How does faith in God brings us freedom

[francisdesales]

Your objection is a redefinition of the term free will. Let me review.
1---You made the assertion that man must have free will because he is made in the image of God.
2---I asked if men in heaven have free will, and if they do not have they lost the image of God. The idea here is that if men in heaven have not free will, and are still in the image of God, then a person can have both no free will and the image of God.
3---You deny this as a valid argument because men in heaven have free will because they can choose many things, but they cannot choose sin.
4---The essence of my argument in this post will be that you have changed the definition of "free will."

I agree mankind in heaven is by nature righteous and therefore cannot sin. Mankind in heaven is limited by their righteous nature from sinning. They serve God by nature. If this is free will then all Calvinists believe in free will. Yet, this is not the historic definition of free will.

Mankind on earth does indeed have the kind of "free will" you agree that men have in heaven. The difference is not the ability of the will, but the nature of the person. Here on heart, we are by nature sinful.

This is an invalid assumption. Or at least, a technically incorrect theological assumption. God took on the NATURE of mankind. IF man's nature is sinful, then God took on a sinful nature. We know God as Jesus was sinless. IF it is man's NATURE to sin, then, again, God did NOT become "man".

We have a propensity to sin. We have a tendency to sin. We all eventually fail. But to call our NATURE sinful is theologically incorrect - for then, Jesus did not redeem us in that case. The Church Fathers say that Jesus redeemed all that He became. If He did not become man, we are not redeemed.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Your objection is a redefinition of the term free will. Let me review.
1---You made the assertion that man must have free will because he is made in the image of God.
2---I asked if men in heaven have free will, and if they do not have they lost the image of God. The idea here is that if men in heaven have not free will, and are still in the image of God, then a person can have both no free will and the image of God.
3---You deny this as a valid argument because men in heaven have free will because they can choose many things, but they cannot choose sin.
4---The essence of my argument in this post will be that you have changed the definition of "free will."

I agree mankind in heaven is by nature righteous and therefore cannot sin. Mankind in heaven is limited by their righteous nature from sinning. They serve God by nature. If this is free will then all Calvinists believe in free will. Yet, this is not the historic definition of free will.

Mankind on earth does indeed have the kind of "free will" you agree that men have in heaven. The difference is not the ability of the will, but the nature of the person. Here on heart, we are by nature sinful.

This is an invalid assumption. Or at least, a technically incorrect theological assumption. God took on the NATURE of mankind. IF man's nature is sinful, then God took on a sinful nature. We know God as Jesus was sinless. IF it is man's NATURE to sin, then, again, God did NOT become "man".

We have a propensity to sin. We have a tendency to sin. We all eventually fail. But to call our NATURE sinful is theologically incorrect - for then, Jesus did not redeem us in that case. The Church Fathers say that Jesus redeemed all that He became. If He did not become man, we are not redeemed.

Regards

Francis, what you write is not even Roman Catholic Theology. Even Roman Catholics believe in original sin.

3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:
Of course the fact that we are children of wrath by nature is parallel with verse 1 and being dead in sins and trespasses.
1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,

While this text applies the concept of original sin, it is Romans that is much more clear.
17 But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
Sin in this passage is not individuals sins but "sin." Of course this passage follows Romans 5 in context where we are all "in Adam."

We became sinful and sinners in Adam in Romans 5:19.
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.
Notice where we were made sinners. Not when we sin, but when Adam sinned.

francis, you cannot show me that you position is even Romans Catholic. What you say is outright Pelagian. Feel free to redefine Pelagianism as I know you will, but even the Roman Catholic Church believes in the concept of Original sin. They get around it in the council of Trent by creating the doctrine of "proveient grace." That is a long story. I dont have the time or interest to go through all this.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, what you write is not even Roman Catholic Theology. Even Roman Catholics believe in original sin.

Slow down, Mondar. Take your foot of the "rush to judge" pedal...

I didn't say anything about original sin. We are all born with it. But sin is not a "positive" reality (as a Calvinist, I presume you are aware of Augustine's position on this). Sin is a LACK of something. A lack of grace within us. And, as your knowledge of Catholicism will no doubt verify - we are all born with this lack of grace, lack of the life of God. I have said nothing against Catholic theology.

But lack of grace does not make our nature "evil". Nor does your argument address the fact that God became man. He took on OUR nature, He didn't invent a new one just for Himself. For God to become man, He took the nature of man - but a nature that INCLUDED the life of God within it, which is the same as the regenerated man (to a lesser degree, of course, as we are merely adopted sons, not natural sons...).

Regards

 

[mondar]

I didn't say anything about original sin. We are all born with it.

OK, you did not mention original sin. What you denied is that we have a nature that is sinful or rebellious. Can you tell me do you see any consequences of the fact that we all became sinners in Adam (original sin). What does that mean? Please make a positive statement of how you understand Original Sin.

But sin is not a "positive" reality (as a Calvinist, I presume you are aware of Augustine's position on this).

Actually, I never bothered to read that many original documents of the Church Fathers. I have read some, but I have not sat down are read Augustine much. If you wish, you can give me some quotes and sources. I am willing to read Augustine.

Actually, I dont even know what you mean that sin is not a positive reality. Does this mean it is a negative reality or no reality at all.

Sin is a LACK of something. A lack of grace within us. And, as your knowledge of Catholicism will no doubt verify - we are all born with this lack of grace, lack of the life of God.

Can you point to a lexical source that suggests the term amartia or some synonym of amartia means " a lack of grace?" Where did you ever get that from?

But lack of grace does not make our nature "evil".

Since I dont see your definition of sin as valid, I dont see this conclusion as valid.

Nor does your argument address the fact that God became man. He took on OUR nature, He didn't invent a new one just for Himself. For God to become man, He took the nature of man - but a nature that INCLUDED the life of God within it, which is the same as the regenerated man (to a lesser degree, of course, as we are merely adopted sons, not natural sons...).

Regards

Interesting, again I see your argument as being very non-Catholic. Did not the Vatican say that Mary was sinless? That would be the first thing. Second, I never saw the Roman Catholic Church as denying sin nature.

Nevertheless, when Jesus was conceived, he retained his divine nature, but did not make use of many of his divine attributes. Certainly Christ was all powerful, but healed with the power of the HS. So when Christ was born he had a dual nature, divine and human. Of course you must agree with that part (Nicea). I dont see that the fact that he had human nature means he could not be protected from inheriting sin nature. The HS overshadowed Mary, and so Christs human nature was sinless and without sin nature. Christ was not born with Original sin. He was born of Adam, but not in Adam.

 

[francisdesales]

OK, you did not mention original sin. What you denied is that we have a nature that is sinful or rebellious. Can you tell me do you see any consequences of the fact that we all became sinners in Adam (original sin). What does that mean? Please make a positive statement of how you understand Original Sin.

Like I said before, we have a tendency to sin, we cannot help but sin in many occasions, we often even sin when we WANT NOT to sin. We all are born with original sin - which means we lack God's grace. Sin is not a presence. That would be the heresy of dualism. There is not a "good God" and a "bad god". Thus, original sin is not us filled with the "bad god's graces", but LACKING the ONLY God's graces.

Does this make sense? Original sin is not a "positive existence", but a lack of something. Catholics consider infants are born in a STATE of lacking something. Not that we are full of something else (sin). We are made in the image of God, and God did not make us with a "sinful nature". We would say our nature is wounded, blinded, beyond our ability to come to God alone. Once you can wrap your mind around that, you'll see we are not even Semi-Pelagian.

Actually, I never bothered to read that many original documents of the Church Fathers. I have read some, but I have not sat down are read Augustine much. If you wish, you can give me some quotes and sources. I am willing to read Augustine.

Ok, I am not an "expert" on Augustine - I'd have to set aside hours a day for years to do so. However, I found this from "City of God" that might explain things...

"Let no one, therefore, seek the efficient cause of an evil will; it is not efficient but deficient, because the will in this case is not an effecting of something but a defecting. To defect from that which supremely exists to that which has less of being is to begin to have an evil will. But to try to find the causes of those defections, since, as I said,they are not efficient but deficient, is as if someone tried to see darkness or to hear silence". City of God, 12, 7

I think this clearly points out what I say above. Sin is a lack of something resulting from a defective, wounded nature, a nature that is clouded and weakened as a result of what we call "concupiscence". Augustine's "Nature of the Good" further explores this distinction, I believe, which was written against the dualists of his time.

Interesting, again I see your argument as being very non-Catholic. Did not the Vatican say that Mary was sinless? That would be the first thing. Second, I never saw the Roman Catholic Church as denying sin nature.

Again, you are jumping the gun...

Mary was sinless, and even Augustine HIMSELF excludes Mary from his theological discussions on sin. She is the exception, as per God's will, not Mary's. When we speak of such things, Mary is excluded, just as Jesus is excluded, since neither were born with sin and neither sinned in life.

Nevertheless, when Jesus was conceived, he retained his divine nature, but did not make use of many of his divine attributes. Certainly Christ was all powerful, but healed with the power of the HS.

I hadn't realized that Calvinists separate God. When the Holy Spirit works, so does the Father and Son. Or do you believe in three gods? We APPROPRIATE Christ's healing ministry to the Spirit, but that is a human way of distinction. We realize that Christ, as God, does not separate Himself from the Father and the Spirit, and thus, when they act, so does the Son.

Otherwise, you stray into tritheism.

So when Christ was born he had a dual nature, divine and human. Of course you must agree with that part (Nicea). I dont see that the fact that he had human nature means he could not be protected from inheriting sin nature.

A "sin nature" is a lack of God within, not a positive "existence", as if a sin nature was a green shirt one wears. If the presence of God is "simulated" by wearing a white shirt, then orginal sin would be like not having a shirt on. It is not a positive being, but a lack of something. Naturally, Jesus could not be born with sin because HE HIMSELF is God. How can God be without God?

Regards

 

[mondar]

Like I said before, we have a tendency to sin, we cannot help but sin in many occasions, we often even sin when we WANT NOT to sin.

And stuff like this is why I use the term Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that man has the natural capacity for good and evil at any time, but that God's grace is needed as an assistance. This is the question, is God's grace sufficient for salvation, or is Gods grace merely an assistance to salvation.

You can continue to talk about the need for God's grace, but we all agree on that. The difference between us is not the fact of a need for grace, but is grace sufficient, or merely an assistance to our own works.

Nevertheless, when Jesus was conceived, he retained his divine nature, but did not make use of many of his divine attributes. Certainly Christ was all powerful, but healed with the power of the HS.

I hadn't realized that Calvinists separate God. When the Holy Spirit works, so does the Father and Son. Or do you believe in three gods? We APPROPRIATE Christ's healing ministry to the Spirit, but that is a human way of distinction. We realize that Christ, as God, does not separate Himself from the Father and the Spirit, and thus, when they act, so does the Son.

Otherwise, you stray into tritheism

Yes, Calvinists view God as one being, but three separate persons. One what, three who's. We are classic trinitarians, but not modalists. The Father can act on his own as a person, so can the other members of the trinity. The Father sent Christ to the cross, but it was the son who went to the cross. Christ preformed the miracles, but it was by the power of the HS.

To deny separate deeds by separate persons is to stray into modalism.


Gotta go.

 

[francisdesales]

And stuff like this is why I use the term Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that man has the natural capacity for good and evil at any time, but that God's grace is needed as an assistance. This is the question, is God's grace sufficient for salvation, or is Gods grace merely an assistance to salvation.

Let's define "Pelagianism", as it appears the above opinion is Semi-Pelagianism...

Pelagius denied the primitive state in paradise and original sin, insisted on the naturalness of concupiscence and the death of the body, and ascribed the actual existence and universality of sin to the bad example which Adam set by his first sin. He regarded the moral strength of man's will, when steeled by asceticism, as sufficient in itself to desire and to attain the loftiest ideal of virtue. The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction and example, which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace. (paraphrased from Catholic Encyclopedia found at New Advent)

Nothing about grace as an "aid". He believed that asceticism was sufficient to acheive ideal virtue. And clearly, Christ's redemptive act, to Pelagius, was not necessary but as instruction. In other words, grace is not part of his paradigm. Man is not effected by Adam's sin, except by bad example. In addition, the Second Adam merely adds to the mix "good example".

I hope you can see this system is nowhere near what Catholicism is. The Council of Orange shoots all of these down. There is an ABSOLUTE need for grace. Canon 5-8 stress this necessity of grace. It is more than a mere "aid" - without grace, we can do nothing good, according to Jesus Himself.

You can continue to talk about the need for God's grace, but we all agree on that. The difference between us is not the fact of a need for grace, but is grace sufficient, or merely an assistance to our own works.

I have pointed you to the Council of Orange, which stesses what we believe. Grace is absolutely necessary. All of our works, whether prayer or desire for God, are indeed moved within us by the Holy Spirit. None of this takes away the necessity for man to respond to God with this grace in which we cannot do anything good in the first place. Grace is always sufficient - but is it always efficient? No, since man can deny the Spirit.

Yes, Calvinists view God as one being, but three separate persons. One what, three who's. We are classic trinitarians, but not modalists. The Father can act on his own as a person, so can the other members of the trinity. The Father sent Christ to the cross, but it was the son who went to the cross. Christ preformed the miracles, but it was by the power of the HS.

Now, you are confused on modalism.

A modalist is one who believes God does everything with a different "face". We need to differentiate between one person doing divine works with different singular appearances and three persons doing a divine work TOGETHER (one God consisting of three persons). Again, you are describing tritheism. If the Son does "x" and the Father does "y", you have two divine beings. The "three persons" distinction merely is an understanding of the origin of the three persons. But when God acts, all three persons act together. You misunderstand the workings of the Trinity and their TOTAL love for each other. They do nothing apart from each other. When God creates, all three creates. When God redeems, all three redeem. When God sanctifies, all three sanctify, since all three persons are equally God and they do not share the Divine Godhead.

If the tree persons acts apart from each other, you'd have tritheism. bottom line
Regards

 

[mondar]

I hope you can see this system is nowhere near what Catholicism is. The Council of Orange shoots all of these down. There is an ABSOLUTE need for grace. Canon 5-8 stress this necessity of grace. It is more than a mere "aid" - without grace, we can do nothing good, according to Jesus Himself.

Yes, of course I remember our discussion on the 2nd Council of Orange. And while I left you make the last comment, I think it was obvious that the language of that council was clearly monergisitic.

I have pointed you to the Council of Orange, which stesses what we believe. Grace is absolutely necessary. All of our works, whether prayer or desire for God, are indeed moved within us by the Holy Spirit. None of this takes away the necessity for man to respond to God with this grace in which we cannot do anything good in the first place. Grace is always sufficient - but is it always efficient? No, since man can deny the Spirit.

Francis, somehow what I have said is not coming through. I understand that one of the common Roman Catholic positions is that grace is necessary. Calvinists do not disagree that it is necessary, the question concerns the sufficiency of Grace. Should I take your comments above that Gods grace is insufficient for salvation? I think that is what you believe. You think God's grace is necessary, but insufficient for salvation.

Also, when you say "None of this takes away the necessity for man to respond to God...." Calvinists also believe in human responsibility. Certainly man responds, but without the work of God drawing man to faith, there would be no response from man. That is what john 6:44 is all about.

Yes, Calvinists view God as one being, but three separate persons. One what, three who's. We are classic trinitarians, but not modalists. The Father can act on his own as a person, so can the other members of the trinity. The Father sent Christ to the cross, but it was the son who went to the cross. Christ preformed the miracles, but it was by the power of the HS.

Now, you are confused on modalism.

A modalist is one who believes God does everything with a different "face". We need to differentiate between one person doing divine works with different singular appearances and three persons doing a divine work TOGETHER (one God consisting of three persons). Again, you are describing tritheism. If the Son does "x" and the Father does "y", you have two divine beings. The "three persons" distinction merely is an understanding of the origin of the three persons. But when God acts, all three persons act together. You misunderstand the workings of the Trinity and their TOTAL love for each other. They do nothing apart from each other. When God creates, all three creates. When God redeems, all three redeem. When God sanctifies, all three sanctify, since all three persons are equally God and they do not share the Divine Godhead.

If the tree persons acts apart from each other, you'd have tritheism. bottom line
Regards

Possibly the confusion here is the way you define your terms "acts apart from each other." As separate persons, the members of the trinity can do separate deeds, but obviously the do not work against each other.

I am aware that Roman Catholics are not usually modalists. Neither are Calvinists polytheists or tritheists. Neither are my statements polytheistic.

 

[Bubba]

Let's not get into a debate over universal reconciliation here and please try to stay on topic.
Thanks all.

Does this mean I cannot say any more about Romans 5?

You could always private message me.
Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, of course I remember our discussion on the 2nd Council of Orange. And while I left you make the last comment, I think it was obvious that the language of that council was clearly monergisitic.

Yes, and I remember that I mentioned that there are synergistic elements understood, as well. My brother, please remember I am not ignoring the "monergistic" elements of my faith. However, when one defends against one extreme (such as Calvinism and "man has no free will"), it will appear that when I point out the synergistic parts of the faith, I am denying the truth of God's Sovereignty. I am not. We agree on such things, just not the degree that you do. We are certainly not Arminian, nor are we Calvinist. I realize that you, as a Calvinist, deal in such extremes as you probably grapple with the opposite extreme, Arminianism. However, Catholicism is indeed "middle of the road" on these issues. And I have already pointed out before that we do believe in predestination and the absolute necessity of grace to do ANY good deed.

Francis, somehow what I have said is not coming through. I understand that one of the common Roman Catholic positions is that grace is necessary. Calvinists do not disagree that it is necessary, the question concerns the sufficiency of Grace. Should I take your comments above that Gods grace is insufficient for salvation? I think that is what you believe. You think God's grace is necessary, but insufficient for salvation.

May I ask a favor of you? Please read the parable of the sower of the seed. It was read for us Catholics today (Luke 8's version) at the Mass. I ask you read and reflect on it - then ask yourself whether the "soil" - where the seed falls - is ALSO part of the equation that "produces the fruit".

God's grace is sufficient for salvation. It is not always efficient, however, because man CAN choose to grieve the Holy Spirit. We see examples of this in our own religious communities, no doubt. People fall away from the faith, due to material goods or difficult times (as the Gospel reports what we plainly can see).

Also, when you say "None of this takes away the necessity for man to respond to God...." Calvinists also believe in human responsibility. Certainly man responds, but without the work of God drawing man to faith, there would be no response from man. That is what john 6:44 is all about.

Responsibility to do what, Mondar? In your paradigm, man can do nothing BUT sin. Even under the auspice of the Spirit, man is basically a puppet who is "ridden" by God - or "ridden" by satan, as the case may be. God draws men to Himself, but does the man HAVE to "open the door" of His heart? No. He does not. That is the freedom we have been given. We may choose to allow God to work within us, or not.

Possibly the confusion here is the way you define your terms "acts apart from each other." As separate persons, the members of the trinity can do separate deeds, but obviously the do not work against each other.

I am aware that Roman Catholics are not usually modalists. Neither are Calvinists polytheists or tritheists. Neither are my statements polytheistic.

One must be very careful in this regards, Mondar. Again, if the Father does something, and the Son is not with Him, then you have two "Gods", two divine beings with separate divine natures. The Trinity is inseperable and work together in all cases. Perhaps you should consider reading the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon's rule of faith on this matter. I presume Calvinists accept these as authoritative, accurately relating the Word of God found in Scriptures?

Regards

 

[mondar]

May I ask a favor of you? Please read the parable of the sower of the seed. It was read for us Catholics today (Luke 8's version) at the Mass. I ask you read and reflect on it - then ask yourself whether the "soil" - where the seed falls - is ALSO part of the equation that "produces the fruit".

God's grace is sufficient for salvation. It is not always efficient, however, because man CAN choose to grieve the Holy Spirit. We see examples of this in our own religious communities, no doubt. People fall away from the faith, due to material goods or difficult times (as the Gospel reports what we plainly can see).

Would you like me to work through that text, or its parallel passage in Matthew? If we say that the soils represent the regenerate or unregenerate hearts, then what?

Also, if Gods grace is sufficient for salvation, then Gods grace is all that is needed. God is then doing 100% of the work. If Grace is not always efficient, then it is not sufficient.

Also, when you say "None of this takes away the necessity for man to respond to God...." Calvinists also believe in human responsibility. Certainly man responds, but without the work of God drawing man to faith, there would be no response from man. That is what john 6:44 is all about.

Responsibility to do what, Mondar? In your paradigm, man can do nothing BUT sin. Even under the auspice of the Spirit, man is basically a puppet who is "ridden" by God - or "ridden" by satan, as the case may be. God draws men to Himself, but does the man HAVE to "open the door" of His heart? No. He does not. That is the freedom we have been given. We may choose to allow God to work within us, or not.

That is the whole point of regeneration. Man does not open the door of his own heart. The heart is desperately wicked. It is God that opens the door of mans heart by ending mans slavery to his own sin nature. The sin nature remains present, but the regenerate man is no longer the slave of sin in Romans 6. Not being the slave of sin, we repent and believe.

Notice in John 6:44 that the one the Father draws is raised up on the last day. This is the same person in John 6:40 that is a believer and is raise up on the last day. So then, all those drawn by the Father are saved. There is no free will there. John 6:44 does not allow any free will.

In John 6:37 it says "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Not some will come, not most will come, "all will come." John 6:39 says that of those given by the Father, Jesus will loose not even one.

Since our faith is dependent upon the grace of God, God chooses to whom he will draw to faith, and then we are "raised up on the last day."

Possibly the confusion here is the way you define your terms "acts apart from each other." As separate persons, the members of the trinity can do separate deeds, but obviously the do not work against each other.

I am aware that Roman Catholics are not usually modalists. Neither are Calvinists polytheists or tritheists. Neither are my statements polytheistic.

One must be very careful in this regards, Mondar. Again, if the Father does something, and the Son is not with Him, then you have two "Gods", two divine beings with separate divine natures. The Trinity is inseperable and work together in all cases. Perhaps you should consider reading the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon's rule of faith on this matter. I presume Calvinists accept these as authoritative, accurately relating the Word of God found in Scriptures?

Regards

Where was the Father when Christ was being forsaken on the cross?

God is not 1 person who is three persons. He is not one being who is three persons. The do not have separate natures, and each member of the trinity shares in the divine essence (Nicea and Chalcedon). He is one what, and 3 who's. The Son, in his earthly humanity/diety can pray to the Father in heaven. Yes, each is omnipresent because all members of the trinity share in the divine essence, but the scriptures speak of Christ as on earth and the Father in heaven.

Christ could pray to the Father, "not my will, but thy will be done." So also, Christ can preform a miracle, and yet it was by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Everything I have been saying is an affirmation of the doctrine of the trinity. Can you show me where I disagree with Nicea or Chalcedon?

 

[mondar]

Let's not get into a debate over universal reconciliation here and please try to stay on topic.
Thanks all.

Does this mean I cannot say any more about Romans 5?

You could always private message me.
Bubba

Potluck, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one on one debates on UR are allowed in the one on one area?

 

[francisdesales]

Would you like me to work through that text, or its parallel passage in Matthew? If we say that the soils represent the regenerate or unregenerate hearts, then what?

The soil doesn't represent the "regenerate" or "unregenerate". That is unsupportable by the parable. The parable never makes such a distinction or definition. It speaks about faith and about being steadfast, DESPITE the temptations of material goods or suffering, for example. It is presumed that those who BEGAN to receive the seed are regenerate in the first place. The Gospel clearly tells us that there are those who BEGIN to abide in the word but FALL AWAY. Thus, they MUST have been regenerate initially, since WE both know that one must be regenerate to do the work of God. Clearly, some of them are indeed doing the work of God, but then fall away due to losing focus. Thus, those who persevere until the end are saved (for heaven).

Whether you realize it or not, the idea that this parable speaks of the unregenerate tells me that you really do not believe that we can do good ONLY by God. You are stating that the unregenerate can do good deeds in Christ?

Also, if Gods grace is sufficient for salvation, then Gods grace is all that is needed. God is then doing 100% of the work. If Grace is not always efficient, then it is not sufficient.

That is faulty logic, my friend. If I give you sufficient money to buy something, but you choose not to purchase whatever it is you are supposed to buy, how is that "not sufficient"??? I gave you sufficient money, but it was not efficient because the effects desired were not achieved (due to you).

That is the whole point of regeneration. Man does not open the door of his own heart. The heart is desperately wicked. It is God that opens the door of mans heart by ending mans slavery to his own sin nature. The sin nature remains present, but the regenerate man is no longer the slave of sin in Romans 6. Not being the slave of sin, we repent and believe.

I didn't say he opened it HIMSELF. I clearly pointed out in previous posts that we cannot even DESIRE to do God's will without some sort of movement by the Spirit working within us. The Second Council of Orange explains this. This desire put within us is not overpowering. People can choose to ignore God's calling to do practically anything. You know this. Man, at some level, decides to obey God's promptings. Or at least to not interfere, if that is more acceptable. The effect is the same. We can do nothing good without God - that means by ourselves. But the Bible clearly points out that man is expected to do something that you claim he has not the power to do. You are again ignoring part of Scriptures to rationalize the other parts of Scriptures.

Notice in John 6:44 that the one the Father draws is raised up on the last day. This is the same person in John 6:40 that is a believer and is raise up on the last day. So then, all those drawn by the Father are saved. There is no free will there. John 6:44 does not allow any free will.

This means that no one comes to the Father WITHOUT BEING DRAWN, not that everyone that the Father calls will be "raised up on the last day". Judas Iscariot was drawn to the Father, called by Him, chosen by Christ - and yet, fell away by his own free will. You are misinterpreting Scriptures. We cannot come to believe in God without being drawn to Him, not that all who are drawn are automatically going to answer God's call. Jesus stated in Revelation that He enters only to "supp" with those who ANSWER. Your statement makes God a liar when other Scriptures say "God desires all men to be saved". We know all men are not saved. Thus, God MUST call to ALL men, as the parable of the sower states. The seed falls on ALL the ground, Mondar. Not just the good soil. Thus, man is part of the formula, part of the reason why all of God's calls are not efficient...

Where was the Father when Christ was being forsaken on the cross?

You think that God the Father was without His Word when the Son was on the cross????

If the Son is God, then He must be present everywhere in some form. The Son was not absent from the Father during the three days the Son was in the tomb! The Son and Father are always together.

God is not 1 person who is three persons. He is not one being who is three persons. The do not have separate natures, and each member of the trinity shares in the divine essence (Nicea and Chalcedon).

They don't "share" the divine essence. They equally posses ALL of the divine nature. A sharing means they split parts of divinity.

He is one what, and 3 who's. The Son, in his earthly humanity/diety can pray to the Father in heaven. Yes, each is omnipresent because all members of the trinity share in the divine essence, but the scriptures speak of Christ as on earth and the Father in heaven.

Christ is on earth - but the Son is ALSO in heaven, as well, as per His divine nature.

Christ could pray to the Father, "not my will, but thy will be done." So also, Christ can preform a miracle, and yet it was by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Father, Son, and Spirit are always together, never separate. The Word of God acts through the Love of God, the Holy Spirit.

Everything I have been saying is an affirmation of the doctrine of the trinity. Can you show me where I disagree with Nicea or Chalcedon?

I believe that Calvinists focus too much on grace and free will to the detriment of not better knowing the most important doctrine of our faith, the Trinity...

From CCC 258

The whole divine economy is the common work of the same three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same nature, so too, does it have only one and the same operation: "the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle (Council of Constantinople 553)". However each divine person performs common work according to His unique personal property. Thus, the Church confesses, following the New Testament "one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are (Council of Constantinople 553)". It is above all the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gifts fo the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.

CCC 259

Being a work at once common and personal, the whole divine economy makes known both what is proper to the divine persons and their one divine nature. Hence the whole Christian life is a communion with each of the divine persons, without in any way separating them. Everyone who glorifies the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him (Jn 6:44, Rom 8:14)

This is our faith, if you are a Trinitarian. There are not three divine principles within the Trinity, three separate beings that act independently, that is clearly polytheism. The three persons are distinct ONLY in origin. The Father begotten the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (as one principle, not two). Otherwise, the entire divine economy, all that God does outside of Himself - creation - is done as One. The Father, Son, and Spirit creates, although we appropriate creation to the Father. The Father, Son, and Spirit redeems, although we appropriate redemption to the Son. The Father, Son, and Spirit sanctifies, although we appropriate sanctification as a work of the Spirit.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Potluck, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one on one debates on UR are allowed in the one on one area?

Mondar, I set up the Romans 5:18 comment on the Debate Forum if you desire still to respond.
Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Potluck, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one on one debates on UR are allowed in the one on one area?

Mondar, I set up the Romans 5:18 comment on the Debate Forum if you desire still to respond.
Bubba

Easily answered. The second "all" refers to all men, but all men do not choose to respond to God's offer of salvation. God desires all men to be saved, but all men do not desire it.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Easily answered. The second "all" refers to all men, but all men do not choose to respond to God's offer of salvation. God desires all men to be saved, but all men do not desire it.

Regards

Francesdesales,
You are adding your presupposition to the verse. Unfortunately, UR can not be address here and the way it is working out in the Debate Forum, the thread will soon be locked.
Take care, Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Easily answered. The second "all" refers to all men, but all men do not choose to respond to God's offer of salvation. God desires all men to be saved, but all men do not desire it.

Regards

Francesdesales,
You are adding your presupposition to the verse. Unfortunately, UR can not be address here and the way it is working out in the Debate Forum, the thread will soon be locked.
Take care, Bubba

You are right - you shouldn't bring this up here.

Regards