.

:)

I know, hence the wink. (and the second line)

RD

edit: what is TFS

Jaltus

February 12th 2003, 05:26 PM

Simlax,

Let me quote a paper I wrote on Origen's interpretation of Romans 8:
Just as those foreknown are predestined, so are those same called, justified, and glorified. Foreknowledge is the first of these, as it comes first in the passage. It is foreknowledge that leads to these others. Just as this string of equivalents is true, so is the negative of the same string. However, there seem to be cases in scripture where those called were not justified, such as Judas and others. The answer to this apparent conundrum is solved by the idea that none of them were truly known by God, for the biblical sense of knowing goes well beyond the realm of intellectual assessment to complete unity. This still leaves open the contradiction of being called but not chosen, seen by comparing Matthew 22:14 to Romans 8:30. This difference can be assuaged by noting that some are called according to purpose and others are just called. It is the purpose which is the gradation, for those called without purpose are those whose sprouts wither in the harsh sun (see Matthew 13:5-6). This also circumvents the problem of evil, in that those called cannot claim they had no chance, for they were called but did not persevere. Going back to the idea that foreknowledge deals with an intimate unity, Origen argues for a differentiation in knowledge between comprehension and reception, with the example being Jesus not knowing sin though having knowledge of sin. All of this then leads to the glorification of the final state for those who truly believe, who have been called according to purpose.
Sorry about the lack of breaks.

Jaltus

February 12th 2003, 05:27 PM

Oh, TFS = TheFiveSolas.

smilax

February 12th 2003, 06:56 PM

Renegade Drow:
Impossible…perhaps (& perhaps not, depending on your views), but you have not answered my question.Yes, I did. His will is not entirely "free" in that He cannot contradict His nature.Begging the question, is Western philosophy is incompatible with the word of God."Incompatible" is not the question. Show me from Scripture where you get the idea that responsibility requires ability.I am not questioning the motives/actions of God; I am questioning your interpretation of the issue to better my understanding of your position. I am unsure what the above passage says in our context. Please enlighten me.The original statement of yours was this:If our free will is not as free as we might think due to external influences that we have no direct control over, the choices we make have little or no responsibility attached, because our choices have become limited by these influences.The passage I cited contradicts this link between responsibility and ability.You’re not using this verse to support election right? This passage isn’t dealing with our choices or inability to make choices.I'm using this verse to refer to Jacob and Esau! Try to remember what we were talking about.Which I find helps to corroborate my point, we are held accountable, because we had a choice.But the verse indicates that they were elected not on the basis of any sort of choice.I suppose, if you take it out of context. V20, concludes the thought/point Paul was trying to make, which is the law will not make you righteous in eyes of God. Even in the first verse, his question is what advantage has the Jew. Like I said earlier, there was ample teaching that the law was still sufficient, or you needed to have both the law, and believe in Christ.I still don't understand why it's out of context. Is he talking only about Jews? Absolutely not, because he sets the argument up earlier in chapter two to extend this to the Gentiles.I seek??Post-regeneration, of course. Paul did include himself in that group given Romans iii, 9.Those who are not a current child of God will not accept the law of God, and of course they cannot, else it opens up self-justification. See the next verse, the sinful mind is impossible to please God. One can only be classed as a sinful (carnal) mind by the taking of two roads, a lack of choice to follow Christ, or a conscious decision not to follow Christ.Awesome. Now is repentance part of the law of God?I don’t see the logic required here to make that leap."Can be" means "can be," not just "will be."I agree with you when you said; It says such a man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. It is impossible. Then you (try to) discredit my agreement?? So because we have the mind of Christ we are now somehow omniscient? I really don’t think this is what the text is saying.No, that's not what I meant...Libertarian-like anyway. I get the idea that because one needs to live within certain boundaries, it conflicts with your interpretation of arminianism/libertarianism. My understanding is that God can freely choose (whatever) without being externally influenced, so long as it is not in violation of who he is.Okay, then. Do we freely choose without being externally influenced (or determined; pick your word to clarify) in accordance with our nature?

Renegade Drow

February 13th 2003, 11:58 AM

Yes, I did. His will is not entirely "free" in that He cannot contradict His nature.

You answered it part, not in full.

Having your ability limited by your nature in no way conflicts with free will. Having free will (even for God) doesn’t include the logically impossible (can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it). You appear to infer that the ‘free will’ of God is intrinsically linked to his omnipotence. By the same token, because I cannot choose to ride an invisible purple unicorn, my will is not free. You portray a logical fallacy to corroborate your point, and I cannot tell if you’re being serious about it, I kinda hope your joking here.

A will that is restricted by the nature of your being (whether be man or God) does not suggest that the choices that can be realized are inhibited externally, (or determined).

"Incompatible" is not the question.

Evasion by the use of a red herring (again).

The passage I cited contradicts this link between responsibility and ability.

Really. I think you need to re-read the passage in question in correct context. Your passage deals with service and not salvation (responsibility).

I'm using this verse to refer to Jacob and Esau! Try to remember what we were talking about.

Methinks you are the one who has forgotten the context of our conversation, which was if there is no responsibility from our choices, moral or otherwise, we cannot be held accountable for them, because in essence, we had no choice. The passage you cite does nothing to negate my initial point. The sovereign right of God to choose one (brother) over another, for service, is totally within his right to do so, hence the potter/clay relationship. The passage does not refer to being held responsible for a choice. The passage even cites ‘had done anything good or bad’ telling the reader that a choice has not yet even been made.

But the verse indicates that they were elected not on the basis of any sort of choice.

Again, elected for what….? (see above)

I still don't understand why it's out of context. Is he talking only about Jews? Absolutely not, because he sets the argument up earlier in chapter two to extend this to the Gentiles.

It is really not that hard to understand. He is not talking about Jews in particular, but of the Judaic law, and the power of said law to declare one righteous by the law, whether being Jew or Gentile.

Post-regeneration, of course. Paul did include himself in that group given Romans iii, 9.

Ahh, I see. You undermine the word of God in your vision. He text does not insinuate pre or post. Your restrictive interpretation of that passage is where the implication of ‘post’ is originating. There are several other verses which imply there are those who seek God. (Deut 4:29, Prov 8:16, etc)

<sarcasm>
How can this be, if it says in one passage that there is none that seeketh after God, and in another those who seek me find me; it must be a contradiction.
</sarcasm>

Awesome. Now is repentance part of the law of God?

Law, no? More like a guideline for living a fruitful life.

"Can be" means "can be," not just "will be."

I fully understand the meaning of ‘can be’, your argument here is a strawman; for no one is arguing ‘will be’. The test simply does not talk about ‘desire’. You appear to be on a slippery slope with this kind of reasoning.

No, that's not what I meant...

Your meaning is then??

Okay, then. Do we freely choose without being externally influenced (or determined; pick your word to clarify) in accordance with our nature?

Careful here, the ability to choose and the decision made are not the same thing. I would say that the ability to free choose, within the limits of our existence (or nature) is available to us, though we have a tendency to base (rationalize) our decision on desire. The choice to choose otherwise is still given. See the difference?

RD :cheers:

smilax

February 13th 2003, 06:47 PM

Renegade Drow:
Having your ability limited by your nature in no way conflicts with free will. Having free will (even for God) doesn’t include the logically impossible (can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it).Right.You appear to infer that the ‘free will’ of God is intrinsically linked to his omnipotence.No.By the same token, because I cannot choose to ride an invisible purple unicorn, my will is not free.Well, I wasn't talking about invisible purple unicorns. I was talking about God doing something that is against His nature, not that which is logically impossible in general.A will that is restricted by the nature of your being (whether be man or God) does not suggest that the choices that can be realized are inhibited externally, (or determined).How about a will that is determined by one's nature?Evasion by the use of a red herring (again).Call it whatever you want, but you haven't answered.Really. I think you need to re-read the passage in question in correct context. Your passage deals with service and not salvation (responsibility).Salvation is eternal service.Methinks you are the one who has forgotten the context of our conversation, which was if there is no responsibility from our choices, moral or otherwise, we cannot be held accountable for them, because in essence, we had no choice. The passage you cite does nothing to negate my initial point. The sovereign right of God to choose one (brother) over another, for service, is totally within his right to do so, hence the potter/clay relationship.Uh-huh. Which is why, in the next breath, the Malachi quote about loving Jacob and hating Esau, is made. Right. All this has to do is service. (What service?) On what basis did God choose to love Jacob but hate Esau?The passage does not refer to being held responsible for a choice. The passage even cites ‘had done anything good or bad’ telling the reader that a choice has not yet even been made.... and that responibility is independent of choices.Again, elected for what….? (see above)Does it matter? We are speaking of the general relationship between ability and responsibility right now. We are not arguing about predestination.Ahh, I see. You undermine the word of God in your vision. He text does not insinuate pre or post. Your restrictive interpretation of that passage is where the implication of ‘post’ is originating. There are several other verses which imply there are those who seek God. (Deut 4:29, Prov 8:16, etc)

<sarcasm>
How can this be, if it says in one passage that there is none that seeketh after God, and in another those who seek me find me; it must be a contradiction.
</sarcasm>And the reconciliation of these texts, you call undermining.Law, no? More like a guideline for living a fruitful life.Then please explain why Jesus commands repentance.I fully understand the meaning of ‘can be’, your argument here is a strawman; for no one is arguing ‘will be’. The test simply does not talk about ‘desire’. You appear to be on a slippery slope with this kind of reasoning.I know it does not talk about desire. But you say it has nothing to do with the human will at all. Again, I await positive evidence for this interpretation.Your meaning is then??That Paul is not talking about ineffability in I Corinthians ii, 14.Careful here, the ability to choose and the decision made are not the same thing. I would say that the ability to free choose, within the limits of our existence (or nature) is available to us, though we have a tendency to base (rationalize) our decision on desire. The choice to choose otherwise is still given. See the difference?Yes, and now I see why this discussion is not working as well. Okay. So you affirm that the nature binds the decisions, but that it does not determine it?

Renegade Drow

February 14th 2003, 04:34 PM

I was talking about God doing something that is against His nature, not that which is logically impossible in general.

And with God, nothing is impossible. :p

My point still stands, God being limited to decisions made within the scope of his nature does not inhibit his ability to choose freely.

How about a will that is determined by one's nature?

That’s just it, your nature doesn’t determine your choice.

Salvation is eternal service.

Funny, I thought it was a gift from God.

Salvation is most certainly not eternal service. He closest explanation of salvation is ‘new birth’. ‘Service’ implies action; ‘salvation’ does not.

Uh-huh. Which is why, in the next breath, the Malachi quote about loving Jacob and hating Esau, is made. Right. All this has to do is service.

You appear to have a problem here, why? You infer that because Jacob was chosen over Esau, that Esau was held responsible for an action that he had no choice in. I showed you that this is not the case. Held responsible is a salvation issue, and not a service one. I can’t help that you don’t like the answer.

In this particular case, God chose Jacob to be the direct ancestor of his people.

what basis did God choose to love Jacob but hate Esau?

Whatever our sovereign God desires to achieve his will?

and that responibility is independent of choices.

Esau was not held responsible, Jacob was chosen (to be the descendants of Israel) over Esau. Big difference.

Does it matter? We are speaking of the general relationship between ability and responsibility right now. We are not arguing about predestination.

Yes, ‘elected for what’ does matter. As I point out, this is not a responsibility/ability relationship, and I am not talking about predestination.

And the reconciliation of these texts, you call undermining.

No, I call poor exegesis of the passage in question, undermining.

Then please explain why Jesus commands repentance.

Again, to bear fruit. It is difficult to ‘grow’ as a Christian, while not repenting for your sins.

I know it does not talk about desire. But you say it has nothing to do with the human will at all. Again, I await positive evidence for this interpretation.

If you agree that it does not talk of desire, how can it possibly refer to will; when there is a direct correlation between desire and the ability to choose (will). The carnal mind is enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. The passage simply says (as in the next verse), that it is impossible to please God on our own merits. It is not a difficult passage to understand. It becomes complicated when one tries to infer from that passage that we cannot choose Christ, because of our sinful nature.

That Paul is not talking about ineffability in I Corinthians ii, 14.

Your statement makes no sense. You (originally) said; I don't think he's talking about ineffability, because I Corinthians ii, 16 goes ahead and says we have the mind of Christ. in reply to me agreeing with the inability to fully understand the mind of God.

Ineffable means unspeakable or incapable of description. I don’t get what you are trying to say.

Okay. So you affirm that the nature binds the decisions, but that it does not determine it?

I wouldn’t say bind per se, rather sets boundaries on what we can choose. (riding a purple unicorn). I still have the complete ability to freely choose between competing decisions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the difference in our viewpoints crucially separates the Romans 8:7 passage. You are of mind that we cannot choose God (Christ) because of our ‘total depravity’, and that God ‘elects’ those whom he wills (because we cannot choose ourselves), is this correct?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to cut this short, but we can continue later. I don’t know if I’ll be able to respond over the weekend or not (family time), but should be able to continue next week.

Have a good weekend, and thanx for the discussion, it helps me to grow.

RD
:cheers:

GrayPilgrim

February 14th 2003, 04:59 PM

Just to break in for a moment

Renegade Drow:

Funny, I thought it was a gift from God.

Salvation is most certainly not eternal service. He closest explanation of salvation is ‘new birth’. ‘Service’ implies action; ‘salvation’ does not.

RD
:cheers:

Umm... I disagree. If we look at the creation accounts we see that Adama and Eve were to work and keep (or worship and guard, both are valid translations). So we see that in man's natural state he is a servant. Paul continues this motif in Romans 6, where man is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. Thus salvation is understood as deliverance from our slavery to sin and death that we might serve righteousness and be granted salvation by God. Note you can earn death through sin, but you cannot earn salvation by serving righteousness, so I would agree woith your initial statement is correct salvation is a gift. To quote the old saying, "You are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone."

Moreover, hate and love are semitic idioms for choosing. So that a "hated wife" is one who had been rejected and sent away by divorce. The idiom speeks directly to salvation (or slavation as I originally wrote it :doh: ) in Romans 9-11.

Renegade Drow

February 17th 2003, 10:42 AM

GP

So we see that in man's natural state he is a servant. Paul continues this motif in Romans 6, where man is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness.

I agree that the role of man is servanthood in its proper relationship to God, but saying that salvation is eternal service is a mutilation of doctrine.

At its core salvation means deliverance or freedom from sin, received at a specific point in time, for the forgiveness of past, present and future sins. There are many occurrences where a group or individuals were chosen, by God, for the fulfillment of his divine purposes which do not require (or indicate) salvation. The choosing of the Israelites to be the kingdom of priests in Ex. 19 or the choosing of the Disciples of Christ (Lk. 6) are such examples of being chosen for service, and not salvation. Salvation causes the shift from the ‘service to sin’ (or flesh) to the ‘service to righteousness’ (or spirit), but salvation itself is not service.

Moreover, hate and love are semitic idioms for choosing. So that a "hated wife" is one who had been rejected and sent away by divorce. The idiom speeks directly to salvation (or slavation as I originally wrote it ) in Romans 9-11.

At times yes, but it isn’t always used as such. Even in the context of my discussion here with Jacob/Esau, the scripture makes clear of the relationship of love/hate idiom. Hate in this case means, “love less” than that of Jacob, and is clearly not one linked to salvation, but of service, hence the relationship of Jacob and the ‘descendants of Israel’, compared to that of the ‘descendants of Edom’.

RD

George Blaisdell

February 17th 2003, 01:06 PM

RD writes:

From GP
>>I agree that the role of man is servanthood in its proper relationship to God, but saying that salvation is eternal service is a mutilation of doctrine.<<

> At its core salvation means deliverance or freedom from sin, received at a specific point in time, for the forgiveness of past, present and future sins.<

How on earth does this understanding of forgiveness now from sins to be committed in the future avoid the charge being the salvation belonging to sin, rather than the salvation away from sin? It would seem to be saying that if I am delivered today from sin, and am thereby forgiven all my future sins, I am thereby free to live a sinfully fulfilled and sinfully salvific life in the future... And I know that you do not believe this, but how can "freedom from sin" mean "forgiveness of future sin"? I mean, if one is free from sin, then it would seem to me to mean that one no longer sins *in the future*...

> There are many occurrences where a group or individuals were chosen, by God, for the fulfillment of his divine purposes which do not require (or indicate) salvation. The choosing of the Israelites to be the kingdom of priests in Ex. 19 or the choosing of the Disciples of Christ (Lk. 6) are such examples of being chosen for service, and not salvation. Salvation causes the shift from the ‘service to sin’ (or flesh) to the ‘service to righteousness’ (or spirit), but salvation itself is not service.<

This seems to presuppose an answer to the question "Is there a 'salvation itself?'" in the way that you mean. Adam chose the serpent, and lost relationship with God, and died that day, and found himself naked and ashamed - Salvation would seem to have to mean in some way the re-establishment of that pre-fall relationship... And sin is what Adam did, and what we do...

A good question here might be: "Can a person lose his or her 'slavation' to righteousness - eg salvation - by choosing to commit sins?" The answer seems to be yes - Indeed a whole people lost it, the very chosen people of God, by their actions, rejecting Christ and persecuting His followers, and in Revelation we find one of the Churches not measuring up, and given a warning that it would be taken from them IF they did not repent. [I understand that to this day, there is no Christian Church in that place, for they did not do what they were told to do.]

It would seem that obedience is willful, and disobedience as well... Yet is not Paul arguing that the freedom of those of the descendents of the free [noble] woman is found in servitude to Christ [Truth], and that in this is salvation? Just as Christ lived in humble obedience to the Father? Obedience to Christ constitutes the Christian's committment by faith that serves Christ, and not the mind of the flesh, which is at enmity with the new person in Christ, and in this obedience, in this service, is our salvation. To deny this would seem to affirm salvation by disobedience to Christ... So that salvation should be understood to mean restored relationship with God through Christ in the Holy Spirit, which can be lost IF we fail in the service of [willful] obedience...

geo

]

Renegade Drow

February 17th 2003, 03:36 PM

How on earth does this understanding of forgiveness now from sins to be committed in the future avoid the charge being the salvation belonging to sin, rather than the salvation away from sin? It would seem to be saying that if I am delivered today from sin, and am thereby forgiven all my future sins, I am thereby free to live a sinfully fulfilled and sinfully salvific life in the future... And I know that you do not believe this, but how can "freedom from sin" mean "forgiveness of future sin"? I mean, if one is free from sin, then it would seem to me to mean that one no longer sins *in the future*...

:smile:
You had to go and open this can of worms, didn’t you. :tongue:

This I admit is a difficult subject, as we (humankind) are a linear sort from a perspective of time. I admit that this is fast exceeding the limits of my understanding, and I may not give an appropriate answer here, but I will try to clarify this.

First, we are not ‘free from sin’, just that our sins have been forgiven, God will always look at us through the blood of the Lamb. True salvation or everlasting salvation will not happen until we receive our glorified bodies like the one that the risen Christ received. Up until that point we are in a ‘regenerating’ state per se, we still live in a fallen world, still have fleshly minds, and yes, we still sin.

Second, regarding living a ‘sinfully fulfilled and sinfully salvific life in the future. I suppose this is a possibility, but I would question the faith (read: conviction) of the individual who is stuck in this lifestyle. To continually, consciously and deliberately sin, which I am sure happens to us all, we will be judged for it, we are forgiven of our sins, but will still give an account to the Father. It is generally understood that God cannot exist in the presence of sin, hence the need for salvation. But that would is some sense (metaphysical maybe??) that would contradict the understanding of God, in that how can he not exist in the presence of something he is sovereign over, thus reducing his omnipotence. I think the general Idea is that god can not exist in the presence of sin, and do nothing. Salvation removes the stain of sin from our souls, but our actions will still be judged, bridging the gap between man and God. Salvation does not remove the consequences of our action, in this world or the next.

This seems to presuppose an answer to the question "Is there a 'salvation itself?'" in the way that you mean. Adam chose the serpent, and lost relationship with God, and died that day, and found himself naked and ashamed - Salvation would seem to have to mean in some way the re-establishment of that pre-fall relationship... And sin is what Adam did, and what we do...

Eve chose the serpent, Adam chose Eve

Our relationship changed, it was not lost per se. But sin Adam did, yes, and set the stage of ‘original sin’.

A good question here might be: "Can a person lose his or her 'slavation' to righteousness - eg salvation - by choosing to commit sins?" The answer seems to be yes - Indeed a whole people lost it, the very chosen people of God, by their actions, rejecting Christ and persecuting His followers, and in Revelation we find one of the Churches not measuring up, and given a warning that it would be taken from them IF they did not repent. [I understand that to this day, there is no Christian Church in that place, for they did not do what they were told to do.]

Slavation – you mean like slobbering? :tongue:

Can we lose our salvation? I would say no, simply because 1 of Jn. 5:11-12, cut and dry. There is no ‘what if’ clause here.

As for you examples above, his chosen people, did not lose their salvation as a whole, as they were never given salvation as a whole. They lost their sole inclusion on being a ‘kingdom of priests’ because of unbelief/sin, but not salvation. As for your revelation example, I cannot find it at present (I cannot access most things religious from my work, why I can come here is still a mystery though), so you will need to enlighten me for a response.

It would seem that obedience is willful, and disobedience as well... Yet is not Paul arguing that the freedom of those of the descendents of the free [noble] woman is found in servitude to Christ [Truth], and that in this is salvation? Just as Christ lived in humble obedience to the Father? Obedience to Christ constitutes the Christian's committment by faith that serves Christ, and not the mind of the flesh, which is at enmity with the new person in Christ, and in this obedience, in this service, is our salvation. To deny this would seem to affirm salvation by disobedience to Christ... So that salvation should be understood to mean restored relationship with God through Christ in the Holy Spirit, which can be lost IF we fail in the service of [willful] obedience...

Sure obedience is willful, I still can choose right from wrong, though if I continually choose wrong, my convictions would be rather weak, and affect my personal integrity, though YMMV.

I think you read too much into what salvation is, and what a believer or follower is. It is not some magical road that makes one’s life an easy march. You appear to imply otherwise, in that if our works are not up to par, we fail to get a passing grade. As I said above, I don’t believe that we can lose our salvation, just possibly our standing and our relationship with the father. The end goal of Christians should be hearing a “Well done, good and faithful servant” from the father at our judgement. To become a Christian, and then ignore your convictions, fight against growth, place yourself above others is, AFAIK is blasphemous to God, but will not cause the loss of your salvation. (though as I said above, I would question your conviction to Christ)

Hope this helps somewhat,

RD

George Blaisdell

February 17th 2003, 05:06 PM

Renegade Drow:

>> How on earth does this understanding of forgiveness now from sins to be committed in the future avoid the charge being the salvation belonging to sin, rather than the salvation away from sin? It would seem to be saying that if I am delivered today from sin, and am thereby forgiven all my future sins, I am thereby free to live a sinfully fulfilled and sinfully salvific life in the future... And I know that you do not believe this, but how can "freedom from sin" mean "forgiveness of future sin"? I mean, if one is free from sin, then it would seem to me to mean that one no longer sins *in the future*...

> You had to go and open this can of worms, didn’t you.

It is important. If I am saved no matter what, and I can't lose my salvation, then it doesn't matter what I do or do not do, and worse than that, I will find myself doing things to prove I am saved when I am not [virtues], or doing things that don't matter anyway, like all manner of sinning, because I am saved no matter what. In a word, this understanding utterly guts and makes void any Christian ethics that are unto salvation, and if a Christian's whole point of being alive is salvation, then it's everyone can do whatever the hell he pleases and he is saved anyway.

If salvation is a matter of restoration of lost relationship, then there are two parties to the relationship, God and man, and both are necessarily involved in the reconciliation. If either says no, then it's no... God incarnated, so He has said yes... The question is to us: What is our response to God's "Yes"?

> This I admit is a difficult subject, as we (humankind) are a linear sort from a perspective of time.

It is the one we sin in...

> I admit that this is fast exceeding the limits of my understanding, and I may not give an appropriate answer here, but I will try to clarify this.

You are biting into a really tough nut - One of those really tasty ones that take a nammer, tongs and anvil to break into, and yield little nut-meat...

> First, we are not ‘free from sin’, just that our sins have been forgiven, God will always look at us through the blood of the Lamb.

He always looks at us thus, through the Life of Christ, and His forgiveness is not at issue either. He could have forgiven Adam, yes? And indeed He already has forgiven him... But what is it that Adam did NOT do??? What was Adam's failing? He did not repent and ask God for reconciliation. Instead he blamed the woman.

> True salvation or everlasting salvation will not happen until we receive our glorified bodies like the one that the risen Christ received.

"Those whom He hath justified, these also He hath glorified." The perfected saints have been glorified, and continue to be, from generation to generation...

> Up until that point we are in a ‘regenerating’ state per se, we still live in a fallen world, still have fleshly minds, and yes, we still sin.

So what do you do with 1 John, where he says that a Christian is unable to be commiting sin?

> Second, regarding living a ‘sinfully fulfilled and sinfully salvific life in the future. I suppose this is a possibility, but I would question the faith (read: conviction) of the individual who is stuck in this lifestyle.

Falls flat on his face! Obviously, there ain't no salvation in him.

> To continually, consciously and deliberately sin, which I am sure happens to us all, we will be judged for it, we are forgiven of our sins, but will still give an account to the Father.

Is not a Christian's "job" to NOT live a sinful life, but to turn away from the concerns of the flesh and the world and to live unto God??? And do you really believe that sin "happens to" us all? Don't you believe that it is something we DO? And not something that "happens to" us?

There be alligators in this here swamp, Boy! And the water's a-risin'!!

>It is generally understood that God cannot exist in the presence of sin, hence the need for salvation.

Lemme kill THAT crocodile! It is generally understood that sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and definitely NOT vice versa!

> But that would is some sense (metaphysical maybe??) that would contradict the understanding of God, in that how can he not exist in the presence of something he is sovereign over, thus reducing his omnipotence.

Exactly! But sins melt away in His presence...

> I think the general Idea is that god can not exist in the presence of sin, [I]and do nothing. Salvation removes the stain of sin from our souls, but our actions will still be judged, bridging the gap between man and God. Salvation does not remove the consequences of our action, in this world or the next.

Then you cannot avoid the charge of salvation by sin, except now with post-salvation consequences...

>> This seems to presuppose an answer to the question "Is there a 'salvation itself?'" in the way that you mean. Adam chose the serpent, and lost relationship with God, and died that day, and found himself naked and ashamed - Salvation would seem to have to mean in some way the re-establishment of that pre-fall relationship... And sin is what Adam did, and what we do...

> Eve chose the serpent, Adam chose Eve

That was Adam's reply to God - Blame her! Eve was deceived, and thereby had excuse. Adam was not deceived, hence he died that very day. Was not his death his nakedness? How do you think he was clothed prior to his death?

> Our relationship changed, it was not lost per se. But sin Adam did, yes, and set the stage of ‘original sin’.

We are all born in him, and in the fallenness of the world he created. Ours is a world in which everything kills something to survive - Except the phytoplankton and their kin!

>> A good question here might be: "Can a person lose his or her 'slavation' to righteousness - eg salvation - by choosing to commit sins?" The answer seems to be yes - Indeed a whole people lost it, the very chosen people of God, by their actions, rejecting Christ and persecuting His followers, and in Revelation we find one of the Churches not measuring up, and given a warning that it would be taken from them IF they did not repent. [I understand that to this day, there is no Christian Church in that place, for they did not do what they were told to do.]

> Slavation – you mean like slobbering? :tongue:

The very same! Someone earlier had made that typo, so I kept it... Actually, in addition, it means slave-ation...

> Can we lose our salvation? I would say no, simply because 1 of Jn. 5:11-12, cut and dry. There is no ‘what if’ clause here.

11: And this is the witness, that God gave to us Life eternal, and this very Life is in His Son.

12: The one having the son is having Life; the one not having the Son of God is not having [that] Life..."

You are right, there is no what if clause here, but the verbs and participles are all present tense, meaning ongoing action. Had the participles been aorist, you might have a case, but in the present ongoing participles and verbs, you can have starts and stops...

> Sure obedience is willful, I still can choose right from wrong, though if I continually choose wrong, my convictions would be rather weak, and affect my personal integrity, though YMMV.

Salvation is not a matter of one's convictions, weak or strong, but of one's life, and the living of it in communion with Christ, Who is in communion in the Trinity - That we be as one, [John 17].

> I think you read too much into what salvation is, and what a believer or follower is.

Well, let's see...

> It is not some magical road that makes one’s life an easy march.

Amen to that! It is a struggle unto the death of the old man as we grow into the new man in Christ...

> You appear to imply otherwise, in that if our works are not up to par, we fail to get a passing grade.

The works of sin deprive us of salvation. They did for Adam, and they do for us, for we are of Adam, unless reborn in Christ.

> As I said above, I don’t believe that we can lose our salvation, just possibly our standing and our relationship with the father.

Well, good grief! Is not THAT exactly what Adam lost? That is what he died from that very day that he ate that fruit...

> The end goal of Christians should be hearing a “Well done, good and faithful servant” from the father at our judgement. To become a Christian, and then ignore your convictions, fight against growth, place yourself above others is, AFAIK is blasphemous to God, but will not cause the loss of your salvation. (though as I said above, I would question your conviction to Christ)

Then we disagree on what salvation is... And being lost in our sins...

> Hope this helps somewhat,

Thank-you, yes!

geo

Barry Ickes

February 17th 2003, 06:51 PM

Let me give this one a go. Some one said...
No one disagrees with personal repentance and all. But to whom is this call made? Calvinists say only the elect, (Romans viii, 30;) Arminians say everyone, (John xii, 32.) And can this call be resisted? Calvinists say no, (John vi, 44;) Arminians say yes, (Revelation iii, 20.)

1st Is personal repentance possible naturally?
2nd Everyone say the "elect", its just how one defines the "elect."
3rd Even a good arminian like Adam Clarke say about Jn 12:32 that...I - will draw all men unto me - After I shall have died and risen again, by the preaching of my word and the influence of my Spirit, I shall attract and illuminate both Jews and Gentiles. It was one of the peculiar characteristics of the Messiah, that unto him should the gathering of the people be, Gen_49:10. And probably our Lord refers to the prophecy, Isa_11:10, which peculiarly belonged to the Gentiles: “There shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an Ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious.”
4th Spurgeon was once asked why he preached the gospel to everyone to which he replied... If God painted a yellow stripe down the back of the "elect" I would run around London pulling up shirt tails to find the elect so I preach whosoever will. He of course knew that the word whosoever was the Greek word "pas" which mean "all."

Renegade Drow

February 18th 2003, 10:32 AM

In a word, this understanding utterly guts and makes void any Christian ethics that are unto salvation, and if a Christian's whole point of being alive is salvation, then it's everyone can do whatever the hell he pleases and he is saved anyway.

Just a bit of misunderstanding (and also personal moral outrage) is detected in your statement. I suppose in some context a Christian can continue to sin, but it is biblically clear that this is not without consequence, and none show that you can lose your salvation. Romans 6 deals with the Christian living in sin, if it were not possible to do so, Paul would probably not mention the possibility.

If salvation is a matter of restoration of lost relationship, then there are two parties to the relationship, God and man, and both are necessarily involved in the reconciliation.

It is, but only God is involved in the reconciliation. God (Jesus) purchased it on the cross, God gives it freely to those who accept it, and you cannot earn it or buy it. It is God who maintains, all we can do is accept (or not).

If either says no, then it's no... God incarnated, so He has said yes... The question is to us: What is our response to God's "Yes"?

Agreed.

It is the one we sin in...

0_o

You are biting into a really tough nut - One of those really tasty ones that take a nammer, tongs and anvil to break into, and yield little nut-meat...

Yet here I am, looking for some nourishment. :tongue:

He always looks at us thus, through the Life of Christ, and His forgiveness is not at issue either. He could have forgiven Adam, yes? And indeed He already has forgiven him... But what is it that Adam did NOT do??? What was Adam's failing? He did not repent and ask God for reconciliation. Instead he blamed the woman.

Us being the Christian, or us being mankind?

o what do you do with 1 John, where he says that a Christian is unable to be commiting sin?

Well AFAIR, there were a few explanations,
1) as our resident corrector of blatant stupidity, JPH has said, it is a polemical absolute.
2) It talks of perpetual sin.
3) It is an eschatological statement.

Take your pick.

Is not a Christian's "job" to NOT live a sinful life, but to turn away from the concerns of the flesh and the world and to live unto God??? And do you really believe that sin "happens to" us all? Don't you believe that it is something we DO? And not something that "happens to" us?

Heaven forbid, I made a grammatical error, are you going to correct my spelling as well? I think all Christians ‘happens to’ choose sin at times, as opposed to sin ‘happens to’ us.

It is generally understood that sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and definitely NOT vice versa!

More ‘semantic guardian’ gameplay.

Then you cannot avoid the charge of salvation by sin, except now with post-salvation consequences...

Huh??

That was Adam's reply to God - Blame her! Eve was deceived, and thereby had excuse. Adam was not deceived, hence he died that very day.

Sure, but while Eve was deceived by the master of lies, Adam was deceived by Eve. :tongue:

Was not his death his nakedness? How do you think he was clothed prior to his death?

You assume he was even clothed prior to his fall.

We are all born in him, and in the fallenness of the world he created. Ours is a world in which everything kills something to survive - Except the phytoplankton and their kin!

No, we are all born into sin. More outrage at predation?

You are right, there is no what if clause here, but the verbs and participles are all present tense, meaning ongoing action. Had the participles been aorist, you might have a case, but in the present ongoing participles and verbs, you can have starts and stops...

Don’t think so. Aorist implies no timeline, though is generally regarded as past. This can not be the case in ‘having the son’, as it would be from a specific point in time, (when the decision to follow Christ was undertaken). If an ‘aorist tense’ was used, it would indirectly imply one was always ‘having’. Though I suppose an ‘inceptive aorist’ tense could have been used, a ‘present tense’ participle suits the need better in this case.

Also, it is eternal life, not on and off long life. There is no end in eternal, so your argument here has no merit.

Salvation is not a matter of one's convictions, weak or strong, but of one's life, and the living of it in communion with Christ, Who is in communion in the Trinity - That we be as one,

I thought we did this dance, salvation is deliverance from sin. You are right that it is not weak or strong, and I did not imply otherwise. You are referring to our communion with God here.

Amen to that! It is a struggle unto the death of the old man as we grow into the new man in Christ...

:yipee:

The works of sin deprive us of salvation.

Wrong way around, the work of salvation deprives of us sin. To believe otherwise it to believe that only our present and past sins were forgiven. That if we continue to sin, that we reach a point where we have sinned too much, crossed some ambiguous line in the sand, and become ‘unborn again’, and removed from his kingdom. I fail to see where this is taught in scripture.

They did for Adam,

Adam lost his salvation? Could you please back this up. How can you lose what you never had in the first place?

for we are of Adam, unless reborn in Christ.

w00t. We agree again. :yipee:

Well, good grief! Is not THAT exactly what Adam lost? That is what he died from that very day that he ate that fruit...

Assumption, Adam previously had salvation.

Then we disagree on what salvation is... And being lost in our sins...

At the moment, but we may still reconcile our beliefs.

Thanks,

RD

George Blaisdell

February 20th 2003, 12:29 AM

Renegade Drow:

>The elect are saved regardless of any sins they commit.

geo:
>> In a word, this understanding utterly guts and makes void any Christian ethics that are unto salvation, and if a Christian's whole point of being alive is salvation, then it's everyone can do whatever the hell he pleases and he is saved anyway.

> Just a bit of misunderstanding (and also personal moral outrage) is detected in your statement.

You mean "the hell"? I suppose so... Yet what can be more hellish than granting the so called "elect" a Biblical warrant to commit any sins they should feel like, and still be enjoyers of eternal life? They can murder, rape, molest children, anything whatsoever, and their salvation is guaranteed, according to this theory. There are simply gobs of problems with this understanding, not the least of which is the built in hypocracy...

> ... it is biblically clear that [no passages] show that you can lose your salvation. Romans 6 deals with the Christian living in sin, if it were not possible to do so, Paul would probably not mention the possibility.

Romans 6 is telling disciples NOT to sin...

>> If salvation is a matter of restoration of lost relationship, then there are two parties to the relationship, God and man, and both are necessarily involved in the reconciliation.

> It is, but only God is involved in the reconciliation.

Then He only reconciles Himself...

> God (Jesus) purchased it on the cross, God gives it freely to those who accept it, and you cannot earn it or buy it. It is God who maintains, all we can do is accept (or not).

Accept? We repent from our sins, and are baptized into Christ's death, to walk in the newness of life. [Rom 6:4] This is a lot more than just acceptance... This is a radical and total turning away from ones previous life and a turning to Christ, taking all our heart and mind and soul and strength and effort, and even with all this, which is a payment in dust, and God rewards us with His Grace and with Life in Him, which we cannot in any way earn...

>> Was not his death his nakedness? How do you think he was clothed prior to his death?

>You assume he was even clothed prior to his fall.

Scripture records that he looked and saw that he was naked and was ashamed, and hid from God. [Bad ideas all around, wouldn't you agree?] So it sure seems reasonable to think that prior to sinning he was not naked... The Church fathers teach that he was clothed in God's radiant Light... [And that Life was the light of men...]

>> Ours is a world in which everything kills something to survive -

> No, we are all born into sin.

I thought we were born to be saved from sin...

> More outrage at predation?

How much killing and eating do you find in the Garden?

11: And this is the witness, that God gave to us Life eternal, and this very Life is in His Son.

12: The one having the son is having Life; the one not having the Son of God is not having [that] Life..."

> It is eternal life, not on and off long life. There is no end in eternal, so your argument here has no merit.

The present tense is ongoing - If you are having the Son, you are having eternal life... If you are not having the Son, you are not having eternal life. So that one's possession of eternal life is contingent upon his having the Son, and we can only have the son insofar as we turn from sin. So that as Christians, we lose our salvation in sin, and regain it in confession of and repentance from sin and God's forgiveness and cleansing us from our confessed and forgiven sins.

IF we sin, and do not confess our sin, and do not repent from it and seek forgiveness and receive it, and turn ourselves around away from that sin, then we do not have Christ, the only sinless One...

We do not have Christ outside of Communion with Him... And our sin status is crucial to this communion, for outside repentance from sin, how can we be having Christ?

> Salvation is deliverance from sin.

Indeed, and if it is a one-time effective deliverance once for all time, as you seem to believe, how is it that we find Christians sinning?

> The works of sin deprive us of salvation. <

> Wrong way around, the work of salvation deprives of us sin.

Then show me sin-free Christians. I have not met any...

> To believe otherwise it to believe that only our present and past sins were forgiven. That if we continue to sin, tha