The Elect, Need a clear definition of....

Actually he finally admitted that it was by the merit of their choice.

Not a scripturally correct answer but at least an intellectually honest one. </font>[/QUOTE]I left the thread for awhile so I missed that post. Do you know what "merit of their choice" means? I don't. Does it mean some people are "gooder" than others, or does it mean some people are "smarter" than others, or does it mean the "Holy Spirit works harder" on some people than He does on others, or something else? </font>[/QUOTE]NOT MY TERMINOLOGY! it is Scott J's terminology and his definitions! </font>[/QUOTE]No, Wes. You said that it was by a person's merit.

 

If faith is meritorious then it is a work. If man does something to merit salvation then Salvation is no longer by Grace. The Apostle Paul addresses this problem in the following Scripture.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

So, Wes, Outwest it appears that you are arguing Salvation by works. But of course that has been evident all along.

 

Hi Scott, it has been a while. I use to go by Faith, Fact & Feeling, but have had some trouble getting a response from the BB to e-mail me a password (my e-mail address changed so the automated function doesn’t help), so for now I’m Fact, Faith and Feeling. Not much difference I guess. I’m not sure Wes answered your question, but I will take a shot at it.

But of course it is not, so the whole premise of your contention is based on a fallacious argument of presupposition. Man’s choice is not independent, nor is it the first act resulting in salvation. If your premise is false, so is your conclusion. Man’s choice is never independent. The first act of God that enables salvation is God giving man a sentient responsive consciousness like Him. The second is the proof of His existence in His glorious creation and inspired and preserved Word. The third is the measure of faith given all men by which they can believe (Romans 12:3). The fourth act is His providing a means of salvation available to all men (John 1:7). The fifth is also of God through His persistent drawing all men to Him (John 12:32). The sixth and final act is man choosing to exercise this faith he has been given by God, trust in the overly abundant proofs of God’s existence and personal love for him he has been given, and give-in to God’s drawing and receive Christ as his Savior. Is this not what you preach? So you see, there are many acts that precede man’s choice, and all have great interdependent bearing on his choice, and the later judgment thereof.

Salvation a good choice……no doubt.

Simple, it is not meritorious to use your hands to hold on to someone saving you from drowning. It is meritorious for the one who saves you though. Someone who saves another is “recognized” in a “meritorious” way for their “work” or “action” by being designated a hero. When was the last time you heard of someone saved from drowning proclaimed meritoriously to be a hero?

Does choosing good or bad save you Scott? This is another error in you logic. We choose a person, not whether to be “good” or “bad.” The person Jesus grants us a new birth when we choose Him and He is the one that helps us in this life and gives us the blessed hope of life eternal. If we were choosing to be good instead of evil, and trust in this as saving righteousness, then you would be correct, it would be a meritorious system of works that does not save, but that is not the case with me anyway.

As stated above, I do not believe we can choose to be good or bad in a meritorious sense. This would be works salvation and I do not subscribe to that. But I am curious, what do you mean by “choose correctly?” Are you assuming there is a “correct” choice? In reference to Jesus, I am assuming the ones that love Him choose Him, and the ones that do not…..do not. Both have chosen correctly. Do you see this differently?

If you are referring to choosing Jesus as your personal Savior, the credit goes to God, He earned it. He is the one who bent over backwards to make it happen. He is the one that gave you everything imaginable to make it easy for you. That is the basis for God’s righteous judgment of the unsaved lost, that he made it easy beyond belief to love Him, not that they failed to earn righteous merit through choice. He gave us every necessary help through His abundant revelation in His Word and in nature that He exists and truly loves us. Those that do not choose Jesus do so because they do not love Him. Clearly, how shall we escape God’s judgment if we neglect so great a salvation (Hebrews 2:3)?

Of course I can’t speak for Wes, but I certainly believe in eternal security. Those who by their own free will exercise the measure of faith they have been given and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior are saved eternally (John 3:16).

God does work intimately with folks to get them to trust in Him. He has given them the capability to choose to love Him (or not), and that alone is miraculous. God does draw all men to Him, and that is supernatural. But God does not regenerate people before they trust in Him. Trusting in Him is up to you. God will not force you to love Him, but in the final analysis, that is not love anyway.

 

Babble on... it is entertaining watching you completely contradict, indict, and convict yourself with so few words.

Your last statement is exactly what I was referring to. If it is "man's" faith as in coming out of him as you have insisted then it is man's merit.

 

Hey FFF. How've you been?

But of course it is not, so the whole premise of your contention is based on a fallacious argument of presupposition.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. And nothing you followed with proves it so. That said, you should probably go back and read more of Wes' posts before jumping to his defense.

That still leaves you in exactly the same place you started. If man has the innate (within his unregenerate nature) ability to respond positively or negatively then you cannot deny that a positive choice warrants merit while a negative choice warrants punishment. I think we would both agree to the latter btw.

Wasn't sure exactly what you meant by your second point.

Read Romans 12:3 in context. It relates to believers, not all humanity (every man that is among you).

But those who take advantage of that means of salvation received power from God and were born of the will of God. (John 1:12-13)

Unless you are proposing universalism or open theism, your position answers this question no better than mine. I would say that there is a difference between the general call of the gospel and the effectual call.

You would have to answer what I believe to be a more difficult question: Why do some believe while others don't if all are drawn equally? The answer must attribute some form of merit to the man who chooses well.

Is that choice good? Where does it come from? Why do others choose badly? Where does their choice come from?

Pretty much except that I acknowledge that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit... therefore the prime cause of salvation must be the Holy Spirit's regeneration of an individual, changing their nature and making it "natural" for them to believe.

As I have stated to others here, I don't think this is properly a chronological relationship as much as a cause/effect relationship.

The direct question to you is "What is the prime cause for belief or disbelief?"

That raises a whole list of questions about the arminian/non-calvinist belief. For instance: Why do some choose faith while others don't? Who is in control of all these acts? If it is God and He indeed knows the outcome, why do you protest when calvinists proclaim this truth?

Continued....

 

Salvation a good choice……no doubt.

Simple, it is not meritorious to use your hands to hold on to someone saving you from drowning.</font>[/QUOTE] Those two answers contradict one another.

But to your point, it is partially your merit if you use your hands to hold on. You contributed to the salvation. You made a good choice in a situation where you might have been confused and clung to something else instead... or believed that your swimming ability would save you.

Yes... if you had stopped breathing, could offer no assistance to helping yourself, were pulled out of the water, and given mouth-to-mouth... then it would be completely and totally the merit of the lifesaver.

I have heard rescue people give credit to victims who held on... recognizing that they would not have been able to save them otherwise. Merit- shared.

Does choosing good or bad save you Scott? This is another error in you logic.</font>[/QUOTE] No. That is precisely what I am arguing against.

You choose a person (good choice) or deny Him (bad choice).... thus the choice warrant merit under the arminian/non-calvinist model.

You just denied any sense to the analogy of new birth. Are children born because they choose to have parents or are children born because parents choose to engage in an act that results in conception?

We are born of the Spirit by the will of God... not man.

I don't think that you are seeing the inconsistency in your thought. If you "choose" to have faith (good) while someone else chooses not to have faith (bad) then it was a decision, an act, by you that initiated and empowered God to save you. That is a description of a meritorious decision/act.

Love is a choice. Not to love is a choice. If it is not then the love comes from somewhere. Where do you say it comes from?

Of course I can’t speak for Wes, but I certainly believe in eternal security.</font>[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly he doesn't but maybe he should respond.

I agree ... and those who so choose were born of the Spirit (John 3:3-9) so that they were able to "see" the kingdom of God.

Then it is a choice... and that choice ultimately meritorious since it is not "forced".

Does the fact that you were "forced" to be conceived and born mean that your parents didn't love you?

BTW, I don't believe it is force. Man's sin causes him to be "dead" in sin. This nature/state dictates a man's choices. God's gracious quickening of men's spirits results in a new nature that freely expresses saving faith.

 

Perhaps a more accurate way of looking at the "force" issue is that man's 'dead in sin' nature FORCES him to be God's enemy while God's gracious act of regeneration FREES him to be reconciled to God as a child.

 

Really good. I have a growing ministry in creation science, and I answer many of our church’s website questions. You can check us out at www.learnthebible.org. The creation science section is mine, plus I have about seven articles on the front page.

Not really defending Wes, so don’t take it like that. I do believe Wes has a point that he is not expressing well.

Positive? Negative? Are we back to good and bad meritorious choices again? I think I made it clear as to why I reject your notion of choice as being an earned merit akin to works.

I agree you can interpret it your way, but that does not exclude the plain reading of the text. It also speaks to a fundamentally God given capability we have, the ability to believe and put our trust or faith in something. All men do have faith, just not necessarily in Jesus.

The context of John 1:12-13 has trusting Jesus set before the new birth.

Not proposing those, just pointing out the plain fact that salvation is offered to all.

Are you implying the general call does not have the capability to be effectual for all? A general call that is not capable of being effectual is not a general call at all, but rather a limited one. An offer to someone that cannot be accepted is not an offer to that person.

Choice does not equal merit, just preference.

I believe you are still clinging to flawed logic Scott. I personally prefer choosing Jesus, but for someone that does not love Him, that may not be their preference.

So “things” here represent a list including trusting in Jesus? So you read this verse to mean (at least in one sense):

(1 Cor 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the salvation of the Spirit of God of his own will: for trusting Jesus is foolishness unto him until he is regenerated:

You mentioned context earlier, is not the context of this wisdom among believers?

Can an effect occur before a cause? Please give examples.

Those who do not place their trust or confidence in Jesus do not love Him. God has already demonstrated He loves everyone, and given us the capability to choose to love Him, all that is left is for us to choose. Since even this ability to choose is a gift of God, it is not a meritorious act. By divine decree, before the foundation of the world, God’s will is that all who believe on Him (choose to love and trust Him) will have eternal life with Him.

Yes, it can be quite involved.

Choose faith? If you mean why do some love God and some do not, the answer is their hearts. I don’t believe God gave some people hearts that cannot love Him.

God is in control. Even our ability to make decisions and choose is provided for by God. Man could not choose without God giving him the ability, and defining the possible choices.

Knowing the outcome and causing the outcome are two different things. God certainly knew who would not choose to love Him before the beginning of creation. I do not contest this, for it is evident from scripture, and logical based on the notion of omniscience.

Continued…..

[ June 09, 2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Fact, Faith & Feeling ]

 

Only within the fallacious logic of Calvinism.

In the scriptural sense all men are given this ability. It is a gift of God, not something to boast of.

Unmeritoriously through the God given ability of choice.

Not good in the sense of earned merit, but certainly good in the sense of preferably from our perspectives.

My analogy was a drowning man, not a man that had already drowned. Of course your new analogy breaks down if the man had been dead for days in the sense that a lifeguard could not resuscitate him.

So you have an example of one of these being honored as a hero? Even if you do I think my point is clear and valid.

No. That is precisely the flaw in your logic. Choosing to love God is not in any way meritorious in the since of earning.

Again, this notion of good as you are using it is a preferential model you are working in. Choosing to love someone who has poured out love on you all the days of your existence does not constitute merit.

Only in the twisted Calvinistic sense.

That is why the scripture uses the term born again. We do not need to reenter our mothers womb. You already exist as a person, with an eternal soul and all, before the new birth. The new birth is a supernatural work of God where the earnest of the spirit is implanted into you and you receive the imputed righteousness of God almighty, but you do not come into existence again. The scripture does not equate the natural birth and new birth as an exact analogy. Just like your twisting of my analogy above, so now you twist the one in scripture.

Two of my three children started that way. On second thought, maybe it was all three.

Right. No bone to pick here. The new birth is provided for and implanted completely by God. Even the conditions He set forth must be strictly met. Salvation is all of God.

Again, you are assigning merit to choice to eliminate choice by making it a work. It should be evident to others by now the error in your reasoning and that your intent is to make scripture fit Calvinism.

Agreed.

It is a choice and it comes from where the Bible says it comes from, the heart.

But the issue at hand is when did they choose, or logically, in what order did they choose. Biblically, choice comes before the new birth. From what I can tell, you do not believe this.

Yes sir, it is a choice. No, it is not meritorious.

Now you are forcing a false analogy.

So the biblical use of the word “dead” always means inability as you infer here? Also, if choices are dictated by something outside one’s control, then by definition it must be force.

Dictate: a : to issue as an order b : to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively c : to require or determine necessarily Merriam Webster Online

And of course Romans 6 states that the saved are dead to sin. But of course we can still choose to sin. Death here is figurative in the since that we are no longer under sin’s condemnation. But of course you know this. Sinners are dead in trespasses and sin in the sense that they are under the condemnation of sin, not in the sense that they are unable to respond to the gospel. Sinners can decide to love God. His granting of the new birth is conditioned upon this.

[ June 09, 2005, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Fact, Faith & Feeling ]

 

Really good. I have a growing ministry in creation science, and I answer many of our church’s website questions. You can check us out at www.learnthebible.org. The creation science section is mine, plus I have about seven articles on the front page.</font>[/QUOTE] Not that it belongs here but there have been a couple of nasty evolution threads up in the Baptists areas since you've been gone.

I will PM an idea to you that occurred to me and see if you think it holds water at all.

 

Hey Wes. Although I like Scott and I do not want to offend him, he has wrongly associated merit, in the sense of earning something, with choice. He has done this because he is trying to fully reconcile the issue of faith and belief, and one choosing to love God, with Calvinism. To do this all of man’s will, including that provided him by God for the express purpose of choosing to love Him or not, must be done away with theologically. Of course for God to really be not willing that any should perish, He must, as an express part of His divine will, provide man with the capacity to choose. Notice that even our ability to choose is of the will of God, so all things are according to His will, just as scripture soundly proclaims.

You have rightly pointed out that meritorious choices do possess the definitional component of perspective. With that said, you have been a little sloppy in your use of this word merit yourself, and did not make it clear, I think, that some choices are devoid of earned merit. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I do think you need to recognize that. The word merit does carry a pretty strong connotation of earning something. In your above example the winner of the NBA finals will earn the merit due champions, whether you provide them that recognition or not. Now you may not find it meritorious, as you have pointed out. So yes, there is a perspective issue. But they did earn it within the framework provided, and I think this is the problem with your argumentation, if I may say so.

Within the biblical framework of salvation the Bible says that we are more than conquerors in Christ Jesus, but the emphasis is on Jesus (Romans 8:37), so all the merit goes to Him. So even though conqueror sounds meritorious, it is not since it is completely attributable to God. So I believe you are on the right track, but you are clinging to this notion of merit a little too closely. You would be better served to divorce yourself of it. Choosing sometimes does include the idea of earned merit, just not always. A good case in point is actually salvation. Jesus chose to save those who return His love. This is meritorious on His part. But our choosing to love Jesus for this and all He has done for us does not earn us any merit, but rather shows our deep appreciation for the infinite merit He possesses. We could hardly consider our choice as worthy of some sort of special attention or recognition. Choosing Jesus is a heart matter, it depends solely on who you choose to love. There will be no sense of merit among believers in heaven on this matter, just sadness regarding those who chose not to love our Lord.

 

I understand Wes....not trying to give you a hard time or anything. I actually think you have done a real good job posting on this subject overall (I have read many of the threads here recently). Just trying to give you a little constructive feedback. Peace.

 

You said that faith was a result of believing and that believing was a choice- a personal decision that comes from within the person and originates with that person.

My argument with you and apparently with FFF is that if two people are presented with the exact same situation and options and one person chooses a profitable solution while the other chooses an unprofitable solution then the profitable choice is one of merit.

A decision is an action that has consequences.

I hope that one of the two of you will simply cut to the bottom line. If two people are given the same opportunity to choose to believe, why does one believe while the other doesn't?

If it is something that results purely from a decision made by them then that by definition is merit.

FFF, saying that God draws all and some reject the gospel because of their sin then either a) you are just restating calvinism or b) one person gets save because they are fundamentally better than the other one in some basic regard.