What is Election?

[ivdavid]

And worse, cranking them out in far less numbers than he himself says he would like to see made.

Already clarified in post#564.

Robot means man's will is not taken into consideration when God elects them.

By that definition, is every single man "cranked" out as a "natural robot" in the flesh - given that you hold man has no choice in Adam until the "chance" is given?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

By that definition, is every single man "cranked" out as a "natural robot" in the flesh - given that you hold man has no choice in Adam until the "chance" is given?

Yes. But as you say, only until they are given a chance to not be one, by one's own free will.
A will released to choose to not be a slave any longer by the dividing of the flesh mindset from the spirit of a man by the Word of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I was not aware of your position against the doctrine of eternal security.

You have the same position but you don't realize it.

When soil has growth in it, it means it is regenerated soil. Soil # 2 and 3 have that growth in it. But you'll say it's 'fake' growth. But then we are forced to wonder why Jesus is concerned about us choking out fake growth.

And worse than that, you condemn yourself as being unsaved every time you show yourself to have soil #2, or 3 soil. Think about it.

Instead of holding it as a conditional criteria, I would say that the indication/evidence of one truly being "saved" (again, I don't know how you use the term with finality given your position against eternal security) - is that one will be preserved by God unto producing fruits of the kingdom to the end. Doesn't a conditional criteria make it a faith+works salvation instead of a faith alone salvation?

As expected, you are being true to form.

This is what the church has been taught to instantly think when you suggest that the faith that has no works attached is a faith that can not save.

The Bible teaches in more than one place that growth in the soil is indicative of salvation. And the Bible also teaches that the faith that does not have that growth accompanying it can not save--but the church will fight you tooth and nail on that Biblical truth.

You point to God's work-A - and say that's called "inviting". Then you point to what you claim is a totally different God's work-B - and say that's called "regenerating".

What you have to do is explain how it is that a man is regenerated/saved so he can then accept God's forgiveness to be saved. And then you have to explain why some people who are regenerated to hear the word then don't ask for forgiveness and are lost. Then while you're at it you should explain how a person can be regenerated, begin to produce the fruit of the kingdom, but then lose that growth and be condemned to be burned, but still hold a OSAS position.

Don't complicate this. Just explain these. That's what you need to do to prove this doctrine is true.

And as I've kept saying, you do have to be regenerated to be able to believe in the gospel message. No such requirements to hearing it though - even the unregenerate are well able to hear the gospel message.

More confusing contradiction.

I don't know what to do with your doctrine.

You're obviously saying that only those who are regenerated are the one's who then believe. But you resist calling this 'robot making' and that this really involves the will of man somehow. HOW?

You say it is God giving man the will to be regenerated, but any one man choosing or rejecting the giving of that will makes it conditioned on the man, not God, and you insist that would make it a damnable work of man, therefore, it has to be a work of God. Which brings us back to God making robot believers without consideration of man's will and him giving him the will to believe. How is it you can not see how nonsensical this is?

You're trying to preserve conflicting doctrines at the same time. It can't be done. I honestly think if you consider all the avenues of thought the logical course to go is that man has the fundamental potential within his own thoughts and motivations and desires to choose or reject righteousness when God offers the unhindered choice to him. The only hindrance being, if their is one, that the person simply does not love the concept of righteousness and prefers unrighteousness.

 

[ivdavid]

Yes. But as you say, only until they are given a chance to not be one, by one's own free will.
A will released to choose to not be a slave any longer by the dividing of the flesh mindset from the spirit of a man by the Word of God.

If you can accept one being a slave to sin, why do you then begrudge one being a slave to righteousness?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you can accept one being a slave to sin, why do you then begrudge one being a slave to righteousness?

I don't. What I begrudge is the absence of man's freewill in the transition between the two in your doctrine.

I am certain that I said I thought you were using the fact that men were 'robot sin slaves' to somehow justify God making certain elected people 'robot slaves to righteousness' (for all you say that means), but you denied it. But it seems obvious you are relying on that argument, nevertheless.

 

[ivdavid]

I don't. What I begrudge is the absence of man's freewill in the transition between the two in your doctrine.

I am certain that I said I thought you were using the fact that men were 'robot sin slaves' to somehow justify God making certain elected people 'robot slaves to righteousness' (for all you say that means), but you denied it. But it seems obvious you are relying on that argument, nevertheless.

We've gone through this already.

Where you look at all in Adam and say, "they have no choice but to sin" - I say, "they have the choice and they continually choose to sin". Since you have constructed thus, their not having any choice - you infer that none of this can be considered as "human input" - while since I have constructed it as them continually exercising their choice unto sin, I infer that their "human input" has been considered all along. And since you believe God must base His judgement after factoring in human input - you construct a scenario of "freewill" that follows after all these continual sinning - while since I believe God is already factoring in human input, He can simply continue dealing with man, the same way concerning judgement, with no further requirement of new scenarios.

 

[ivdavid]

When soil has growth in it, it means it is regenerated soil.

I hold it true the other way around - When soil is regenerated, there will definitely be growth in it. Specific outward observations are not conclusive, given that there are those with a form of godliness but who are not known by the Lord.

You have the same position but you don't realize it.

Then you have nothing to worry, given we're actually in agreement.

Soil # 2 and 3 have that growth in it. But you'll say it's 'fake' growth. But then we are forced to wonder why Jesus is concerned about us choking out fake growth.

I am not forced to wonder that at all. The parable is observational - Jesus is observing the different responses and their causes to the preaching of the Gospel. Independently, God is concerned about people perishing - specifically here, He's concerned about people who perish because of a lack of true faith that is being evidenced by its dying away amidst the thorns.

And worse than that, you condemn yourself as being unsaved every time you show yourself to have soil #2, or 3 soil. Think about it.

What are you even talking about? My faith in Christ has never been snatched away or withered away or choked away since I was regenerated - which is expressly why I already stated that I don't hold this parable to be focusing on one's sanctification. This is about faith - and Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. He is sufficient and able to make us stand - and none can be snatched from Him. Are we going to debate eternal security now?

What you have to do is explain how it is that a man is regenerated/saved so he can then accept God's forgiveness to be saved.

Multiple posts already on this - the latest being post#679.

And then you have to explain why some people who are regenerated to hear the word then don't ask for forgiveness and are lost.

This is you in post#624 - "I responded to your first post today without reading the next one after it. I see now that you are not saying hearing=regeneration."

Why are you back to setting up false dilemmas? I do NOT hold people to be regenerated "to hear" the word - I hold people to be regenerated "to believe in" the word. Hence, All who are regenerated => repent of sin => believe in Christ => are justified and adopted => are sealed by the Holy Spirit and are declared saved => are preserved through sanctification unto glorification.

Then while you're at it you should explain how a person can be regenerated, begin to produce the fruit of the kingdom, but then lose that growth and be condemned to be burned, but still hold a OSAS position.

I do not see the above scenario occurring at all in my worldview. Either one is regenerate and never falls away or he falls away and shows himself to be unregenerate.

Don't complicate this. Just explain these. That's what you need to do to prove this doctrine is true.

I've not set out to prove anything. I give an explanation of what I believe when others evaluate them.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You're not responding to the very pointed challenges I have leveled against your doctrine. You don't have to, but it's the only way you can effectively defend your doctrine.

Where the does the will to accept the will from God to believe come from, man or God?

Do you understand the question and how it's a necessary question that arises out of your doctrine?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

What is election?
You two are beating each other over the head with this.
How about this;
What is over kill?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

(Look what you started, lol!)

I know when a discussion gets to that point.

That's why I've stopped all that nonsense and am just trying to get him to address the fundamental issue with his doctrine and avoiding the bunny trails:

Where does the will to accept the will from God to believe come from, man or God?

By the way, Allen.....what number soil are you?

 

[ivdavid]

Where the does the will to accept the will from God to believe come from, man or God?

You're asking questions in circles and you consider them pointed - I'm going to try saving more of these repetitive posts by taking the liberty to carry out the discussion on your behalf too. If there's anything specific you'd like to add or edit in the following, I'd consider that as progress in this line of argument - if you find no such new point, we could shift the line of argument to where you could start responding to all my as yet unanswered questions(the term "challenges" seems too heavy) against your position.

You: Where does the will to accept the will from God to believe come from ?
Me: The question makes no sense with these multi-layered will(s). Moreover, God never makes and gives any "will" / "choice" to man (post#632) - it is man himself who is willing/choosing to believe (post#619).

You: How does man then will/choose to believe - what are the factors it is directly dependent on?
Me: A man's desire and choice to obey the Gospel spring forth from his renewed spirit-nature and regenerated new heart - for the unregenerate flesh-nature is corrupt and the old heart is hardened.

You: What are the dependent factors for one to receive this renewed nature and regenerated new heart?
Me: God's mercy alone.

You: Is there no consideration of what man desires/chooses at all?
Me: No consideration at all at this point of God showing mercy(Rom 9:16). All men were however given the option to choose to believe prior to this point of mercy - and all chose against believing (just as they chose to disobey and not be subject to God's Law), which is held accountable against them.

You: If there is no consideration of man's choice at the time of God showing mercy, is He not making spiritual robots?
Me: No - because "robots" do not have a consciousness nor the ability to generate desires and counsel - both of which the spiritual man does have.

You: I hold "robots" to be those who are created without any consideration of their choice.
Me: Then going by that definition, these would be spiritual 'robots'.

You: But where is the concept of freewill between one being a natural robot and a spiritual robot?
Me: I do not find the necessity for such a concept of transition.

You: But that would make God unjust to leave the natural robot in that state itself.
Me: Why so? If God had brought about Judgement Day before the New Testament - He would still be Just (post#390).

You: But these natural robots had no choice in sinning.
Me: I disagree - they always had the choice and they constantly chose to sin.

You: But God turned them over to sin.
Me: God permitting sin to enter the flesh is not the same as God causing sin. While attributing cause, blame injustice on the effect of sin and not God.

You: But that would make God a liar when He says He desires many to be saved.
Me: No - He has simply purposed another greater desire to be fulfilled (post#564). Is God a liar when He says He desires all the unregenerate to be subject to His Law - even though He has purposed His plan otherwise?

 

[ivdavid]

What is election?
You two are beating each other over the head with this.
How about this;
What is over kill?

I agree, this is. I can only apologize from my end - for not backing out earlier when the repetition began. I was only trying to prevent a misunderstood distorted version of my belief system to be wrongly concluded upon as inconsistent just because I'd choose to back out of repetition. But if things don't change over the next few posts, I shall refrain from continuing this.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You: Where does the will to accept the will from God to believe come from ?
Me: The question makes no sense with these multi-layered will(s).

I agree.
But these layers are developed in your doctrine, not mine.
That's why I asked. I'm not crazy.

Moreover, God never makes and gives any "will" / "choice" to man (post#632) - it is man himself who is willing/choosing to believe (post#619).

That's what you say. I got this part. You say God gives man the will to choose. That's how you can justify saying out of one side of your mouth, "God does not make man choose against his will", and out the other side, "God decides on his own to give man the 'chooser' that does not choose against his own will". (Please follow this folks, I'm not crazy. I'm certain he's saying this.)

So this is where you have to then acknowledge that God either gives the 'chooser' (that then wills to choose the gospel) to man without the consent of man, or acknowledge that this is where man's very own will comes in. Which is it?

See? I'm not crazy. Your doctrine demands an explanation for this additional layer of 'will'. But a layer you say does not make sense.

You: How does man then will/choose to believe - what are the factors it is directly dependent on?
Me: A man's desire and choice to obey the Gospel spring forth from his renewed spirit-nature and regenerated new heart - for the unregenerate flesh-nature is corrupt and the old heart is hardened.

I understand this. I just want you to plainly say if the giving of this new nature that chooses of it's own new will to obey is God's doing without any consideration of whether the person wants it or not, or if God does consider the will of the person as to whether or not he wants the new nature that chooses correctly.

You: What are the dependent factors for one to receive this renewed nature and regenerated new heart?
Me: God's mercy alone.

Okay. So, can we accept this as the answer? Man does not choose of his own will whether he will be regenerated/saved who then believes the gospel of salvation of his own choice he just received, right? His 'chooser' is assigned to him by an act of God's mercy alone, right?

You: Is there no consideration of what man desires/chooses at all?
Me: No consideration at all at this point of God showing mercy(Rom 9:16). All men were however given the option to choose to believe prior to this point of mercy - and all chose against believing (just as they chose to disobey and not be subject to God's Law), which is held accountable against them.

No, no. This is not the point of contention. We're not talking about all men choosing to purposely walk in disobedience somewhere along in their lives, and after that becoming slaves to sin.

I want to know if your doctrine says man gets a chance to decide for himself of his own will if he wants to receive regeneration, a nature which then chooses to believe (note the two distinct choices created by your doctrine). I'm pretty sure you've made it clear above that he does NOT get to choose if he will be regenerated to then be able to of his own new will choose the gospel. Right? The only choice he has is the choice he is given after he is regenerated apart from his own will to be so. (You following this, Allen?)

You: If there is no consideration of man's choice at the time of God showing mercy, is He not making spiritual robots?
Me: No - because "robots" do not have a consciousness nor the ability to generate desires and counsel - both of which the spiritual man does have.

You say man is not spiritual yet up to this point of being made spiritual/regenerated (to then choose the gospel), so you say God makes the choice to be regenerated for him, but that's not being a robot? How can you say that?

I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy. The only repetitive circle I'be been going around in is getting you to say clearly and concisely whether man has the choice to be regenerated to then be able to make a choice for the gospel or not. So far it looks like, 'no'. But you say being regenerated without consideration of your will (in order to then have the choice to obey) is not being a robot?

And, I think you believe that everyone who is regenerated then believes. Right? But somehow all this is in no way being a robot?

You: I hold "robots" to be those who are created without any consideration of their choice.
Me: Then going by that definition, these would be spiritual 'robots'.

You: But where is the concept of freewill between one being a natural robot and a spiritual robot?
Me: I do not find the necessity for such a concept of transition.

Well, I do. You have to explain how man does not choose whether he will be regenerated to then be able to choose the gospel (and then will accept it without exception?) and how that does not qualify as being a 'spiritual' robot.

You: But that would make God unjust to leave the natural robot in that state itself.
Me: Why so? If God had brought about Judgement Day before the New Testament - He would still be Just (post#390).

You: But these natural robots had no choice in sinning.
Me: I disagree - they always had the choice and they constantly chose to sin.

The Bible clearly states that once a man sins he does NOT have the choice to then not be a sinner, until he is offered the gospel through the testimony of the Holy Spirit dividing him from his mindset of sin to then be able to choose to obey and be saved. But this is a bunny trail.

I want to know for sure at the end of this conversation who gives man the choice to be regenerated, which then, according to your doctrine, gives him the choice that will choose to obey the gospel. That's what we're talking about.

You: But God turned them over to sin.
Me: God permitting sin to enter the flesh is not the same as God causing sin. While attributing cause, blame injustice on the effect of sin and not God.

Start a new thread. This is not what I want to know about. There's nothing to argue here. I plainly said God turned all men over to sin and allows us to sin, so why do you keep thinking I said God causes sin? You have to let it go.

You: But that would make God a liar when He says He desires many to be saved.
Me: No - He has simply purposed another greater desire to be fulfilled (post#564). Is God a liar when He says He desires all the unregenerate to be subject to His Law - even though He has purposed His plan otherwise?

Don't change the argument. The argument is, if God wants all men to be saved and takes no pleasure in the death of men, why, according to your doctrine, does he only regenerate/save a few (according to his will entirely, not theirs) who are then equipped with a will to believe the gospel, in complete contradiction to his own desires? Desires he has complete control over in fulfilling, since you say that he regenerates men apart from their own will, one way or the other, to be regenerated.


******************************************************************************
So you have to make two things very clear for me to understand your doctrine:

1) Does God give man the choice as to whether he will be regenerated and given a 'chooser' that will then receive the gospel? Make it clear, but I think you have said above that God does not give man that (first) choice. You said it is entirely a one-sided act of mercy by God, right?

2) Are you saying everybody who is regenerated (the equivalent of salvation) will then choose to believe the gospel without exception?

******************************************************************************

See, Allen, I'm not making trouble here. It's been almost impossible to sort out the confusions and contradictions in this doctrine. If he makes these two things very clear,and then owns up to them, we'll be good. The over-kill will continue if he does not answer these questions plainly, removing the contradictions and confusion from his argument.

 

[ivdavid]

1) Does God give man the choice as to whether he will be regenerated and given a 'chooser' that will then receive the gospel? Make it clear, but I think you have said above that God does not give man that (first) choice. You said it is entirely a one-sided act of mercy by God, right?

Does God give man the choice - Yes.
Is it entirely a one-sided act of mercy by God - Yes.

Both the above do not take place at the same time - is that too difficult a concept to grasp? Can't you view it sequentially?
1. God gives man the choice(Eze 18:31) => 2. Man messes up the opportunity by choosing wrongly => 3. God's mercy then executes a one-sided act entirely(Eze 36:26)

2) Are you saying everybody who is regenerated (the equivalent of salvation) will then choose to believe the gospel without exception?

Most definitely Yes. But haven't I already clearly stated this? I can understand such repetition of questions if I've kept changing my stance - but show me where I've done that. I've been saying the very same things all along.

Okay. So, can we accept this as the answer? ..His 'chooser' is assigned to him by an act of God's mercy alone, right?

My question to you is - why haven't you already accepted this as my answer when you've already asked the exact same question and I've already given the exact same answer as seen below?

What determines who God will give this will to be saved? The will of the person?

You mean whom God will create this new nature in - through which man then wills on his own. The direct answer, as chessman quoted, is found in Rom 9 -

16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16 NASB)

No, no. This is not the point of contention. We're not talking about all men choosing to purposely walk in disobedience somewhere along in their lives, and after that becoming slaves to sin.

You don't get to decide what parts are relevant in my doctrine. These same men who choose to purposely walk in disobedience - and continue to choose purposely walking in disobedience - are the ones who choose to purposely disobey the Gospel call when it is preached. This is the opportunity for his self-input to be considered - and he rejects it - after which he is entirely dependent on God's mercy alone.

You say man is not spiritual yet up to this point of being made spiritual/regenerated (to then choose the gospel), so you say God makes the choice to be regenerated for him, but that's not being a robot? How can you say that?

As I stated in the section following this part - if you're considering only the choice of birth, I do concede that as per your definition, man is a spiritual 'robot' - but considering what man does after this birth concerning repentance,faith and good works - as per my definition, he is not one.

Don't change the argument. The argument is, if God wants all men to be saved and takes no pleasure in the death of men, why, according to your doctrine, does he only regenerate/save a few (according to his will entirely, not theirs) who are then equipped with a will to believe the gospel, in complete contradiction to his own desires? Desires he has complete control over in fulfilling, since you say that he regenerates men apart from their own will, one way or the other, to be regenerated.

Why? I just gave the answer with a post to refer - why are you not accepting that as an answer accompanied with clarification? Why are you repeating your questions with no consideration of what I've written?

And for me to "change the argument", I must be referring to something else that has no relevance to your question. But I'm employing an exact parallel to answer your question - show me that it's not a parallel for it to be rendered irrelevant.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

As I stated in the section following this part - if you're considering only the choice of birth, I do concede that as per your definition, man is a spiritual 'robot' - but considering what man does after this birth concerning repentance,faith and good works - as per my definition, he is not one.

I see now that your doctrine really is contradictory and that I wasn't just misunderstanding you.

How can a person who is assigned the will to believe not be a robot? I don't care how you spin it, man clearly has no choice to be regenerated in this doctrine you defend. That's what it means to be a robot in regard to being regenerated.

And you have not given a satisfactory answer as to why God only assigns a regenerated heart, entirely at his own discretion, to only a few and not to the many that he says he wants to repent and live and not die.

As I've said, the real problem with this doctrine is the misunderstanding of faith/works that gives it and other misguided doctrines in the church today their energy. Doctrines that arise out of the misguided thinking that even trusting in the gospel can not, and must not in any way shape or form be understood as something man does of his own will, or else that would be salvation by works. But you will not find Paul including believing in the works that man does that can not justify. You will find him contrasting all other work with believing in Christ in order to be justified, not including believing in Christ with the works that can't justify. Straighten out this one misunderstanding and the doctrine you defend (besides having no credible Biblical support) loses it's rationale.

 

[ivdavid]

I don't care how you spin it, man clearly has no choice to be regenerated in this doctrine you defend.

How can one claim to be fairly evaluating another's belief system when they're essentially saying they don't care about the explanations provided for that belief system? I just stated that God indeed asks man to choose to be regenerated - and I provided a verse from the Bible to support it. If you want to contest that - show the contradiction/inconsistency within my belief system. Else, kindly refrain from refuting my position simply by assertion - that would be discounted as merely a fallacious argumentum ad lapidem.

How can a person who is assigned the will to believe not be a robot? ....That's what it means to be a robot in regard to being regenerated.

You in post#691: I hold "robots" to be those who are created without any consideration of their choice...is He[God] not making spiritual robots?
Me in post#691: Then going by that definition, these would be spiritual 'robots'.

You in post#693: that's not being a robot? How can you say that?
Me in post#694: As I stated in the section following this part - if you're considering only the choice of birth, I do concede that as per your definition, man is a spiritual 'robot' - but considering what man does after this birth concerning repentance,faith and good works - as per my definition, he is not one.

You in post#695: How can a person who is assigned the will to believe not be a robot?

Is this not an example of an argumentum ad nauseam? Why do you keep repeating the same question even after it's been answered. Do you want me to text-color my replies?

You: ..That's what it means to be a robot in regard to being regenerated.
Me: ..considering only the choice of birth, I do concede that as per your definition, man is a spiritual 'robot'..

Compare the color codes above and tell me how you're not saying the same thing I've already said. And if you're unable to do so, why repeat the exact same question? I have absolutely no issues stating God makes from the same lump of clay, a natural vessel/robot and a spiritual vessel/robot without asking the opinion of the vessel/robot at the time of such creation.

And you have not given a satisfactory answer as to why God only assigns a regenerated heart, entirely at his own discretion, to only a few and not to the many that he says he wants to repent and live and not die.

What constitutes a "satisfactory answer" in an apologetics forum - is it not a logically consistent answer with Scripture? So when you declare my explanation as "unsatisfactory" , the onus is on you to point out the inconsistency in my explanation - but you've not even commented upon a single line of my explanation on this thus far. As I said earlier, the appeal to the stone has no validity in such forums.

I see now that your doctrine really is contradictory and that I wasn't just misunderstanding you.

And you are yet to show the contradiction you've been claiming all along. You're either not caring to address my explanations or you're repeating yourself hoarse over questions that have already been addressed - what progress can there be in such a discussion? You can consider this my last post addressed to you in this line of argument if things don't change in your response.

Not a single line of my last 2 posts were a new point or statement - I can quote each of them ad verbatim from my earlier posts, sometimes even from multiple posts. But you've accused me of "not answering" and "evading" and what not - I do not expect you to retract these accusations but a little benefit of doubt back then would have been charitable.

If you want to continue this discussion, you could either
1) continue this line of argument by engaging my explanations or
2) shift the line of argument to uphold your position - and begin responding to all my as yet unanswered queries against your position.

Or we could both simply agree to end what has essentially amounted to a one-on-one debate in a common thread. I do not mind the pms either.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Please don't make me wade through everything you posted.

Just pick out the part, or explain in two or three sentences how God giving man the will to choose right, and not being able to choose wrong, apart from any consideration of whether or not he wants that will to choose right, is somehow not being a robot.

It may be hard for you to see, but this thinking in the church that says, "I'm a Christian and there's nothing I did to become one, and there's nothing I can do to not be one. Things are just the way they are because that's just the way they are" has ruined the church.

 

[ivdavid]

One of my first debates eons ago was an old friend telling me he's not chosen, therefore how can he get saved?

That's just an unscriptural position your friend was holding on to. The doctrine of election is never meant to be an instructive doctrine - it is merely a passive observational doctrine. So the doctrine of election doesn't instruct man to "get chosen" - it's only a passive observational doctrine that explains how it is that a man is actually saved, when the doctrine of 'total depravity' or 'salvation utterly by grace alone' is to be defended.

How does one know he's saved - is it through some exhilarating sensation, is it through some special divine revelation that booms "you are chosen", is it through one's own constant honing of his positive thinking skills? One is assured of his salvation based only on his continuing to throw himself upon Christ - not that he once made a decision, but that he finds himself continuing to believe in Christ alone for his salvation. Man's instruction and moral duty therefore is to simply believe in Christ unto salvation - which is what your friend should do and is held accountable for not doing. God never ever causes the unbelief of any man - neither is the doctrine of election permitted to be abused to infer such erroneous doctrines as fatalism. If a man will believe, he will be saved - the cause of one's unbelief is not God's predetermined election.

As to the doctrine of election itself, it is applicable in a very limited scope that is only meant to defend other fundamental doctrines - which I've illustrated in post#650.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro:
1) Does God give man the choice as to whether he will be regenerated and given a 'chooser' that will then receive the gospel? Make it clear, but I think you have said above that God does not give man that (first) choice. You said it is entirely a one-sided act of mercy by God, right?

ivdavid:
Does God give man the choice - Yes.
Is it entirely a one-sided act of mercy by God - Yes.


You have answered 'yes' to the question if God let's man choose for himself whether to be regenerated or not (at which time he will then be given the will to choose the offer of gaining right standing with Him).

You'll have to better explain where and how man's own personal choice to be regenerated fits into your doctrine, a will which afterward he is then regenerated to then accept the gospel. The hope is, you can explain the contradiction in your two answers above.

'Entirely one sided act of mercy by God' is not consistent with your first 'yes' that man has the choice to be regenerated at which time (regeneration) he then receives the will from God to accept the gospel, as you say.

 

[Deborah13]

That's just an unscriptural position your friend was holding on to. The doctrine of election is never meant to be an instructive doctrine - it is merely a passive observational doctrine. So the doctrine of election doesn't instruct man to "get chosen" - it's only a passive observational doctrine that explains how it is that a man is actually saved, when the doctrine of 'total depravity' or 'salvation utterly by grace alone' is to be defended.

How does one know he's saved - is it through some exhilarating sensation, is it through some special divine revelation that booms "you are chosen", is it through one's own constant honing of his positive thinking skills? One is assured of his salvation based only on his continuing to throw himself upon Christ - not that he once made a decision, but that he finds himself continuing to believe in Christ alone for his salvation. Man's instruction and moral duty therefore is to simply believe in Christ unto salvation - which is what your friend should do and is held accountable for not doing. God never ever causes the unbelief of any man - neither is the doctrine of election permitted to be abused to infer such erroneous doctrines as fatalism.

If a man will believe, he will be saved - the cause of one's unbelief is not God's predetermined election.

The cause of one's unbelief is man being born with the nature of his father Adam. I don't see that to be in question.

What is in question is what is the cause of one's belief. If God creates some people to believe and others not to believe, than God is the determiner of who is saved and who is not. So God chooses some for salvation and others He does not.

So some people, even infants, have to pay for being the children of Adam and others do not. Predetermined election, by Calvin's doctrine, says this. Even the infant in the womb is a sinful being and if they have not been chosen by predetermined election and they die at birth or even before, they go to hell for eternity. It has to be this way, for there is no concession for age.
Everyone chosen was predetermined before the foundation of the world.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my deductions and/or conclusions.

As to the doctrine of election itself, it is applicable in a very limited scope that is only meant to defend other fundamental doctrines - which I've illustrated in post#650.