seekingthetruth
New Member
Sorry if I worded that badly, I tried to clarify but obviously failed, the Arminian position (one of them) is that God Elects those who he knows will trust IN HIM. It is not God trusting them, or finding something trustworthy in them so he saves them. Both of these could theoretically be called CONDITIONAL ELECTION:
-One, in which God "has faith in one person" and so elects them. (nobody believes this)
-two, in which God sees a person's faith IN HIM, and so elects them. (Arm.)
***However, you are correct that I needlessly muddied the waters on that one.
I was trying to point out that NEITHER the Arminian nor the Calvinist believes that God saves us because of HIS faith in us.
OK, I am neither Cal nor Arminian and maybe that is why I dont understand either position.
You keep using the term "elect" which is probably my biggest misunderstanding of both Cal/Arm positions. i believe the elect are nothing more than the body of Christ. Not specifically chosen, but rewarded with mercy and Grace for exercising their God given faith.
But if we say that we are incapable of faith, then the faith has to come from somewhere??? It has to come from God. So far, I am with you. But??? If God only gives this faith to some and withholds it from others, doesnt that mean that He has more faith in one person than another?
I believe that God gives us all a measure of faith at birth and that it is up to us to use it. When we use it, the HS grows it.
But if we are born with zero capability of having faith in God, then isnt any faith that God gives us His to begin with? Which boils down to God's favotites. Why in turn means the ones He has faith in. It's God's faith before He gives it to us, so if we believe the Cal position of election, then our salvation is based on God's faith in us since we cannot have faith in Him.
John