Irressistible Grace #2

[Revmitchell]

So what causes God to act whenever He does in man - was it a preceding event triggered by man (his faith) or was it simply self-triggered in God.

You have engaged in yet another black and white fallacy. There are more options than the two you have presented. Honestly much of the reformed arguments made these days are completely dependent on this fallacy.

What "triggered" God to act is His character and promise in His sovereign plan determined before the foundation of the world. That plan as found in passages like John 1:12 is that those who believe are given the right to become the sons of God.

This attempt to tie mans response to the God sent, God ordained, Sovereignly planned and established gospel as a causation for God to act.

Such an argument is both sophomoric and needless to make the case for the doctrine you hold to. Its been tossed about on this board for many years and it never gets any better. I have less problem with the reformed doctrine than I do with those who use these miserable tactics to win debates.

 

[ivdavid]

There are more options than the two you have presented.

Seriously? Should I have spelt out that we are dealing with differences in doctrines and needn't have to go over what's already common ground. God's character and sovereignty has been equally upheld by both camps throughout (no matter the implications) - why do we then need to draw out distinctions where none exist? Are we not focusing on only what's required of man, having acknowledged nothing is lacking from God?

This attempt to tie mans response to the God sent, God ordained, Sovereignly planned and established gospel as a causation for God to act.

What's the alternative as per the non-reformed position? So let's say I stop tying man's response to triggering God's action - how do you otherwise explain why God has not acted in birthing so many people? It's not enough to express your annoyance - shouldn't you provide the substance to back it up too?

 

[JD731]

JD731 said: ↑
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

The age to come:

16 After this I will return,

I will spend the most time on just this. So you hold the "this" to denote the church age of mystery and apply the entire prophecy to a future time "after" Rom 11? If so, there are just blatant errors in that -

1. The "this" is an equivalent rendition of the OT prophecy and does not denote the church age but the judgement on the nation of Israel where all the sinful kingdom is destroyed but not utterly for the remnant is sifted among the nations.

First, I did not say anything about a "church age of mystery." I correctly pointed out that Paul reveals 7 mysteries in this age. I said that our Lord Jesus in Matthew's gospel defines this age as the "kingdom of heaven"in a mystery form. The 12 kingdom of heaven parables gives us the characteristics of the age from the beginning of a growing season to the harvest time. Jesus Christ came as the prophet that was typified in the OT by Moses. The church is being formed during this time he called the mystery of the kingdom of heaven. We are living in it now. It is one age of many. It has it's beginning and fullness in it and it is predominately a gentile church that is being formed with a Jewish foundation. There are elements of mystery to the church, like for instance, gentiles being included in it which is called in Ephesians, the mystery of Christ. Do you want an OT type from many that are given in the OT. Look at the Jewish annual feast of firstfruits. This age is the dispensation of the grace of God, see Ep 3, It has a beginning and it has an end. It is the age of grace because he is not imputing sins while men are living. Jesus Christ took away sin by enduring it's punishment, which is death. But he rose again.

Next, So you hold the "this" to denote the church age of mystery and apply the entire prophecy to a future time "after" Rom 11?

Please, ivdavid, The Acts records the history of what happened after Jesus rose from the dead.This was a transition time for Israel when the Jewish law no longer was to be observed because it had lost its authority as an operative principle of divine dealing with Israel. The Spirit of Christ, who had been promised to Israel, to rule them from within (see Jer 31:31 and following) as individuals and a collective one, was rejected and the rulers became the antagonists of the Christian preachers and opposed them and killed them. This did not happen in days, it happened in years and was strictly Jewish. It was about 7 years until the bloody showdown with Stephan. Two things happened at this time, God went outside the Jewish boundaries with the gospel into Samaria and he sent Phillip to rescue a Hamite from Ethiopia. Second, he saved Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus and began preparing him for a ministry to gentiles. Thirdly, in the process of time, about 3 years,he sent Peter with the "keys" he had given him in Matt 16, and the ones he had used in Acts 2 to open the door of faith to Israel, and he opened the door of faith and opportunity to the gentiles in Acts 10. I am not guessing about this because it is clearly recorded in holy writ. It is in Acts 15 where it is stated.

First, by Paul in Acts 14;

27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Then Peter in Acts 15;

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

This is a reference to events of Acts 10.

What I said about Acts 15:is a quote by James in the same meeting of the apostles concerning what part of the law of Moses the gentile converts are liable to observe. James says the same thing that is said in Rom 11. The gentiles are included for a purpose and to a point of time and.....

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The residue are the ones who are left.

Your statement that I have bolded above in blue is a conclusion of yours from this text that makes absolutely no sense in the context. I can't figure out why you would say such a thing.

Rom 7 through 11 is an explanation of the history that has transpired in time. It gives us the mind of God in these years.

2. v.15 mentions something agreeing to the words of the prophets - and that is Peter's testimony that God "is taking from the Gentiles a people for His name". So the prophecy that he then quotes must apply to this testimony for it to agree with it. Which it does, only if applied to the events of that time - God is taking the remnant of Israel and the Gentiles to form the Church (Rom 9-11). It cannot be applied to some other people group at a later time, for where is the agreement with the testimony then?

I think I have been clear on what I have said. I don't know how I can say one thing and you read something else. You need to reference quotes that you are replying to.

 

[Revmitchell]

Seriously? Should I have spelt out that we are dealing with differences in doctrines and needn't have to go over what's already common ground. God's character and sovereignty has been equally upheld by both camps throughout (no matter the implications) - why do we then need to draw out distinctions where none exist? Are we not focusing on only what's required of man, having acknowledged nothing is lacking from God?

You asked me what it s that "triggers" God. You then set up a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy, which is the either or fallacy or otherwise known as the black and white fallacy.

I reject your false dichotomy. My position is that regardless of mans God given choice the "triggering" factor for God is His sovereign promise that all who believe He will give the right to become the sons of God. That alone is what triggers him. Pointing to His sovereignty and His character and promise is the answer. There is no other answer for me.

What's the alternative as per the non-reformed position?

Dont lump me into a group. My position is based on my study not what a collective group says.

So let's say I stop tying man's response to triggering God's action - how do you otherwise explain why God has not acted in birthing so many people?

Why do we have to explain it?

It's not enough to express your annoyance - shouldn't you provide the substance to back it up too?

Have you not been paying attention? I have given you substance. I have been on this board for years debating reformed folks. Just because johnny come lately comes a long and only sees a few posts doesnt mean you know enough about me to make such statements.

Ill say it again. Your false dichotomy is a bad argument. Its sophomoric and needless. Further, who in scripture makes that argument?

 

[InTheLight]

I reject your false dichotomy. My position is that regardless of mans God given choice the "triggering" factor for God is His sovereign promise that all who believe He will give the right to become the sons of God. That alone is what triggers him. Pointing to His sovereignty and His character and promise is the answer. There is no other answer for me.

I'll say it again. Your false dichotomy is a bad argument. Its sophomoric and needless. Further, who in scripture makes that argument?

I wonder what is the causative trigger that moves God to answer prayer?

John 14:13
And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

 

[JD731]

JD731 said: ↑
We are talking about a wonderful and kind and able God who will save every one who will come to him by faith. That is all it takes to be saved.

You do really need to update your incorrect stereotypes of what others preach? This is exactly what the Reformed theology preaches ad verbatim in the Gospel call to all the world.

I once asked a Reformed evangelist if there was any scenario where a sinner who was not previously chosen to be saved could be saved or if a sinner who had not been chosen could be saved. He said no on both questions. I am thinking he gave the standard Reformed response. This makes the choice of man to be the absolute most important event in eternity or time. All other events that God ordains are less important but needful to carry out the salvation of those whom he has chosen to save. The cross of Christ is no more or no less important than God regenerating you so you can believe, or to infuse you with faith as a gift. Once God has chosen to save you he has no choice but to do it. You become the sovereign and he becomes the serf.

Why, I wondered, is there such a thing as a Reformed evangelist? This is a fundamentally different approach to the Christian faith than the non Reformed takes. In the end though, the Reformed are practicing a works religion because they claim to be chosen of God without any hint about it from God and they point to themselves as confirmation of the choice of God.

If I asked you, ivdavid, how you know God chose you for salvation, you would no doubt point to your own experience. I would have to believe you about it instead of anything God ever said.

 

[Revmitchell]

I wonder what is the causative trigger that moves God to answer prayer?

John 14:13
And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

Is that question rhetorical?

 

[InTheLight]

Is that question rhetorical?

Yes, it was.

The "trigger" for God to answer prayer is his promise to do so. Just as the "trigger" for becoming a child of God is to believe in his promise that if you receive Jesus you will become his child.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, it was.

The "trigger" for God to answer prayer is his promise to do so. Just as the "trigger" for becoming a child of God is to believe in his promise that if you receive Jesus you will become his child.

Heres the issue. Our beloved reformed brethren have taken up a bad argument pitting Gods sovereignty against mans will as if they are separate. They are not. When man wills to believe in God it is a result of the power of Gods word (Hebrews 4:12) in the gospel which provides faith (Romans 10:17) which is a product of the HS ( 2 Timothy 2:15).

Focusing on and divorcing mans will in salvation is unbiblical.

 

[Dave G]

Why do we have to explain it?

Probably because he sees you as someone who has taken it upon themselves to teach God's word, and he would like you to answer some questions.

Does that make you feel uncomfortable, or perhaps insult you?
I'm sure he doesn't mean anything by it.
But sometimes I wonder why you are amazed at where some of the questions come from, Mark.

To me, they come from people who read the Scriptures for themselves and see certain things being developed;
Since you claim to have answers to the hard questions about what the Bible teaches, some people simply want to know why...
and in as much detail as you're willing to give.

Isn't that what you would like all your brothers and sisters to do...
To be discerning?

Speaking for myself,
I'm willing to answer anything posed to me, and in as much detail as I can give them...
If only to see that they get as complete an answer as possible regarding why I believe and teach what I do.

 

[Dave G]

I have been on this board for years debating reformed folks. Just because johnny come lately comes a long and only sees a few posts doesnt mean you know enough about me to make such statements.

Mark,
"Johnny-come-lately" has as much right to ask you questions about your teachings as anyone else, doesn't he?
I'm not sure what other readers of this forum would say, but I find myself asking:

Did you somehow come to the conclusion that God's children aren't required to test all things ( 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ) and test the spirits whether they are of God ( 1 John 4:1 )?
I mean, we already know that there are many false teachers that are gone out into the world, and that His reason for us to test all things by His word is so that they can see those teachers for who they are...
So, why the seeming impatience?

I think that he has the right to ask anyone who appears to be a teacher of the Bible, why they teach what they teach...

Is that not correct?

 

[Dave G]

My position is that regardless of mans God given choice the "triggering" factor for God is His sovereign promise that all who believe He will give the right to become the sons of God. That alone is what triggers him.

Mark,
Based on your statement above, I see that what you believe to be " triggering" God to grant someone the new birth, is their belief of the Gospel.

True or false?
To me, that is what @ivdavid is trying to get you to clarify.

When man receives that gift of salvation i.e. chooses to put faith in God it is illogical to name that receiving as a cause for the giving.

God's word ( His wisdom ) and man's logic ( our wisdom ) are completely incompatible.
That is why He tells us in no uncertain terms:

" Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil." ( Proverbs 3:5-7 ).

Heres the issue. Our beloved reformed brethren have taken up a bad argument pitting Gods sovereignty against mans will as if they are separate. They are not. When man wills to believe in God it is a result of the power of Gods word (Hebrews 4:12) in the gospel which provides faith (Romans 10:17) which is a product of the HS ( 2 Timothy 2:15).

Am I mistaken, or do you contend that the Gospel itself contains both the power and faith necessary for a person to make an informed choice...
and that all a person has to do is accept or reject the Gospel?

Does the power of God's Spirit have any effect with regard to who believes and who does not?

 

[Dave G]

Focusing on and divorcing mans will in salvation is unbiblical.

Yet, that is what the whole discussion, "debate" or "issue" has been for centuries, isn't it?

To me man's will being involved is not what the point of contention is...
It's whether or not man's will is the deciding factor in the Lord determining who is saved and who is not.

I see that the Bible says it is according to election, and that our election is based on His purposes;
That the reason why people believe is because the Lord grants them the new birth and the reason why people do not believe is because He does not grant them that privilege.

Focusing on divorcing man's will from God's gift of eternal life, is precisely what the Bible teaches:

" He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( John 1:11-13 ).

In the above,
I see that the reason they received Him in verse 12, was because they were born of God.


" As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth." ( Romans 9:13-18 ).

The reason people believe, is that He decided to have mercy and compassion on them.

Again,
Based on careful examination of the Scriptures, I maintain that God's will plays the only part.
This is what makes it of all grace and none of works.


May God bless you sir.
As always, I wish you good health and His favor upon you.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet, that is what the whole discussion, "debate" or "issue" has been for centuries, isn't it?
Whether man's will itself plays the active part is determining who is saved and who is not.

I see that the Bible says it is according to election, and that election is based on His purposes.
.

And that us the right kind of argument to make. Good job.

 

[Dave G]

I wonder what is the causative trigger that moves God to answer prayer?

Is that question rhetorical?

Yes, it was.

The "trigger" for God to answer prayer is his promise to do so.

Amen.
But there's more to it, isn't there?

" Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth." ( John 9:31 ).

" The eyes of the LORD [are] upon the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their cry.
The face of the LORD [is] against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth." ( Psalms 34:15-16 )

" The LORD [is] far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous." ( Proverbs 15:29 ).

" For the eyes of the Lord [are] over the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord [is] against them that do evil." ( 1 Peter 3:12 ).

I think you have it backwards.

This tells me that God does not hear sinners, but He does indeed hear His children, those He has made righteous.
Per Romans 3:10-18, there is none righteous, and none that seek God.

So,
Any prayer that's made to God would need to be made in the context of Him being first, willing to hear it,
and second, those making the prayer would need to be righteous before God.

How can the Lord incline His ear to those that hate Him and refuse to call upon Him?
He cannot, and they do not.

 

[Dave G]

Just as the "trigger" for becoming a child of God is to believe in his promise that if you receive Jesus you will become his child.

How does one go from being a child of the devil to being a child of God,
when one must be "of God" ( His child ) to hear His words ( John 8:43-47 ) and they must be "of His sheep" to hear His voice ( John 10:26-27 )?

Perhaps you might wish to address those passages for the benefit of any new readers, ITL...
I'm seeing things the other way around, for some reason.

John 14:13
And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

ITL,

Is not the context for those who have their prayers answered, those who already believe?
To those who call upon Him in truth ( Psalms 145:18 )?
After all, He is talking to His disciples:

" Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me." ( John 14:1 ).

Please take a careful look at John 14:1-31 and who is being addressed...
He makes promises to His sheep;
To those who love Him and are "the called" according to His purpose:

" And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." ( Romans 8:28-30 ).

Again, I think that you have it backwards.

I see the Scriptures stating that one must first be foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified to have their prayers heard and answered by the Lord.
He only hears the prayers of the "us which are saved", not the "them that are perishing" who think that the preaching of the cross is foolishness ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).


May He grant you much goodness in the coming days, sir,
and may He reveal many truths to you in your daily studies of His precious word.

 

[ivdavid]

First, I did not say anything about a "church age of mystery." I correctly pointed out that Paul reveals 7 mysteries in this age. I said that our Lord Jesus in Matthew's gospel defines this age as the "kingdom of heaven"in a mystery form. The 12 kingdom of heaven parables gives us the characteristics of the age from the beginning of a growing season to the harvest time. Jesus Christ came as the prophet that was typified in the OT by Moses. The church is being formed during this time he called the mystery of the kingdom of heaven. We are living in it now. It is one age of many. It has it's beginning and fullness in it and it is predominately a gentile church that is being formed with a Jewish foundation. There are elements of mystery to the church, like for instance, gentiles being included in it which is called in Ephesians, the mystery of Christ. Do you want an OT type from many that are given in the OT. Look at the Jewish annual feast of firstfruits. This age is the dispensation of the grace of God, see Ep 3, It has a beginning and it has an end. It is the age of grace because he is not imputing sins while men are living. Jesus Christ took away sin by enduring it's punishment, which is death. But he rose again.

How would you summarize the key point of this whole paragraph of yours in a line or two as pertaining to our discussion? I read the key point being I should have phrased it the "kingdom of heaven in a mystery form" instead of "church age of mystery" and all the rest is an expounding of its characteristics with supporting interpretations. I am not oversimplifying it, merely trying to extract the key points for the purposes of the discussion - which becomes very hard to do when you present a lot of information without setting the intent of what conclusions you're driving towards.

Please, ivdavid, The Acts records the history of what happened after Jesus rose from the dead.This was a transition time for Israel when the Jewish law no longer was to be observed because it had lost its authority as an operative principle of divine dealing with Israel. The Spirit of Christ, who had been promised to Israel, to rule them from within (see Jer 31:31 and following) as individuals and a collective one, was rejected and the rulers became the antagonists of the Christian preachers and opposed them and killed them. This did not happen in days, it happened in years and was strictly Jewish. It was about 7 years until the bloody showdown with Stephan. Two things happened at this time, God went outside the Jewish boundaries with the gospel into Samaria and he sent Phillip to rescue a Hamite from Ethiopia. Second, he saved Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus and began preparing him for a ministry to gentiles. Thirdly, in the process of time, about 3 years,he sent Peter with the "keys" he had given him in Matt 16, and the ones he had used in Acts 2 to open the door of faith to Israel, and he opened the door of faith and opportunity to the gentiles in Acts 10. I am not guessing about this because it is clearly recorded in holy writ. It is in Acts 15 where it is stated.

First, by Paul in Acts 14;

27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Then Peter in Acts 15;

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

This is a reference to events of Acts 10.

Again, how would you summarize all of the above in a line or two? What conclusions are you drawing out of all this that you believe I have contradicted or disagreed with?
I am reading the key points being - After Israel's rejection, God is saving Gentiles apart from the law, through the Gospel of faith, by giving them the Holy Spirit, which Peter and Paul testify as happening. What else are you wishing to convey as points?

What I said about Acts 15:is a quote by James in the same meeting of the apostles concerning what part of the law of Moses the gentile converts are liable to observe. James says the same thing that is said in Rom 11. The gentiles are included for a purpose and to a point of time and.....

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The residue are the ones who are left.

Your statement that I have bolded above in blue is a conclusion of yours from this text that makes absolutely no sense in the context. I can't figure out why you would say such a thing.

I thought I'd explained my reasons well enough in that very post. But given what you've written here, I would first wish to clarify, before responding with any new arguments, what you meant by "a quote by James".
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

I'm referring to just the above verses - Did you mean "a quote by James" to be you quoting James' words spoken in that council or did you mean these to be James quoting someone else's words? I have drawn my entire interpretation based on the latter - do you disagree with that?

I think I have been clear on what I have said. I don't know how I can say one thing and you read something else. You need to reference quotes that you are replying to.

This wasn't me questioning your interpretation right there - that was me explaining my interpretation.

 

[ivdavid]

I once asked a Reformed evangelist if there was any scenario where a sinner who was not previously chosen to be saved could be saved or if a sinner who had not been chosen could be saved. He said no on both questions.

(Is there a distinction between the two questions - they look the same to me.)
I consider myself somewhat a reformed evangelist (I do not agree with the reformed doctrine of predestined reprobation/condemnation) and I would ask you to make your question less ambiguous - are you posing this as a hypothetical question as to what God has designed or are you posing this as a question on reality as to what would actually happen in the end?
To the former, I answer, yes - there is a scenario in which the sinner who was not chosen can be saved and that is in him believing in Christ alone and enduring in such faith to the end. To the latter, I answer, no - in reality, none who are not chosen will themselves choose to continue in the faith to the end, if having begun in the first place.

If I asked you, ivdavid, how you know God chose you for salvation, you would no doubt point to your own experience. I would have to believe you about it instead of anything God ever said.

Interesting assumption. I suppose the doctrine of election is misunderstood even more than commonly thought. To your question, I answer, I do not know with certainty into the future as to whether I will continue believing I'm elect or assuredly saved. But in this very moment, I know with certainty what God has spoken in Holy Scriptures and I believe His promises to work out righteousness in me apart from my own works of self/flesh if I call on Him and I see it evidenced with an increasing conviction of my own sin pruning away into an increasing inclination and affinity to holiness, patience, compassion and love whereby I am convinced that as of this moment I am elect and saved predicated on the only basis that whoever puts his faith in Him shall not be ashamed but receive the sure mercies of David unto walking in foreordained good works.

However, if you ask me now whether I'd be equally certain say five years from now, I'd ask you to come back and ask me five years later - and if I have still more increased in these evidences of God working in me and if I have continued stronger in the faith, then my answer then will again be a certainty of being elect and saved. But if I have walked away from the faith then it is proof that I was never elect no matter what my inclinations were along the way. Therefore I run with certainty lest I be a castaway, yet not I that labor, but the grace of God in me. And when I finish the race, my testimony will be for all to see - if I have kept the faith to the end or not. Biblical assurance of salvation is given to all in each moment predicated on faith alone in Christ alone extending into the future, but never as a future divination itself of your state independent of faith.

I have elaborated my own response, but to summarize the theological conclusions, election is to be studied more to glorify God's plans and His ways rather than to use that as the object of our faith. I see the glory of God in His sovereign election and His power in not losing one of whom He has purposed to save - I do not likewise put my faith in this doctrine of election to be saved myself, but only in Christ who saves. My current hope of certainty for the end is that my knowledge in part shall meet His knowledge in full and I will fulfill His purpose in sovereign election by being saved through faith in Christ alone.

And that's why it still makes sense to have reformed evangelists around - for they add to the Gospel of faith, the sovereignty of God - never one to the exclusion of the other.

 

[ivdavid]

You asked me what it s that "triggers" God. You then set up a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy, which is the either or fallacy or otherwise known as the black and white fallacy.

The black and white fallacy is one that omits valid options out of those presented for selection. When you claim I have committed this fallacy, kindly provide the substance of your evidence for the same.

I stated a promise or a gift can be made conditional or unconditional for receipt. Either conditional Or unconditional. Is there any other option I've omitted whereby I'm committing the either-or fallacy or is this what amounts to binary logic?

My position is that regardless of mans God given choice the "triggering" factor for God is His sovereign promise that all who believe He will give the right to become the sons of God.

As @Dave G has already pointed out, this is where you state what amounts to a contradiction in your belief and you somehow expect it to be accepted without objection on a debate forum?

regardless = unconditional.
who do XYZ = conditional.

Your statement amounts to the promise being both conditional and unconditional at the same time - God, the creator of Logic, is not the author of confusion. I could very well be committing logical fallacies - all it takes is for one to point out the exact error. Repeatedly stating that there has been one without backing it up with arguments of evidence would just be a proof by assertion fallacy, wouldn't it?

Dont lump me into a group. My position is based on my study not what a collective group says.

This is a simple misunderstanding. I wasn't referring to a group called 'non-reformed' - I was actually attempting not to assume you to be of any group by generalizing what anyone who was not reformed might end up believing.

Have you not been paying attention? I have given you substance. I have been on this board for years debating reformed folks. Just because johnny come lately comes a long and only sees a few posts doesnt mean you know enough about me to make such statements.

No need to be defensive. I do not know you and that's the whole point. I am not discussing you-the-person, just your points and beliefs here. It doesn't matter if you've been on this board for years or if you hold multiple doctorates. It's what you've stated here that is being discussed. You made claims on this thread and I am asking for evidence to back those claims - where is the either-or fallacy in conditional or unconditional promises/gifts and how do you explain the logical contradiction in your own statement. You responding to these would be the substance. Your mentioning the years of debating and your being unable to tolerate such 'miserable' arguments has nothing to add to the conclusions we are discussing here - sticking to points avoids ad-hominem attacks and that's all I'm going for.

Further, who in scripture makes that argument?

Paul, when he says that the children of promise are chosen unconditionally - that's where he makes the argument for God's promise being unconditional as opposed to it being conditional.

 

[ivdavid]

The "trigger" for God to answer prayer is his promise to do so.

Conditioned on you asking, and asking according to His will. Do you read James 4:2-3 differently?