Response-able??

[quantumfaith]

When you claim the ability is within man you do just that. The regenerate only believe by the power of God, not by some 'inherent faith' via your gospel.

That said we still see the errors that Arminius and his followers have brought to this world via the lie of free will and inherent ability, or 'faith' thus we have many dissident sects today.

Then we also have the fact that Arminius and his followers have turned the gift of eternal life into reward given only when man exercises said ability, as life is not given until he does so.

No "WE" don't.

 

[Skandelon]

No "WE" don't.

Don't bother...he likes kicking his stawman, its best just to leave him be.

 

[The Biblicist]

No "WE" don't.

Technically speaking you most certainly DO. Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit and His power to save are necessarily OPTIONAL rather IRRESISTABLE and technically speaking YOUR will power is what activates/engages that option to be INITIATED, activated, without which it is still being resistant and thus ineffectual??????? Now, it is either ULTIMATELY contingent upon YOUR will or God's will - which is it? Which is the cause and which is the effect? Both cannot be the cause.

 

[preacher4truth]

Don't bother...he likes kicking his stawman, its best just to leave him be.

Actually what I've stated is spot on and describes what you don't want to face concerning arminian theology.

You do not fully comprehend 'not of yourselves' and your view of faith is what I've shown: in your message you make mans faith the cause of salvation, or 'the clincher' when in fact faith is evidence of salvation and is no where near the cause. Now, go prove that it is different, that you don't see it as the cause or 'the clincher'. Everyone knows that in arminian theology this is exactly what is taught, and it is erroneous.

 

[quantumfaith]

Technically speaking you most certainly DO. Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit and His power to save are necessarily OPTIONAL rather IRRESISTABLE and technically speaking YOUR will power is what activates/engages that option to be INITIATED, activated, without which it is still being resistant and thus ineffectual??????? Now, it is either ULTIMATELY contingent upon YOUR will or God's will - which is it? Which is the cause and which is the effect? Both cannot be the cause.

Unlike, SKAN, who I have the utmost respect for. I freely admit to being a synergist and have said so numerous times. I accept SKAN's reasons against such a position.

 

[Protestant]

Response-able or Skandelous?

Don't bother...he likes kicking his stawman, its best just to leave him be.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this recent post of yours 'be.'

So, if you punished your son for lying to you by locking him in his room, then you called out to him through the door saying "you can come out and be reconciled," but the door is too thick for the child to hear you and the door remains locked so that even if he did hear you he wouldn't be able to exit. Do you honestly think it would be perfectly reasonable to go beat the child for his "unwillingness" to come out of the room when you called him to be reconciled?

This is yet another extra-biblical parable invented by a member (who claims no allegiance to Arminius nor Pelagius) to disprove eternal Bible truth.

Let us now examine this illustration by re-writing it in light of God’s revealed Word.

An angry unregenerate belligerent son slams the door to his room and locks it. He does not like his father’s reprimand for his bad behavior and will have nothing further to do with him.

The father sends Jesus to the boy’s door.

Jesus knocks saying, “Son, your father sent me to make peace between you two. I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

“I will never believe it,” says the boy. “You are a fraud and a false prophet.”

Jesus answers, “Come, my son, open the door. My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

A few moments later, the boy unlocks his door, points his .44 magnum at Jesus and shoots.

The boy then calmly steps over Jesus’ dead body as he goes to the fridge to make himself a snack.

In like manner God the Father sent His Son, Jesus, to Israel.

But Jesus did not knock.

He actually entered the Temple and taught where all could see and hear.

The only ‘door’ which separated Jesus from the people was the sin in their hearts.

Jesus did not prevent them from believing and coming to Him. They had ample opportunity.

Instead, they freely, voluntarily, and willfully chose to kill Him.

Once Jesus was dead, it was back to business as usual.

When one examines the biblical record of Jesus’ ministry it is quite obvious the guilty party was not the Lord.

Yet our non-Arminian board member would have the Lord the One at fault for the son’s intolerant, stubborn, sinful unbelief.

I ask the unbiased reader, Is his conclusion ‘response-able’ or 'Skandelous'?

 

[quantumfaith]

I'm sorry, but I can't let this recent post of yours 'be.'



This is yet another extra-biblical parable invented by a member (who claims no allegiance to Arminius nor Pelagius) to disprove eternal Bible truth.

Let us now examine this illustration by re-writing it in light of God’s revealed Word.

An angry unregenerate belligerent son slams the door to his room and locks it. He does not like his father’s reprimand for his bad behavior and will have nothing further to do with him.

The father sends Jesus to the boy’s door.

Jesus knocks saying, “Son, your father sent me to make peace between you two. I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

“I will never believe it,” says the boy. “You are a fraud and a false prophet.”

Jesus answers, “Come, my son, open the door. My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

A few moments later, the boy unlocks his door, points his .44 magnum at Jesus and shoots.

The boy then calmly steps over Jesus’ dead body as he goes to the fridge to make himself a snack.

In like manner God the Father sent His Son, Jesus, to Israel.

But Jesus did not knock.

He actually entered the Temple and taught where all could see and hear.

The only ‘door’ which separated Jesus from the people was the sin in their hearts.

Jesus did not prevent them from believing and coming to Him. They had ample opportunity.

Instead, they freely, voluntarily, and willfully chose to kill Him.

Once Jesus was dead, it was back to business as usual.

When one examines the biblical record of Jesus’ ministry it is quite obvious the guilty party was not the Lord.

Yet our non-Arminian board member would have the Lord the One at fault for the son’s intolerant, stubborn, sinful unbelief.

I ask the unbiased reader, Is his conclusion ‘response-able’ or 'Skandelous'?

A biased commentator asking for an unbiased conclusion on a board of polarized biased individuals. Really?

 

[Skandelon]

I think your reply of reworking the analogy to better fit your perspective is an appropriate response. The parts belittling the use of analogies...not so much.

An angry unregenerate belligerent son slams the door to his room and locks it.

I would challenge this aspect of your analogy, because while Adam/Eve may have decide to disobey they did not decide what the punishment would be. God had to be the one who decided that the proper punishment for disobedience is disabling the agent's ability to respond even to Himself. There is no two ways about that, unless you admit that is the one thing in the universe that God wasn't sovereign over.

Even non-Calvinists acknowledge that is was God who bound all men over to disobedience (original sin)...but we also acknowledge that he actually shows mercy to all men, as Paul clearly states in Romans 11:32.

Jesus knocks saying, “Son, your father sent me to make peace between you two. I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

“I will never believe it,” says the boy. “You are a fraud and a false prophet.” Jesus answers, “Come, my son, open the door. My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

A few moments later, the boy unlocks his door, points his .44 magnum at Jesus and shoots.

Sounds like the response of the hardened Jews during the time of Christ...the ones who crucified him.

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him." John 1:11

So, is that really the conditioned response of all men from birth? Or just the hardened/calloused/cut off Jews of Christ's day? What does Paul teach about that?

" 'Go to this people [Israel] and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Acts 28​

 

[Skandelon]

Actually what I've stated is spot on and describes what you don't want to face concerning arminian theology.

You do not fully comprehend 'not of yourselves' and your view of faith is what I've shown: in your message you make mans faith the cause of salvation, or 'the clincher' when in fact faith is evidence of salvation and is no where near the cause. Now, go prove that it is different, that you don't see it as the cause or 'the clincher'. Everyone knows that in arminian theology this is exactly what is taught, and it is erroneous.

Wow. You don't even correctly articulate your own position. Even Calvinists (at least the scholarly ones) know that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. What you mean to say is that faith is not the cause for election. Calvinists confirm that faith is a necessary condition for being saved, not elected. There is a difference. How can I expect you to understand my perspective when you haven't even fully come to understand your own?

 

[Skandelon]

Unlike, SKAN, who I have the utmost respect for. I freely admit to being a synergist and have said so numerous times. I accept SKAN's reasons against such a position.

I have no problem admitting being a synergist. It's the accusations of saving ourselves, or do it 'on our own' that baffle me. It's really like there are four different groups.

Extreme divine monergism = God does everything, he even believes a repents for us.

Monergism = God's grace irresistibly changes a man's desire so that he will want to believe and repent (but he still has to believe and repent to be saved, which he will if God has called him)

Synergism = God uses gracious means such as the scripture, gospel proclamation, and the deeds of His Bride, to spread the powerful truth and make the appeal to all people to be reconciled to God through Christ thus enabling them, by that powerful Holy Spirit sent truth, to respond freely.

Human Monergism = God created us but salvation is totally and completely up to humanity without any help from God.

Some here seem to think we are human monergists, as if man is the only actor in the salvation process. Just because we don't believe God's grace is effectually applied (irresistible) doesn't mean we deny the need for God's working!

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow. You don't even correctly articulate your own position. Even Calvinists (at least the scholarly ones) know that faith is a necessary condition for salvation.

Classic skan to add another element to debate that never existed nor was it stated or implied by the opponent. All of us believe faith is necessary, just not the errant faith view that you hold to which makes salvation a reward.

What you mean to say is that faith is not the cause for election.

No, what I meant to say I said. Faith is not the cause of salvation as it is in your gospel. It is the evidence of salvation. Now it is a given it is also not the cause of election, but that is another subject so try to stay on track. But let's be clear about one thing: faith in your fallacious system is the determining factor in election which yet again makes salvation a reward.

Calvinists confirm that faith is a necessary condition for being saved, not elected. There is a difference. How can I expect you to understand my perspective when you haven't even fully come to understand your own?

See above because so do I. You're way off track, but nice attempt to derail what I actually said.

Interesting. Obviously you cannot argue against what was actually stated so you go into diversions.

What is becoming more clear day by day is that you can't see the error in your own message, wherein faith is the cause and 'the clincher' in salvation and election. In our Gospel there is no room for such boasting. Yes, you still don't get 'not of yourselves'.

 

[quantumfaith]

I have no problem admitting being a synergist. It's the accusations of saving ourselves, or do it 'on our own' that baffle me. It's really like there are four different groups.

Extreme divine monergism = God does everything, he even believes a repents for us.

Monergism = God's grace irresistibly changes a man's desire so that he will want to believe and repent (but he still has to believe and repent to be saved, which he will if God has called him)

Synergism = God uses gracious means such as the scripture, gospel proclamation, and the deeds of His Bride, to spread the powerful truth and make the appeal to all people to be reconciled to God through Christ thus enabling them, by that powerful Holy Spirit sent truth, to respond freely.

Human Monergism = God created us but salvation is totally and completely up to humanity without any help from God.

Some here seem to think we are human monergists, as if man is the only actor in the salvation process. Just because we don't believe God's grace is effectually applied (irresistible) doesn't mean we deny the need for God's working!

Thanks for articulating. I am not good with this "theology" stuff. In my mind, even most "calvinists" are synergists too, although they would never accept that. If man does ANYTHING in the process of salvation, then synergists we are.

Romans 10:10

Only "double predestinarians" have ANY claim to being "synergism" free.

 

[quantumfaith]

Skan, in the words of Frank Peretti, "Keep Piercing the Darkness" with your clarity and insight. You contributions are GREATLY appreciated.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no problem admitting being a synergist. It's the accusations of saving ourselves, or do it 'on our own' that baffle me. It's really like there are four different groups.

Extreme divine monergism = God does everything, he even believes a repents for us.

Monergism = God's grace irresistibly changes a man's desire so that he will want to believe and repent (but he still has to believe and repent to be saved, which he will if God has called him)

Synergism = God uses gracious means such as the scripture, gospel proclamation, and the deeds of His Bride, to spread the powerful truth and make the appeal to all people to be reconciled to God through Christ thus enabling them, by that powerful Holy Spirit sent truth, to respond freely.

Human Monergism = God created us but salvation is totally and completely up to humanity without any help from God.

Some here seem to think we are human monergists, as if man is the only actor in the salvation process. Just because we don't believe God's grace is effectually applied (irresistible) doesn't mean we deny the need for God's working!

The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is classical synergism at its best.

 

[Protestant]

I would challenge this aspect of your analogy, because while Adam/Eve may have decide to disobey

‘May’ have decided? Would not ‘willfully chose to disobey the Lord God’ be more appropriate to recorded historical fact?

they did not decide what the punishment would be. God had to be the one who decided that the proper punishment for disobedience is disabling the agent's ability to respond even to Himself. There is no two ways about that, unless you admit that is the one thing in the universe that God wasn't sovereign over.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!​

The sentence of death was clearly declared by the most holy and just Lawgiver and Judge.

The positing of Adam’s guilt to the entire human race is the reason we will all die, for all have sinned in Adam…..even infants. (Still waiting for Winman’s explanation as to why ‘sinless’ infants die.)

Spiritual death resulted in Adam and Eve running and hiding from the true God due to their guilt, fear and shame.

Today many professing ‘Christian’ men find shelter from the true God by worshipping false Christs.

They cover their naked unrighteousness by following and believing the fig-leafed traditions of men.

Today there are fewer and fewer congregations in which the true Christ and true way of salvation is preached.

That fact, in my estimation, is a judgment of God upon a sinful, unbelieving religious people.

Recently, one of the greatest false prophets of our generation died.

His Trinity Broadcasting System has ‘dis-abled’ millions of minds and hearts, leading them merrily down the broad road to perdition.

Unless the Holy Spirit supernaturally, sovereignly intervenes, no man would seek the true God, let alone find Him.

“I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’

Even non-Calvinists acknowledge that is was God who bound all men over to disobedience (original sin)...but we also acknowledge that he actually shows mercy to all men, as Paul clearly states in Romans 11:32.

The context is addressing the elect of Israel who will all be saved by grace. None will be saved because of any good thing in them or done by them.

Sounds like the response of the hardened Jews during the time of Christ...the ones who crucified him.

Yes. After the murder of Christ, His Apostles were next, followed by centuries of blood-letting of true Christians by the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Today the hardening takes a different turn.

It's called 'Christian TV.'

So, is that really the conditioned response of all men from birth? Or just the hardened/calloused/cut off Jews of Christ's day? What does Paul teach about that?

Paul teaches we were all by nature -- born of flesh -- children of wrath.

All deserve God's wrath and eternal punishment, but out of mercy and compassion picks a few brands out of the fire.

To Him be the glory forever. Amen?

 

[Skandelon]

The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is classical synergism at its best.

And the Hyper-Calvinists doctrine of soteriology is classical monergism at its worst.

What's your point...that any common beliefs with anyone of a differing opinion must invalidate that belief? This fallacy is called 'guilt by association.'

 

[Skandelon]

‘May’ have decided? Would not ‘willfully chose to disobey the Lord God’ be more appropriate to recorded historical fact?

I think you nitpicked my 'may' in that sentence, I was agreeing with your assessment of their choice to sin, not their choice as to the extent of the consequences imposed for that sin.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!​

It's fine to appeal to mystery, but your system doesn't do that...at least it wasn't earlier when you said that it was Adam who 'closed and locked the door.' And others have argued that God somehow didn't make the decision to bind all men over to total depravity but that it was just a 'natural' thing that happens when someone sins...as if that resolves the issue.

The sentence of death was clearly declared by the most holy and just Lawgiver and Judge.

Right, so HE shut the sound proofed locked door to the child bedroom and THEN called out to the child from the other side and THEN punished the child for not responding.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, in the words of Frank Peretti, "Keep Piercing the Darkness" with your clarity and insight. You contributions are GREATLY appreciated.

You are too kind.

 

[Skandelon]

Classic skan to add another element to debate that never existed

The fact that you think this element of our discussion is 'new' only further reveals what is blatantly obvious to those reading along.

Faith is not the cause of salvation as it is in your gospel.

1. That isn't all you said, you also wrote, "..when in fact faith is evidence of salvation," but Calvinistic scholars teach faith is evidence of being elected and effectually called...not saved.

2. That isn't what 'our gospel' teaches either. Grace is the cause of salvation. Look at it this way. When the prodigal son returned home to beg for a job, was that the cause of his father's love, forgiveness and restoration as a son and heir? Of course not. That response of the father was completely of GRACE and nothing the son did earned that response. His return home was necessary to experience that grace and acceptance but it wasn't the cause of it. The son deserved to be punished upon his return, not received and forgiven. That response was ALL OF GRACE.

What is becoming more clear day by day is that you can't see the error in your own message

I'll allow the objective observers judge for themselves who can or can't see the errors in their own message...

 

[The Biblicist]

And the Hyper-Calvinists doctrine of soteriology is classical monergism at its worst.

What's your point...that any common beliefs with anyone of a differing opinion must invalidate that belief? This fallacy is called 'guilt by association.'

My point is that the only way you have been able to deal with sound exegetcial based exposition of Scripture that thoroughly repudiates your belief system is by unbiblical philsophical rationalizations and unbiblical made up illustrations. That is the essence of your defense.

Furthermore, the gospel is the power "OF GOD" not the power of the preacher or any man. God uses instrumental means to present the gospel to the mind of men but it stops right there. Salvation is wholly of God without instrumental means but is direct and immediate within the sphere that no man can operate in - the heart.

"This IS eternal life that they might know the only true God." ("they" refers grammatically to those "given" in verse 2). Hence, knowledge of God through Jesus Christ IS eternal life. This corresponds perfectly with Paul's description of the lost state:

Eph. 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

However, this alienation from the life of God (spiritual death) is not remedied by any man or any instrumentality of men but is the immediate and direct creative work of God in the heart:

"Blessed art thou Simon bar jonah for FLESH AND BLOOD HATH NOT revealed this unto thee BUT MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN" - Mt. 16:17

This "knowledge" which is eternal life is not gained through study, intellectual reasoning or rationalization by men or through men but is a direct revelation of God in the the heart where the "substance" of faith is created:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ....the power may be of God and not of us

There was NO INSTRUMENTALITY in Genesis 1:2-3 when light was created. God directly and immediately spoke it into existence. Likewise, the revelation of the gospel is immediately and directly spoken into existence within the heart of the elect as it does not come in "word only but IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT and IN MUCH ASSURANCE" - 1 Thes. 1:4-5. It comes this way when God IS PLEASED to speak it into existence:

Gal. 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Paul was not instrumentally involved in his first birth and his parents supplied the sperm and egg but many couples supply such and yet cannot have a baby because physical life comes immediate and direct by God "when it pleased Him.' Likewise, the second birth when God reveals "his Son" in the elect. Saul of Tarsus was not looking for salvation on the road to demascus but looking to persecute and kill Christians and Christ "when" God revealed His Son in Saul, only Saul, among all who were with him.

One may instruct the mind and study the Bible until they are Bible scholars like Nicodemus and Saul but be completely without INTERNAL REVELATION that removes the ignorance which is in them or darkness of their understanding but in a moment and in a twinkling of an eye God can REVEAL by a direct act of creation in the heart the "substance" of which gives the only hope of salvation - the promise of the gospel - and faith is created because faith is the work of God, He is its author and its finisher, it is a gift of God, and it is by grace, and the fruit of the Spirit and not of yourself.

Your unbiblical philsophicalizations, your unbiblical illustrations and rationalizations will never ever make the Word of God say anthing different than what it clearly states and which exegetical based exposition clearly proves.