Continued: Does Faith Merit Salvation?

The other thread was closed for whatever reason, so I didn't have opportunity to reply to this response from Luke and others:

First my original Quote:

Well, that depends on how you define RESPOND. If it is seen as a genuine, reaction, or reply of one agent in RESPONSE to the action or words of another agent, then I do not believe your deterministic system leaves room for this concept of a 'response.' (now, I admit, guys like Biblicist are less deterministic than you are, so I may address him a bit differently on this point).

This is a perfect analogy of puppetry or robotics in your system and the very reason I reject your concept of response. If you think we are mere reactionary (pendulum like) creatures that God punishes for our innate reactions then so be it. But that makes about as much since as someone pulling the pendulum back and then when it swings the other way, taking the pendulum in your hands and yelling at at saying, "Why do you swing the other way! I told you not to do that!" and then slamming it to the ground and kicking it into a fire. It is just non-sense from my perspective. I know it makes since to you, but I'm telling you how I see that view.

Because I do consider that a moral 'response.' If anything it is a innate reflex or instinctive reaction...not a rational moral response.

Question begging...you're assuming determinism's premise is true when that is the very point up for debate.

 

This is just strange... P4T said, "Correct, and as we can see on BB the anti-cals and arminians believe man must enable God to save them, but when we speak of God enabling man to believe they hiss and spit at such a thought."

1. It is one thing to claim God enables us to respond. (i.e. "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard?"

2. It is another thing to say that God changes our nature so that we will respond in accordance with His predetermined will. (i.e. "How can they believe unless they are first regenerated and given a nature that will certainly desire to believe?")

3. It is yet another thing to say God responds on our behalf. (i.e. "How can they respond unless God does it for them")​

Clearly understanding and rationally discussing those distinctions is significant for our debate to maintain any semblance of meaning.

 

Again, this is simply of case of reading one's view INTO a text, as it never suggests that God's working in this instance is effectual. We both agree that God works to help us follow him. He provokes men with envy (Rm 11:14), which is an example of God working in lost men to help them will and do his good pleasure. None of us deny that God's provokes, persuades, influences, woos, invites, commands, warns the will of man....those are all 'works of God,' but you are merely reading an effectual nature into that 'working.'

So, the last time you sinned, I guess God didn't work in you enough? Isn't that ultimately your contention from before?

 

Make light of it? What are you talking about? If I was 'making light of it,' I might make a joke or ignore it altogether. Instead I wrote out a very coherent reasonable explanation of our interpretation regarding this passage. I then follow that explanation with a honest question in reference to an earlier discussion regarding 'the last time he sinned.'

Sometime I think people read tones into the typed the word that simply are not there.