Arminians and Calvinists - or Christians?

[Grubal Muruch]

Re: trust..

For the record.. the scriptures do not teach that man chooses God.. they teach that men trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, after they hear the gospel.. and then after they believe, God seals them with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Next I'm sure that we'll hear that men can't trust in Christ..

AMEN!!!

 

[ivdavid]

First of all, "you ask if our faith in Christ comes from our own effort?" The answer is, a resounding, yes. Freewill MUST, by definition be, of our own volition. Otherwise, it can not be considered, "free will." If we are coerced by outside sources which have the power to sway us over to their side, without our ability to resist, then it is no longer free will, but control.

You're right. By definition of freewill, faith in Christ must come from our own efforts. And that's precisely why I don't hold to that view - because I believe in the initiating, progressive and completing work of God in me and not on any of my own efforts. I don't consider faith too to be of our own effort at all - it is given of God's grace itself. Faith is not an initial criteria to make one eligible to receive God's grace - it is the very gift of God's grace given to man among countless other gifts of grace - given freely without waiting for man's own effort in the flesh. God does command and He gives what He commands.

We go before God, humbly with a repentant heart, realizing we are a lost sinner in need of a Savior.

Let's just focus on this. On the surface, I'd simply say AMEN to what you've written but I'm guessing we actually differ quite a lot on this.

You state here that man has to realize he's a sinner and repent. Does this realization and repentance first occur of man's own efforts to then receive the grace of God in being regenerated and being sealed with the Spirit OR does God Himself work such conviction and repentance in man as part of bestowing His grace upon man, without which man does not realize he's a sinner and hence does not repent?

Do you acknowledge an active moral corruption in the flesh which Paul personifies and refers to as "sin" - for instance in Romans 7 ? If so, what do you think sin's role is during man's choosing of an act? Do you think man is enslaved to this moral corruption - this sin in the flesh - or do you think it's not an overpowering influence, just an existent one?

I'm just presenting two sides of each question as I see it - if you actually hold some other belief, feel free to share that. These are not rigid questions in themselves - just an attempt to see where exactly we diverge in our beliefs.

We cannot approach God with an attitude that we are somehow "worthy" due to our own "moral character or good works.

And yet you're saying that this very attitude of humility is what would make us "worthy" of receiving God's grace, am I right? Our moral character is required to be thus and this good work of faith must be executed by our own efforts to be eligible to receive of God's grace subsequently? Have I misunderstood you anywhere here?

 

[mondar]

..... God does command and He gives what He commands.

"command what you will, and give what you command?" Salve for sore eyes. Thanks.

It would be fun to rehearse some exegesis to defend such a statement, but its best for me to watch and learn for a while.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

You're right. By definition of freewill, faith in Christ must come from our own efforts. And that's precisely why I don't hold to that view - because I believe in the initiating, progressive and completing work of God in me and not on any of my own efforts. I don't consider faith too to be of our own effort at all - it is given of God's grace itself. Faith is not an initial criteria to make one eligible to receive God's grace - it is the very gift of God's grace given to man among countless other gifts of grace - given freely without waiting for man's own effort in the flesh. God does command and He gives what He commands.


Let's just focus on this. On the surface, I'd simply say AMEN to what you've written but I'm guessing we actually differ quite a lot on this.

You state here that man has to realize he's a sinner and repent. Does this realization and repentance first occur of man's own efforts to then receive the grace of God in being regenerated and being sealed with the Spirit OR does God Himself work such conviction and repentance in man as part of bestowing His grace upon man, without which man does not realize he's a sinner and hence does not repent?

Do you acknowledge an active moral corruption in the flesh which Paul personifies and refers to as "sin" - for instance in Romans 7 ? If so, what do you think sin's role is during man's choosing of an act? Do you think man is enslaved to this moral corruption - this sin in the flesh - or do you think it's not an overpowering influence, just an existent one?

I'm just presenting two sides of each question as I see it - if you actually hold some other belief, feel free to share that. These are not rigid questions in themselves - just an attempt to see where exactly we diverge in our beliefs.



And yet you're saying that this very attitude of humility is what would make us "worthy" of receiving God's grace, am I right? Our moral character is required to be thus and this good work of faith must be executed by our own efforts to be eligible to receive of God's grace subsequently? Have I misunderstood you anywhere here?

ivdavid---
You state here that man has to realize he's a sinner and repent. Does this realization and repentance first occur of man's own efforts to then receive the grace of God in being regenerated and being sealed with the Spirit OR does God Himself work such conviction and repentance in man as part of bestowing His grace upon man, without which man does not realize he's a sinner and hence does not repent?

Grubal---The Holy Spirit "strive's" in the hearts of men, during the course of a man's life. And seeks to bring ALL to the Saving knowledge of God's Grace. Man's own efforts, and good works cannot achieve what ONLY, the Spirit of God can accomplish. However, man must be willing (free will) to put ALL his (mustard seed faith) in trusting God that whatever He says, "He will do."

ivdavid--- I don't consider faith too to be of our own effort at all - it is given of God's grace itself. Faith is not an initial criteria to make one eligible to receive God's Grace.

Grubal---God, has not only given us a freewill to choose and put our faith in whatever we choose, but He's given us, self preservation, intellect, imagination, etc. Our faith, (chosen of our free will) is indeed, an initial criteria by which, begins the Salvation process. The Bible states that, "without faith it is impossible to please Him" Faith plus Grace plus nothing...

ivdavid--- You state here that man has to realize he's a sinner and repent. Does this realization and repentance first occur of man's own efforts to then receive the grace of God in being regenerated and being sealed with the Spirit OR does God Himself work such conviction and repentance in man as part of bestowing His grace upon man, without which man does not realize he's a sinner and hence does not repent?

Grubal--- The whole process is an act of the Grace of God. The Holy Spirit convicts/strive's with men's hearts, man after hearing the Word of God (about God's Grace) has an ability to accept or reject the Spirits nudging. God will not force His gift of Grace on anyone...

ivdavid---Do you acknowledge an active moral corruption in the flesh which Paul personifies and refers to as "sin" - for instance in Romans 7 ? If so, what do you think sin's role is during man's choosing of an act? Do you think man is enslaved to this moral corruption - this sin in the flesh - or do you think it's not an overpowering influence, just an existent one?

Grubal---I assume your speaking about an unbeliever, so I'll answer under that assumption. Before we are saved, we are sold unto sin and am totally influenced by it, in our thoughts, motivations, and actions. We are basically, a slave to sin. And without the Grace of God are doomed to eternal separation from God. We are also able to do acts of kindness, self sacrifice, and all kinds of good (worldly) works.

ivdavid---And yet you're saying that this very attitude of humility is what would make us "worthy" of receiving God's grace, am I right? Our moral character is required to be thus and this good work of faith must be executed by our own efforts to be eligible to receive of God's grace subsequently? Have I misunderstood you anywhere here?

Grubal---None of us are "worthy" of God's Grace. Our faith, is a "humble" faith that comes to God with the realization that without His Grace, we are lost in our sins...Only by the Grace of God we are Saved, nothing else, nor even our faith...

 

[ivdavid]

We are basically, a slave to sin [before we are saved].
If we are coerced by outside sources which have the power to sway us over to their side, without our ability to resist, then it is no longer free will, but control.

Being a slave to sin implies that we are unable to resist the power of sin which coerces us to sway over to its side and hence we are no longer free but under the control of sin in the flesh. How do you reconcile such mutually exclusive and simultaneously contradictory positions?

And without the Grace of God [we] are doomed to eternal separation from God.

So it is the Grace of God that frees us from the enslaved bondage to sin. Isn't this then the initiating act in our salvation process? How can man, enslaved by sin, suddenly be able to overcome sin in him to seek God without God first having set him free from sin to do so?

We are also able to do acts of kindness, self sacrifice, and all kinds of good (worldly) works.

Still referring to the time before we're saved, how exactly does "sin" make exception to our doing these good works? It can't be by God's grace because God, according to you, does not "force" His grace upon those who don't seek it - and we're dealing with such people here. So, how did these people, by themselves, overcome sin in them to which they're supposed to be enslaved?

And did Jesus wait for Lazarus' choice to gift him a revival from death?

The Holy Spirit convicts/strive's with men's hearts, man after hearing the Word of God (about God's Grace) has an ability to accept or reject the Spirits nudging.

What would prompt man to reject the Spirit's "nudging"? I can think of only "sin" in him hardening him against the truth. And this is what I'd expect to happen unless God sets this man free from this corrupted sinful nature - precisely by creating a regenerated nature. And once he's set free from sin's enslaving influence, man will then naturally accept God's Word readily and joyfully. What other factor could cause man to reject God's Word?

Faith[by our own efforts] plus Grace plus nothing...
Only by the Grace of God we are Saved, nothing else, nor even our faith...

Don't you find these to be contradictory? The second statement seems to say just "Grace plus nothing..." while your first statement negates that.

Are you mistaking humility with false pride? You seem to be explicitly saying that one's faith by his own efforts is definitely a contributory cause in his salvation - because without such effort, he could never be saved - and yet you don't acknowledge the causative role it plays, however small it is, because you consider it to be nothing in comparison with the work God causatively contributes to man's salvation.

The fact of the matter, however, does remain that man in the flesh did do just that infinitesimally small but profitable work that contributed to his salvation process. Does your present stance deny this?

What is more humbling - realizing we can do something by ourselves but not taking the credit for it or realizing we cannot do that very thing by ourselves and that we're limited, helpless and dependent in this regard?

 

[ivdavid]

"command what you will, and give what you command?" Salve for sore eyes.

I guess we can learn more reading up on what's been written before our time than now. CCEL is a good place to pick up some good reads.

 

[mondar]

ivdavid--- I don't consider faith too to be of our own effort at all - it is given of God's grace itself. Faith is not an initial criteria to make one eligible to receive God's Grace.

Grubal---God, has not only given us a freewill to choose and put our faith in whatever we choose, but He's given us, self preservation, intellect, imagination, etc. Our faith, (chosen of our free will) is indeed, an initial criteria by which, begins the Salvation process. The Bible states that, "without faith it is impossible to please Him" Faith plus Grace plus nothing...

I should remain silent here, but I am going to throw in my 2cents.

Grubal alludes to Heb 11:6. Nothing in Heb 11:6 alludes to free will. "and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.

In fact when Romans 8:8 is added, one can see just the opposite, that the unbeliever in the flesh can never please God with faith.... and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Why can the the unbeliever in the flesh not please God in faith?
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. In this context Paul is talking about the Gospel. This is why a person in the flesh cannot please God with his faith, its because he cannot hear the Spirit of God. This is also why Christ says in John 6:44 that no man can come to me.........Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. Romans 3:11 says that no man seeks God... Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

We don't change our own nature, but God changes our nature and then we believe. In 1John 5:1, the word "begotten of God" is a perfect tense verb. This means it is a past action with present results. The present tense is "believeth." The begotten of God believe.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Being a slave to sin implies that we are unable to resist the power of sin which coerces us to sway over to its side and hence we are no longer free but under the control of sin in the flesh. How do you reconcile such mutually exclusive and simultaneously contradictory positions?


So it is the Grace of God that frees us from the enslaved bondage to sin. Isn't this then the initiating act in our salvation process? How can man, enslaved by sin, suddenly be able to overcome sin in him to seek God without God first having set him free from sin to do so?


Still referring to the time before we're saved, how exactly does "sin" make exception to our doing these good works? It can't be by God's grace because God, according to you, does not "force" His grace upon those who don't seek it - and we're dealing with such people here. So, how did these people, by themselves, overcome sin in them to which they're supposed to be enslaved?

And did Jesus wait for Lazarus' choice to gift him a revival from death?


What would prompt man to reject the Spirit's "nudging"? I can think of only "sin" in him hardening him against the truth. And this is what I'd expect to happen unless God sets this man free from this corrupted sinful nature - precisely by creating a regenerated nature. And once he's set free from sin's enslaving influence, man will then naturally accept God's Word readily and joyfully. What other factor could cause man to reject God's Word?


Don't you find these to be contradictory? The second statement seems to say just "Grace plus nothing..." while your first statement negates that.

Are you mistaking humility with false pride? You seem to be explicitly saying that one's faith by his own efforts is definitely a contributory cause in his salvation - because without such effort, he could never be saved - and yet you don't acknowledge the causative role it plays, however small it is, because you consider it to be nothing in comparison with the work God causatively contributes to man's salvation.

The fact of the matter, however, does remain that man in the flesh did do just that infinitesimally small but profitable work that contributed to his salvation process. Does your present stance deny this?

What is more humbling - realizing we can do something by ourselves but not taking the credit for it or realizing we cannot do that very thing by ourselves and that we're limited, helpless and dependent in this regard?

ivdavid says--Being a slave to sin implies that we are unable to resist the power of sin which coerces us to sway over to its side and hence we are no longer free but under the control of sin in the flesh. How do you reconcile such mutually exclusive and simultaneously contradictory positions?

Grubal says---All unbelievers are "slaves to sin" however, it does not mean that the lose their, God given free-will to choose to sin or not in any particular given situation. They still have a free-will to choose. Being a slave to sin is something we all acquired from Adam. We are enslaved to sin to the extent that, we cannot stop ourselves from making sinful choices altogether. But our ability to choose, is none the less intact...

ivdavid says---So it is the Grace of God that frees us from the enslaved bondage to sin. Isn't this then the initiating act in our salvation process? How can man, enslaved by sin, suddenly be able to overcome sin in him to seek God without God first having set him free from sin to do so?

Grubal says---It is God (The Holy Spirit) who convicts and strives with the heart of the unbeliever. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The unbeliever must first, hear the Word, then the Holy Spirit uses that which has been delivered to that person and convicts and draws him to the truth of God's Grace. That man still has a free-will to choose to accept or reject the Word of truth. God does not force Himself on anyone...

ivdavid says---Still referring to the time before we're saved, how exactly does "sin" make exception to our doing these good works? It can't be by God's grace because God, according to you, does not "force" His grace upon those who don't seek it - and we're dealing with such people here. So, how did these people, by themselves, overcome sin in them to which they're supposed to be enslaved?

Grubal says---When Adam partook of the "forbidden fruit" he's eyes were "opened" to the knowledge of good and evil. Combining, free-will and an ability for good and evil choices, gives mankind the ability to choose one or the other at any given time. However, man (unregenerate man) is still incapable of, not sinning.

ivdavid says---And did Jesus wait for Lazarus' choice to gift him a revival from death?

Grubal says---Lazarus was "physically dead" and totally unresponsive to any choices offered him...

ivdavid says---What would prompt man to reject the Spirit's "nudging"? I can think of only "sin" in him hardening him against the truth. And this is what I'd expect to happen unless God sets this man free from this corrupted sinful nature - precisely by creating a regenerated nature. And once he's set free from sin's enslaving influence, man will then naturally accept God's Word readily and joyfully. What other factor could cause man to reject God's Word?

Grubal says---What would prompt man to reject the Spirit's "nudging" The answer would be,his free-will. God will not force Himself on anyone. If God were to "set a man free from his sinful nature and regenerate him, this would take away the man's free-will and that God will not do. "Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

I'll get back to you tomorrow on the rest of your questions. Time to rest...

 

[mondar]

ivdavid says--Being a slave to sin implies that we are unable to resist the power of sin which coerces us to sway over to its side and hence we are no longer free but under the control of sin in the flesh. How do you reconcile such mutually exclusive and simultaneously contradictory positions?

Grubal says---All unbelievers are "slaves to sin" however, it does not mean that the lose their, God given free-will to choose to sin or not in any particular given situation. They still have a free-will to choose. Being a slave to sin is something we all acquired from Adam. We are enslaved to sin to the extent that, we cannot stop ourselves from making sinful choices altogether. But our ability to choose, is none the less intact...

Where did ivdavid deny that we no longer have the "ability to choose?" If I read him right, he said we have the ability to choose, but because of fallen nature we will always choose to rebel and not have faith. Thats kind of like a slave that is a slave to his fallen adamic nature. I think thats what Grubal disagrees with, he sees our slavery to our adamic nature as not slavery but as a slave who is free.... free to not follow his own fallen sinful nature. Am I getting it right?

 

[francisdesales]

Where did ivdavid deny that we no longer have the "ability to choose?" If I read him right, he said we have the ability to choose, but because of fallen nature we will always choose to rebel and not have faith. Thats kind of like a slave that is a slave to his fallen adamic nature. I think thats what Grubal disagrees with, he sees our slavery to our adamic nature as not slavery but as a slave who is free.... free to not follow his own fallen sinful nature. Am I getting it right?

Men do not always choose to rebel and not have faith, even Jesus Himself states that the pagans are able to love each other, perhaps imperfectly and feebly, but I think this is too much an effort to make this a 'black and white' issue.

This doesn't mean that one is regenerated during those few times that this may happen. The Spirit can work within someone without regenerating them. But to state that the unregenerated can NEVER choose anything but sin is a false presumption. Human experience tells us otherwise.

Regards

 

[childeye]

This is where I shake my head. Men do not have the freewill to choose what they believe. Men must choose to believe something and this is a big difference. Men are either educated or misinformed and even lied to as to what the Truth is. Men can theorize, and speculate, criticize and judge. But believe something he must. This is like a clean slate to be written upon, a virgin waiting to know and be known. To come into knowledge out of ignorance is not a freewill, but a matter of circumstance.

The invisible God cannot be seen with carnal eyes no more than you can know somebody by looking at them. The Truth of God is about finding and coming to know one's self for there is one Truth that can live in all men but many lies that can live in one man. What lives in the man through belief will comprise his will and define his person. This is why scripture speaks in terms of children of the devil and children of God. We are identified by personalities that precede us.

So you who errantly claim and errantly preach men are free to choose what they believe. Prove it now by honestly choosing from the heart to truly not believe Jesus is the Messiah. Those who are atheists and believe men can choose must honestly from the heart proclaim they truly believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[ivdavid]

Men do not always choose to rebel and not have faith, even Jesus Himself states that the pagans are able to love each other, perhaps imperfectly and feebly, but I think this is too much an effort to make this a 'black and white' issue.

How does the unregenerated loving each other imply that they are not rebelling and posing faith in God? By definition, the unbelieving do not have faith - and in such reluctance to submit to God's commandments in the Gospel, they are rebellious. How else are you seeing this?

And besides, loving another without such love being primarily derived from the love of God is sin, right? Any transgression of any of the commandments of God in any act of man amounts to sin - this is an absolute and not in the least fuzzy.

But to state that the unregenerated can NEVER choose anything but sin is a false presumption. Human experience tells us otherwise.

To each, his own testimony. My "human experience" witnesses to the convicting work of God in showing me how all my works before being regenerated, that I thought were "good", were actually works of my flesh - abhorring and evil in God's sight.

 

[francisdesales]

How does the unregenerated loving each other imply that they are not rebelling and posing faith in God? By definition, the unbelieving do not have faith - and in such reluctance to submit to God's commandments in the Gospel, they are rebellious. How else are you seeing this?

It's been said by some here that "EVERYTHING" that the pagan (unbaptized) does is "evil". They ALWAYS choose to do evil, even though they supposedly have free will. This is clearly incorrect. It is false. Jesus Himself witnesses to this, as does Paul.

Pagans are able to love their children or their wives. SOME even lay down their lives for others. Please, you are twisting human experience to fit through the seive of your theology, are you not?

Now, it is true, the "unbelieving does not have faith". But that was not my contention. One doesn't have to have faith in God to love their children or to decide not to cheat on their spouse when given the opportunity. Where does that "will" come from? Clearly, from God, even within the unregenerate. The decision is moved by God, even if that man is ignorant of God's existence. Isn't this how God works - He loved us even while in sin!

Also note that we are not talking about PERFECT obedience to the commandments - for Paul states that SOME pagans will be saved based upon the "law" written in their own hearts (conscience). Some DO obey the commandments of God - this is from Paul.

And besides, loving another without such love being primarily derived from the love of God is sin, right? Any transgression of any of the commandments of God in any act of man amounts to sin - this is an absolute and not in the least fuzzy.

Loving others is the fulfillment of the Law, says Paul, and the third time I refer you to Romans...

To each, his own testimony. My "human experience" witnesses to the convicting work of God in showing me how all my works before being regenerated, that I thought were "good", were actually works of my flesh - abhorring and evil in God's sight.

Good works done are not abhorent to God, what kind of crazy talk is that? That's not human experience, that is your theological presumptions at work. It is plain to see that even atheists can love others (albeit a love that earns nothing from God...) If God is Love - how can an atheist love others WITHOUT Love itself being involved??? Your conclusion is false.

If your "experience" doesn't witness that, you are either living in an ivory tower or are not properly reflecting on this reality.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

It's been said by some here that "EVERYTHING" that the pagan (unbaptized) does is "evil". They ALWAYS choose to do evil, even though they supposedly have free will. This is clearly incorrect. It is false. Jesus Himself witnesses to this, as does Paul.

Pagans are able to love their children or their wives. SOME even lay down their lives for others. Please, you are twisting human experience to fit through the seive of your theology, are you not?

Now, it is true, the "unbelieving does not have faith". But that was not my contention. One doesn't have to have faith in God to love their children or to decide not to cheat on their spouse when given the opportunity. Where does that "will" come from? Clearly, from God, even within the unregenerate. The decision is moved by God, even if that man is ignorant of God's existence. Isn't this how God works - He loved us even while in sin!

Also note that we are not talking about PERFECT obedience to the commandments - for Paul states that SOME pagans will be saved based upon the "law" written in their own hearts (conscience). Some DO obey the commandments of God - this is from Paul.



Loving others is the fulfillment of the Law, says Paul, and the third time I refer you to Romans...



Good works done are not abhorent to God, what kind of crazy talk is that? That's not human experience, that is your theological presumptions at work. It is plain to see that even atheists can love others (albeit a love that earns nothing from God...) If God is Love - how can an atheist love others WITHOUT Love itself being involved??? Your conclusion is false.

If your "experience" doesn't witness that, you are either living in an ivory tower or are not properly reflecting on this reality.

Regards

Great Post.. Honestly.. ;-)

 

[ivdavid]

One doesn't have to have faith in God to love their children or to decide not to cheat on their spouse when given the opportunity. Where does that "will" come from? Clearly, from God, even within the unregenerate. The decision is moved by God, even if that man is ignorant of God's existence.

Are you saying that the commandments of God, when kept in action and not necessarily in intent, would still amount to good works? Having read some of your other posts, I'm quite sure you wouldn't call an act a good work if the intent is not according to the will of God - am I right?

Are you saying that even when such a commandment of God is kept in wrong intent, that decision is moved by God and that "will" comes from God? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say that. God makes it very clear, for instance in Matt 6:2, that even works that could be construed as good have to be of good intent for them to be actually deemed good works.

Assuming you'd agree with me that actions have to be of good intent to be a good work and to be of God, I ask - what is the intent behind any perceived "good" work of an unregenerated person? Isn't any intent other than to please God, an evil intent? Isn't any intent that is not for God, against God? Isn't any intent that does not acknowledge God's glory and goodness, self-seeking and of the flesh? I fail to see how God could find such acts "not hypocritical" and "not abhorring".

Paul states that SOME pagans will be saved based upon the "law" written in their own hearts (conscience).

Without delving deeper into this, I think this is in the context of saying that there is no difference between the jews according to the flesh, and the non-jews according to the flesh. Is there some specific reference to the spiritually regenerate and the unregenerate? It is quite obvious that a "pagan" non-jew according to the flesh could be spiritually regenerate.

Loving others is the fulfillment of the Law, says Paul, and the third time I refer you to Romans...

And in every act of loving others, if you transgress the first commandment of loving God, this is still a transgression of the law.

Good works done are not abhorent to God, what kind of crazy talk is that?

I wish you'd address what I've actually written. I never said good works are abhorrent to God - I said what I thought was "good" were actually shown to be hypocritical works of the flesh - abhorring and evil in the sight of God. All my works that I thought were "good" and "out of love for God" were shown to actually be works to please my own self, with God and my neighbor being the medium to the satisfaction of my own self-love. This is what the flesh does - it can never obey God's commandments and be pleasing to Him. I'm sure you've read that in Romans.

If God is Love - how can an atheist love others WITHOUT Love itself being involved???

Are you telling me that a believer loves his neighbor in exactly the same way an unbeliever loves his? If so, why must there be a need for regeneration at all?

 

[ivdavid]

Now, it is true, the "unbelieving does not have faith". But that was not my contention. One doesn't have to have faith in God to love their children or to decide not to cheat on their spouse when given the opportunity.

I wanted to address this separately. Are you saying that one does not need faith in God to do good works?

If so, what exactly do you mean by "faith in God"? As for me, I believe I am unable to do any good of my own - for there is no good in my flesh - and hence I depend entirely upon God ie I "believe in Him" to work out the good that He commands of me and which I find myself unable to do apart from His Sovereign Grace. Are you saying that God works such good works in the unregenerate and lets them glory in their flesh over these works wrought by Him, which He then anyway deems as good? I thought God's ways deprived the flesh of any glory.

 

[childeye]

It's been said by some here that "EVERYTHING" that the pagan (unbaptized) does is "evil". They ALWAYS choose to do evil, even though they supposedly have free will. This is clearly incorrect. It is false. Jesus Himself witnesses to this, as does Paul.

Pagans are able to love their children or their wives. SOME even lay down their lives for others. Please, you are twisting human experience to fit through the seive of your theology, are you not?

Now, it is true, the "unbelieving does not have faith". But that was not my contention. One doesn't have to have faith in God to love their children or to decide not to cheat on their spouse when given the opportunity. Where does that "will" come from? Clearly, from God, even within the unregenerate. The decision is moved by God, even if that man is ignorant of God's existence. Isn't this how God works - He loved us even while in sin!

Also note that we are not talking about PERFECT obedience to the commandments - for Paul states that SOME pagans will be saved based upon the "law" written in their own hearts (conscience). Some DO obey the commandments of God - this is from Paul.



Loving others is the fulfillment of the Law, says Paul, and the third time I refer you to Romans...



Good works done are not abhorent to God, what kind of crazy talk is that? That's not human experience, that is your theological presumptions at work. It is plain to see that even atheists can love others (albeit a love that earns nothing from God...) If God is Love - how can an atheist love others WITHOUT Love itself being involved??? Your conclusion is false.

If your "experience" doesn't witness that, you are either living in an ivory tower or are not properly reflecting on this reality.

Regards

I agree with you Joe, although I will say you and ivdavid are debating semantics to a point. I would humbly suggest for what it's worth, you try and understand each others unique perspective. I think we will find we all split hairs on where God begins and our wills in vanity end. Otherwise I think you did a great job of dodging any pitfalls in your reasoning.

 

[francisdesales]

Are you saying that the commandments of God, when kept in action and not necessarily in intent, would still amount to good works?

In my mind, a good work is something that includes BOTH the external and the internal disposition. I would find it difficult to believe that an atheist cannot have the internal disposition to love their children - that they "really" don't love them, but have ulterior motives in their sacrifices and their giving of themselves...

Clearly, Paul and Jesus understand human experience, as both of them state that pagans can love. To state that God finds this abhorent is utterly ridiculous, quite honestly, for God IS love.

Having read some of your other posts, I'm quite sure you wouldn't call an act a good work if the intent is not according to the will of God - am I right?

Indeed. People can fulfill the dictates of the law without knowing the Law explicitly. We all have the Law written in our hearts, says Paul... We all know right from wrong and we know the "Golden Rule". What we know is the basis for which God will judge us.

Are you saying that even when such a commandment of God is kept in wrong intent, that decision is moved by God and that "will" comes from God?

Self sacrifice, forgiveness and love - how can that be intertwined or intermixed with "wrong intent"? Are you saying that one's motives must be absolutely perfect? Even Christians cannot gather up such "pure" motives completely in our every act.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say that. God makes it very clear, for instance in Matt 6:2, that even works that could be construed as good have to be of good intent for them to be actually deemed good works.

Agree. But it is not necessary to know the dictates of the Law as given by Moses to know that killing another human being is wrong. Again, there are numerous examples of such "Law" within a variety of pagan communities that mimic, whether they know it or not, the Law given by God to man.

Assuming you'd agree with me that actions have to be of good intent to be a good work and to be of God, I ask - what is the intent behind any perceived "good" work of an unregenerated person?

It certainly is not earning salvation - is that the motive for Christians? People love other people. Do we need to give reasons that pass your test? Pagans love other people. Christ made that clear. Do Christian mothers love their children better than pagan mothers? Perhaps, I don't know - but clearly, both mothers have good intent in their love.

Isn't any intent other than to please God, an evil intent?

No. This is why I got involved here. The attempt to make this a "black or white" issue. Things are not "evil" OR "good". There is gray area in human actions. Ignorance is part of the formula, and I would expect that God judges differently in the case of ignorance vs outright rejection.

Isn't any intent that is not for God, against God?

No, of course not!

Isn't any intent that does not acknowledge God's glory and goodness, self-seeking and of the flesh?

What do you mean "of the flesh"?

I fail to see how God could find such acts "not hypocritical" and "not abhorring".

I fail to see how God finds acts of Love abhorent. IF God is Love, how could He find acts from His very Being abhorent? Think about this...

Without delving deeper into this, I think this is in the context of saying that there is no difference between the jews according to the flesh, and the non-jews according to the flesh.

You need to re-read Romans chapter 2, if you actually think that...

Is there some specific reference to the spiritually regenerate and the unregenerate? It is quite obvious that a "pagan" non-jew according to the flesh could be spiritually regenerate.

Which begs the question that I have presented from the start - good works can come from not knowing the "written Law". One can actually be given eternal life without KNOWING that written Law and following the Law given by God in the heart. Now, I think you know what a pagan is, so it follows that pagans can thus perform acts of Love as a result of this Law in their hearts AND be rewarded with eternal life.

And in every act of loving others, if you transgress the first commandment of loving God, this is still a transgression of the law.

Fortunately for us, God is a forgiving God. Anyone who turns to God after sin, even after 77 times 7, they will be forgiven...

I wish you'd address what I've actually written. I never said good works are abhorrent to God - I said what I thought was "good" were actually shown to be hypocritical works of the flesh - abhorring and evil in the sight of God.

You have said the same thing in a different way. IF a pagan can do no good works, then it follows that ALL of their works are of the "flesh" and "evil". Thus, even acts of Love inspired by Love Himself, moved by the Law written in their hearts is pointless, since the unregenerated's works "must" always be evil... I addressed what you wrote. It is your contention that pagans can do nothing good. This is obviously false and is at odds with the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition and life experience.

All my works that I thought were "good" and "out of love for God" were shown to actually be works to please my own self, with God and my neighbor being the medium to the satisfaction of my own self-love. This is what the flesh does - it can never obey God's commandments and be pleasing to Him. I'm sure you've read that in Romans.

That is NOT what Romans says... Says the opposite, if you read Chapter 2 and consider the CONTEXT of Chapter 3.

Are you telling me that a believer loves his neighbor in exactly the same way aunbeliever loves his?

No

If so, why must there be a need for regeneration at all?

Regeneration is NOT about merely 'being saved'... It is being reformed into the image of Christ, participating in the divine nature, being divinized even here, a much deeper and more sublime idea than getting a "get out of hell free" card, a "status"...

Christianity is a lived life, not a "status" or a "legal imputation".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I agree with you Joe, although I will say you and ivdavid are debating semantics to a point. I would humbly suggest for what it's worth, you try and understand each others unique perspective. I think we will find we all split hairs on where God begins and our wills in vanity end. Otherwise I think you did a great job of dodging any pitfalls in your reasoning.

Larry,

I'm afraid that this goes beyond "splitting theological hairs". If it was, i wouldn't have bothered to get involved in this "inter-denominational" discussion between Calvinists and Arminians. I would humbly suggest that you consider digging deeper into the meaning of "no one can love unless they are Christian" and tell me whether the God you envision is condemning ALL non-Christians to hell (since they can do NO good whatsoever), even if they never had the chance to hear the Gospel...

Because at the end of the day, this is what this line of thinking suggests.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Joe I think you are a rare Catholic and I hope I'm wrong.