Featured Being Chosen Requires a Response (Of Faith) from One’s Own Heart! Like it or Not!

Then you also agree the OP is correct. You also admit that man plays a role in his salvation.

 

Where did you learn to read Winman? Perhaps we have discovered the source of your problem. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that we who believe the Doctrines of Grace understand the role of Faith. I repeat for your edification!

Since you are having a difficult time with the above statement perhaps I can help you a little. I have posted the following for your edification numerous times in the past but you are hard to edify!

Regeneration
The initial event in salvation is regeneration, the theological term synonymous with ‘rebirth’ or ‘being born again’. Regeneration is solely the work of God the Holy Spirit whereby those who are spiritually dead in trespass and sin are made spiritual alive and are brought into union with Jesus Christ [Ephesians 2:1-9].

Conversion
Conversion is the result of conscious act of a regenerate person in which he responds to the effectual call and turns to God in faith and repentance. Conversion is in reality an acknowledgment that one has experienced regeneration.


The Apostle Paul described the problem of those who enamoured of the idea that "maybe I am not so bad after all":

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Paul is speaking about the Jews here but they had the same attitude ofmany who boast of their free will!

 

Yes, but from God's perspective, man's faith is not from synergistic contribution, but from God's monergistic work and eternal decree.

 

It's more like to respond in faith you must be elect. After all, election is "before the foundation of the world." Faith is after the foundation of the world.

 

I have never denied that there is a required response of faith from our hearts. The issue, though, is this: Is the exercise of faith a response to God's work or is it that which causes God's work?

You, and the OP, argue that we must have a response of inherent faith, unencumbered and uninfluenced by the Holy Spirit. We flatly reject that position.

What we affirm is that there is a necessary response of faith that is a result of God's regenerating work, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

There is an important difference.

The Archangel

 

If man responds to the effectual call to God, then salvation is not all of God.

Oh, you claim regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit only, but that the man must cooperate with God to be converted or saved.

This sentence is a contradiction of the one that preceded it. The first sentence distinguishes between regeneration and conversion, this sentence says that conversion is simply an acknowledgment of regeneration.

These two sentences contradict themselves.

If conversion is simply an acknowledgement of regeneration, and conversion requires a response of faith, then regeneration also requires a response of faith.

Translation- Mumbo Jumbo

 

Just read all that I said about Conversion WM:

You have a problem understanding the written word WM. You also have an over riding tendency to twist whatever anyone writes, even Scripture, to support your erroneous concept of freewill salvation.

 

I understand it well.

Conversion acknowledges or shows that a person is regenerate.

Conversion involves a person responding in repentance and faith to the gospel.

Therefore, a person must respond in repentance and faith to be regenerate.

Now, you think about that a minute or two and you will see I am correct.

No response of repentance and faith ---> no conversion

No conversion ---> no regeneration

Now, you might say a person can walk around 20 years regenerated before they respond in faith and are converted. You can say that, but you have no proof or scriptural support for this. Just saying this does not make it so, and it does not make much sense. Why the delay?

The only way you know someone is regenerate is when they actually respond in faith and are converted.

You are trying to break everything up when it is not possible. You cannot have conversion without a person responding in faith, and you have no proof of regeneration unless a person responds in faith and is converted.

The OP is correct, whether you will admit it or not. The only proof that a man is elect is that he responds in faith and is converted. That is absolutely all the proof you have of election. You cannot separate these things.

Election requires a response of faith, the OP is correct.

You can post all sorts of mumbo jumbo, it will not work.

 

I believe that you do understand WM and that is what is so sad. For some reason known only to you and perhaps to God you deliberately twist and misrepresent the words of those who respond to you. I assume you are trying to justify your position but it is unethical to say the least. Your responses remind me of a passage of Scripture that God revealed through the Apostle Peter. In this passage Peter is discussing the writings of Paul as being difficult to understand and you are living proof of that. But that is not all Peter has to say:

2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

I will address the full post later. Let me first say, the tone of the first half of your post, some of which is represented below, is deplorable. However, and this did pleasantly surprise me, the last half of your post did demonstrate a tone much more suited for discussion and debate. Now, on to this from the first part.

I want to point this out. In one paragraph you state "You're [sic] entire post...uses..."you don't understand my doctrine" and "don't want to" Then, in almost the very next breath you say "I don't give a darn what you "say" you believe..."

You simply do not understand my doctrine. Your second statement (I don't give a darn what you say you believe) ipso facto proves that you do not understand my doctrine--quod erat demonstrandum.

As I have been saying, you do not understand my doctrine. You assume I am a hyper-Calvinist simply because I am a Calvinist in my soteriology. This is simply guilt by association (the association fallacy, sub-type of the Red Herring fallacy). And, by your own words, you do not care to understand what I believe.

The problem, as I've expressed before, is this: You are fighting against a caricature of Calvinism, which, as we now see, is based on an experience that you had with someone claiming to be a Calvinist--who turned out to be a Wiccan! So, in your mind, you seem to be equating all Calvinists with Wiccan Warlocks. You are simply chasing windmills or arguing against a so-called square-circle (which is, I might add, the very textbook definition of the Strawman fallacy).

Are there Calvinists who are "hyper" and believe that man does not have to respond? Sure. They are wrong in their assertions (and I have no problem telling them that).

The Bible affirms two immovable facts dealing with salvation: 1) God is absolutely sovereign and 2) man is completely responsible. We, (the non-hyper, non-Warlock Calvinists) affirm the necessity of man's response to God. However, we read that man's heart desires only evil continually and is unknowably evil, we see that Paul refers to us as "dead," we see that Paul says "no one seeks after God," and we come to the conclusion that God, by His grace, intervenes and makes us willing who where once unwilling.

And, you still haven't answered my question: Do you pray that persons you know who are not believers, perhaps a friend, co-worker, or family member, come to Christ? And, I'm fairly certain why you haven't answered.

And, finally, because you posted your "Intro to Calvinism" story, I can finally see where all the animosity comes from. In psychological lingo, we call this "Transference." You rightly feel animosity toward the Wiccan guy for yanking your chain, thwarting your admirable work in sharing the Gospel, etc. Your animosity toward the Wiccan guy--which I would feel too--has been misdirected at Calvinists, it has been "transferred." Of course, those issues are difficult and must be worked through, a road I've walked before.

Now, it won't surprise me if you take this entire post as an attack (which it isn't), but I hope you won't.

The Archangel

 

The point is, if salvation requires a response of faith from the man, then man takes part in his salvation, which most Calvinists deny.

And I don't know of one non-Cal that believes we cause God to act. We believe a man must respond to the work God has performed on our hearts, but that response must come from our own free will.

You insert a fallacy into the argument. I have never said (or believe) that God does not influence us, he absolutely does. My definition of free will does not exclude influence, it includes it. My definition of free will is simply that man can choose between two options.

It is logically impossible to be regenerated until after you believe. Until you believe you remain dead in trespasses and sins, and that is DEATH. Only after you believe and your sins are forgiven can you be spiritually alive. This is so simple a child could understand it, but seems to baffle all Calvinists.

It is a matter of life and death

You don't get it, to be regenerated means to be alive again (which refutes we are born dead in sin). You cannot be spiritually alive while you remain in your sins. Faith MUST precede regeneration. This is absolutely logical. I think you know that, but you hold to a fallacy anyway.

 

If we are assuming in an irresistable act of grace...then it no doubt would be inconsistent to do so....but it is perfectly within the purview of an Arminian to pray thus. Arminians assume that God's grace is required to enable men to come to salvation. Call it "Prevenient Grace" or whatever...Arminians don't believe that anyone calls to God for salvation in an utter vacuum. By praying for the salvation of the lost, they are praying for any and/or all of these things:

For the gospel to be forefront in their minds...or for the gospel to be preached to them and regularly.
That God would impart that enabling or "Prevenient Grace" and work upon the heart of that sinner.
That the Holy Spirit would do his work of conviction of sin
That we, or others would be sent and gifted to rightly preach to them their need for salvation.
That God would bring about circumstances in that person's life which would require them to come face to face with the question of their eternal destiny. i.e. (come face to face with their mortality, so to speak...or that kind of thing).
That God would honor His promise that His Word would not return void.....
I am sure there are many others, these were only what immediately came to mind without even thinking about it.

For the same reason you might think that an Arminian shouldn't pray for the lost...I might just as quickly ask you why a Calvinist should ever bother himself, since the answer has been given, and you aren't about to change His mind about it. That knife could cut both ways really. But I already know what the answer might be: because you have a genuine desire to see the salvation of the lost, and because you believe that the Scriptures encourage us/command us to. That is sufficient for any Calvinist....It is sufficient for a non-Calvinist.

Rom 10:1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

No doubt, Arminians or non-cals (and probably a lot of nominal Calvinists) usually never really think too deeply about what they are asking for "specifically"....They (unlike some of us) :tongue3: aren't overly obsessed with the "arguing about our divisions and strifes of words..." with such things :smilewinkgrin:. Fortunately...they know they can hold onto this promise:


Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

The part bolded is written to both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist.
Ultimately.....I think the most important and direct answer to that question is....we are to ask God for what we WANT!! and He wants to give good things to his children!

One article I found: and he actually links to an article by Roger Olson wherein Olson (an Arminian Theologian) in-explicably argues that an Arm shouldn't pray for the salvation of the lost. He would agree with your reasoning. But I think his thought-process is short-sighted on this.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/1417

 

But, in some of the things listed below, are you not asking God to draw people to Himself? Are you not asking Him to make the unwilling willing?

With an unsaved spouse, child, or parent, for example, don't you want God to draw them irresistibly, whether it is consistent or not?

Though I disagree with the concept of "Prevenient Grace" in the Wesleyan sense, the Augustinian sense of Prevenient Grace is where we get the concept of "Irresistible Grace." The Wesleyan sense of Prevenient Grace carries the idea that all men are given, for lack of a better description, a new heart that can understand and choose God for themselves. Obviously we reject this based on, partially, the so-called "Golden Chain" of Romans 8:28-30. We see a specific, directed "Prevenient" and irresistible grace that gives that gives a new heart to those whom God has chosen. Obviously, the Wesleyan sense of Prevenient Grace is not irresistible. And, interestingly enough, the "Irresistible" part of the concept is not well-served by the word "Irresistible." The word "Irresistible" give the impression that God is dragging us by the hair, kicking and screaming. We argue that the "Irresistible" part is better understood as God making the unwilling willing and, therefore, we find Him to be Irresistible and will "sell all we have in order that we may have Him as our treasure." (Paraphrasing John Piper who was paraphrasing the parable of the treasure hidden in the field)

I would view all these reasons and the accompanying prayers to be quite orthodox.

Everyone should, actually must pray for the salvation of sinners (I'm thinking in a personal way--like pray that God would open Aunt Sally's heart, etc.). And, we must work to present the Gospel to those who we pray for.

As a Calvinist, it is natural to pray for the salvation of people. We don't know who the elect are, only God does and He has not marked the elect in any way visible to man. We work, pray, and evangelize indiscriminately, not caring is one might be elect or not.

But, we also believe that God ordains the ends and the means. So, might it be the case that God elected a person in eternity past and put them in our present--but hasn't saved them yet--so that we could pray for Him to open their heart to the Gospel and that we might have joy in seeing our prayers answered when they, finally, come to Christ? Absolutely! We get joy, God gets glory--a perfect combination. In this scenario, the ends (salvation) and the means (our prayers, evangelization, etc.) are ordained. There is not one second of the entire thing that is outside of God's sovereignty, yet man is responsible to do what God has commanded him to do--make disciples, preach the word, pray for the lost, etc.

It is a beautiful dovetail in the compatiblistic sense.

The Archangel

 

Well, this is what I see about many Calvinists, they make a statement, then they make another statement that contradicts the first. You say God's grace is "irresistible", but then say that term is not really appropriate. Why then use that term? Why don't you call it "persuading grace". Ah, but then you would agree with the other side.

Calvinists say salvation is all of God, but then agree that a man must respond in faith. Again, you contradict yourselves and agree with the other side, only you never will admit you are agreeing with your opponents.

What Calvinists do is try to hold two contradictory positions at the same time. Non-Cals do not have this problem, our view is consistent with itself.

 

It is the work of God from start to finish through the Holy Spirit, so God gets the glory for our salvation without the working of God no one will be saved. We are responsible to follow the will of God, not our own will, to trust in His Son.

When all you hear is I did this to be saved and done this to be saved it starts to become sickening.

It isn't easy to continue keeping peoples focus on the Lord and being responsible for our own action. I has to do something, but it is Our Lord, Our God, Our Saviour, Jesus Christ who has saved us.

 

Very well stated. Salvation is ALL of God. Scripture clearly teaches that truth. Believing that the Big I had to give God a helping hand is denying Scripture.

Hebrews 12:2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

God will bring to Salvation those He chose before the foundation of the world and for whom Jesus Christ died. To believe and contend that the Big I can make the death of Jesus Christ of no effect is very sad.