isn't the ULTIMATE Source of salvation In Classic Arminianism Ourselves?

[webdog]

no, just that you are doing what is required of you by God AFTER he has provided the grace and means that ALLOWS you to do the faith in jesus Christ act...

...and what if the grace and means is there for everyone, or if it's given to a few? Why is it a work for the first group and not the second

 

[JesusFan]

Finally, a definition of belief, an erroneous and unscriptural one, but a definition nonetheless.

Belief is the conviction that something is true. It is a state of being. One either believes or he doesn't.

You have turned belief into an action. You have made belief the acceptance of a conviction.

It doesn't matter how you slice it. The salvation preached by noncalvinists is the Cross plus one's own righteous act. Ergo, the key, or in JF's words, "ultimate source" of salvation in classic Arminianism is one's self. Neither Christ nor the Cross.

Unless I just dont understand what Arminians teach here...
isn't it still that Cals see God saves us due to His own Will
While Arms say we get saved because of Our free wills?

 

[webdog]

Unless I just dont understand what Arminians teach here...
isn't it still that Cals see God saves us due to His own Will
While Arms say we get saved because of Our free wills?

JesusFan...you keep asking this question, and the answer is not going to change no matter how many times you ask it

 

[Winman]

Unless I just dont understand what Arminians teach here...
isn't it still that Cals see God saves us due to His own Will
While Arms say we get saved because of Our free wills?

No. If God did not will for us to be saved, and did not send Jesus to die for us, and did not reveal Jesus to us that we might be able to believe on him, we could not be saved even if we willed to do so.

So, who is in control, us or God?

Read that again, it is not complicated. If God did not first will for us to be saved, no one could be saved.

 

[Aaron]

LOL.. belief IS an action as it is a verb, though at times it is also used as a noun. You can't HAVE a conviction unless you have accepted it as truth, otherwise there is no conviction. I agree it is described as a 'moral conviction' as one of it's definitions but it epitomized in the sense of persuasion.. However what does the word conviction mean

1. the state or appearance of being convinced
2. a fixed or firmly held belief, opinion, etc

Belief, saving belief, or faith, is a state of being, as I said. It's like being alive. To live is also a verb, but it is not a work. It is a state of being. One is either alive or not, and he is alive by the work of God, not of any choice or act of his own.

One either believes or not. There are things which will convince a man, but to become a believer is not a choice. One finds that he either believes or he doesn't, and he will act accordingly.

I found that Skandelon has chosen to amend his statements. He used to assert that it was "unbelief period" that condemned a man, but he was constantly undermining his own position. Now he qualifies unbelief as the conscious rejection of a thing that one believes.

 

[Skandelon]

I found that Skandelon has chosen to amend his statements. He used to assert that it was "unbelief period" that condemned a man, but he was constantly undermining his own position. Now he qualifies unbelief as the conscious rejection of a thing that one believes.

The only thing being amended is your comprehension of my views. Calvinists even affirm the concept that man can KNOW something (mental assent to the truth of something), without having saving faith which leads to repentance and obedience. For example, demon's can believe and shutter. In the same manner, the people of Romans 1 can "know God" and "clearly see and understand his divine nature and eternal attributes" but CHOOSE to reject what they CLEARLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND.

What about that can't you understand? And what about that do you disagree with and why?

 

[Winman]

One either believes or not. There are things which will convince a man, but to become a believer is not a choice. One finds that he either believes or he doesn't, and he will act accordingly.

Baloney. The fact you can be convinced shows belief is a choice.

John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Thomas did not say I CANNOT believe, he said I WILL NOT believe. He could have believed, the other disciples whom he knew and trusted all said they had seen the Lord.

John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

These Samaritans believed on Jesus, and the scriptures tell us WHY, they believed because of the testimony of the woman at the well.

But when they heard Jesus themselves they were more convinced, and again it tells us the reason WHY, because of his words.

Say that two of your friends tell you a contradictory story. You know one is telling the truth, and the other must be lying. Who do you chose to believe? The one who has proven to be most truthful in the past. But that is exactly what it is, a choice.

 

[Allan]

I have to do this in two parts..part one;

Forgive me Icon, but you are going back and forth so much on you own statements it is like watching a tennis a match and no one is winning.

Allan, The truth rejected is not good news but as we know it is then a promised and guarenteed judgement.

No sorry. It IS the good news because the eternal consequences establish this very premise as it does in the gospels. Accept/Believe and be saved, reject and be condemned. That is the essence of the gospel message (without explicitly presenting the message itself). 2 Thes 2:10-12 epitomizes that very message since they reject the truth that could save (eternal consequence for accepting the message) but rejected it and are damned (eternal consequences for rejecting). There is only one truth that is saving dear friend, there is only one message of truth that CAN save and that the rejection of said truth is the condemnation of man.

Allan I can understand how you say this as it seems logical.I do not think it is correct for the following reasons;
1] Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.That is the message preached to all men everywhere. The free offer of the gospel stands.It is a real offer.

1st problem for you. Christ did not die for the non-elect and thus He did not for all sinners in your view. Now since salvation can ONLY be given or offered to those for whom Christ died, there is NO 'real' offer of salvation to the non-elect by God. If salvation is not to all, neither is the message for salvation to be given to all.

Sinners do not know who is in the Lambs book of life. We preach to all men everywhere.God has His people scattered all over the world....God so loved the world.

Our ignorance does not justify a lying message. Sinners don't have to know who's name is written in the book. This isn't the issue. The issue regards the passage in question.. Those people we KNOW are damned and yet the text states they rejected the truth whereby the could be saved. If Christ did not die from them there is no possibility for the statement to be made on their behalf saying - they could be saved. Yet, God says so.

Also. God does love the world, yet you will not find any scholarly Greek lexicon that states the term 'world' in that passage or any other in the whole of scripture, to refer to God's elect.

What God has revealed about His electing grace ,and covenant love is sheep food.

Not according to scripture

The reality is from the divine standpoint it is certain...not potential.

Yes, God knows all that will be saved, and that for Him it is a certainty yet that does not negate the biblical fact that the atonement was made on behalf of all men everywhere. The problem is you keep want to not deal with what the text actually says. These people who worship and will only follow the anti-christ reject the the truth that could save them and for THAT REASON (rejecting the truth for their salvation) they are condemned because they chose not to believe it. This is what you have to deal with as it is FROM the divine standpoint/perspective.

We are not given direct revelation as to peoples heart condition...so the gospel offer is made sincerly.
The fact that we are told that many will perish...and they sadly will, does not change the facts of then gospel being offered to sinners

You can not offer in truth what has not been provided. If you offer salvation to all then to all salvation must have been propitiated. You can not get around that fact, even to state we preach in ignorance of who is elect. The offer is not to ALL but to the elect only and thus salvation is not offered factually to ALL. IOW - you have nothing to substantiate your offer of salvation to all.

Man is responsible to repent and believe.

Here is problem #2.
There is nothing for him to believe in your theological system as nothing is being offered to him FOR him to believe. The whole intent of that passage and others like it in scripture is that it regards 'salvation'. So if they are to repent and believe, you must biblically hold that there is a message for them to believe in regarding salvation. Yet for you, there is no salvation for them to believe and be saved in as Christ did not die for them, thus no salvation possible, as you frequently attest to.

Like the door on the ark was open for years,there came a time when the door was shut. No sinners wanted to go in,until it was too late. That does not mean the door was not open..because they refused to go in! It was open , they refused.

For myself, I don't think Noah preached a message of possible salvation to any of them but preached against their wickedness and that God has ALREADY determined to kill them all. Scripture calls him a "Preacher of Righteousness", and never alludes to any preaching he did for them to repent and be saved. However going by 'your' statement and others who view it similarly (of which I don't oppose either) you neglect one simple fact, provision was made for them if they would but believe. Whom does God love more, the animals or his prized creation, man?

If God sends strong delusion...at a point in time to unbelievers...it only confirms them in their lost condition.

In part correct but mostly wrong. While it does confirm their lost condition is does not affirm salvation was not offer to them by God. In order for God to offer salvation a propitiation had to be made FOR them. What you give is not what the text states nor does it imply such. The strong delusion was sent after they rejected the truth that could SAVE THEM. You still haven't dealt with that statement by God from His standpoint. The delusion was sent AFTER they rejected the truth so they would be sealed in the choice they made regarding the truths God had revealed to them. That is what the text says.

 

[Allan]

Part 2 - Man Icon.. you make this a long interaction :laugh: (and it is only the first page you responded to)

For the Cal - There is NO hypothetical salvation for the lost, thus the gospel message is NOT for the non-elect..

Not true, many Cals hold this, many more so historically - even Luther.
However there is where you start your tennis match. Above you state the offer of salvation is given to all (which includes the non-elect) yet here you state there is no possibility for their salvation. So here, in your own words it proves the offer is not 'real' or valid. And if it is not a real offer, then in my mind, you have a lie. The message is repent and believe "the gospel" (Mar 1:15). The good news that salvation has come. If it has not for some, then to offer to all what has not been obtained FOR all, is a lie.

There is no hypothetical anything as God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. The gospel message is preached to sinners...wheat and tares together. God knows them that are His.Every tree The heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up.It is exact and definate, not potential.

God decreed the hypothetical my friend, even He declares two ways of things in scripture - if you do this.. I will do this.. if you do that.. I will do this... IOW - Though He knows what they will do it does not negate the very fact that God established a possible alternate (even though He knows it will never come to pass) for the sake of judgment and righteousness. It doesn't change the fact but reveals more of the truth. Just because Christ propitiation was for all men, does not exclude that fact as He knows whom He has chosen. It is this very fact that condemns the world. Salvation was proffered to all, the way has been made their escape but many will not care and thus they effectually sealed their fate.

As if God would have to learn something..ie, Oh no..Pharoah believes but I did not die for him..what am I going to do now
This whole line of reasoning is without merit if really thought about

.I agree so I'm not exactly sure why you even brought it up since I never made any such statement or allusions to such...stuff.

ergo.. these who are condemned could not have been said, by God, to have rejected salvation nor could or would God condemned them for rejecting something that had NOTHING to do with them. THAT is the point - they 'could be saved' (so as to be saved) but rejected the truth and held to a lie.

What? Now you are making NO sense whatsoever.
If they could NOT be saved, then their rejection of the gospel (which was not meant for them) has no bearing on their damnation. Yet since it is the very reason GOD says they are damned we know their rejection the truth (that could save them) is established and in fact epitomizes the very fact that salvation was indeed procured for them.

You try to take the force of context from the verse but in fact establish the very essence it deals with. If the gospel is NOT for them, then what are they rejecting? What truth is it that can save them, whereby their reject of it brings forth a sealing unto eternal damnation. If you state Jesus is the truth they reject.. fine. What is it about Jesus they reject, that can save them? Jesus IS the gospel message unto salvaiton and He is the Judgment of the world for those who do not receive Him.

Again....the example of those who stayed out of the ark. The natural man always fails to welcome the things of God. The actual rejection of salvation is an actual and willful rejection

Ok.. back to Tennis. How can the natural fail to welcome anything that is not offered to him ? You said salvation is NOT for the non-elect, Christ didn't die for the non-elect.. Thus there is no failing to -welcome to the things of God- as none are proffered to him. AGAIN.. how can one reject what is NOT offered to him. You just said Christ didn't die for the non-elect, there is NO hypothetical, salvation is NOT for the non-elect.. so what are they rejecting?? You toss this ball back and forth contradicting yourself. On one side God offers salvation.. on the other God did NOT provide for them salvation. which is it?

That they who have the privilege of hearing the word preached and taught,are all the more guilty of rejecting the only remedy for their sins.

See, here it is again.. They HAVE no remedy, thus they have NOTHING to reject

 

[Allan]

part 2-
This description of the unsaved in these verses does not mean this is the only reason they perish as you allude to. Men are perishing as we speak who never heard about Jesus.
Those who hear the truth and do not love it are spoken of here. Of course all truth suppressors perish. All others outisde of Christ perish also.

It is the ultimate factor as attested by the scriptures, though not the only one involved. The better question might be.. how can one be sealed into damnation for rejecting something that has nothing to do with them?

And yes, while multitudes have not heard the gospel itself, all men are revealed some spiritual truth by God Himself to them, through nature and their conscience. Thus we see the very premise of God at work upon all men. We also know that All truth is of and about Christ, and the rejection of even the most basis aspects of these spiritual truths (there is a God, sin righteousness, and the Judgment to come) which all men come to know, according Romans 1 & 2, is a rejection of the Christ the only salvation. If they believe what God has revealed then God brings in greater more full light that they might believe unto salvation. However if there is no salvation in Christ for them, there is no reason to reveal or sealing any man unto damnation for rejection of it or Him as there was nothing to reject on their behalf.

The only "choice is look and live". Failing to make this choice always results in second death.

And here we play tennis again. You said Christ didn't die for them, there is no salvation for them, thus there is not and can not be any offer or choice to "look and live", unless you are now affirming that a way of salvation is indeed open for them because Christ Jesus has, in fact, provided a way for them.

Yes...we do not agree here.I think it is a good verse and I also believe it as truth. They perish....because ...they remain in the realm of death..because.....not welcoming truth ,they were never taken out of that realm..but as i posted from Jonah..instead they observe lying vanities.

Again, what is the truth they are rejecting which is KEEPING THEM in the realm of death. I don't dispute they remain in the realm of death, for to be in Christ (saved) is to have life. But again... what Truth? What truth is there that can save if you believe it and condemn you if you do not?

As I see it, this is the issue you must deal with.. there is NO valid offer if there has been no propitiation for their sins (ie. a way of salvation made for them). You can not offer someone something you do not have nor do you intend to give them. That is unrighteous, deceitful, and IS lying and we know that God does not lie, is the standard of righteousness, and good is all His ways. So there is a biblical disconnect in your view, it seems to me.

Their choice to refuse is tragic and does figure in to their condemnation.

Refuse what? and as such, why does it figure into their condemnation if it is as you say - there is no salvation for the non-elect, Christ did not die for them,... - there is NO good news for them as they have no salvation in which to even potentially "look and believe".

They are sealed in unbelief by this tragic choice ...yes

Again, what choice? According to your view, they have no choice as there is no salvation for them, Christ did not die for them, there is nothing to "look and believe" to. There is NO choice offered to them. The statement "repent and believe" is actually "repent and believe the gospel" or good news.

I stated:
They were not hated and condemned by God who passed over them and as such did not provide a means of salvation for them as some declare.

You stated:
Yes they were absolutely.This passage does not change anything at all as far as God's purpose is concerned.

The very passage IS from God's perspective as it declares what is going on from a Heavenly standpoint, NOT mans assumption. This very passage does great damage to the Reformed position of the "L". It establishes they were not just 'passed over' because it proves they 'could be saved' but rejected the truth. FOR THAT REASON GOD... that they ALL might be damned who did not believe the truth. This is not a passing over in an sense, in fact it establishes they were not just 'passed over', and that a means of salvation was indeed procured, and thus able to be offered to them.

You and some others have found this....others have "found" something else.

And yet if you go according to context, there is no other way to accept the text other than what I have given. I have found no viable expounding of this passage, and yes I am quite open to hearing some. But the problem I have found is that most do as you are doing.. there is no salvation for them .. so they reject the truth and sealed in their damnation. It is a complete contradiction.. if there is no.. then they can not reject something that is not. (yes.. I did an incomplete sentence for emphasis )

it was their choice that determined in the eyes of God their relationship with Him

No....It is always God's covenant that determines a persons relationship or lack of one to God. Their choice had nothing to do with their fallen and alienated condition.This is to put the proverbial cart in front of the horse.

So then a question.. before they were saved.. were they children of God or Children of wrath? What covenant relationship did they have prior to their salvation being children of wrath? God relationship with man is conditional, believe and be saved. That is the condition for the relationship. Belief places on into that Covenant relationship (saved). While the Covenant exists prior to their salvation, and God indeed knows all that are His, they are, by God's own declaration via Paul, prior to salvation children of wrath not children of God.
I'm not saying there is no Covenant relationship, I'm saying that the relationship is upheld by one party (God) but is agreed upon to come into by both parties. It is this agreement that establishes the 'relationship' otherwise, there would be no relationship. Ever seen a one sided marriage?

there is not potential...just actual. To us it seems potential because we do not know. It is actual however.

And yet you state they can reject the truth that saves and be condemned for the rejection of something that has nothing to do with them nor indeed is even offered to them.
Again all I see here is a tennis match against yourself. I'm not trying to be mean here but that is what I see as you jump from one side to the other then back again. In tennis the two sides oppose each other.

Salvation is offered to all who hear of it.It is never offered to all.They will always refuse unless God grants them repentance and faith.

So it appears you are 'now' contending that everyone who hears the gospel (though not all get to hear it as the gospel has not yet reached them) but to those who have, God is offering them salvation, noting the fact that no salvation can be offered unless Christ has died for them. Also God does 'grant' (which means allow) all men repentance (ie. the opportunity to repent) and have faith/believe. The very reason they hear it or any amount of spiritual truth, even the most basic (sin, righteousness, and the Judgment to come) is that God is granting/allowing them to repent and believe.

The offer is free and stands. I can offer you all my money if you can jump up and orbit saturn.The offer is good.

I agree with the above and yet it stands in opposition to what you propose often and here is why. In order for your offer to be valid (giving me all your money), you have to have already what you state you will give in order for your offer to be true and good, so it stands. Point in fact, God does not offer to us what He does not yet have, much less offer what He does not desire to give.

If you offer me the something that you do not have, nor that you wish to give, or worse what is no in your power to give... you have deceived and thus lied to that person about what you were claiming to offer. An offer is not valid unless you have already what you claim you will give to person to whom you are making the offer.

not a contradiction as has been pointed out earlier in my responses.

You are consistently contradicting yourself brother

What mercy are they forsaking since Christ did not die on their behalf..

They are forsaking the truth of God,and his mercy.

What truth and what mercy.. you are so vague here it is like pea soup.
Mercy is not giving them what they deserve.. how are they forsaking this when NO mercy is offer them?
What truth of God is it that yields forth the Mercy of God?

 

[Iconoclast]

Allan,
You are a maniac Allan....posting so long:laugh: Looks like someone was up very late, or very early. i would say you were sleepy because you criticized your own post here;

Quote:
ergo.. these who are condemned could not have been said, by God, to have rejected salvation nor could or would God condemned them for rejecting something that had NOTHING to do with them. THAT is the point - they 'could be saved' (so as to be saved) but rejected the truth and held to a lie.

What? Now you are making NO sense whatsoever

You posted the quote in post 34.....then you say it makes no sense whatsoever........I agree:laugh: You object to your own point,lol.

Seriously Allan...thanks for taking the time to read through and respond to the posts. As we can see.....we have some agreement...but much in this area that we view differently. I think we would have much more in common if we were discussing other areas of the christion life.These areas are more nuanced and take much thought.

I could respond at length....but this kind of discussion and study is better suited for a face to face...drinking coffee and fellowshipping kind of discussion.
I think that by some of your responses you are not following the tennis ball where it is going:thumbs:

Overall, our view of what took place at the fall, mans subsequent condition, and present spiritual state differ....so we go down different roads.
I can "see' a consistency in your train of thought.I believe you are trying to solve the puzzle but think you have taken a few wrong turns.

I will at this time only respond to two of your paragraphs;

1] you said;

God decreed the hypothetical my friend, even He declares two ways of things in scripture - if you do this.. I will do this.. if you do that.. I will do this

No...God decrees actual reality.
There are two ways of things in scripture yes....clearly
Last Adam ........... Adam
Saved .......... Lost
righteous ........ wicked
sheep ......... goats
holy ........ profane
godly ......... ungodly
obey ....... disobey
covenant ....... covenant
keepers ....... breakers

Seperation unto God.....Seperation from God

I believe that as each person has one life, one reality, They can only exist in one realm at a time. You cannot get from the lost column to the saved column without the new birth..by the Holy Spirit. I Think we agree on this.

I see in scripture where God alone does this for us,quickening us so that we can begin to obey.
You seem to have man determining his own destiny by mans own choice.
You might not like to see it written that way...but by reading your responses it seems to be so. I f we get to meet in SD. some day....I am sure you will correct my understanding of your position.

2]

Ok.. back to Tennis. How can the natural fail to welcome anything that is not offered to him ?

It is offered to him, it is offered to all who hear the word of God.

You said salvation is NOT for the non-elect, Christ didn't die for the non-elect..

That would be correct 24/7 Allan.....Can you give an example of the non-elect being saved in scripture? Do you believe there is One non elect person that is going to be saved?


Thus there is no failing to -welcome to the things of God- as none are proffered to him. AGAIN.. how can one reject what is NOT offered to him.

This is an offer made to sinners in the gospel. Sinners who hear are commanded to repent and believe the gospel. That is pretty simple Allan.
it is a valid offer..also 24/7.... see here;

14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

The bolded portion shows the seperation we are speaking about. The theology I hold makes sense according to calvinism.....your view really does not hold fast here. I believe the man centered approach[although I know you are closer to my side then most...drops the ball here.


You just said Christ didn't die for the non-elect,

That is correct. He did not as they were not given to Him by the Father....I did not say it...scripture does..I just believe it!:thumbs:


there is NO hypothetical, salvation is NOT for the non-elect.

Again ...correct.....it is either or at the white throne..allthe way back to eternity past. The non -elect perish justly for their sins.They have no:atonement, reconciliation,justification,etc.

. so what are they rejecting??


Those who never hear...reject the light of creation,and conscience...
Those who hear reject the mystery of Godliness...

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory

You toss this ball back and forth contradicting yourself.

What you are seeing as "contradictions" are where you go off course,or where you fail to understand my posts as written....I think there would be less mis-understanding if we spoke...even if we still did not agree!


On one side God offers salvation..

Yes he does...like Jesus explained in Mt23:37 How often would I have....
...but ye would not
They were responsible to believe when the King came to Zion..they would not
God offered..they would not.....


on the other God did NOT provide for them salvation. which is it?


That is also correct......He offered.they would not......
Paul explained this truth this way quoting from Isa.1:9 in romans 9

29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

If not for the election of grace...no one would be saved...not one!
That is why I will stay with the scriptural teaching my friend Allan...and others who lurk, but hold the other idea.

thanks for the interaction Allan.....would like to comment more, but Lois Lane will report me for posting to long, LOL.

 

[Aaron]

The only thing being amended is your comprehension of my views. Calvinists even affirm the concept that man can KNOW something (mental assent to the truth of something), without having saving faith which leads to repentance and obedience. For example, demon's can believe and shutter. In the same manner, the people of Romans 1 can "know God" and "clearly see and understand his divine nature and eternal attributes" but CHOOSE to reject what they CLEARLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND.

What about that can't you understand? And what about that do you disagree with and why?

I understand completely what you're saying, but it's wrong. You oppose yourself at every turn.

You say on one hand that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and no one can hear without a preacher, and no one will preach unless he is sent, and here you say faith comes by nature.

So which is it? (I ask this rhetorically. Experience has taught me you will not give a straight answer when presented with a clear, either/or question.) Is it by nature, or is it by the Spirit?

There is a knowledge of God that one possesses by nature. It is corrupted, however, and that is why, by nature, man worships idols. Though the message of God's eternal power and godhead is there, men stumble through like a blind man in an art museum, and nature has no power to give sight to the blind, or to raise the dead to life.

That is not faith. It is not belief. It is a carnal form of knowledge that cannot save. It can only leave one without an excuse. The Gospel is hid to them that are lost.

But to you, man is not dead. He is alive. You, therefore, cannot see the distinction in the forms of knowledge that Paul has so plainly laid before us, that which is by nature and kills, and that which is by the Spirit and makes alive. You cannot remain true to your noncalvinism and define faith or belief as they are presented to us in the Scriptures. You have to make it something else—some voluntary act of man.

You have no alternative, and the inescapable conclusion is that man saves himself by his own work of righteousness.

 

[Allan]

Allan,
You are a maniac Allan....posting so long:laugh:

:laugh: And here I was praying you would not post like you did the first time (which I responded to)

Seriously Allan...thanks for taking the time to read through and respond to the posts. As we can see.....we have some agreement...but much in this area that we view differently. I think we would have much more in common if we were discussing other areas of the christion life.These areas are more nuanced and take much thought. [/quote]
Agreed

I will make my post much smaller as well and more concise as you actually still do not address the main focus of my last 3 posts. but I will hit only a couple of points below as well.

No...God decrees actual reality.

Here I believe many current reformed are going off into an area none of the historical reformed would touch. No one knows the actual order of decrees nor all of those decrees which God has decreed. Thus to make your statement above, it is a strictly a premise based upon mans view.

The question that would have to be answered is when God says specifically what will be if they go one way, and specifically what will be if they go another.. one is actually not true? How can God 'state' two different realities if both did not 'potentially' exist because God determined both outcomes? While only one reality will come to pass, the hypothetical is directly from God's statement not man's point of view. Thus this is a philosophical discussion not really a theological one

There are two ways of things in scripture yes....clearly

Actually there are 2 'end' results regarding things.

I believe that as each person has one life, one reality, They can only exist in one realm at a time.

Again I agree, but even your last statement posits a potential of at least 2 ways, and as stated above: if God declares there are 2 ways set before a man to go, we 'can not' say - God really means only one.

I see in scripture where God alone does this for us,quickening us so that we can begin to obey.

If I showed you scripture where it states we must firsts believe IN ORDER TO obey and love God.. would you believe me

You seem to have man determining his own destiny by mans own choice.
You might not like to see it written that way...but by reading your responses it seems to be so.

I have no problem with the statement, what I disagree with is the added baggage that gets placed with it, as though man did it all. I hold the exact same view you do. That God does not save any man until man willingly desires him. unfortunately that means Man's salvation is a cooperation with God, since God moves upon man and waits upon man to choose life before He saves him. Even your statements agree with this and as such even your view mandates. You might not like to see it written that way...but in knowing the Reformed view it seems to be so. I do say it is a equal cooperation nor that man does (as in works) anything, but the cooperation is that man is involved in his salvation to complete it.. that mandates the very definition of cooperation.

If not for the election of grace...no one would be saved...not one!
That is why I will stay with the scriptural teaching my friend Allan...and others who lurk, but hold the other idea.

I think you are quite misinformed about those who are not reformed. We DO hold to the scriptural teaching of the election of grace so I don't know what you are referring to here. If you mean the 'reformed view of it' that is different depending on who you speak with.

thanks for the interaction Allan.....would like to comment more, but Lois Lane will report me for posting to long, LOL.

LOL.. my wife too is after me and I will get off here.
The above isn't really more than simple interactions on various - no - biggies - but the below is what I initially was speaking to.

1. You also state God does not desire them to be saved nor has He provided a way for their salvation
2. You state God offers the gospel (salvation) to all sinners?
3.. You state the offer of the gospel (salvation) to the non-elect is valid
4. You state the command to the non-elect is to repent and believe (the gospel) Mark 1:15
5. You state they are condemned for not believing

My point of contention and lack of understanding comes from above.. while 2-5 sounds great, the problem is that #1 negates everything below it as being true but in fact proves 2-5 to be a lie.

If salvation was not procured for them, God has nothing to offer them in relation to the gospel. The gospel is not even FOR them. Thus any offer toward them is not valid as there is no salvation for them nor does God desire them to BE saved. Therefore they can not repent and believe the gospel message as it does not relate to them, and if it does not relate to them, rejection of the gospel has no weight to bear upon damnation and in fact has nothing to do with it.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand completely what you're saying, but it's wrong. You oppose yourself at every turn.

One of those two statements by necessity must be incorrect. If I'm opposing myself at every turn then I must be right at least during the times I'm opposing myself when I'm wrong. :laugh:

You say on one hand that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and no one can hear without a preacher, and no one will preach unless he is sent,

First, I didn't say this...Paul did. Let's give credit where credit is due.

and here you say faith comes by nature.

Can you find the quote where I said, "faith comes by nature."

Do you mean, when I said, "man can KNOW [believe] something (mental assent to the truth of something), without having saving faith which leads to repentance and obedience. For example, demon's can believe and shutter. In the same manner, the people of Romans 1 can "know God" and "clearly see and understand his divine nature and eternal attributes" but CHOOSE to reject what they CLEARLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND."

You should deal with what I actually say rather than straw-men.

So which is it? (I ask this rhetorically. Experience has taught me you will not give a straight answer when presented with a clear, either/or question.)

When the either/or is a false dichotomy (a fallacy), imposed by you putting words in my mouth (a straw man fallacy) then you are right I'm not going to give you a simple yes or no. I'm going to show your your error over and over again until you get it right and actually decide to debate me and my actual views.

There is a knowledge of God that one possesses by nature.

Right, that is what I said, and they must exchange that TRUTH, which is "clearly seen and understood", in for lies before they are "given over" and "defiled," etc. They aren't born without understanding...they aren't born unable to see...they aren't born with the perfect excuse. They are "without excuse" BECAUSE the "clearly see," "understand," and "know God" and the revelation of Himself. Total Depravity removes that understanding, sight and knowledge by making mankind born unable to see, hear, understand and respond to God's revelation. But that is not a condition of man from birth, that is a condition of a rebellious man who has "GROWN CALLOUSED" and "BECOME HARDENED" over time. Your system leaves no room for distinction in the child that Christ points to as one we must become like to enter his kingdom and the rebellious hardened Jew who God wanted to gather under his wings and held out his hands to all day, but he was continually unwilling and grew calloused. (ref. Matt. 23:37; Rom. 10:21)

That is not faith. It is not belief. It is a carnal form of knowledge that cannot save.

So, James was in error when he said, "Even the demon's believe and shutter?"

I didn't think so.

But to you, man is not dead. He is alive.

Straw-man.

Man is dead, but the gospel is a life-giving truth. Man is enslaved, but the gospel is the truth that sets the captive free. Man is an enemy of God, but the gospel is the appeal for enemies to be reconciled. No wonder Paul called the gospel "the power of God unto salvation." I suppose He should have said "election" or the "Irresistible Call" is the power of God unto salvation, huh?

Let me know when you want to start debating me instead of yourself.

 

[Iconoclast]

Allan,
good post..I agree with much of it...

No...God decrees actual reality.

Here I believe many current reformed are going off into an area none of the historical reformed would touch. No one knows the actual order of decrees nor all of those decrees which God has decreed. Thus to make your statement above, it is a strictly a premise based upon mans view.

Agreed...... Some of it ...believe it or not...was just my own thoughts based on what i have taken in over time....driving around I have more time than most to let my mind wander over these things.....sometimes I turn those thoughts loose online....knowing that other faithful brothers are out there in cyberspace to provide correction, or proper caution.
I have no desire to drift off like harold camping into his own fantasy world:laugh:

but the cooperation is that man is involved in his salvation to complete it

We do not agree here. Once God saves a man in total.....man as a NEW creation...a restored image bearer does begin to obey God in holiness,and godliness.......but even in this we are "unprofitable servants"

Got to drive again now...in Cal. heading to Mass....will try to respond to your last portion at the end of the day.....

 

[Aaron]

Do you mean, when I said, "man can KNOW [believe] something (mental assent to the truth of something), without having saving faith which leads to repentance and obedience. For example, demon's can believe and shutter. In the same manner, the people of Romans 1 can "know God" and "clearly see and understand his divine nature and eternal attributes" but CHOOSE to reject what they CLEARLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND

You should deal with what I actually say rather than straw-men.

When the either/or is a false dichotomy (a fallacy), imposed by you putting words in my mouth (a straw man fallacy) then you are right I'm not going to give you a simple yes or no. I'm going to show your your error over and over again until you get it right and actually decide to debate me and my actual views.

Right, that is what I said, and they must exchange that TRUTH, which is "clearly seen and understood", in for lies before they are "given over" and "defiled," etc. They aren't born without understanding...they aren't born unable to see...they aren't born with the perfect excuse. They are "without excuse" BECAUSE the "clearly see," "understand," and "know God" and the revelation of Himself. Total Depravity removes that understanding, sight and knowledge by making mankind born unable to see, hear, understand and respond to God's revelation. But that is not a condition of man from birth, that is a condition of a rebellious man who has "GROWN CALLOUSED" and "BECOME HARDENED" over time. Your system leaves no room for distinction in the child that Christ points to as one we must become like to enter his kingdom and the rebellious hardened Jew who God wanted to gather under his wings and held out his hands to all day, but he was continually unwilling and grew calloused. (ref. Matt. 23:37; Rom. 10:21)

So, James was in error when he said, "Even the demon's believe and shutter?"

I didn't think so.

Straw-man.

Man is dead, but the gospel is a life-giving truth. Man is enslaved, but the gospel is the truth that sets the captive free. Man is an enemy of God, but the gospel is the appeal for enemies to be reconciled. No wonder Paul called the gospel "the power of God unto salvation." I suppose He should have said "election" or the "Irresistible Call" is the power of God unto salvation, huh?

Let me know when you want to start debating me instead of yourself.

I first thought it was a typo, but I'm apparently mistaken. Demons shudder.

Second. James puts up the knowledge that demons have of God and the judgment to come in contrast to the belief that many men claim. The demons tremble, and if a man truly believes, he trembles.

The fact that men turn away and disregard the revelation of nature shows that they, in fact, do NOT believe. Those spoken of in Romans 1 don't believe. If they did, they would, like the demons, tremble, and like believing men would cry out who shall save me from the body of this death?

But it's not the condition of demons that concerns us. That is an entirely different matter, and little is revealed concerning it. We know this, that Christ did not come in the likeness of angels. It is not their sins He bore. He came in the likeness of the children of Abraham, the elect. We also know that the things demons know they know by sight, and is therefore not of faith.

To go beyond this is to appeal to one's vain imagination.

But you are trying to insist that those in Romans 1 truly knew God, and yet chose to reject Him, though the word chose, or chosen is not in the text. The truth is, they knew OF Him in a carnal and superstitious manner. But they did not know Him in the manner you are attempting to assert. We know this because 1) they didn't tremble, 2) they rejected His commandments, 1 John 2:3-4, and 3) the Scriptures say don't know Him, John 14:17.

You're still where you were at before, man is saved by his own righteous act, with the aggravation of wresting the Scriptures to support it.

 

[Skandelon]

I first thought it was a typo, but I'm apparently mistaken. Demons shudder.

:laugh: No, it was a spelling typo, more than once... I'm terrible at spelling and if a spell check can't catch it, I'm doomed to get it wrong. I guess they could shutter too if they had windows. :laugh:

Second. James puts up the knowledge that demons have of God and the judgment to come in contrast to the belief that many men claim. The demons tremble, and if a man truly believes, he trembles.

So are you saying the demons didn't really believe or not? Because you ridiculed me for suggesting that someone could believe but not unto salvation, yet that is the exact point James appears to be making even by your own assessment. Even if YOU don't want to call it "faith" or "belief" that doesn't change what James called it and what I meant when I also used the same terminology scripture uses. So, I accept your apology.

The fact that men turn away and disregard the revelation of nature shows that they, in fact, do NOT believe.

Correct. Why?

Two options:

1. Because they were born unable to understand God's revelation and accept it due to their inherent fallen nature.

2. Because, despite their knowing God and clearly seeing and understanding His revelation, they chose to trade the TRUTH in for a LIE and thus stand condemned without a single excuse.

I think Paul answers that question quite clearly. The question is whether or not you can clearly see and understand it since you have apparently grown hardened into a doctrinal system apposed to this clear teaching.

Those spoken of in Romans 1 don't believe.

Of course they don't after they reject Him, but it's because they chose not to believe what they, at one time, clearly knew to be true. Same as the demons. You say they tremble because they believe (know God) but yet don't they consciously choose to rebel and reject God despite that knowledge? They KNOW he is real and they fear Him, yet they chose to follow a lie. How is that different than what those in Romans 1 have done?

If they did, they would, like the demons, tremble, and like believing men would cry out who shall save me from the body of this death?

If that is the case, then why don't the demon's likewise cry out in repentance? Are you arguing that anyone who ever fears the Lord will accept him and be saved? For example, didn't Pharaoh and Judas fear God, but end up dying in rebellion anyway?

But you are trying to insist that those in Romans 1 truly knew God,

I'll let Paul speak for himself. Here is the direct quote. You can decide for yourself if you think Paul is not speaking about what they "truly" knew, but I'll take him for his word:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[Winman]

He wants scripture that uses the word "chose". OK.

Isa 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4 I will also choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

These men knew of God, they offered sacrifices. God called them, but they would not answer, or hear God when he spoke. They chose their own ways, and to do evil.

 

[Allan]

We do not agree here. Once God saves a man in total.....man as a NEW creation...a restored image bearer does begin to obey God in holiness,and godliness.......but even in this we are "unprofitable servants"

So you believe God first 'saves' man, then man believes?
Correct or no?

No problem with getting back to me
But I would like to understand your reconciling of regarding my last post - the last portion of it.. when you get time .. I'm off to bed

 

[convicted1]

Luke 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! Here is where God has enlightened him to realize his lost condition.

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, If the Prodical Son had not got up and left this "hog lot", he would have stayed there.

19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. When his Father saw him WAAAAY off, He ran and met His son. The Father was waiting on his son to return, but wasn't going to drag him all the way home.

21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: I thinkl that Ephesians 6 could be applicable here, in regards to the whole armour of God. The Father clothed him from head-to-toe here.

23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.


Once the Prodical Son realized his lost state, it was up to him to leave the "hog lot" lifestyle". If he hadn't did this, he would have remained there until death.

i am I AM's!!

Willis