Arminians and Calvinists - or Christians?

[ivdavid]

In retrospect, their obedience to the Law in their hearts will bring about the free gift of eternal life from God.

Isn't what you're saying the same as this -
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
I guess this is where we left off from that other thread.
I recollect you grouping "live in them" as an imperative command there - whereas that's not the sense conveyed here. God states a conditional here, and its effect - "If man will do His commandments, he will live, by doing so". This carries the same sense of the curse - "If man will not do His commandments, he will not live, by his not doing so." This is the Law of works.

Here, man is commanded to do God's commandments, for which he shall receive life - this is not man obligating God, rather God instructing man. So when man fulfills this by doing the commandments, he receives what is due to him - not due by obligation as you'd mean it but due by the Word of God in stating such a conditional and its effect.

The conclusion from Lev 18:5 is that anyone who does the commandments will live by his doing them. And yet Paul states the invalidity of Lev 18:5 in giving life. The only reconciliation to this is that none are able to Do the commandments. Hence, these are pointed to faith in Christ unto eternal life. And it is then that we see God cause us to Do His commandments.

Where is the disconnect here?

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

Let us look into a bit of "synergy". I know a lot if it is mysterious and I do not intend probing into what God has not revealed. I'd just like to discuss what we are revealed thus far. So, any part of this that you believe is not knowable as yet, please state so.

I'd like to analyze how a person works out an action. I'd broadly say these are the main steps -
1. Man perceives desires concerning a particular thing.
2. Man has to choose from among these desires on what to act upon.
3. Man executes the choice he determined in the previous step.

I'd split step 2 into two parts -
a) an initial stage of analyzing the merit of each desire by the mind's understanding.
b) an act of the volition ie the final counsel determining which desires to act upon, given the merit analysis of each desire by the mind's understanding in the previous step 2(a).

I think we both agree that the desires of the flesh are always evil. So, if man were left to himself, without God working in him, step 1 itself would be only evil and hence no good can be done by this man in the flesh - therefore the conclusion that no good can ever be done by man in the flesh all by himself. We definitely need God to provide godly desires in step 1.
Any disagreements so far?

Consider step 2(a) - according to you, is there a possibility that the understanding provided by the flesh is good? Can the merit analysis(of the desires) done by the fleshly mind be relied upon? I look at - "Lean not on your own understanding", "the inclinations/purposes of the flesh are in enmity with God" - and I believe that man left to himself here too would never be able to do good. If God were to give godly desires in step 1 but did not provide godly understanding here, man would only be left with a corrupted and fallen fleshly understanding, even of those godly desires. I'd also refer to "sin's deceiving man" - and "the devil's blinding of minds" to conclude that man by himself cannot do good because of a fleshly understanding. Man needs God here too to provide godly understanding.
Would you agree? If not, state your beliefs on this.

Here we come to step 2(b) - the act of volition, the final counsel - that determines what desires are to be acted upon in light of the mind's understanding of the same. This step, I believe you would attribute completely to man with no external influence. While steps 1 and 2(a) could be said to require God wholly, with man not playing a contributory role - this step 2(b) requires man's act of volition that is his alone.
Man requires godly desires and godly understanding from the previous steps, but given those, it is his act here that takes the process forward. God will not circumvent this step ignoring man, nor will He forego the preceding steps without which man cannot determine a good counsel here.
Is my analysis of what I think you believe on this, correct? If not, please clarify.

I think step 3 requires no distinct attribution - we could think of it as strictly following the laws of nature instituted by God. Whatever man counsels to act upon, will be acted upon by the members of the body - without exception. Whether the end result comes to complete fruition or not depends on many external factors - but whatever man has counseled in step 2(b) will be unfailingly acted out by the members of the body. I can't picture any disagreements here - but if there are, please state them.

Is this how you understand "synergy" - as a set of steps that involve both God and man - God predominantly, but man too - in working out man's acts? Tell me where you'd agree and where you'd disagree and where you'd say it's a mystery not to be concluded upon - so I may know what you exactly believe in this.

 

[francisdesales]

This is quite an important point we're disagreeing upon. I'd like to see where exactly we differ -

Do you believe, by their very definitions of concept, that grace and mercy cannot be demanded of God? That He is just even if He showed no mercy and grace?

Of course grace and mercy cannot be demanded! They are free gifts. By God's benevolent choice, He grants grace to those who respond to "initial grace" (since it must begin somewhere, I will call this first grace "initial".) "To those who have, more is given"

Can you explain why you think that I would believe that anyone can demand grace or mercy? I am very perplexed in how you came to that conclusion based upon what I have SAID (maybe you have some ideas of Catholicism that go beyond what I wrote?) Nothing I have said, as far as i can tell, would lead to one thinking that I believe that God owes us anything. God grants grace based upon His own righteousness - the promise that He made to those who obey Him. Not out of payment or obligation.

And I'll give working definitions of grace and mercy here to see if there's any disagreement there -
Mercy - To not enforce a condemnation that a transgressor deserves.
Grace - To give a gift that one does not deserve.

I'll also define -
Justice - To render to each according to what he deserves.
Law - The impartial unbiased standard of ideals by which what one deserves is determined.

I think that Grace and Mercy are more properly dependent upon the giver, not what the receiver deserves/doesn't deserve. That is how we view God. We see God as an unconditional lover. Thus, whether we "deserve it" or not is inconsequential. That's the POINT of "unconditional love" that is missing from your theology.

I agree with Justice. Not sure about "Law", since the Jews viewed the Law as the means to a happy and fulfilled life, not so much as something to be judged for condemnation or not...

I suppose we view things from the opposite spectrums; you from the negative, me from the positive. I would say that neither is "wrong", but are complimentary.

One could stick to the Law - and demand justice ie what one rightly deserves - as we see in John 8:5. They tried to trap Jesus in that zone between Justice and Mercy - if Jesus had said, "You must not stone her", they'd cry that He did not adhere to God's standard of justice. If Jesus had said,"Stone her", His very preaching on mercy is nullified. His wise answer is that only one who himself does not deserve just condemnation has the right to justly condemn another. And Jesus chose to show mercy in John 8:11. My question is - would you call Jesus unjust if He chose not to show mercy there?

No, since she broke the Law and mercy is something that must be freely given, not earned. It is up to the Lawgiver to grant mercy or grant justice, since it is His Justice that is affronted. She had it within her power to not commit adultery.

Similarly we find the first-hour workers demanding that the last-hour workers be given only what they deserve. If the owner of the field had done so, and not shown grace to the last-hour workers, would he not be just? But he shows that grace is beyond simple equations of deservance and justifies it in Matt 20:15.

Of course.

I don't believe God would be unjust if He showed absolutely no mercy or grace to anyone - when such mercy and grace themselves are undeserved. Why do you believe otherwise?

Justice presumes that one has the ability to DO something good versus something evil. In the case of the adulterous woman, she freely chose to commit sin, knowing full well that it was a breaking of the Law.

Now, if someone is commanded to do "x", but cannot possibly do it, that is no longer justice. Establishing a "law" that cannot be fulfilled does not even meet the standards of human justice, much less divine justice.

Now, if God aids us, giving us an ability to choose, then we do deserve the justice that God would grant to those who reject Him.

I'm quoting this section from a previous thread -

francisdesales - "If I am bound to obey an impossible law, is the lawmaker just?"
ivdavid - "As long as the lawmaker is not the cause of your impossibility, he is just.

But He is! God did create us. If we are created without the capacity to do something, say fly, then how are we expected - DEMANDED - to obey such a command? I fail to see how this can be a just demand... It seems too contrived. Judgment is no longer judgment, since the result is already known beforehand. What exactly is to measure, if we are expected to do something that we have no capacity to do???

Please let's refrain from defining a man-centered world. Laws are not framed based on what man is able to do.

I'm afraid they are...

Give me an example of a law that is framed on something that no one can do or no one can avoid. (besides your interpretation of God's Justice...)

And since the lawmaker is not in any way the cause of one's inability, he is absolutely just in passing an ideal as law."

Incorrect. The Lawmaker happens to be the Creator, as well. Thus, if things are as you say, God is at fault for sin, since He did not give us the capability to avoid sin. Thus, the common refrain v Calvinism: "God is the cause of evil..."

But sin has corrupted man's nature and this enslaved nature has fallen - fallen from that standard of ideal. Now, it seems that the standard is impossible to this fallen nature. And yet it is just of God to expect adherence to the ideal - because He did not cause the fall - He did not cause the impossibility.

Which is fortunate for man that God can and does write a Law on the hearts of men, giving them the ABILITY to obey Him if they choose to. They are spiritual Jews, these men who respond positively. They are known by the works shown, just as OUR faith is shown by our works. (James)

God is not a respecter of persons. Whether Jew or Gentile, we will be judged by God based upon what we do, as led by God's Spirit in either case.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Here, man is commanded to do God's commandments, for which he shall receive life - this is not man obligating God, rather God instructing man. So when man fulfills this by doing the commandments, he receives what is due to him - not due by obligation as you'd mean it but due by the Word of God in stating such a conditional and its effect.

Man receives life totally as a gift. His obedience of the Commandments does not warrant him a reward - God grants it because He is righteous. In other words, God fulfills His promises to grant life to those who obey. He is upholding His side of the Covenant. There is no "due reception" for obedience! You are trying to make obedience of commandments into an obligation that God must honor. However, man cannot perfectly obey the commandments all the time. So even a life of obedience would be conceivably be canceled by one moment of failure - ruining any chance of "obligating" God.

Thus, EVERY reward that God gives is based upon grace and mercy. A "partial" obedience to the Law is sufficient, in God's eyes, to warrant His merciful granting of life. An ongoing and constant rejection of His Law brings His Justice. Note, the very idea of "rejection" implies the ABILITY to choose otherwise...

The conclusion from Lev 18:5 is that anyone who does the commandments will live by his doing them. And yet Paul states the invalidity of Lev 18:5 in giving life.
The only reconciliation to this is that none are able to Do the commandments.

Hardly...

The Law ITSELF cannot give us anything. It possesses no ability to give anything. It is God HIMSELF Who has the power to give life. Again, this is right along what I have been saying. Obeying the Law does not earn anything from God. To earn life, one must be perfect. Since no one is perfect, we ALL rely upon mercy. But it hardly follows that no one can DO the commandments AT ALL!!! Numerous people are called righteous by God's inspiration in Scriptures. Your conclusion ignores the tremendous number of verses that say otherwise!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,

Let us look into a bit of "synergy". I know a lot if it is mysterious and I do not intend probing into what God has not revealed. I'd just like to discuss what we are revealed thus far. So, any part of this that you believe is not knowable as yet, please state so.

I'd like to analyze how a person works out an action. I'd broadly say these are the main steps -
1. Man perceives desires concerning a particular thing.
2. Man has to choose from among these desires on what to act upon.
3. Man executes the choice he determined in the previous step.

I'd split step 2 into two parts -
a) an initial stage of analyzing the merit of each desire by the mind's understanding.
b) an act of the volition ie the final counsel determining which desires to act upon, given the merit analysis of each desire by the mind's understanding in the previous step 2(a).

I think we both agree that the desires of the flesh are always evil. So, if man were left to himself, without God working in him, step 1 itself would be only evil and hence no good can be done by this man in the flesh - therefore the conclusion that no good can ever be done by man in the flesh all by himself. We definitely need God to provide godly desires in step 1.
Any disagreements so far?

I am not ready to state all such acts of the flesh alone are evil. I would rather state none are good or salvific, since some acts are morally neutral.

Consider step 2(a) - according to you, is there a possibility that the understanding provided by the flesh is good? Can the merit analysis(of the desires) done by the fleshly mind be relied upon? I look at - "Lean not on your own understanding", "the inclinations/purposes of the flesh are in enmity with God" - and I believe that man left to himself here too would never be able to do good.

True, man left to himself can do nothing salvific. "Good", depends on how you define that. For now, we'll put that aside and continue to agree.

If God were to give godly desires in step 1 but did not provide godly understanding here, man would only be left with a corrupted and fallen fleshly understanding, even of those godly desires.

While it is true that God desires us to come to the knowledge of truth, we are not saved based upon knowledge, but upon our love of others and God's merciful granting of life as a result. Knowledge is something worthy of seeking after, but it is not an absolute requirement to be saved, since salvation depends upon GOD, not my knowledge! God will measure what we know and what we did and will judge us accordingly, praise God.

I'd also refer to "sin's deceiving man" - and "the devil's blinding of minds" to conclude that man by himself cannot do good because of a fleshly understanding. Man needs God here too to provide godly understanding.
Would you agree? If not, state your beliefs on this.

Certainly, I would say that understanding comes from God. Whether that comes from evangelists spreading the Gospel or the Spirit touching the individual in a moment of inspiration, that is beyond me.

Here we come to step 2(b) - the act of volition, the final counsel - that determines what desires are to be acted upon in light of the mind's understanding of the same. This step, I believe you would attribute completely to man with no external influence. While steps 1 and 2(a) could be said to require God wholly, with man not playing a contributory role - this step 2(b) requires man's act of volition that is his alone.

I am not sure why you think I would presume that God is not involved here, as well. Or that God is involved entirely in step 1 and 2a. God moves our desires and our wills so as to choose to do what is good, but He respects our decisions, which ultimately can be a rejection. I don't see man or God absent from any of your steps above.

Regarding sin, what happens is that we end up rationalizing another choice and calling it "good". Rarely do people do evil just to do evil. They twist something to be "good". Thus, "that guy is rich, he doesn't need that money and I do, so I'll take his wallet". The person convinces himself that he is doing something good for himself. The voice of conscience is shut out. He knows that he does not want people to steal from him - that he would feel wronged if someone took his property, no matter for what reason. But the role reversal is shut off and the focus is upon self. At the end of the day, the choice was his to make, and one could have obey the Law and NOT stolen.

Man requires godly desires and godly understanding from the previous steps, but given those, it is his act here that takes the process forward. God will not circumvent this step ignoring man, nor will He forego the preceding steps without which man cannot determine a good counsel here.
Is my analysis of what I think you believe on this, correct? If not, please clarify.

I believe that God is present in all moral decisions. That "voice", however, grows weaker as man grows in the slavery of sin and the desire to fulfill one's own selfish needs.

Is this how you understand "synergy" - as a set of steps that involve both God and man - God predominantly, but man too - in working out man's acts? Tell me where you'd agree and where you'd disagree and where you'd say it's a mystery not to be concluded upon - so I may know what you exactly believe in this.

To be honest, I have never "analyzed" this in this manner... It is my understanding that God is somehow present to us in aiding us to make good decisions. Not only proper understanding, but strength in the will to desire to do it. To me, synergy is God and I participating in a work. To what degree, I cannot say. I realize that without Him, I can do nothing of true worth. With Him, I have the potential to do anything. What is lacking is not God, but my own faith, desire, or will. As i grow in holiness and my ways become more like God's ways, my potential will change. Perhaps God's grace will also increase. This is a mystery to us, and the best I can say is that God is involved in the process.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

By God's benevolent choice, He grants grace to those who respond to "initial grace" (since it must begin somewhere, I will call this first grace "initial".)

What is "initial" grace here? Is that mandatory - why must grace even be there? I supposed "grace", by definition, was completely optional to the grace-giver and could not be expected as a compulsory requirement of that grace-giver. (I'm specifically referring to this "initial" grace here as applied to the concept of grace.)

I suppose you agree that all of God's grace are gifts - is there a compulsion that there must be an "initial" gift? Would God be unjust if He never gave any gifts at all?

Can you explain why you think that I would believe that anyone can demand grace or mercy?

When you make grace mandatory - that's when you imply the above. To make it quite straightforward - if God had chosen not to show any grace(initial or subsequent) upon anyone at all, would you call Him unjust? If you say Yes, that's the reason why I perceived you as making the above statement. If you say No, then I'd add more to our discussion later.

All I'm saying is that either grace cannot be compulsorily required of the grace-giver or such 'grace' should not be called grace at all, but rather be termed a just work that is a mandatory requirement expected of that work-doer in such cases.

A "partial" obedience to the Law is sufficient, in God's eyes, to warrant His merciful granting of life.

If "mercy" is dependent upon the person receiving mercy, doesn't that break down the very concept of mercy? Mercy, by definition, has to be unconditional - why are you imposing such conditions here? That still means we're under the law and not under mercy. And how different do you hold "warrant" from "earn" semantically?

Man receives life totally as a gift. His obedience of the Commandments does not warrant him a reward - God grants it because He is righteous. In other words, God fulfills His promises to grant life to those who obey. He is upholding His side of the Covenant. There is no "due reception" for obedience!

God upholds His side of the Covenant - what is the other side of the covenant? I suppose it is man's obedience of the commandments. Now either man is expected perfect obedience which he fails at, hence fails at his side of the covenant, and therein we must no longer refer to him as "those who obey", as if this covenant has any value now - Or man is not expected perfect obedience but just 'sufficient' obedience, which when he fulfills has kept his side of the covenant, and therein God's response is "due reception for obedience" according to covenant terms.

And I haven't understood your "God expects perfect obedience but considers imperfect obedience as sufficient to warrant life" premise. Either God expects perfect obedience and rejects imperfect obedience to warrant life - Or He expects imperfect obedience as sufficient to warrant life. How do you reconcile this - given that (as I recollect vaguely from before), you reject imputed righteousness for justification?

But it hardly follows that no one can DO the commandments AT ALL!!! Numerous people are called righteous by God's inspiration in Scriptures. Your conclusion ignores the tremendous number of verses that say otherwise!

As I meant these terms,
No one = every man in the flesh ie the unregenerate. Does not refer to man in the spirit. The clear demarcating line between them being God's work of regeneration.
Righteous = man in the spirit, justified by God's grace in Christ's imputed righteousness - not by any part of his own obedience. This precludes synergy - either I work sin or Christ in me works good.

So, according to my understanding, no Scripture is ignored. Perhaps we do have to spend some time learning what each one exactly means by these terms and concepts, for either of us to actually engage the other in discussion. I'll start off by stating what I hold "good" to be, in my next post.

Though, I might get held up replying to any post of yours over the next few days - I'll try to respond whenever I can.

 

[francisdesales]

What is "initial" grace here? Is that mandatory - why must grace even be there?

Where is this coming from? What more can I say about this?

Grace is a gift. It is free. Why do you insist that grace "must" be given? My term "initial" refers to the first granting of a gift. The first time you choose to give a gift, say in a UGMA to your child, your first installment is the initial deposit. There is no "necessity", but it is called the "initial", since initial means first.

I suppose you agree that all of God's grace are gifts - is there a compulsion that there must be an "initial" gift? Would God be unjust if He never gave any gifts at all?

No! The first gift is the initial gift. That is all I was saying. I never made a claim that the initial gift was a necessity! But if grace is given even once, there is an initial grace! Good gravy...

If "mercy" is dependent upon the person receiving mercy

It doesn't. That is your claim, your definition. I said it depends upon the gift giver. You state it depends upon the receiver's due. Remember?

doesn't that break down the very concept of mercy? Mercy, by definition, has to be unconditional - why are you imposing such conditions here?

:eeeekkk

You are mistaking your point of view for mine, apparently. Are you arguing with yourself? Go back and read our posts. Your definition states that mercy is dependent upon the one receiving the mercy, I corrected you and stated it depended upon the gift giver...

Here was my reply to you, yesterday at 12:46 PM:

Idavid:
And I'll give working definitions of grace and mercy here to see if there's any disagreement there -
Mercy - To not enforce a condemnation that a transgressor deserves.
Grace - To give a gift that one does not deserve.

Francisdesales:

I think that Grace and Mercy are more properly dependent upon the giver, not what the receiver deserves/doesn't deserve. That is how we view God. We see God as an unconditional lover. Thus, whether we "deserve it" or not is inconsequential. That's the POINT of "unconditional love" that is missing from your theology.

I then proceeded to explain in a variety of ways what mercy is - and nowhere do I imply it is a necessity OR depends upon what man is due him. How on earth did you change my views so drastically? Mercy is dependent upon the giver of mercy...

Forgive me if I ignore the faulty conclusions that you make based upon your inability to comprehend my point of view so poorly. My time is limited, and I can't have a conversation with someone who is twisting my views 180 degrees on such basic things. Please read my posts more carefully, if you would like to continue this discussion...

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

Forgive me if I ignore the faulty conclusions that you make based upon your inability to comprehend my point of view so poorly. My time is limited, and I can't have a conversation with someone who is twisting my views 180 degrees on such basic things.

You could simply have sought clarification on what I was dealing with and where I was coming from - instead of jumping the gun to make your own definitive conclusions on what I was saying.

Anyway, let's look objectively at the premises and their inferences -
ivdavid - "Mercy - To not enforce a condemnation that a transgressor deserves."
francisdesales - "Your definition states that mercy is dependent upon the one receiving the mercy. You state it[mercy] depends upon the receiver's due."

Alright, consider a case where a person guilty of murder is brought before a king and according to the laws of the land, such a person is to be hanged. What does the transgressor of the law deserve according to justice there - he deserves to be hanged, he is condemned to death. Now, before such just sentence is carried out - he is brought before the king. If the king chooses to be merciful to this murderer, then the murderer does not receive the condemnation that he deserves under the laws of the land. He is not hanged - when that was what he deserved as justice for his transgressions. I am here repeatedly clarifying that he does not receive the condemnation that he deserves under the law. Nowhere here is it implied that he deserves mercy or that he could ever deserve mercy.

I think that Grace and Mercy are more properly dependent upon the giver, not what the receiver deserves/doesn't deserve. That is how we view God. We see God as an unconditional lover. Thus, whether we "deserve it" or not is inconsequential.

In "whether we deserve it or not is inconsequential", what is the "it" you're referring to? The language structure above seems to suggest that you were referring to grace, mercy or perhaps even love - as in "Thus, whether we deserve grace/mercy/love or not is inconsequential". But I was NOT referring to any of these things as the object of deservance in my definition of mercy -

ivdavid - "Mercy - To not enforce a condemnation that a transgressor deserves."
The object of deservance here stated is the transgressor's "condemnation" and Not mercy.

And I would never say - "whether we deserve condemnation or not is inconsequential" - since I believe this deservance is what points us to faith in Christ, in complete appreciation of His grace, mercy and love.

francisdesales - "A "partial" obedience to the Law is sufficient, in God's eyes, to warrant His merciful granting of life."
In your statement, "A partial obedience to the Law by man is sufficient to warrant God's mercy" - are you not stating a conditional to be fulfilled by man in order to "warrant" God's mercy? If God's mercy can be "warranted" based on man's level of obedience - is this not dependent on man? To make mercy "unconditional" - you must not bring man's actions into the picture at all - but you did, which prompted all my questions on this. And even here, I do not presume to have sorted out the whole picture on you - I am asking you how you'd reconcile your above statement of getting man's actions into the picture of mercy, when mercy is to be completely independent of them?

That's my clarification on the "mercy" issue. I'll clarify the "grace" issue in the next post....

 

[ivdavid]

I never made a claim that the initial gift was a necessity!

Alright, I'll hold it as you say it.

But consider how I see what you're effectively saying -
francisdesales - "Without God, we cannot obey the Law. True."
1. Here, you effectively seem to be saying that without God, it is impossible for man to obey the Law.

francisdesales - "God is my "spotter", He enables me to obey Him..."
And God here enables man to overcome the previous impossibility. This is my question - is this enablement, God's grace or not?

2. From what you've said in the following quote, I'm inclined to believe that you hold such enablement too to be God's grace.
francisdesales - "I would agree. We rely on grace since we cannot obligate God to grant eternal life - since we are of the flesh."

From the above 1. and 2., I infer the following statement that -
"God, by His grace, enables man to overcome the impossibility of obeying the law."
Would you make this above statement? If not, kindly clarify. If so, let's proceed.

francisdesales - "But God does not abandon us while commanding us to fulfill something we cannot do."
Well, so far we see that man cannot obey the law[Point 1.] without God's grace[Point 2.]. We also know that God commands us to fulfill the law. In essence, God does command us to fulfill the law which we cannot obey without His grace.

What you've added to this is - "But God does not abandon us [here]....What sort of justice is that???"
Here, you seem to have made God's grace to enable us to obey the law, as a mandatory requirement - as a necessity - else you claim it would be injustice. When God's grace is made a necessity in order for Him to be just - it ceases to be grace - as you too seem to have affirmed in your last post.

So, is God's grace that enables us to obey the law, a necessity or not? If it is, then how is it grace? If it's not, then how have your views on justice changed?

This is where I'm coming from. Can you now see how I'm seeing your beliefs? If they're amiss, please clarify. And if you need any more clarifications, I'd be glad to provide them.

If these last two posts of mine have clarified your doubts, you could perhaps resume from where we left.

 

[francisdesales]

Anyway, let's look objectively at the premises and their inferences -
ivdavid - "Mercy - To not enforce a condemnation that a transgressor deserves."
francisdesales - "Your definition states that mercy is dependent upon the one receiving the mercy. You state it[mercy] depends upon the receiver's due."

Alright, consider a case where a person guilty of murder is brought before a king and according to the laws of the land, such a person is to be hanged. What does the transgressor of the law deserve according to justice there - he deserves to be hanged, he is condemned to death. Now, before such just sentence is carried out - he is brought before the king. If the king chooses to be merciful to this murderer, then the murderer does not receive the condemnation that he deserves under the laws of the land. He is not hanged - when that was what he deserved as justice for his transgressions. I am here repeatedly clarifying that he does not receive the condemnation that he deserves under the law. Nowhere here is it implied that he deserves mercy or that he could ever deserve mercy.

I didn't say you implied that. I am saying that mercy depends upon the giver of the mercy, not on the punishment due. That is where the focus lays, upon the giver of mercy. One can give mercy even if no punishment is due. For example, the forgiveness of a debt.

In "whether we deserve it or not is inconsequential", what is the "it" you're referring to?

Mercy, naturally...

ivdavid - "Mercy - To not enforce a condemnation that a transgressor deserves."
The object of deservance here stated is the transgressor's "condemnation" and Not mercy.

And I would never say - "whether we deserve condemnation or not is inconsequential" - since I believe this deservance is what points us to faith in Christ, in complete appreciation of His grace, mercy and love.

To a degree. However, such knowledge is not necessary to receive grace, mercy, or love. If God loves unconditionally, then such knowledge is not the factor when God decides to grant grace or mercy. God sets the bar for granting mercy.

francisdesales - "A "partial" obedience to the Law is sufficient, in God's eyes, to warrant His merciful granting of life."
In your statement, "A partial obedience to the Law by man is sufficient to warrant God's mercy" - are you not stating a conditional to be fulfilled by man in order to "warrant" God's mercy?

As per God's promise that He would grant mercy and forgiveness to those who attempted to obey the Law. Such things are all over the OT.

If God's mercy can be "warranted" based on man's level of obedience - is this not dependent on man?

No, because man HIMSELF is not doing the obedience without God's aid. Furthermore, grace is dependent upon the mercy of the Giver of mercy. Again, God owes no one grace. When I say "warranted", I am not saying God is obligated. But since God is righteous, He will fulfill His promises.

To make mercy "unconditional" - you must not bring man's actions into the picture at all - but you did, which prompted all my questions on this.

LOVE is unconditional, not mercy.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

But consider how I see what you're effectively saying -
francisdesales - "Without God, we cannot obey the Law. True."
1. Here, you effectively seem to be saying that without God, it is impossible for man to obey the Law.

Yes, with one's inner disposition. Choosing not to rape someone else's wife because they have a body building husband is not "obeying the Law" for the inner disposition that God desires. Here, a man is "obeying the Law" out of fear of getting his rear-end kicked. Literally, he is obeying the Law, but without the proper inner disposition. We cannot obey God's Law with the proper inner disposition - love of God and neighbor - without the aid of God.

francisdesales - "God is my "spotter", He enables me to obey Him..."
And God here enables man to overcome the previous impossibility. This is my question - is this enablement, God's grace or not?

Enablement is God's grace. However, one can obey the Law without the correct inner dispostions. The choice to not kill someone out of fear of getting tossed in jail IS obeying the Law, is it not?

But in these discussions, it should be presumed that we are speaking of correct motives, as well as the actual ability to do so.

In addition, let's not forget that man does has a natural ability to obey the law for other, better reasons.

Take the Stoics of Paul's days. They indeed were preaching a life of self-control, prudence and temperance, just as Paul was doing. Clearly, the Stoics were not sinning during those moments, NOR were they "regenerate". Thus, we have an unregenerate obeying the Law (without knowing it). And we are back to my original point - that not every action of an unregenerate is sinful. The difference, of course, was the motives and the knowledge of Who was guiding one to fulfill those actions. Christians know they are God's Spirit. Stoics think it was of their own doing, when properly speaking, it was the Spirit of God writing a law onto their hearts, for the Stoics could be seen as seeking out truth and beauty, which is another way of seeking out God (for God is truth).

2. From what you've said in the following quote, I'm inclined to believe that you hold such enablement too to be God's grace.
francisdesales - "I would agree. We rely on grace since we cannot obligate God to grant eternal life - since we are of the flesh."

From the above 1. and 2., I infer the following statement that -
"God, by His grace, enables man to overcome the impossibility of obeying the law."

Technically speaking, man can obey the Law, as I mention above, but to 'properly' obey it, where such an act could be considered salvific in God's eyes, it must be aided by God.

francisdesales - "But God does not abandon us while commanding us to fulfill something we cannot do."
Well, so far we see that man cannot obey the law[Point 1.] without God's grace[Point 2.]. We also know that God commands us to fulfill the law. In essence, God does command us to fulfill the law which we cannot obey without His grace.

It's really a theoretical presumption, since God does NOT abandon us or expect us to do something ALONE without His aid.

What you've added to this is - "But God does not abandon us [here]....What sort of justice is that???"
Here, you seem to have made God's grace to enable us to obey the law, as a mandatory requirement - as a necessity - else you claim it would be injustice.

I think your idea of God is vastly different than mine...

There is no "necessity" to provide grace. We call God Just because He DOES aid us to obey His will. If we had no ability to obey, and we received no aid, then God would be unjust.

When God's grace is made a necessity in order for Him to be just

Again, "necessity"...

So, is God's grace that enables us to obey the law, a necessity or not?

Without God's grace, we cannot obey the Law as He has commanded. If God gives us a command that we cannot obey, and chooses not to help us, how exactly does that make God just? It sounds like meaningless words.

Does God "have" to be just? Of course not. God has ultimate power over life and death, and can choose to take it at His will. Justice is giving someone their due. Now, if we are created with the inability to do "x", and we don't do "x", isn't that the end result expectation? HOW INDEED could a "just" judge punish in such a situation?

If you commanded an infant not to cry upon pain of death, and she cried an hour later, would you be considered just for having her put to death? I would hope not...

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

I didn't say you implied that. I am saying that mercy depends upon the giver of the mercy, not on the punishment due. That is where the focus lays, upon the giver of mercy. One can give mercy even if no punishment is due. For example, the forgiveness of a debt.

Why do you feel I have shifted focus away from the giver of mercy? I'm still describing what such a giver of mercy would do, keeping him as the subject. How would one define mercy without describing what the subject does?

And condemnation need not just refer to sentencing one to death or jail. Condemnation is the negative sentence of any judgement - and I'm saying wherever this is not rendered, it is an act of mercy. So, if one borrows money from you, are there any negative consequences he'd face if he does not return the money - or does it make absolutely no difference whether he pays it back or not? The negative consequence could simply be a resolution by the giver to never lend money to him again - and still this amounts to a negative sentence rendered to that person in debt. If there is ever so slight a consequence - and such consequence is not rendered, that is an act of mercy. You see, forgiveness itself is to no longer hold into account, the transgressions of the transgressor. But what comes of holding such transgressions into account - definitely must be something different to 'not' holding such transgressions into account. Not enforcing that difference is what I'm referring to as "not enforcing the condemnation due to the transgressor".

Am I required to clarify anything else on this?

If God loves unconditionally, then such knowledge[of one's deservance of condemnation before God] is not the factor when God decides to grant grace or mercy.

It's definitely not the factor based on which God grants mercy - I'd further say, there are absolutely no factors involving man that God's mercy is based upon (I think you'd disagree here). But saying it's not a factor does not imply that it's not part of the process - God convicts the sinner first, even though such conviction is not the factor upon which God's mercy is based upon. I'd say, such conviction itself is God's mercy playing out.

LOVE is unconditional, not mercy.

This is the root difference from which spring all our other differences here - and accordingly our understanding of Scripture. Perhaps we could discuss this in another thread dedicated to the understanding of mercy.

 

[ivdavid]

We cannot obey God's Law with the proper inner disposition - love of God and neighbor - without the aid of God.

I agree quite vehemently on this.

However, one can obey the Law without the correct inner dispostions.

My question is - what does God consider as "obeying the law"? Does God consider doing His commandments out of the correct inner disposition as 'obeying the law' - or does God just consider man's doing the commandments as 'obeying the law' even when there is no correct inner disposition?

Note, if you say it's the former - then your above quote is contradictory in itself. Also, I'd then say that - The choice to not kill someone out of fear of getting tossed in jail is NOT obeying the Law. I'd say that man does not have the natural ability to obey the law. And that the stoics did NOT obey the law. Also, there would be no "technical" obedience to the law as opposed to "proper" obedience to the law - what is "proper" would be the only "technical" way.

 

[ivdavid]

Does God "have" to be just? Of course not.

I'd think God HAS to be just - it is not in His nature to be any other way or to even consider any such possibility. So, God is not JUST because of what He does - everything He does is what we ought to define as JUST. God is necessarily JUST - He has no other choice given He is who He is.

Justice is giving someone their due. Now, if we are created with the inability to do "x", and we don't do "x", isn't that the end result expectation? HOW INDEED could a "just" judge punish in such a situation?

Both of us are agreed upon the fact that God did command us to do "x" and that His standard "x" never differs - in that, He does not change His standard based upon our abilities rather He changes our abilities to reach up to His never varying standard. Essentially, "x" never varies and in that, the conclusion is that the standard has been framed on ideals and not the ability of man.

If it is sin that enslaves us into corruption where we fall short of the ability to do "x", and God is not the author of sin, why is there now need for God to change His standard of ideals? And how does His not creating us incorruptible make Him the author of evil - since He is not the author of sin, He is not obligated to create us according to sin's power. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

When God's grace is made a necessity in order for Him to be just - it ceases to be grace - as you too seem to have affirmed in your last post.

There is no "necessity" to provide grace. We call God Just because He DOES aid us to obey His will. If we had no ability to obey, and we received no aid, then God would be unjust.

I thought it was pretty clear from my statement that I was referring to the "necessity of grace in order for God to be just". And that's exactly what you've implied here in your response. Then why say "there is no necessity to provide grace"?

If God is necessarily JUST, and you hold the necessity of God's grace for Him to remain JUST, then you are indeed holding grace to be a necessity. How then can it be called grace, if you make it out to be a necessity - a mandatory requirement?