Sovereignty and a God that can be Moved

[JM]

Vic, let me get this right, you looked for a translation that fit your presuppositions?

Literal:
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
th gar cariti este seswsmenoi dia ths pistewV kai touto ouk ex umwn qeou to dwron

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
th gar cariti este seswsmenoi dia ths pistewV kai touto ouk ex umwn qeou to dwron

Byzantine Majority
th gar cariti este seswsmenoi dia ths pistewV kai touto ouk ex umwn qeou to dwron

King James Version
2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

American Standard Version
2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Young's Literal Translation
2:8 for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,

The gift is grace and faith.

Let's refrain from name-calling, please!

Sorry Vic, can't do it. It would be against the word of God not to tell someone when they fit the Biblical definition of a person who doesn't reason well.

I say all of this not just because I enjoy insulting and belittling the unbelievers (although that also has its place; 1 Kings 18:27); rather, this is a scriptural teaching that few Christians are faithful to emphasize. Those who say anything about it at all usually obscure the teaching by their almost poetic language, making human depravity and wickedness, and the effects of sin on the mind, sound almost beautiful. But the Bible is blunt and unambiguous on this matter. It teaches that God has made "moronic" non-Christian philosophers and scholars, along with all their ideas (1 Corinthians 1:20).

tow didn't read my response or he/she wouldn't have asked the question.

 

[Vic C.]

Drew,

That was an attack on a person and not the person's postion. Let's please refrain from that also.

Jason and I may disagree on points of Free Will and may agree that free will is diminished and/or removed completely from the believer, but we are not attacking each other because of our disagreements.

No one should be calling anyone names nor specifically attacking the person they are debating.

Agreed?

 

[Vic C.]

Vic, let me get this right, you looked for a translation that fit your presuppositions?

Actually, like I said, I thought about this while in bed and it came to me when I woke up this morning. I didn't set out to find anything that conforms to my belief. It just came to me... you, a revelation of sorts. Besides, those verses you quoted say the same thing I'm saying if one really considers the grammatical structure of the sentence.

That is all. I am backing out of the debate. It seems this thread needs more moderating than I can do if I'm entrenched in debate.

Carry on people.

 

[JM]

I am backing out of the debate.

I'll follow you back to eschatology, where I always need your help. :D I entered this thread only after seeing you had interest in it.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

That was an attack on a person and not the person's postion. Let's please refrain from that also.

Jason and I may disagree on points of Free Will and may agree that free will is diminished and/or removed completely from the believer, but we are not attacking each other because of our disagreements.

No one should be calling anyone names nor specifically attacking the person they are debating.

Agreed?

Agreed.

 

[John the Baptist]

Exellent point Vic. If there is NO free will that allows those that 'hear' the Word to be 'moved' to accept the Savior, WHY EVEN offer our testimony or witness. What was offered at the end of each gospel would be of NONE effect if there is NO FREE WILL. Predestination at BEST can ONLY mean that God is aware of the choice that will be made. NOT that HE is the one that chooses the choice.

MEC

Imagican, you agree with Vic, but his points are not "excellent."

Augustine wrote: “For what is foreknowledge if not knowledge of future events? But can anything be future to God, who surpasses all time? For if God’s knowledge includes these very things themselves, they are not future to him but present; and for this reason we should no longer speak of God’s foreknowledge but simply of God’s knowledge.†Agreeing with Augustine, Gregory the Great wrote: “Whatever is past and future to us is immediately present in his sight.†For God, “there is no distinctions of time†[Tertullian, Against Marcion].

We as finite man see time as moving forward, but for God it’s always present. It’s a human idea to think that God is affected by time, it’s also a human idea to separate God’s omniscience from His all knowing foreknowledge and mix it with humanity’s nostalgic thinking. The Scriptures fully teach the omniscience of God as antecede to creation. [ http://www.pbministries.org/books/pi...04.htm ]Without understanding this, without fully recognising God’s foreknowledge as being truly preceding creation we cannot come to terms with divine omniscience. I found in the works of Tertullian [Against Marcion] that attempts to harmonize human freewill with God’s omniscience, the tendency is to over emphasize human freewill above God’s omniscience. For God to foreknow anything, man’s will for example, He would have to know before the will is made because God is omniscient. For man to be created with a will, God would have to know what will to give man, this is also based on His omniscience. God’s wisdom doesn’t depend on human will, human will depends upon God’s infinite wisdom.

Augustine wrote, “If foreknowledge does not foreknow things that are certain to happen, it is nothing at all.â€Â

In essences, since God foreknows the will of man [fallen and dead in sin, or absolutely free to choose] Gods foreknowledge determines what that will it is going to be. The will comes into being because God has foreknown it. Our wills are therefore not limited but have as much power as God wants us to have, and have with certainty. Whatever the will does, it does as a matter of foreknowledge. Since time doesn’t exist for God, foreknowledge then becomes [strictly speaking], knowledge God knows before, during and after it happens…just as we view a time line.

****
John here:
What kind of double/talk is this??? (see Jeremiah 17:5 on..)

You say Agustine wrote: ??

"In essences, since God foreknows the will of man [fallen and dead in sin, or absolutely free to choose] Gods foreknowledge determines what that will it is going to be. The will comes into being because God has foreknown it. Our wills are therefore not limited but have as much power as God wants us to have, and have with certainty. Whatever the will does, it does as a matter of foreknowledge. Since time doesn’t exist for God, foreknowledge then becomes [strictly speaking], knowledge God knows before, during and after it happens…just as we view a time line."

 

[Vic C.]

Hi John,

To keep the topic moving along, what are your views on the "sovereignty of God" verses the "Free will of Man"? Is it either one without the other, or is it that both can exist concurrently?

 

[Drew]

If all things come to pass through the decree of God, how can any human act be voluntary?

Sin was allowed by God to enter into the world by His decree, so we must conclude that it has a purpose. Once sin entered in, it has enslaved us by determining our will and our nature [all have sinned in Adam as our federal head]. If you can't account for sin being allowed by decree with a purpose, then God has failed, He has been beaten by His creation.

Man is sinnful [this is the crux of the argument] and freely sins according to his nature. What God does in regeneration is set us free from the bondage of sin so we can freely believe the Gospel...this is the "I" in the TULIP. Once we are able to see the spiritual offer of the Kingdom [see John 3, you can't even see the Kingdom of God] we will eventually believe...freely.

We sin freely because we are sinners, we believe freely once set free from sin.

This argument makes no sense to me at all. The material above is more than a little imprecise and I would ask readers to consider whether the pro-Calvinist arguments presented in this thread get a good deal of their "oomph" by posting material written in such arcane and confusing form, that it becomes almost incomprehensible. It is hard to critique material that is marginal in its clarity.

I will use my own words and try to be as precise as possible

I hold it to be self-evidently obvious that a human being has to have the "freedom of contrary choice" in order to be culpable for their actions. Perhaps others will argue that the Scriptures teach that such freedom is not needed in order for us to be culpable of sin. Texts like Romans 8 (the bit about the potter and the vessels destined for destruction) have been used in this respect in this very thread. I posted a different interpretation of this same text (attributable to Dr. Lane Craig) which shows how the Romans material need not demand such an interpretation and how the text can work on the presumption of free will. The argument by Craig has gone unrefuted. Hmmmm.

A will that is enslaved is not free. If the will was once free and through past free actions has become enslaved, then the person can indeed be seen as culpable - at some point in time they had the power of contrary choice. JM seems to be arguing that you and I are born enslaved to sin. The whole notion of what it means to be culpable has a necessary connection to the notion of the power of contrary choice.

I submit that the Calvinist argument is trying to illicilty leverage that connection. On the one hand words like "sin", "guilt", etc are used, with their necessary implication of the freedom of contrary choice. On the other hand, such freedom of contrary choice is denied. The whole argument seems like a bait and switch to me.

If my nature is to sin, and if I am born with that nature, then I cannot be held culpable for my actions any more than an apple falling under gravity can be culpable for whacking someone on the head. I suspect that even Calvinists find the whole thing to be counter-intuitive. They then appeal to texts like Romans 9 and argue "the Bible says so". However, they are strangely silent when an interpretation of Romans 9 is offered, such as the one I posted from Dr. Craig, that is at variance with their system of belief.

 

[lovely]

Hi everyone,

Concerning Ephesians 2

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Respectfully, I disagree with the author of the article that vic posted. Even though there are certainly some things I agree with the Church Of Christ on, that they stress well. First of all, the verse in question IS referring to salvation through faith, both, because they are part of one another. That is why the orginal language suggest this, as he himself point out. Salvation in it's entirety is the gift. Ths is by the Spirit, and is the entire process of God's GRACE, it consists of election, faith, repentance, forgiveness, justification, redemption and willing obedience by the gift of the Holy Spirit through Jesus, and perhaps so much more that we can not even fathom.

This entire passage gives us an explanation of the process of salvation.
The Spirit causes man, who is dead in His trespasses to be alive again, quickens him. (election) Ephesians 2:1-5 Prior to our quickening, our nature was one of the children of WRATH...lustful in our flesh. (man's depraved nature) There is nothing here that says that man musters faith, and THEN the Spirit witnesses to his spirit who Christ is. 1 John 3:24 We know that those who are of the Spirit, are born of the Spirit, (John 3:5-8) and then seek Him (faith) Romans 3:11 One who is dead in trespasses can not seek God...only those who ARE His seek Him, and they are those who get rewarded by good works done in HIM. Hebrews 11:6 , then they are sorry because the are ashamed of their sin (repentance) Zechariah 12:10 Acts 11:18 2 Timothy 2:25 His presence is in them to convict their hearts. Then, they are circumcised by the Spirit through the blood of Jesus Christ (our bloody rite)...their sin is put away from them (washed in the blood), and they are sealed (Saved by grace, into the family of God). Romans 2:28 Then, if all of this has truly occured in our Spirit, we are free to be obedient to Him in love following the law written on our hearts. (sacntification) Romans 6:12 1 John 3:9, and be baptized as instructed, to signify all that is going on inside us, and promise (our part of the covenant here) to be doing this in the Spirit, and not in self-righteousness, and then we are to take communion remembering our sacrificial Lamb, and Priest, and be in one TRUE Spirit with Christ, and the church, desiring that God search our hearts (sanctification) with His Holy Spirit for the purpose of being conformed to Christ, and obeying God's command as John teaches us.

Scirpture interprets itself, and commentary of one verse explains the belief of the commentator. If we truly want to seek God's Truth, and posess it in our hearts, then we should be given over to it in it's entirety, and purely seek it. The writer of the article assumes that Calvinists, whom it was directed at, do not believe in obedience, as if Salvation in it's entirety doesn't include obedience. He misunderstands Scripture, and uses it to condemn, rather than exhort at the very end. Obedience properly stressed is what we do, if we love Him...if He abides in us (salvation), BY His GRACE. It pertains to the whole process of salvation. James says this best...it is hand and hand with our salvation, and faith is dead without works...essentially there is no salvation in a person who lacks obedience. 1 John also speaks to this. James challenges us, (paraphrase) show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith BY my works...obedience, and good works, is the outworking of God's love in us. This is our justification, by faith, and through the works of that faith, in Grace which is all part of the gift of salvation.

 

[undertow]

This talk of "secondary causes" not only appears to be incoherent nonsense, but where is the scripture for it? Have Calvinists created this doctrine out of nothing?

Fool, you really are a fool. If you stopped to read what I posted you would have found a few quotes here and there.

I posted...

London Baptist Confession of Faith 5.2
Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly;[Acts 2:23] so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without His providence;[Proverbs 16:33]yet by the same providence He ordered them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. [Genesis 8:22, 50:20]

We voluntarily sin and God uses that for His own purpose and glory.

Since you have a hard time reading...

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

We see God using "wicked hands" by His "determinate cousel" for a purpose.

Prov. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

We cast "the lot" but it is God who determines what happens, "the whole disposing thereof."

Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Man meant it for evil, God meant it for good.

Man is still guilty of sin, yet, God used their sinful deeds to kill Christ on the cross and to sell Jospeh into slavery.

Man = still guilty God = still good

Read the scriptures. :wink:

There is no point quoting scripture until you have first given a definition of "secondary causes". We need to have a clear idea of this concept and what role it is playing in Calvinist theology. Drew asked:

How does a "secondary" cause differ from a "primary" cause. There must be a distinction in your mind - it will help us all to understand where you are coming from if you articulate this distinction.

And once you have explained all this, then you can explain how scripture contains this concept.

 

[undertow]

This is a good example of seeing only what you want to see, finish reading the quote from Darby.

I have read the quote. Why isn't it contradictory?

 

[John the Baptist]

Hi John,

To keep the topic moving along, what are your views on the "sovereignty of God" verses the "Free will of Man"? Is it either one without the other, or is it that both can exist concurrently?

***
It is the latter. Never has the Godhead been without this Eternal Covenant agreement. Surely, They are Eternal & all knowing. (Immortal) But the LOVE that They require from us, which was perfect when created, (then & now) needed to be MATURED into safe to save Obedience. Nahum 1:9

And even though it is Born Again re/created perfect Love that Adam lost & had to regain which is given by a Sovereign God, it still is a free will daily choice that [we make]. If that were not so, we would be robots, and it would be an wicked thing to let sin run it's course!
---John

 

[JM]

Vic, I thought you were bowing out?

Dr William Lane Craig on Romans 9:19-24. I have added bolding. I do not necessarily say this material represents my view. However, it is another "take" on the Romans text.

Dr. Craig: The way I understand that passage in Romans 9 is that Paul is saying God is sovereign to elect whom he wills and to not save whom he wills, that this is God’s discretion and that we can’t answer back to God. But what Paul then goes on to explain is that those whom God has chosen to elect are those who have faith in Christ Jesus. Thus in Galatians 3 he says: Therefore you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham and are heirs to the promise.

I see Romans 9 as not narrowing the scope of God’s election, but broadening it out, saying to these ethnic Jews, "You can’t claim, because of your ethnicity as Jewish people, that you alone are the elect of God and that these Gentiles are not included in God’s salvation." Paul is saying God elects and saves whomever he wills, and he has willed to save all those who have faith in Christ Jesus, even these Gentiles, though they are not part of the ethnic people of Israel. I see it as an assertion of God’s divine sovereignty. It then needs to be asked: Who is it that God has chosen to save? It’s those who have faith in Christ. Therefore in Romans 10 he says, "Therefore, whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

Dr. Craig: The way I understand that passage in Romans 9 is that Paul is saying God is sovereign to elect whom he wills and to not save whom he wills, that this is God’s discretion and that we can’t answer back to God. But what Paul then goes on to explain is that those whom God has chosen to elect are those who have faith in Christ Jesus. Thus in Galatians 3 he says: Therefore you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham and are heirs to the promise.

Stated but unproven.

I see Romans 9 as not narrowing the scope of God’s election, but broadening it out, saying to these ethnic Jews, "You can’t claim, because of your ethnicity as Jewish people, that you alone are the elect of God and that these Gentiles are not included in God’s salvation." Paul is saying God elects and saves whomever he wills,

With him so far.

…and he has willed to save all those who have faith in Christ Jesus,

Not proven.

…even these Gentiles, though they are not part of the ethnic people of Israel. I see it as an assertion of God’s divine sovereignty. It then needs to be asked: Who is it that God has chosen to save? It’s those who have faith in Christ. Therefore in Romans 10 he says, "Therefore, whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

And who calls upon the name of the Lord? Not the unregenerate man who is hostile to God. You still haven’t offered anything to prove your position.

Take a look at Craig’s work and the response atheists, [ http://www.infidelguy.com ] his work is is contradictory and even unbelievers can see it.

1 John 5:1
Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him:

Did you see the order? If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, you have been born again, the Greek doesn’t allow for it any other way.

 

[Dave...]

Drew wrote:

I submit that the compatibilist case, as presented in that thread, was successfully and convincingly countered.

Since you disregard the truth of God's Word and build doctrines from the flesh, there is nothing I can do for you, Drew. We will never agree. Boast all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Vic wrote:

Phil 1:28 28 and not being terrified in anything by those who oppose, which to them truly is a proof of destruction, but to you of salvation, and this from God;
29 because it was granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf, (LITV)

Context must be considered.

Then the remainder of that quote is it's own sentence. Lets look at it.

Is it this...

"to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf, (LITV)"

Or is it this...

"because it was granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf, (LITV)"

Come on, Vic. :roll:

Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith...

Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the **author** and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

What does it mean to be an author? Even if you were to define "faith" in a general sense, meaning salvation, of which I would disagree with, but setting that aside, you still have Jesus as the "Author and Finisher" of your salvation, which would include faith.

Regeneration is the cause of faith. Which is clearly shown here...

John 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. Also vs. 10:3,16; 6:37-40,44,65

Which goes back to John 15:5 "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.", and also 1 Corinthians 4:7 "For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?", also 1 Corinthians 15:10 "10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me".

Two Views of Regeneration
http://monergism.com/thethreshold/artic ... views.html

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Vic, you quoted John 3:16, but look at John 3:19...

16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life... 19 And this is the condemnation: that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

1 Thess. 1:4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, ***but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit*** and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

=====================================================
2 Timothy 2:25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

Why would they need this?

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
=====================================================

 

[John the Baptist]

Hi John,

To keep the topic moving along, what are your views on the "sovereignty of God" verses the "Free will of Man"? Is it either one without the other, or is it that both can exist concurrently?

***
It is the latter. Never has the Godhead been without this Eternal Covenant agreement. Surely, They are Eternal & all knowing. (Immortal) But the LOVE that They require from us, which was perfect when created, (then & now) needed to be MATURED into safe to save Obedience. Nahum 1:9

And even though it is Born Again re/created perfect Love that Adam lost & had to regain which is given by a Sovereign God, it still is a free will daily choice that [we make]. If that were not so, we would be robots, and it would be an wicked thing to let sin run it's course!
---John

PS: And you asked me one time if I do not (in bottom line) get 'ticked off' (lack of a better word? :wink with certain postings against Christ?
Let me just add here. that what bothers me also, are these endless copy & pasted posts of folks that are D-E-A-D, as though they are 'inspired' and are to be believed in every word, as gospel! even by the ones who relie and cannot 'seem' think for their self it appears?

I think that Jeremiah 17:5 has the nails head (so to speak) securely covered! If some of these dead old timers were OK back then even, what about today??? Hosea 4:6 even comes after the Word of God was in print! And we still see the Jer. ones teaching for doctrine such as an 'eternal burning hell, :roll: on, & on, & on, throughout eternity! (plus much more, huh?) And the ones in these folds just keep on with this satanic stuff! See Revelation 18:4's PARTAKER of what???

"Thus saith the Lord; CURSED be the man that TRUSTETH IN MAN, and maketh flesh HIS ARM, and whose heart DEPARTETH from the LORD." Now, what makes them do this? FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Ephesians 6:12

 

[Dave...]

Vic wrote:

If you get time, please read this: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/J12-94c.htm

In Greek we must also compare scripture with scripture. I'm not saying you, Vic, but i'm finding that many of the false teachers out there are using the Greek as a "silver bullet", while at the same time disregarding a lot of clear scripture. I tend to go to scripture in English first, now, before I even consider going to the Greek. Sometimes both work in harmony as Piper shows in this quote...

Re: Eph 2:5-8
"The words for "grace" and "faith" are feminine in the original Greek. The word for "this" is neuter. Some have used this lack of agreement to say that the gift here is not faith. But this ignores the implication of verse 5: "Even when you were dead!" Grace is grace because it saved us even when we were dead. But it saves "through faith." how does it save the dead through faith? By awakening the dead into the life of faith. That is why faith is a gift in Eph 2:5-8. "This" refers to the whole event of salvation by grace through faith, and therefore does include faith as a gift. (Cf. Acts 18:27, "When he arrived he greatly helped those who through grace had believed.)"Piper

By grace through faith you are saved, NOT, by grace you can have faith and are saved.

...it is not grace PLUS faith that one is saved but grace through faith. Fiath is the instrument which takes hold of Christ and his work, but it has no redemptive value in itself. It is the Holy Spirit which unites us to Christ through faith, not because of it. We all agree that a person must believe for justification before God. But no one is naturally willing to submit to the gospel (Rom 3:11, 12; John 3:3). Faith is not part of the price of redemption, as you would have it. Look at the context of the passage you are quoting: it says, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] quickened together with Christ--by grace you have been saved." In other words, an unregenerate man who does not have the Holy Spirit, cannot understand spiritual things, they are foolishness to him (1 Cor 2:14). Apart from the Holy Spirit, man has no free will to believe the gospel. His will is in bondage to the corruption of nature. Are you claiming that a person, dead in sin, blind, deaf to the things of God, desires Christ apart from a supernatural work of the Spirit? There is overwhelming evidence to overthrow this false understanding.

From here. Great read, BTW.
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006 ... d_what.php

Back to Piper:

Re: 1 John 5:1
In the New Testament God is clearly active, creating a people for himself by calling them out of darkness and enabling them to believe the gospel and walk in the light. John teaches most clearly that regeneration preceeds and enables faith. "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" ...The verb tense make's john's intention unmistakable: Every one who goes on beliveing [present, continuous action] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God [perfect, completed action with abiding effects]. " Faith is the evidence of new birth, not the cause of it. This is consistent with john's whole book (cf. 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:2-3, 4:7).

Responsibility
"This is a great stumbling block for many people -- to assert we are responsible to do what we cannot do. The primary reason for asserting it is not that it springs obviously from our normal use of reason, but that the Bible so plainly teaches it. It may help, however, to consider that the innability we speak of is not owing to a physical handicap, but to a moral corruption. Our innability to believe is not the result of a physically damaged brain but of a morally perverted will. Physical inability would remove accountability. Moral innability does not. we cannot come to the light because our corrupt and arrogant nature hates the light. So when someone does come into the light "it is clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought by God." John 3:21. The best treatment of this difficult subject I know of is Jonathan Edward's Freedom of the Will."

Above quotes (except that which is written in italics) is from John Piper's Book Desiring God .
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/088070 ... 3?n=283155

 

[undertow]

Drew wrote:

I submit that the compatibilist case, as presented in that thread, was successfully and convincingly countered.

Since you disregard the truth of God's Word and build doctrines from the flesh, there is nothing I can do for you, Drew. We will never agree. Boast all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Dave, can you show that compatibilism is taught in scripture? Perhaps you yourself are going by doctrine from the "flesh"?

A Calvinist on this subject:

"you will see that none of them really support compatibilism [the verses cited by certain Calvinists] It appears that compatibilists are already so convinced of their position apart from Scripture that they easily "see" it taught in these verses even when they do not address the topic at all.

It is self-defeating to embrace a tradition that really has been a burden to Calvinism rather than a support, making it incoherent and hard to defend, and making its adherents look like fools when they unnecessarily retreat into mystery and paradox." (Vincent Cheung)

 

[undertow]

And of course, we still need JM to show that the concept of "secondary causes" exists in the Bible.

 

[Drew]

Drew wrote:

I submit that the compatibilist case, as presented in that thread, was successfully and convincingly countered.

Since you disregard the truth of God's Word and build doctrines from the flesh, there is nothing I can do for you, Drew. We will never agree. Boast all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

You may not like it, but I think any reasonable objective person would see that the compatibilist argument in that thread was clearly overthrown. It is interesting and very convenient that when one's argument fails, one can always suggest that one's opponent is arguing from the "flesh". You are all too willing to try to construct rational arguments yourself, but when the debate goes against you, suddenly rational argument is of the flesh.

The "facts"? Let anyone with patience read that thread and the "facts" will become all too clear.

 

[Drew]

…and he has willed to save all those who have faith in Christ Jesus,

Not proven.

I never represented Craig as saying this was "proven". The careful reader will note that I have maintained that the Craig interpretation was consistent with a "free will" reading, not exclusive of other interpretations.