What role could envy play in the salvation process?

[glfredrick]

The last several exchanges here perfectly exemplify the reason I declined to engage this question with Skandelon.

 

[Skandelon]

At this point, we are just going in circles. I've given you my answer. I said that signs and wonders can work in concert with the Holy Spirit's work on the sinner's heart.

Yet, as my questions indicate you have not even attempted to speculate as to what purpose God might have for using such means. I know because I tried to answer the same question as a Calvinist. This reveals ONE of the many weaknesses of the system. Objective readers will see this.

I deny that signs and wonders are in themselves sufficient, and I think you would have to say the same thing, because in your view the person's LFW still is the final arbiter of the end result.

Then you have still failed to understand LFW. An invitation is sufficient to invite the guest. An appeal is sufficient to elicit a response. The gospel is sufficient. The signs and wonders along with envy are meant to provoke man's will.

I have four kids. Last night I was trying to get my 3 year old to eat his vegetables. Sometimes when I tell him to eat his food he will, but last night he was being especially stubborn. He didn't want them. His will was SET against eating his veggies. Instead of threatening him, I started talking about how proud I was of his older brothers for eating all their food and about how they would be getting dessert. I could see the envy provoking him in his eyes. Slowly he picked up his fork and starting eating. Why?

The command to eat his veggies is sufficient to get a response...sometimes favorable and sometimes not. But, when the command didn't work I used envy to provoke his will and get him to change his mind. It is really that simple. Don't over complicate it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see this as consistent. True LFW must maintain that there are no influences on the LFW itself, else it's not truly LFW

You must be working off another definition. The one I think best represents true biblical free will is: "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

What's interesting is that you have been getting on me for not believing that the signs and wonders don't have effectual power, but you state the same thing here. Let me ask you: What do you think Jesus intended with his statement about Tyre and Sidon? Jesus said they would've repented. That sounds pretty efficient to me. You see, both of us have to interpret that verse in light of other parts of Scripture - you read your Arminian LFW view into it and say, "Well, the people of Tyre and Sidon still had to exercise their LFW for it to be efficient," while I say that the Holy Spirit still had to work in the hearts of Tyre and Sidon for it to be efficient.

Not at all the same. Jesus simply knows that the people of the ancient cities weren't so hardened and rebellious as to not be convinced by the signs and wonders that these modern cities were privy too. The level of their rebelliousness matters not in a system where the determinative factor is God's eternal election and subsequent effectual work of regeneration. They could be a thousand times more rebellions and stubborn than these cities and the effectual work of regeneration would convert them regardless of the number of signs and wonders shown to them.

This is not the only place where Jesus appeals for his hearers to at least believe the signs and wonders, again something that seems quite silly if he believes that they can't due to their inborn nature. It would be like rebuking a man born blind for his not being able to see. It just makes no sense.

 

[glfredrick]

Skandelon, let me answer your question about "envy" with one very simple line.

God will USE whichever means He desires to "effectually call" us to Himself when He deems that the time is right for that encounter.

Whether envy, strife, doubt, pain, sorrow, fear, joy, love, anger, etc., etc., etc., GOD will cause the emotion that He desires to LEAD us and DRAW us to Himself.

There is no case to be made for any LFW in that expression whatsoever.

Thanks for playing... :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

The last several exchanges here perfectly exemplify the reason I declined to engage this question with Skandelon.

Why go down a road you can foresee will only reveal the weaknesses of what you believe? You have wisdom beyond your years.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, let me answer your question about "envy" with one very simple line.

God will USE whichever means He desires to "effectually call" us to Himself when He deems that the time is right for that encounter.

Whether envy, strife, doubt, pain, sorrow, fear, joy, love, anger, etc., etc., etc., GOD will cause the emotion that He desires to LEAD us and DRAW us to Himself.

So, the work of "regeneration" is accomplished with these emotions? Can you point to any passage which teaches this perspective?

There is no case to be made for any LFW in that expression whatsoever.

Then you don't understand LFW, or have been working off a weak definition of it.

Thanks for playing... :wavey:

WEEEEEE..... Push me again....... WEEEEEEEEEEE:laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

So, the work of "regeneration" is accomplished with these emotions? Can you point to any passage which teaches this perspective?

Then you don't understand LFW, or have been working off a weak definition of it.

Who said anything about emotions and regeneration? Oh, you did. :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

Who said anything about emotions and regeneration? Oh, you did. :thumbs:

Actually, you did

envy, strife, doubt, pain, sorrow, fear, joy, love, anger, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Skandelon]

Actually, you did

Correct. :thumbsup:

He also said, "GOD will cause the emotion that He desires to LEAD us and DRAW us to Himself."

Since "draw" for the Calvinist means the work of effectual "regeneration," then what he has said is, "God will cause the emotion that He desires to effectually regenerate us."

I simply asked for clarity on that point and he accuses me of being the one who brought it up?

 

[glfredrick]

Actually, you did

None of which had a THING to do with regeneration.

Are you guys equating regeneration with election?

Really?

Election leads to regeneration, but election is not regeneration. :BangHead:

 

[glfredrick]

Correct. :thumbsup:

He also said, "GOD will cause the emotion that He desires to LEAD us and DRAW us to Himself."

Since "draw" for the Calvinist means the work of effectual "regeneration," then what he has said is, "God will cause the emotion that He desires to effectually regenerate us."

I simply asked for clarity on that point and he accuses me of being the one who brought it up?

WRONG... :BangHead:

Effectual call is not effectual regeneration. If you guys are going to argue this level theology, at least take some time to read some and understand it first. And, Skan, you're back to trying to put words in my mouth... I have to "agree" with something that you wrote that is NOT what I wrote. Shame on you.

 

[Andy T.]

Yet, as my questions indicate you have not even attempted to speculate as to what purpose God might have for using such means. I know because I tried to answer the same question as a Calvinist. This reveals ONE of the many weaknesses of the system. Objective readers will see this.

I don't need to "speculate" on everything God does. He chooses certain means to bring about his purposes. I don't attempt to delve into the secret counsel of his will at every corner.

"Objective" - nice slam and pat on the back to yourself at the same time. I guess that makes you the objective one and me the subjective one.

You must be working off another definition. The one I think best represents true biblical free will is: "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

I've seen you post this before and I still don't understand it. And I've also seen you appeal to mystery as to why people make one choice over the other. I guess that points to one of the weaknesses in your system.

 

[webdog]

None of which had a THING to do with regeneration.

Are you guys equating regeneration with election?

Really?

Election leads to regeneration, but election is not regeneration. :BangHead:

Red herring...we are talking about regeneration with emotions. Please follow along.

God will USE whichever means He desires to "effectually call" us to Himself when He deems that the time is right for that encounter.

Whether envy, strife, doubt, pain, sorrow, fear, joy, love, anger, etc., etc., etc., GOD will cause the emotion that He desires to LEAD us and DRAW us to Himself.

Skan questioned you on emotions and regeneration, to which you replied...

Who said anything about emotions and regeneration? Oh, you did

I then replied using your very first quote above you were the one who brought up emotions and regeneration.

You have now diverted it to election. I hope you are up to speed again...

 

[webdog]

And I've also seen you appeal to mystery as to why people make one choice over the other. I guess that points to one of the weaknesses in your system.

Actually it points to why we cannot know what goes on in another person's mind. We don't know why one has decided to exchange the truth for a lie. Your doctrine is one that tries to tell us you can know, which is false.

 

[Skandelon]

Actually it points to why we cannot know what goes on in another person's mind. We don't know why one has decided to exchange the truth for a lie. Your doctrine is one that tries to tell us you can know, which is false.

:applause::applause::applause: Thank you. It is not weakness to appeal to mystery where the scripture leaves things mysterious. The bible clearly reveals the purpose of envy and its potential. It is meant to provoke man's will and it has the potential to lead one to salvation (Rom 11:14). We know the purpose and potential effect of signs and wonders (Matt. 11:21). These purposes and potential effects are mysteries only to a system that cannot accept the clearly revealed truth of the scriptures because they see how it contradicts that system. It reveals a willingness to put ones theological construct above the clearly revealed truth of Scripture.

 

[Andy T.]

Actually it points to why we cannot know what goes on in another person's mind.

Ok, then I assume you can at least know why you make one choice over another?

From what I've seen Skan post, he even appeals to mystery as to how his own choices are made.

 

[webdog]

Ok, then I assume you can at least know why you make one choice over another?

At times, yes. Choices can be influenced by outside circumstances, past experiences, truth, persuasion, and by the unseen work of the Spirit...which is a mystery

 

[Skandelon]

I don't need to "speculate" on everything God does. He chooses certain means to bring about his purposes.

But according to Calvinists the ONLY means with the power to change man's will to want to repent and believe is the MEANS OF REGENERATION, thus leaving the purpose of these other provoking means in question.

"Objective" - nice slam and pat on the back to yourself at the same time. I guess that makes you the objective one and me the subjective one.

One can become hardened into his own theological system for so long that he simply cannot view an argument or point of contention with true objectivity. That is true on both sides of this debate. I know because I've been on both sides.

I can honestly tell you that I would probably still be Calvinist had I not been a cross-examine debater in High School and College. It is a developed and learned skill to be able to step back from ones own perspective and view something with fresh objective eyes. It is VERY difficult to do and requires practice and a very strong willingness to be fair to both perspectives. Had I not had that skill drilled in me for over a decade by several different coaches I don't think I could have ever seen the perspective of the Arminian arguments with clarity and objectivity.

 

[Andy T.]

It reveals a willingness to put ones theological construct above the clearly revealed truth of Scripture.

Since you are being especially kind today, why do you think so many people believe the "doctrines of grace"? You don't think they are honestly trying to interpret Scripture? You think that all the giants like Spurgeon, Edwards were acting in bad faith? Probably deserves its own thread, but I'd like to hear your reasoning why some Christians (and even some who appear mature in the faith) accept such a wicked system?

 

[webdog]

Since you are being especially kind today, why do you think so many people believe the "doctrines of grace"? You don't think they are honestly trying to interpret Scripture? You think that all the giants like Spurgeon, Edwards were acting in bad faith? Probably deserves its own thread, but I'd like to hear your reasoning why some Christians (and even some who appear mature in the faith) accept such a wicked system?

Two words...free will

If not you have God deciding to have one class of believers believe the truth, while making the other class not.

 

[Andy T.]

But according to Calvinists the ONLY means with the power to change man's will to want to repent and believe is the MEANS OF REGENERATION, thus leaving the purpose of these other provoking means in question.

You've already conceded that C's accept the preaching of the Gospel as means, why not miracles?

Had I not had that skill drilled in me for over a decade by several different coaches I don't think I could have ever seen the perspective of the Arminian arguments with clarity and objectivity.

That's good to know that if I ever want to be an Arminian, I should probably educate myself with those skills.

How do you know you weren't right when you believed Calvinism vs. now? How do you know that you are objective now, but not before?