Look at the statement again in the immediate context of what I said - just to highlight it ' God gives THE FAITH to men to choose to believe or to choose to reject - THE FAITH being the content / the Gospel. That was my meaning.I can live with pretty much all you have said here. Some things I'm a little "not sure" but I think that is more the limitations of language and we could simply end up in a debate of semantics. I don't wish to go there and I don't you think you would either.
There is one sentence though that troubles me which I put in bold in the quote. I would say God does not give faith to those who reject Him and based on everything else you said here it doesn't seem to fit. God gives the freedom to believe or reject but only those who believe receive faith. Have you said it poorly or have I understood poorly?
Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You're arguing a form of monergistic determinism, are you not?"
Did you purposely bypass my purposefully including the "elect" in my previous post?
You previously made statements that seemed to agree with contingency. Here and at other times with @Toknow, you deny the force of contingency.
I don't remove volition at all and see it as man responsively and cooperatively choosing to believe and to continue to believe as commanded. Biblically coupled with this believing is obedience which is both parallel to and appositional to genuine faith.
I choose not to use the word 'synergism' because IMO it infers that man brings too much to the relationship. I prefer what I just said, willingly responsive cooperation in faith-obedience, or something to this effect. God is the initiator and makes the rules.
Ignore the rest of it. The basis of it, is. Around God not being a respecter of persons....Or generations... If you read the last part you would have seen that.
I don't see how it can be otherwise, given all that the Bible says about God and salvation.
No, sorry. I must have missed it.
I reject the idea that our salvation is contingent on our freedom. It it was, it wouldn't be salvation would it?
I would agree with that. However, doesn't the Bible also teach that God's transformative work on the inner man must take place as a necessary condition for genuine, saving faith? Jesus calls this being "born again."
This is the discussion, isn't it. Apart from discussing Scriptures, and reviewing things like conditional clauses and the warnings sections and anything else one sees as monergistic, there's no meaningful discussion to be had, not with me at least. You'll work to explain away the meaning of conditional statements, for example, and I'll tell you the language says otherwise.
I think one place where things get controversial is that each side can look at such things through a binary, which you may be working past as you seem to be fluctuating between truly conditional vs. just pastoral. IMO they can be both but not to make me just feel good by explaining away the conditional sense - or to consider myself as one of the elect and think it's just reassurance for me, but may apply to one of the non-elect.
IOW I can look at them as; I best not go against them be obediently abiding, or as I think I'm not currently going against them, or I think I've gone against them but I don't want to be doing so, or I've gone against them and I don't care, in fact I'm not even reading this nonsense anymore.
If someone asks how we can be certain we're saved, then I can be of the 1st two and even the third if I care to get right again. Some of these conditionals are structured to create such introspection.
But, if we think they have no teeth, I disagree. Some of them are quite emphatic in the original language. And the warnings sections are meaningful.
Since you're Deterministic in your theology and likely of the Perseverance thinking - IOW, Calvinistic - we're likely not going to get anywhere with this and certainly not on an overall theology basis. If you'd like to discuss certain Scriptures including specific conditional clauses I may be open. But, isn't the likelihood that you'll just insert that it may be conditional, but not for the Elect who can only Persevere?
What's interesting is that some of the Free-Grace advocates here normally don't like Calvinism, but but in OSAS or Eternal Security are basically monergistic, but won't say that because that's Calvinistic. If an Arminian or someone like me who wants everyone to make their case Scripturally and logically steps in, it becomes the typical 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend...'
I wasn't difficult to read your leanings, but you're respectful, so here we are. But we had to end up here, so why don't you tell us your position on Reformed Theology, Calvinism persuasion?
No. Not really. You brought it up.
All I did was talk about the scriptures.
From my perspective, I am not explaining away the meaning. I am correcting a long-held misinterpretation of them
I didn't explain away the conditional sense. I argue that not all conditionals are meant as warnings. THAT is an ASSUMPTION you bring to the text.
Do you think this is fair? Really? Are you allowed to label and marginalize me? Did I quote Calvin? No. Did I quote any reformer? No, And why do you presume that I didn't draw my own conclusions from scripture?
What are your initial thoughts in the consideration of a symbiotic relationship? Have you had the opportunity to see Marvel Studios' Venom?
Fulfilling the Law is not the same thing as abolishing the Law.
Those who walk in the Spirit are fulfilling the Law, not abolishing it.
Galatians 5:16-18
So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is
contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are
not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not
under the law.
For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is
contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are
not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not
under the law.
It matters not, car or person, having a choice doesn't mean you get to choose to give yourself away or sell yourself to another. I find it illogical that you think having choice means we get to choose ownership. It didn't change Onesimus' standing, he still belonged to his master, run away or not.
God's word is reality and no amount of choice on our behalf gets to alter reality. We choose the path we want to walk, we don't choose the destination. There is a sense in which this universe is predetermined. If it did not have set boundaries, it would be utterly chaotic and no-one's choice would have significance. We navigate life within those predetermined boundaries.
It's not contradictory, I simply see things different to you. None of us are choosing an end we decided upon. The destination is God's choice (life or death) and is laid out in the word of God.
John 6:39
This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
We have been given to Christ if we are in Him. If our will can now make us lost, then Christ has not kept His word. There are no conditions on that verse other than being in Christ.
Salvation comes in three parts. Salvation from death, the penalty of sin Rom.6:23 , salvation from the power of sin Rom.6:6-7 and salvation from the sin nature, the presence of sin Phil.3:20-21. The first and last two are instantaneous in the rebirth and the resurrection. It's the middle part all the warnings are for because we can continue to succumb to sin's power if we do not adhere to the Lord's prescription of how to live ie in Spirit and truth but instead walk after the flesh. I do take the scriptures seriously which is why I am willing to "wrestle" with you on your understanding of the Greek.
Maybe herein lies a difference between us? You seem to say volition has the power to make changes. I say volition only has the power to reveal one's true desires. As far as I am concerned, only grace is the power that can make actual changes.
I can live with that and concur with the last sentence.
The other poster said the Law was never abolished.
Do YOU believe the Law was never abolished ?
Do you believe we are still under the Law?
THIS is what the other poster stated:
"Anyone who knows the scriptures knows the Law was never abolished. Jesus Himself said that, wo what Jesus are you following?"
I am not under the Law.
Maybe he is.
Typical calvinist statement.
Again...it's NOT about Esau's salvation or Jacob's salvation.
It's about WHO was going to inherit the promise to Isaac.
The children had not done anything right or wrong...
God's choice did not depend on their actions....
God wanted Jacob to carry on the promise given to Abraham.
God didn't decide the fate of the two boys.
He FOREKNEW that Esau would not be able to carry forward the inheritacnce left to Isaac.
Then you'll have to explain Paul's argument.
Just saying I udnercut it means nothing ....
show HOW I undercut it.
Or I might have mentioned something..not going back to check.
I might have mentioned the children of promise.
I said God GUIDES history.
You say He creates it.
Of course you would say that.
since man has no free will...according to reformed theology...
God has to do everything.
I'm not going to debate history.
perhaps you could post some verses supporting your claim that man has no free will?
THAT is what I'd like to see.
As to Hebrews 1:2 exactly what does AGES mean?
AION
STRONG'S 165
BY IMPLICATON....WORLD
Lexical Summary aión: Age, eternity, world, forever, everlasting Original Word: αἰώνPart of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: aión Pronunciation: ah-ee-OWN Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn') KJV: age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end) NASB: forever, age, forever and ever, world, ages, eternal, forevermore Word Origin: [from an obsolete primary noun apparently meaning "continued duration"] 1. (properly) an age 2. (by extension) perpetuity (also past) 3. (by implication) the world 4. (specially, Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance age, course, eternal, forever From the same as aei; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future) -- age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare |
New International Version
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
New Living Translation
And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe.
English Standard Version
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Berean Standard Bible
But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
Berean Literal Bible
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,
King James Bible
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
New King James Version
has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
New American Standard Bible
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.
NASB 1995
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
NASB 1977
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Legacy Standard Bible
in these last days spoke to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds,
Amplified Bible
has in these last days spoken [with finality] to us in [the person of One who is by His character and nature] His Son [namely Jesus], whom He appointed heir and lawful owner of all things, through whom also He created the universe [that is, the universe as a space-time-matter continuum].
Christian Standard Bible
In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. God has appointed him heir of all things and made the universe through him.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe through Him.
American Standard Version
hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;
Contemporary English Version
But now at last, God sent his Son to bring his message to us. God created the universe by his Son, and everything will someday belong to the Son.
English Revised Version
hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;
GOD'S WORD® Translation
In these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. God made his Son responsible for everything. His Son is the one through whom God made the universe.
Good News Translation
but in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. He is the one through whom God created the universe, the one whom God has chosen to possess all things at the end.
International Standard Version
has in these last days spoken to us by a Son whom he appointed to be the heir of everything and through whom he also made the universe.
NET Bible
in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.
New Heart English Bible
in these last days has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages.
Webster's Bible Translation
Hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Weymouth New Testament
has at the end of these days spoken to us through a Son, who is the pre-destined Lord of the universe, and through whom He made the Ages.
Majority Text Translations
Majority Standard Bible
But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
World English Bible
has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.
You are somewhat confusing the two.
If local law said that driving over 80 MPH was illegal?
And, your car had been programmed to automatically not to exceed 80 MPH? (being filled with the Spirit)
The law was not abolished. It would mean that the Law would simply no longer be enforced, because no one
will exceed the limit any longer.
Therefore?
Being filled with the Spirit?
The Law is being constantly fulfilled.
Not abolished.
A man's salvation is not in peril.
This is because man has the free will choice to remain IN JESUS.
It requires a willful decision to abandon God in order to forfeit our salvation.
A man CAN fall away.
And someimes he WILL fall away.
If a person CAN do something,,,,
there is a POSSIBILITY that at some point he WILL take that action.
This is Murphy's Law ( you do like philosophy)
IF SOMETHING CAN GO WRONG...
EVENTUALLY IT WILL
You keep using the word contingency.
This means that something COULD go wrong,,,,
but it is not guaranteed.
The writers of the NT are stating that IF we do or do not do something.....
the condition to which the IF refers will certainly take place.
No Roger. This is not what the Apostles are saying.
Again, they are creating a condition which must be me IF the person is to remain saved.
(or by which the person can fall away).
Yes sir. What you've stated is correct.
And HOW do we know if our position is sound?
Here are two reasons.
1. No other denomination believes what the reformed Calvinist theology teaches.
2. The church has never believed in the doctrine that man does not have free will.
If man does not have free will......
God will not be a just God.
Could you please define justice?
Roger,,,I will not be put on the defensive.
I've provided scripture in my posts that prove that man has free will.
Perhaps you've ignored them?
Also, I've asked you several times to please post scripture...
which you have not really done except for Ephesians.
Please list two or three verses that can prove to me that I'm wrong...
that man does not have free will.
And BTW,,,we have never defined free will.
Perhaps that should be done also.
Please show HOW compatibilist free will is in line with scripture.
You keep making statements that are not backed up by scripture.
Just making a statement does not mean that statement is correct.
The above sounds very nice indeed.
Unfortunately it does not address my question to you.
You believe in the sovereignty of God...in that special way that only the reformed do because all Christians believe God is sovereign.
So..I'll try again...
WHY does God proclaim in Jeremiah that THEY DID NOT LISTEN?
WHY didn't God make then listen?
Did He not place compatibilist free will in their hearts??
Why are you moving to Moses?
Can you please deal with what I posted in Jeremiah?
THIS is the correct understanding of Jeremiah.
The people did not WANT to listen to God of their own libertarian free will.
NOW Jeremiah makes sense without having to spend 3 paragraphs to explain.
Sometimes I fear that calvinists do not even understand their own theology.
Would God predestinate some NOT TO LISTEN TO HIM....
And then COMPLAIN ABOUT IT??
Strange God we have here.
If you understand Jeremiah any other way...
you're creating a God that cannot even do what He wants to do with His own abilities.
Is there a new theory of compatibilist free will that I haven't heard of?
Please explain how this new compatibilist theory does not remove responsibility from man.
Roger...stop making confusing statement that always run to philosophy.
Please speak clearly so those reading along that may not know about Calvinism begin to believe that you believe what they believe.
Here's is a good definition of compatibilist free will for those that may not know: (how Calvinists understand free will)
Man has free will because he chooses to do what he desires to do.
What he desires to do is what God puts in his heart to do.....
thus irristible grace.
The teaching that grace cannot be resisted.
EVERY Christian believes God change the heart....
but we are left free to make a choce as to whether we want to obey or not.
In your system....this free will does not exist.
The Holy Spirit can be resisted
Acts 7:51
51“You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit;
Matthew 23:37
37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
The above is NOT how scripture is posted. You're just mentioning some verse.
Please post Romans 2:28-29 and _Romans 2:5-8 and explain what they mean to you.
Thanks.
I'm not even sure CONTINGENCY should be used anymore.
See my post 8534.
I believe I'm correct...
I hate analogies.
Let's try it like this, see if you agree.
In the Mosaic Covenant man was required to obey God.
He did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and tried to do this by his own power...
by keeping THE LAW.
In the New Covenant man is still required to obey God (as from the beginning in the Garden)
but now man has the Holy Spirit and so the indwellling give man the ability to follow God's law.
Then
We would have to define what YOU mean by the Law (or anyone)...
because it seems to me that it could get confusing.
The Mosaic Law which consisted of 613 rules HAS BEEN ABOLISHED.
If by The Law some mean the 10 Commandments ... those have not been abolished.
The method by which they are kept has changed....
THAT LAW (the 10C) has not changed.
Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it so that WE do not have to....
But let's not forget Matthew 7:20...we have to do better than the Pharisees.
The law has to be IN THE HEART.
Those who believe THEN receive faith?I can live with pretty much all you have said here. Some things I'm a little "not sure" but I think that is more the limitations of language and we could simply end up in a debate of semantics. I don't wish to go there and I don't you think you would either.
There is one sentence though that troubles me which I put in bold in the quote. I would say God does not give faith to those who reject Him and based on everything else you said here it doesn't seem to fit. God gives the freedom to believe or reject but only those who believe receive faith. Have you said it poorly or have I understood poorly?
This is what you've stated:
"God gives the freedom to believe or reject but only those who believe receive faith. Have you said it poorly or have I understood poorly?"
So one must BELIEVE FIRST....
and then they get FAITH?
If a person BELIEVES he is already saved, right?
The NT teaches: BELIEVE AND YOU WILL BE SAVED.
I believe Ephesians 2:8 is stating the exact opposite of what you stated above:
8For by grace you have been saved through faith;
In the above, what comes first
our salvation
or our faith?
Look again. I know that Paul's line of argument can be difficult for some to follow, but if we stick with it and slow down, we can usually sort things out.
Romans 9;6-9
Bear in mind the question Paul is addressing at any given moment. He is attempting to answer an objection to his gospel. He begins his argument with a preface.
Romans 9:1-5
He acknowledges that God made promises to Israel (to his kinsmen of the flesh, 9:3) and that his gospel seems to contradict those promises. The objection goes something like this: "Paul, your gospel can't be true because if it were, then the promises of God have failed.
Paul begins his defense with a reminder about Abraham and his descendants. Apparently, Paul is looking at God's promise to Abraham and his seed. Genesis12:7. He notes that when God formalized his promise to Abraham, he restricted the promise to Isaac. Genesis 15:4 Paul refers to Isaac as the "child of promise. Romans 9:8 Abraham and his descendants will receive the eternal covenant. Genesis 17:6-8 God reaffirms his promise to Abraham and his seed. Genesis 22:17-18.
That was Paul's first point in his argument. God made a promise to Abraham and his seed -- but the promise was not made to all of Abraham's naturally born children. Isaac was not naturally born; he was born to Abraham and Sarah through a miracle, ratifying God's choice. Isaac is a child of promise.
To strengthen his case, Paul draws on another historical event to show that God continues to choose individuals from the population to bless. Romans 9:10-13. The point of contention is God's promise to give the land and the eternal covenant to Abraham and his descendants. And Paul is arguing that God's promise was exclusive to men of God's choosing, such as Isaac. Paul cites Jacob and Esau as another example where God chose between two of Abraham's naturally born sons, such that Jacob, not Esau inherited the land. This was to demonstrate that God's choice would stand. Romans 9:11
So, contrary to the word of his opponents, the fact that some believe the gospel while others do not is not evidence against the gospel that Paul preaches because, according to Biblical history, God decides who is a child of Abraham and who isn't a child of Abraham.
I don't know why you decided to interpret this passage through the lens of Molinism, since Paul never raises the issue of God's foreknowledge in this passage. Those who appeal to Middle Knowledge to explain Romans 9 end up undercutting Paul’s argument. If God’s choice of Jacob was based on foreseen decisions Jacob would freely make, then God is no longer choosing but merely reacting to creaturely choices. Yet Paul insists the opposite: before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, God acted “so that His purpose according to election might stand.” Paul’s whole point is that Jacob’s status as the child of promise rests on God’s sovereign initiative, not on Jacob’s future choices. If Middle Knowledge is driving the decision, then the decisive cause is Jacob, not God—and Paul’s argument collapses.
Yes, but unlike you, I proved my point from scripture. Paul argues that God creates history, not just guides it, in Hebrews 1:2
I never claimed that man has ho free will.
You know what an age is don't you?