Loss of salvation???

[Toknow]

Good morning.

If you're interested, @Roger316 (whom I'm copying so not to be talking just about him but also to him) apparently believes in a system based in philosophy that the author of calls 'divine determinism' and refers to thinking like Calvinism as 'limited determinism'.

I wouldn't understand how determinism could be limited.
Either we live in a deterministic paradigm...
or we do not.

@Roger316 might have an understanding of limited determinism but getting him to clearly state what he believes is not an easy task.

Ditto for his claim that there are 3 categories of a theological premise:
MONERGISM
SYNERGISM

If there's a 3rd, I'd be interested in knowing it...
but, alas, he will not state it.

It looks like the reason he's leading me with questions about creation and transcendence is that if we accept their definition of creation from nothing and of transcendence, then we must end up with this divine determinism.

I too am wondering why the question on transcendence.
Most probably it'll be connected to God's sovereignty.

But who can know for sure?
No clue from him.

Basically this divine determinism departs from other forms of determinism and says God is the author of evil. It essentially views God as the author of the story who writes and determines everything about His creation including every choice of every person and separates the author as the ultimate cause and man as the proximate cause existing in two different realities (thus the need to agree with them on transcendence) - so God is 100% responsible for the story and man is 100% responsible for the action.

Agreed.
Some Reformed, however, do not agree that God created evil.
Some cannot accept their own faith system.

And yes, God predestinates everything...
but somehow man is responsible for his actions.

A very odd system indeed.

I guess to paraphrase: God is the author of a world that contains sin. Man is the character who commits the sin. Therefore, man is "guilty" within the framework of the human world, but God is "holy" because His purpose for creating that scene is righteous.

Great!
Yes. To keep God holy,,,,it must be believed that although God causes the sin,,,according to Calvin, I could post the paragraph in the Institutes...they must believe that, somehow, man is responsible.

RC Sproul attributed this to MYSTERY.
Everything they cannot explain with logic is MYSTERY.

If the Calvinists showing up here really know what they think they believe, they should come to some disagreements with @Roger316. But they can also come to some agreements.

Hmmm. Maybe the vagueness is go get along with both sides??
Or, at least, try to.

As for me, my interest is how anyone handles Scripture and what presupposition we carry into Scripture whether we think it's ultimately from Scripture or not.

I have a link to some of Crabtree's writings if anyone cares.

I'm very interested in not allowing scripture to cause conflict.
I believe any SEEMING conflict must be handled by harmonizing scripture.

If you link Crabtree, I'm interested.

 

[Toknow]

Church history is inseparable from philosophy because it is, in large part, the record of how Christians in every age have responded to, interacted with, and absorbed the intellectual currents of their surrounding culture. When a Platonist, Aristotelian, Stoic, or modern rationalist converts to Christianity, he does not instantly shed the conceptual framework that shaped his thinking for years. He naturally begins by interpreting Christian truth through the lenses he already possesses. Sometimes this leads to fruitful insight; other times it introduces distortions. To the degree that believers were unable—or in some eras, unwilling—to be freed from the assumptions of their inherited worldview, to that degree philosophical error crept into Christian theology. Church history, then, is not merely a chronicle of doctrines but a long conversation between the gospel and the philosophies that converts carried with them into the faith.

While every convert naturally brings old assumptions, habits of thought, and cultural lenses into the Christian faith, the Holy Spirit’s work is precisely to replace those inherited frameworks with God’s own way of seeing reality. Conversion is not merely a shift in beliefs but a transformation of perception. The Spirit opens the eyes of the heart, reorders the mind, and gradually dislodges the philosophical reflexes and cultural assumptions that once shaped a person’s worldview. Over time, He teaches the believer to interpret the world, themselves, and God through divine categories rather than inherited ones. In this way, sanctification is not only moral renewal but intellectual and perceptual renewal — the Spirit patiently retraining the mind to see truth as God sees it.

The New Testament gives us several rich, explicit passages where the Spirit’s work is described as reshaping perception, renewing the mind, and teaching believers to see reality as God sees it. Here are three strong examples:

1 Corinthians 2:12–14
Paul says that we have received the Spirit “so that we may understand what God has freely given us,” and that the natural person cannot receive or discern the things of God. This is exactly your point: the Spirit gives a new interpretive lens. Without Him, divine truth looks like foolishness; with Him, it becomes intelligible and compelling.

Romans 12:2
Paul commands believers not to be conformed to the world’s patterns but to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” This is not merely moral improvement — it is perceptual re‑formation. The Spirit reshapes the believer’s categories of judgment so they can “discern what is the will of God.” It is a direct statement that God replaces old cultural lenses with His own.

Ephesians 1:17–18
Paul prays that God would give believers “the Spirit of wisdom and revelation” so that “the eyes of your heart may be enlightened.” This is not poetic fluff; it is a theological claim. The Spirit gives new sight — a new way of perceiving hope, inheritance, and God’s power. It is the Spirit who enables believers to see what they could not see before.

You finally use scripture and it's scripture we all agree with.

You've written a lot and I'm afraid it'll have to wait....
Maybe I'll go through it quick....

 

[Toknow]

Church history is inseparable from philosophy because it is, in large part, the record of how Christians in every age have responded to, interacted with, and absorbed the intellectual currents of their surrounding culture. When a Platonist, Aristotelian, Stoic, or modern rationalist converts to Christianity, he does not instantly shed the conceptual framework that shaped his thinking for years. He naturally begins by interpreting Christian truth through the lenses he already possesses.

I might have not explained myself properly.
I have not studied ALL of church history...would not even have this capability.

ONLY early church history....pre the Nicene Council.
And am forgetting a lot.

These people might have known about the philosophers, in fact they did,
but they learned the Christian faith from the Apostles.

Sometimes this leads to fruitful insight; other times it introduces distortions. T

So right.
I give you Augustine.

o the degree that believers were unable—or in some eras, unwilling—to be freed from the assumptions of their inherited worldview, to that degree philosophical error crept into Christian theology. Church history, then, is not merely a chronicle of doctrines but a long conversation between the gospel and the philosophies that converts carried with them into the faith.

Some philosophy was certainly required to achieve the understanding of Jesus' deity...thus the Trinity.
Also, I'd say the hypstatic union required philosophy.

this does NOT mean I, personally, have to undersand this.

but only accept.

While every convert naturally brings old assumptions, habits of thought, and cultural lenses into the Christian faith, the Holy Spirit’s work is precisely to replace those inherited frameworks with God’s own way of seeing reality. Conversion is not merely a shift in beliefs but a transformation of perception. The Spirit opens the eyes of the heart, reorders the mind, and gradually dislodges the philosophical reflexes and cultural assumptions that once shaped a person’s worldview. Over time, He teaches the believer to interpret the world, themselves, and God through divine categories rather than inherited ones. In this way, sanctification is not only moral renewal but intellectual and perceptual renewal — the Spirit patiently retraining the mind to see truth as God sees it.

Great.

So why do we not all believe the same?

The New Testament gives us several rich, explicit passages where the Spirit’s work is described as reshaping perception, renewing the mind, and teaching believers to see reality as God sees it. Here are three strong examples:

1 Corinthians 2:12–14
Paul says that we have received the Spirit “so that we may understand what God has freely given us,” and that the natural person cannot receive or discern the things of God. This is exactly your point: the Spirit gives a new interpretive lens. Without Him, divine truth looks like foolishness; with Him, it becomes intelligible and compelling.

Romans 12:2
Paul commands believers not to be conformed to the world’s patterns but to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” This is not merely moral improvement — it is perceptual re‑formation. The Spirit reshapes the believer’s categories of judgment so they can “discern what is the will of God.” It is a direct statement that God replaces old cultural lenses with His own.

Ephesians 1:17–18
Paul prays that God would give believers “the Spirit of wisdom and revelation” so that “the eyes of your heart may be enlightened.” This is not poetic fluff; it is a theological claim. The Spirit gives new sight — a new way of perceiving hope, inheritance, and God’s power. It is the Spirit who enables believers to see what they could not see before.

We all believe the above.

Here's what YOU liike to do Roger316....

you like to talk about what YOU like to talk about.

You ignore what others are stating or what they're asking of you to clarify your belief system.

What are you afraid of?

This is getting tiring TTYTT.

If you reply it should only be to explain THE THIRD METHOD.....
and to plainly state what you believe about free will.

NOT philosophical free will.
Biblical free will.



And,,,you're now addressing the transcendence of God.

Why would anyone be interested in addressing this with you if you'll only
drag us down rabbit holes.

We all know God is transcendent.
So?

 

[Roger316]

You've proved NOTHING.

YOU stated that Paul teaches that God chooses who will be saved.
You said this after I posted that a person cannot read the NT and come away with the idea that God chooses who will be saved.

I asked for you to post some scripture that proves that Paul taught that God chooses WHO will be saved.
YOU have not done so.

I did. But perhaps you should take a few minutes to research why Paul calls his readers "saints" and "chosen ones." Colossians 3:12

I'm sure you are already familiar with Jesus' word to Nicodemus that a man can't see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Since the new birth is a work of God, this proves that God choose who will be saved. You must also be aware of Jesus' statement to the Pharisees that no one can come to him unless the Father draw him.

Now, I will argue from Romans 9 that God is the one who chooses whom He will save, and Paul makes that point with unusual clarity and force.

In Romans 9, Paul presents salvation as rooted in God’s sovereign choice rather than in human initiative. His entire argument hinges on the contrast between “the children of the flesh” and “the children of the promise,” and he insists that the decisive difference is God’s calling, not human willing or striving. Before Jacob and Esau were born, before they had done anything good or bad, God declared His purpose so that His choice would stand on His own will, not theirs. Paul reinforces this by quoting God’s words to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” In Paul’s logic, salvation begins not with the human response but with God’s electing mercy — a mercy that precedes, grounds, and enables every subsequent act of faith.

Paul then presses the point further by showing that God’s choice is not merely predictive but creative. God’s call brings into being the very people who will believe. “Those whom He calls,” Paul says, “He also justifies,” and this calling includes Gentiles who were once “not My people.” The potter‑clay imagery underscores that God is not reacting to human decisions; He is shaping vessels for mercy according to His own purpose. Far from diminishing human responsibility, this framework explains why anyone believes at all: God’s choice initiates the saving process, and His mercy sustains it to completion. In Romans 9, Paul is not defending a philosophical system but unveiling the mystery that salvation rests on God’s sovereign initiative — the God who chooses, calls, and forms a people for Himself.

Paul teaches that if we believe we will be saved.

Our disagreement really comes down to how we understand cause and effect in salvation. In your view, belief is the cause of salvation — faith is the human act that triggers or secures God’s saving work. But in my view, salvation is the cause of belief — God’s saving action precedes, awakens, and produces faith in the heart. Romans 9 leans heavily in this direction: God’s mercy, calling, and choosing come first, and human response flows out of what God has already initiated. Faith, then, is not the spark that starts salvation but the evidence that God has already begun His saving work in a person.


This shift in cause and effect changes the entire shape of the gospel. If belief causes salvation, then the decisive moment is our act of faith. But if salvation causes belief, then the decisive moment is God’s act of mercy — His choosing, calling, and transforming of the heart. Under this view, faith is not the price we pay or the condition we meet; it is the fruit of God’s prior work of grace. Salvation doesn’t wait for belief to begin; salvation creates belief as its first living expression.

 

[studier]

The problem here is that you're importing OSAS into a discussion that's actually about the NT's categories, not anyone's system. You're reacting to the word positional because you associate it with OSAS & that association is what's blocking you from seeing the plain lexical & grammatical data.

Strong's gives the basic meaning of ἁγιασμός as both a decisive setting‑apart & an ongoing transformation - that's not Reformed, not Free Grace, not OSAS, that's simply what the word means.

1 Cor 1:2 uses the perfect passive participle, which describes a completed act with ongoing results performed by God in Christ. That's not a prediction about future perseverance. It's an identity statement rooted in union with Christ. When you say the perfect tense ""tells us nothing about remaining sanctified,"" you're actually proving my point, Paul isn't talking about future moral performance at all, he's identifying who they are, not forecasting how they'll behave. The only reason this bothers you is because a fixed, God performed sanctification category gets in the way of your works dependent framework. But rejecting the category because it conflicts with your doctrine doesn't make the category disappear. Positional sanctification isn't a Reformed invention, it's the NT' own past tense sanctification language. I'm not defending OSAS here (I can is you'd like) I'm defending the categories the text itself uses.

I've already addressed the perfect tense.

You’re confusing status with permanence.

The perfect tense describes a current state based on a past act, but it does not grammatically guarantee that the state can never change. You are trying to force a description of the present to function as a guarantee of the future, which the Greek simply doesn't do.

The 'positional' label is just a theological workaround. It attempts to define a 'position' as something unchangeable, effectively making the verb say what it doesn't say.

 

[studier]

Why do you resist dialogue? I don't get it? My questions are part of my presentation. Why can't you accept them for what they are? Honestly, I am genuinely baffled.

I simply want a presentation and not to be a part of someone's process. If I joined in your process, I'd likely just turn the question back to you and have you define and explain your understanding before proceeding.

Maybe you've read my description of Crabtree's philosophy by now. I'll see as I proceed.

 

[Roger316]

No sir.

I'm as far away from Calvinism as the eath is from Alpha Centauri....or farther.

You write as the reformed do and you must surely know this.

Also, I like clarity,,,and you seem unable, at least when posting to ME,,,to show clarity.

I get your reaction to Calvinism. I don't quite get your reaction to The Reformers. (Not all were Calvinists) But when I spoke of a third way, I was disappointed in your response to a third way by labeling it before knowing what it is. So let's drop that subject and discuss more scripture.

You like to talk about the scriptures, and so do I. So let's talk about Romans 8.

Paul’s claim that God “causes all things to work together for good” is not a general promise that everything will turn out pleasantly, but a theological declaration about God’s active, sovereign involvement in the lives of His people. “All things” includes the full range of human experience — suffering, weakness, confusion, persecution, even the groaning of creation itself in the preceding verses. Paul’s point is that nothing in a believer’s life operates outside the sphere of God’s redemptive intention. God is not merely observing events; He is orchestrating them. The good He brings about is not circumstantial comfort but conformity to Christ, the restoration of the image of the Son in those He is saving. In other words, God bends every thread of a believer’s story toward the same goal: their ultimate transformation and glory.

This promise, however, is not universal. Paul limits it to “those who love God” and, more specifically, to “those who are called according to His purpose.” The word called here is not a general invitation but God’s effective summons — the same calling Paul describes in Romans 8:30, where those whom God calls He also justifies. Paul is not describing people who happened to respond to God; he is describing people whom God has already drawn into His saving purpose. The call is the moment God’s purpose breaks into a person’s life, awakening faith and reorienting their destiny. This is why the promise holds: the God who called them is the same God who is actively shaping every circumstance for their good.

Paul then grounds this entire argument in the unbreakable sequence of God’s saving actions: foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. By placing all these verbs in the aorist tense, Paul presents them as a single, unified act of God’s purpose — a purpose that cannot be thwarted or reversed. The God who foreknew His people is the same God who predestined them to be conformed to Christ, who called them into faith, who justified them, and who will certainly glorify them. Romans 8:28 is therefore not a sentimental reassurance but a theological conclusion: because God’s saving purpose is comprehensive and sovereign, every event in the believer’s life is pressed into service toward that final good.

 

[studier]

You8 view is



I understand. But just to review -- the central premise of the Once Saved, Always Saved view is that salvation, once genuinely received, is permanently secured by God. In this framework, salvation is understood as a completed divine act rather than an ongoing condition. Because God is the one who saves, and because His saving work is viewed as irrevocable, a truly saved person cannot lose that salvation. Perseverance, therefore, is not a requirement to keep salvation but the expected evidence that salvation has already occurred.

Within this view, a person is considered fully and irrevocably “saved” at the moment of genuine faith in Christ. That initial act of believing is seen as the decisive, once‑for‑all event in which all sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven, the Spirit seals the believer, and eternal destiny is fixed. From that point forward, no future sin, failure, or lapse can undo what God has done. In OSAS, the moment of faith is the moment of final salvation, and everything that follows is the unfolding of what was already secured.

Some of us in this discussion are challenging the premise of OSAS, which is that Salvation is a completed act of God. It this is true, then I agree with you, OSAS isn't true, not because believers can fall away, but because Salvation isn't a completed act of God.

This brings to mind a story about a rabbi who was once asked, “Rabbi, why do airplanes crash?” He replied, “The real question isn’t why they crash, but why they stay in the air.” In the same way, our concern is not, “Why do some appear to fall away?” The deeper and more hopeful question is, “Why do believers persevere all the way to salvation?” The wonder is not in the failures but in the endurance — the God‑given stability that keeps faith aloft through every storm.


All these years, I have read arguments from the non-OSAS folks, and I was frustrated because both the OSAS and Non-OSAS positions make the same flawed assumption: that salvation is the finished work of God; it is instantaneous, complete, permanent, and Spirit-Sealed.

To defeat the OSAS view, one must prove that salvation isn't a one-time, completed act of God. Rather than viewing salvation as a one‑time, completed transaction, Scripture presents it as a lifelong work of God carried out through sanctification. Paul describes this ongoing process as God “saving us through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit” and as Christ cleansing His people “by the washing of water with the word.” Salvation, in this sense, is not merely an event but a relationship in motion — a continual interaction between God and the one He is transforming. The Spirit does not simply seal a moment; He shapes a life. Sanctification is the arena in which God’s saving purpose unfolds day by day, as He renews the mind, redirects the will, and conforms the believer to the image of Christ. Under this view, a person is saved through sanctification, not apart from it, because salvation is the ongoing work of God making a person holy, whole, and truly alive.


Despite our perspectives, When Paul strings together a series of aorist verbs, most scholars agree he is doing more than simply reporting past events. The aorist tense allows him to present God’s saving actions as a single, unified whole — a completed sequence from God’s perspective, even if believers experience those realities across time. By using the aorist, Paul compresses the entire sweep of God’s redemptive work into one decisive, sovereign act. It is a rhetorical way of saying: God’s purpose is not unfolding in fragments; it stands as one coherent, unstoppable movement. The grammar itself becomes theology — emphasizing the certainty, unity, and divine initiative of salvation.

In passages like Romans 8:29–30, this stacking of aorists communicates that the stages of God’s saving work (foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying, glorifying) are not fragile steps that might break down. Paul is not describing a chain that might hold; he is declaring a chain that already holds in God’s intention. Even “glorified,” though future in our experience, is cast in the aorist to underscore its certainty. Scholars often call this Paul’s “prophetic past” or “proleptic aorist” — using past tense to describe a future reality because its fulfillment is guaranteed. In short, Paul uses the aorist to let believers see their salvation from God’s vantage point: unified, secure, and already accomplished in His purpose, even as it unfolds in time.

That's a lot to read and respond to.

When someone says "most scholars" I get a check in my processing. Have you read most scholars or are you reading someone who says most scholars, or???

I think I've already stated that God's Plan is a completed one in an already/not yet reality and I'd add that nothing can change His Salvation Plan. What I'm not convinced of is that a person cannot choose to leave Him.

It seems even in the philosophy that has attracted you, the author can script whatever He wants for whatever His purposes. So, He could very well have scripted OSAS and non-OSAS into His script and we're just arguing whether or not He has.

 

[studier]

If you link Crabtree, I'm interested.

The first one is the book @Roger316 mentioned

 

[Toknow]

I did. But perhaps you should take a few minutes to research why Paul calls his readers "saints" and "chosen ones." Colossians 3:12

The saved are chosen.
What does that resolve?
Nothing.

Here's why.

We are chosen BASED ON SOMETHING.
We are chosen becaue WE BELIEVE.

Reformed theology does not have a reason for God having chosen any particular person except for His own good pleasure.

See if you can answer this:
The NT teaches that God desires that ALL MEN be saved.


Why are not all men saved?


2 Timothy 2:4
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I'm sure you are already familiar with Jesus' word to Nicodemus that a man can't see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Since the new birth is a work of God, this proves that God choose who will be saved.

The new birth is a work of God?
Are you saying God saves us (gives us faith)
before we believe?

Please post some scripture that states that God chooses WHO will be saved.

You must also be aware of Jesus' statement to the Pharisees that no one can come to him unless the Father draw him.

Yes sir.
God DRAWS everyone.
YOU yourself have explained that some call this prevenient grace.


God has ALWAYS given to every man enough grace to know that He IS.


Romans 1:19-20
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Every man will stand before God without excuse...
because God gave to man the opportunity to be saved.
God has always made Himself be known.

Now, I will argue from Romans 9 that God is the one who chooses whom He will save, and Paul makes that point with unusual clarity and force.

In Romans 9, Paul presents salvation as rooted in God’s sovereign choice rather than in human initiative. His entire argument hinges on the contrast between “the children of the flesh” and “the children of the promise,” and he insists that the decisive difference is God’s calling, not human willing or striving. Before Jacob and Esau were born, before they had done anything good or bad, God declared His purpose so that His choice would stand on His own will, not theirs. Paul reinforces this by quoting God’s words to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” In Paul’s logic, salvation begins not with the human response but with God’s electing mercy — a mercy that precedes, grounds, and enables every subsequent act of faith.

I will not accept Romans 9 as proof of individual salvation.
I've gone through this with you rather extensively and will not do so again.

Romans 9 is about Israel.
It's about the nation.
It's about the Jews rejecting Jesus.
It's about corporate salvation....
NOT individual salvation.

I posted Romans 9:30...it kills calvinism.

Also, why would Paul be battling God on this?
Certainly God WANTED/P'REDESTINATED the Jews to reject Jesus.
Certainly God wanted the Gentiles to participate in His plan.

Calvinism makes God sound psichizophrenic.

Paul then presses the point further by showing that God’s choice is not merely predictive but creative. God’s call brings into being the very people who will believe. “Those whom He calls,” Paul says, “He also justifies,” and this calling includes Gentiles who were once “not My people.” The potter‑clay imagery underscores that God is not reacting to human decisions; He is shaping vessels for mercy according to His own purpose. Far from diminishing human responsibility, this framework explains why anyone believes at all: God’s choice initiates the saving process, and His mercy sustains it to completion. In Romans 9, Paul is not defending a philosophical system but unveiling the mystery that salvation rests on God’s sovereign initiative — the God who chooses, calls, and forms a people for Himself.

Call
means to INVITE
those that ACCEPT the invitaton will be justified.

Will not go through this again.

Romans 9 is all Calvinists have §Roger.
And even that is not accepted by any other denomination.
No other denomination understands Romans 9 the way you do.

Our disagreement really comes down to how we understand cause and effect in salvation. In your view, belief is the cause of salvation — faith is the human act that triggers or secures God’s saving work. But in my view, salvation is the cause of belief —

Right.
YOU believe that a person has to be born again FIRST......salvation
in order to be born again..................belief.


Belief CAUSES salvation. Not V V.


Here's what John, an Apostle of Jesus, taught:


John 20:31
31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
BELIEVING will cause us to have life in His name.

God’s saving action precedes, awakens, and produces faith in the heart. Romans 9 leans heavily in this direction: God’s mercy, calling, and choosing come first, and human response flows out of what God has already initiated. Faith, then, is not the spark that starts salvation but the evidence that God has already begun His saving work in a person.

Do you have somethng besides Romans 9?
No, you do not.


Here's Romans 9:30-32 again:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;

31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

32 Why *? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,


Paul is stating that righteousness is BY FAITH.


The ssame Paul that wrote all of Romans 9.
Kills determinism and unconditional election I'd say.


Got anything else??

This shift in cause and effect changes the entire shape of the gospel. If belief causes salvation, then the decisive moment is our act of faith. But if salvation causes belief, then the decisive moment is God’s act of mercy — His choosing, calling, and transforming of the heart. Under this view, faith is not the price we pay or the condition we meet; it is the fruit of God’s prior work of grace. Salvation doesn’t wait for belief to begin; salvation creates belief as its first living expression.

Belief causes salvation.

Please see above.

 

[Toknow]

The first one is the book @Roger316 mentioned

The Crises of Faith Today will be the first.....

 

[Roger316]

I simply want a presentation and not to be a part of someone's process. If I joined in your process, I'd likely just turn the question back to you and have you define and explain your understanding before proceeding.

Maybe you've read my description of Crabtree's philosophy by now. I'll see as I proceed.

You summed it up pretty well. The theory of Divine Determinism assumes several Biblical truths: i.e. God creates everything, John 1:3 He creates both darkness and Light, well-being and calamity. Isaiah 34:7 Paul argues that God is like a potter who creates people according to his purpose for them: some for judgment and others for mercy.

Dr. Crabtree proposes a new way to look at the question of God's sovereignty. It centers on God's nature as the transcendent creator. His explanation is structured as an analogy between a novel's author and a character in that novel. He doesn't argue from analogy and he isn't saying that we are all fictional characters. But God is transcendent over his creatures just as a novel's author is transcendent over the characters in his novel.

His analogy works because it shifts the entire discussion away from the old philosophical boxes—compatibilism vs. libertarianism—and moves it into a more biblical, metaphysical framework. Instead of arguing about how human choices and divine sovereignty fit together, he is asking a deeper question:

What kind of world are we in, given the kind of God who created it?

In his metaphor:

• God is like an author—transcendent over the story, not a character within it.
• We are like characters—real agents who make meaningful decisions within the story world.
• The entire story arc is authored, yet the characters’ actions are genuinely theirs.
• God’s sovereignty is not coercive, but creative and comprehensive—He determines the story, not by overriding the characters, but by writing a world in which their choices arise from who they are.

This preserves:

• God’s transcendence
• God’s sovereignty
• Human meaningful agency
• The moral weight of human decisions
• The biblical Creator/creature distinction

And it avoids the traps of both major philosophical systems. He is not saying choices are undetermined (libertarianism), and he is not saying they’re determined merely by internal desires (compatibilism). He is saying something different:

God determines the story; humans determine their actions within the story.

That’s why his “third box” works—it reframes the entire conversation rather than trying to squeeze Scripture into categories invented centuries after the apostles.

 

[studier]

You summed it up pretty well. The theory of Divine Determinism assumes several Biblical truths: i.e. God creates everything, John 1:3 He creates both darkness and Light, well-being and calamity. Isaiah 34:7 Paul argues that God is like a potter who creates people according to his purpose for them: some for judgment and others for mercy.

Dr. Crabtree proposes a new way to look at the question of God's sovereignty. It centers on God's nature as the transcendent creator. His explanation is structured as an analogy between a novel's author and a character in that novel. He doesn't argue from analogy and he isn't saying that we are all fictional characters. But God is transcendent over his creatures just as a novel's author is transcendent over the characters in his novel.

His analogy works because it shifts the entire discussion away from the old philosophical boxes—compatibilism vs. libertarianism—and moves it into a more biblical, metaphysical framework. Instead of arguing about how human choices and divine sovereignty fit together, he is asking a deeper question:

What kind of world are we in, given the kind of God who created it?

In his metaphor:

• God is like an author—transcendent over the story, not a character within it.
• We are like characters—real agents who make meaningful decisions within the story world.
• The entire story arc is authored, yet the characters’ actions are genuinely theirs.
• God’s sovereignty is not coercive, but creative and comprehensive—He determines the story, not by overriding the characters, but by writing a world in which their choices arise from who they are.

This preserves:

• God’s transcendence
• God’s sovereignty
• Human meaningful agency
• The moral weight of human decisions
• The biblical Creator/creature distinction

And it avoids the traps of both major philosophical systems. He is not saying choices are undetermined (libertarianism), and he is not saying they’re determined merely by internal desires (compatibilism). He is saying something different:

God determines the story; humans determine their actions within the story.

That’s why his “third box” works—it reframes the entire conversation rather than trying to squeeze Scripture into categories invented centuries after the apostles.

Have you read any arguments against his theory? Have you read them with an open mind?

Do you agree with him that Calvinism is 'limited determinism'?

Have you read agrees and disagrees with TULIP?

 

[Mem]

It's kind of odd to be talking about this only with people who have not left.

Although the claim that scripture is talking with only a certain group may be valid, that statement may not qualify sufficiently as true. Imo, the Bible is written for everyone, and so the necessity of "If indeed you..."

I composed this response in a rush, so my apologies if it seems hurried.

 

[Lovette]

So Jesus came to give us blessings.
Not to atone for our sins?

In any case:

In order to receive a blessing, we must be in heaven.
So we have to get to heaven FIRST.


Matthew 5:12
12 "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great;


No heaven.
No blessings.

You also state that one could be excommunicated into the world and will have hardship.

Does this mean that Christians have no hardships?


Jesus said this to His disciples:


John 16:33
33 "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."



Jesus said this:


Luke 9:23
23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily * and follow Me.


1. In this world there is tribulation.

2. In this world thre are crosses to bear/carry.

That depends on what "reward" you're referring to. The hypocrites are promised to have their reward for their virtue signaling, they don't seem to have to wait for heaven.

Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (Matt. 6:2)

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (Matt. 6:5)

Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (Matt. 6:16)

 

[Lovette]

So Jesus came to give us blessings.
Not to atone for our sins?

In any case:

In order to receive a blessing, we must be in heaven.
So we have to get to heaven FIRST.


Matthew 5:12
12 "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great;


No heaven.
No blessings.

You also state that one could be excommunicated into the world and will have hardship.

Does this mean that Christians have no hardships?


Jesus said this to His disciples:


John 16:33
33 "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."



Jesus said this:


Luke 9:23
23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily * and follow Me.


1. In this world there is tribulation.

2. In this world thre are crosses to bear/carry.

Any btw, I interpret the NT primarily through the OT, especially on prophecies.

 

[studier]

Although the claim that scripture is talking with only a certain group may be valid, that statement may not qualify sufficiently as true. Imo, the Bible is written for everyone, and so the necessity of "If indeed you..."

I composed this response in a rush, so my apologies if it seems hurried.

Yes, the Text is written for everyone and then mainly for those who believe.

But talking with those who have not left and don't think we can, or why would anyone want to leave, seems a pretty closed loop.

 

[Roger316]

The saved are chosen.
What does that resolve?
Nothing.

Here's why.

We are chosen BASED ON SOMETHING.
We are chosen becaue WE BELIEVE.

Not in Paul's view. He argues that we are chosen before we are born. In his letter to the Ephesians, he asserts that we are chosen before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4

Reformed theology does not have a reason for God having chosen any particular person except for His own good pleasure.

You seem to have a problem with that. Can you elaborate further? Why is it bothersome to you that God does what he pleases?

See if you can answer this:
The NT teaches that God desires that ALL MEN be saved.


Why are not all men saved?


2 Timothy 2:4
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This seems like a problem for my view. If God chooses whom to save; and he desires that all men be saved, then why doesn't he save all men? That's a good question.

Here’s a refined paragraph that captures your point with clarity and a gentle pastoral tone, while keeping Paul’s flow of thought intact:

Before getting into that question, it’s worth pausing to notice Paul’s primary concern in this passage. His focus isn’t abstract theology but the prayers of his readers—specifically, whether they are willing to pray for “kings and all who are in high positions.” Behind that command lies a deeper issue: what kind of mindset would lead a believer to withhold prayer for their leaders in the first place? Paul is addressing the posture of the heart, the subtle resistance or narrowness that might make someone reluctant to intercede for those in authority. Understanding that concern helps us read the rest of the paragraph in the right light.

In this context, “all men” doesn’t mean “each and every individual without exception.” Paul is using the phrase in a representative sense—all kinds of people, not just one group. His concern is that believers might narrow their prayers to people they like, people in their circle, or people who share their convictions. By saying “all men,” Paul pushes them to pray broadly: for rulers, for outsiders, for difficult people, for every category of humanity. The emphasis is on the scope of God’s saving desire and the scope of the church’s intercession, not on a mathematical total of every individual person.

The new birth is a work of God?
Are you saying God saves us (gives us faith)
before we believe?

Yes.

Please post some scripture that states that God chooses WHO will be saved.

I already did that.

Yes sir.
God DRAWS everyone.

Not according to Jesus. His comment is found in the context of his observation that the Pharisees and others were refusing to believe in Jesus even in the light of his many miracles. What accounts for this kind of inexplicable stubborn behavior? God draws some people, while he doesn't draw others. And those whom God draws to Jesus, he will not lose.

Logically, if God draws everyone, then Jesus saves everyone, which isn't true.

YOU yourself have explained that some call this prevenient grace.

Yes, Prevenient grace draws all, but it stops short of saving all.

God has ALWAYS given to every man enough grace to know that He IS.

I agree. But Paul also argues that some of them suppressed what they knew to be true without reason. This represents a hardened heart, resistant to the truth.

I will not accept Romans 9 as proof of individual salvation.
I've gone through this with you rather extensively and will not do so again.

I know. You are convinced that Paul is speaking about nations.

Romans 9 is about Israel.
It's about the nation.
It's about the Jews rejecting Jesus.
It's about corporate salvation....
NOT individual salvation.

Why would Paul argue for corporate salvation in chapter 9 after he spent 8 chapters to deny it?

Call
means to INVITE
those that ACCEPT the invitaton will be justified.

Again, Paul draws a solid connection between all the verbs to say that ALL those whom he foreknew will be Glorified.

Right.
YOU believe that a person has to be born again FIRST......salvation
in order to be born again..................belief.

Being “born again” must precede belief because the obstacles to genuine faith are far too deep for human effort to overcome. Scripture describes the natural person as spiritually blind, resistant to God, hardened in heart, and unable to grasp the things of the Spirit. Those aren’t small hurdles; they’re impossibilities apart from divine intervention. For someone to truly believe the gospel, God must first perform a miracle—opening blind eyes, softening a resistant heart, and awakening a love for the truth. In that sense, regeneration isn’t the reward for faith but the cause of it. Only when God gives new life can a person see Christ for who He is and respond in genuine trust.

Jesus makes this order clear in John 3, where He tells Nicodemus that no one can see or enter the kingdom of God unless they are born again. Sight comes after new birth, not before. Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 2, describing the natural person as unable to understand the things of the Spirit because they are “spiritually discerned.” Without the Spirit’s prior work, the gospel remains foolishness. And in Ephesians 2, Paul goes even further: we were “dead in trespasses and sins,” and only when God “made us alive together with Christ” did faith become possible. Across all three passages, the pattern is consistent—God must first give life, light, and spiritual capacity before anyone can truly believe. Regeneration is the miracle that removes the barriers to faith and makes belief not only possible but inevitable.

 

[Roger316]

Have you read any arguments against his theory? Have you read them with an open mind?

Yes. Most of the objections I read were "knee-Jerk" reactions. Every field of study has a certain chronological inertia and is resistant to change or contrary opinion. Theology, it seems is no different.

 

[FlyingDove]

I've already addressed the perfect tense.

You’re confusing status with permanence.

The perfect tense describes a current state based on a past act, but it does not grammatically guarantee that the state can never change. You are trying to force a description of the present to function as a guarantee of the future, which the Greek simply doesn't do.

The 'positional' label is just a theological workaround. It attempts to define a 'position' as something unchangeable, effectively making the verb say what it doesn't say.

The issue isn't permanence, it's identity. ""Sanctified in Christ Jesus"" places the Corinthians inside Paul' entire ""in Christ" framework, which is always positional, always identity based & never a description of fluctuating moral behavior. Paul's ""in Christ"" statements function the same way across his letters, no condemnation in Christ (Rom 8:1), new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), chosen in Christ (Eph 1:4), redeemed in Christ (Eph 1:7). If you deny positional sanctification, you have to deny the positional nature of every one of those identity markers. The perfect passive participle in 1 Cor 1:2 simply tells us what kind of sanctification Paul is describing: a completed, God‑performed act that places them in a new identity category. I'm not arguing permanence, I'm arguing categories. You're the one importing OSAS because your works dependent framework can't tolerate a fixed, God given identity category. But rejecting the category doesn't make Paul stop using it.