Anyone can copy and paste
And folks, note the material false statements in post #40 -
Did I say or suggest our faith is a "conditional trigger that forces God's choice?" Nope, I said the opposite, Romans 9:16.
Is the "election" of Romans 9:11 for salvation? Nope so just another false claim.
Did I say or suggest God looked ahead and foresaw Jacob's faith? Nope, so just another false claim.
Did I say or suggest the lost can "independently generate spiritual belief to get it credited to him." Nope so just another false claim.
I could go on but to no avail, as this poster is allowed to post misrepresentations non-stop.
"Van,
We have been debating this for years, so let’s stop playing semantic hide-and-seek. You can claim you never used the exact phrase 'independently generate spiritual belief,' but that is the inescapable engine of your entire theology. Let's look at what you actually defend:
1. The Synergistic Trap
You consistently argue that God elects a group defined by
credited belief. If God's choice is contingent upon a person possessing faith, then that faith is a condition. Even if you argue that the Holy Spirit "assists" or "enables" the sinner, the ultimate, deciding factor—the reason one person is elected and another is damned—rests entirely on whether the individual chooses to exert that faith. That is conditionalism, plain and simple.
2. The Denial Dilemma
In your response, you explicitly denied saying that the lost can independently generate spiritual belief. Excellent. If a sinner dead in sins (Ephesians 2:1) has
zero independent capacity to produce faith, then you have only two logical choices:
- Option A: God must first sovereignly quicken the dead soul and give it life (Phase III - Monergistic Regeneration) before they can believe (Phase IV - Conversion).
- Option B: The dead sinner must somehow generate that belief from a carnal mind that is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7-8).
If you choose Option A, you are a monergist and election is unconditional. If you reject Option A, you are forced right back into Option B—forcing the dead sinner to generate the decisive belief to trigger his own salvation. You cannot deny the mechanics of your own system just because you don't like the terms used to describe it.
3. The Romans 9:16 Reality Check
You brought up Romans 9:16 (
'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy') to claim you don't believe in a conditional trigger. But if election is based on credited belief, then election
is ultimately of him that willeth and him that runneth. You are trying to use a verse that completely flatlines human willpower to protect a system that is entirely dependent on human willpower.
4. The Romans 9:11 Escape Hatch
Claiming the election of Jacob over Esau is
'not for salvation' is a standard conditionalist deflection. Paul frames this entire chapter around a single, massive question in verse 6:
Has the promise of God failed regarding the salvation of true Israel? His answer is an absolute
no, because the promise is anchored in sovereign, unconditional election. To reduce 'vessels of mercy prepared unto glory' (v. 23) to mere temporal or national privileges is an exegetical absurdity.
The Bottom Line:
Van, you cannot hold the premise that faith is the basis of election without owning the logical conclusions. If election requires faith, it is conditional, it requires divine foresight, and it makes man the final arbiter of his destiny. Own your theology, or abandon it."
