What is Election?

[chessman]

The issue is the church being afraid to assign the 'work' of believing to man for fear it somehow qualifies as a person trying to earn their own salvation and taking away the glory and grace of salvation from God. Hardly true....if you have a correct understanding of faith/works.

You do know the 'church' is the body of believers, don't you?

Yes! That’s my point. Do you? Every time you say “the church” is teaching false doctrine(s); to my ears, I hear you saying 'the body of Christ' is teaching false doctrines. And furthermore, it sounds like you are saying you are the only one that has the truth on this matter and the body of Christ has it all wrong. Yet you will not even name the denomination or theologian that's so wrong. Except of course, to say, pretty much all "the body of Christ" does.

But of all the Christians I've met and talked to in 27 years as a Christian...I can't count them.

Me either. Except you say "all". That's a lot.

Universalists are the only ones!? You have been reading this thread, right?

Yep, I’ve been reading.

Virtually every Christian I have ever known in all my life as a Christian thinks grace is so utterly gracious and not of you that you have nothing to do with it whatsoever, therefore, it's predetermined by God and nothing, not even what you personally want now or in the future, can change that.

See, that’s exactly what I mean. “Virtually every Christian…”. I don't. Not that you know me that well.

Why don’t you give a specific example rather than just attributing it to “the church” and then when asked to give specific examples, shy away from it?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Deborah, just insert 'believers', or 'Christians' in place of 'church'.

This isn't about any one church's official doctrine, though I'm sure I can go online and find the various denom's that plainly teach what I've been talking about. I'm talking about individual Christians spread out all over evangelical Protestant Christianity who in their own private doctrinal constructs, consciously, and unconsciously, believe salvation is so utterly gracious that you did NOTHING to get it, and therefore, you can do nothing to lose it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm seeing how when a person believes the way I just wrote how that leads to distorted doctrines about election.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why don’t you give a specific example rather than just attributing it to “the church” and then when asked to give specific examples, shy away from it?

I'm trying to not let this turn into another law, or OSAS thread!

Election is on our plate here.

This forum is where some specific examples are, but you seem not to have understood that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Except you say "all". That's a lot.

Reread what I said and then come back here and say I said all the Christians I've met in 27 years are in the group I'm describing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I am quite opposed to the concept of "free will" where it states one may choose arbitrarily independent of the inclinations of his nature...

The Bible itself explains how man is 'separated' from his fallen nature (his mindset of the flesh) so he can exercise 'free' unhindered will to choose righteousness.

"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit..." (Hebrews 4:12 NASB)

And I definitely do not hold what you've stated above - that in any act, God forces man to choose something he does not desire. Like I said, God does not make man's choices - God simply changes the nature of man, which his choices are dependent on. And with this new God-given nature, man now really wants what God wants and he readily and willingly chooses it without anyone else making that choice for him.

As explained above - God doesn't exactly 'make and give' the will itself to be saved - rather, God makes the new inner spirit-nature in man with which man himself wills to be saved.

How can you not see this is God manufacturing believers, and unbelievers?

I do believe God plays a 100% causative role in man's salvation to the exclusion of man's own causative contribution in any form - but that does not imply man is not involved at all.

You speak of say a 99.999...% causative role of God's grace and a minuscule infinitesimal 0.000..1% causative role of man's own will in effecting the final result of salvation of any man. I speak of a 100% to a 0% - but that does not mean man's will is excluded completely. It is still that man choosing to believe in Christ and be saved

But you say it is a will God gave him.

What determines who God will give this will to be saved? The will of the person? Now perhaps you can see how you are saying God manufactures believers.

And most importantly, probably doing that in an attempt to preserve a doctrine about faith/works that isn't even true to begin with.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm trying to not let this turn into another law, or OSAS thread!

Election is on our plate here.

This forum is where some specific examples are, but you seem not to have understood that.

Jethro, your specific examples on this forum, that believe election the way you, are Calvinists. Not all people who believe they are saved by grace alone, through faith alone (like me) are not Calvinists and therefore do not believe in election the way they do.

So that is why I asked WHO you are getting your ideas from about those in the "church" who believe grace teachings. Not ALL grace teachings are the same, especially when it comes to Election or even OSAS.

 

[chessman]

How can you not see this is God manufacturing believers, and unbelievers?

Asked and answered already. A long, long time ago:

Just after mentioning Jacob and Esau:

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

And the rest of Romans 9 answers your question. Just believe it. It DOES NOT negate man's will.

It's the same author (the same church) that said:

Romans 4:5. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Paul's not confused or schizophrenic. Paul means each person has his own "belief" and "his faith" as well. It's not capital H in "his faith", either. Yet he recognizes God choses to have Mercy on whom he choses to.

 

[ivdavid]

The Bible itself explains how man is 'separated' from his fallen nature (his mindset of the flesh) so he can exercise 'free' unhindered will to choose righteousness.

"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit..." (Hebrews 4:12 NASB)

How is Heb 4:12 even close to upholding the concept of "free will"? It is describing the attributes of the Word of God - that it is so sharp(precise) it can even penetrate between that which seemingly cannot be separated.

And why is the "soul" indicative of the "mindset of the flesh"? The two are clearly contrasted in 1Pet 2:11. Also, are James 5:20 and Heb 10:39 talking about the preserving and saving of the "mindset of the flesh"?

Besides, we'd then have to extend your interpretation to the rest of verse 12 too -
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow...(Hebrews 4:12 NASB)

Does this mean that man's joints are now 'separated' and 'free' from the marrow?

How can you not see this is God manufacturing believers, and unbelievers?

Tell me this then - is the sovereign king "manufacturing" alive men, when he shows mercy upon a condemned prisoner about to be hanged? Since here too, there is no input of that condemned man considered in the king deciding to show mercy or not, right?

And also tell me this - did that sovereign king "manufacture" such men into condemnation in prison unto death, or did these prisoners cause it themselves because of their earlier choices in crime? If the latter, isn't their eventual death, if upheld, in consideration of their own choices alone and not because of some "manufacturing" by the king?

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

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

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

In case you want to contest the exegesis of Rom 9, I've already put forth my interpretation here in post#461

 

[ivdavid]

Concerning the election of God as put forth by the reformed view, most object to it because I think they're approaching it from a very humanistic position. I was always given the analogy of that famous quote - "If you love something, set it free - if it comes back it is yours, if it doesn't it never was" - to parallel what a loving God does here with us, waiting with open arms to receive only those who wish to come back to Him of their 'free' will.

So when the reformed view negates this "free" will - most object to it on the basis of this above quote, saying it wouldn't be 'loving' of God then to not give a choice at all. But the reformed view does not at all deny this self-contained-choice being given - it only denies that any person actually chooses to come back on their own apart from a complete inner transformation by a God who pursues after this object that is set free.

I once read somewhere the analogy of the mother and child - where the mother is preparing the food and the child is playing by itself. But the child's game keeps taking it closer to the fire at the fireplace. The mother constantly instructs the child not to do so and commands her to come play by her side - but the child continues to get closer to the fire. When the child is about to touch the fire - the author asks, would the mother show forth her love by standing where she is and allowing the child to suffer the consequences of her choices - or would the mother, out of her love, rush and pick the child away from the fire. The author then proceeds to observe that God does something better - He doesn't actually pick the child up - He instead completely transforms the child from within - and the child itself now turns away from the fire and runs to God to stay beside Him.

The analogy is meant to refute the premise that true love shows forth only in honoring one's choice without any interference.

If so, then the next objection would be over how God does not give us a say in matters at all - but the child is instructed and commanded all along by the mother and the child is held responsible and accountable for every step it chose to take in disobedience/indifference.

This would lead to the next objection that not all of us are as this child - there could be a child who chooses to turn around by itself on hearing the instruction of the mother. And this would be the crux of the entire debate/discussion - are there such people according to the Bible. This is where we'd have to veer towards a discussion on total depravity of the unregenerate man.

But if all unregenerate men are indeed totally depraved, why does God find fault when such a man resists God's will? It is because God doesn't formulate His Holy standards according to man's abilities - neither does He lower His perfect standards to suit fallen man, when such a fall into sin-caused-inability was not caused by God Himself.

But why hast God made us thus - as this little child who cannot perceive the entire significance of the fire or the mother's instructions - as living souls in corruptible flesh that is inevitably corrupted by sin? Hath not the potter power over the clay - what if God wanted to show forth His love and grace and mercy - and wrath and justice and power - through such transformed children of mercy and obedience, and through the remaining children of flesh that remain under disobedience and wrath.

But the mother then rushes and saves one child from the fire but not another - how can she be partial. This is where the doctrine of election comes in - it would be partiality only if such selection was based on the respective child. But it is not partiality but sovereignty - where such selection is purposed on the basis of God's own will, irrespective of what the children have done.

Still, does not God love all the same? God loved Jacob and hated(loved less) Esau - and there is no unrighteousness in that since God is entitled to show mercy and compassion upon whom He wills.

If God began with His election, purposed in Himself, of those whom He wills to show His enduring mercy upon, irrespective of what any have done yet - and then proceeds forth to creating all in uncorrupted but corruptible flesh - sees His creation fall into corruption - takes no pleasure in the death of any but still upholds His Holy standards of Justice through His commandments and Law, rendering death as wages of sin - offers salvation through faith in Christ to each and every one - desiring all to avail of this offer unto salvation - finding none, no not one, to obey His Law or the Gospel - holding everyone to be deserving of condemnation and wrath in accordance with His Holy standards of Justice - and applying His mercy to those whom He had elected in the first place, transforming such by His grace for grace - teaching the uselessness of the self-nature(flesh) that man is born in and the profitability of the new spirit-nature that he's born-again in - thereby revealing knowledge of all His Glory in all His attributes seen through all these events unto the final Glorification, - where is God to be faulted?

From a humanistic perspective, we tend to resent this all-encompassing attribution of every single good to God alone while nullifying any causative good from man himself - instead of rejoicing in this great privilege of us being permitted to participate non-causatively in God's wonderful causative works - which is contrasted against the causative evil alone that we do.

We do not mind surrendering to God's will - as long as, ultimately, we are the ones doing the surrendering and not God who's doing the conquering. But such is vanity, that we do not know unless God sets out to conquer our hearts first, we would never have 'deigned' to surrender - the former wholly causing the latter.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Concerning the election of God as put forth by the reformed view, most object to it because I think they're approaching it from a very humanistic position. I was always given the analogy of that famous quote - "If you love something, set it free - if it comes back it is yours, if it doesn't it never was" - to parallel what a loving God does here with us, waiting with open arms to receive only those who wish to come back to Him of their 'free' will.

So when the reformed view negates this "free" will - most object to it on the basis of this above quote, saying it wouldn't be 'loving' of God then to not give a choice at all. But the reformed view does not at all deny this self-contained-choice being given - it only denies that any person actually chooses to come back on their own apart from a complete inner transformation by a God who pursues after this object that is set free.

I once read somewhere the analogy of the mother and child - where the mother is preparing the food and the child is playing by itself. But the child's game keeps taking it closer to the fire at the fireplace. The mother constantly instructs the child not to do so and commands her to come play by her side - but the child continues to get closer to the fire. When the child is about to touch the fire - the author asks, would the mother show forth her love by standing where she is and allowing the child to suffer the consequences of her choices - or would the mother, out of her love, rush and pick the child away from the fire. The author then proceeds to observe that God does something better - He doesn't actually pick the child up - He instead completely transforms the child from within - and the child itself now turns away from the fire and runs to God to stay beside Him.

The analogy is meant to refute the premise that true love shows forth only in honoring one's choice without any interference.

If so, then the next objection would be over how God does not give us a say in matters at all - but the child is instructed and commanded all along by the mother and the child is held responsible and accountable for every step it chose to take in disobedience/indifference.

This would lead to the next objection that not all of us are as this child - there could be a child who chooses to turn around by itself on hearing the instruction of the mother. And this would be the crux of the entire debate/discussion - are there such people according to the Bible. This is where we'd have to veer towards a discussion on total depravity of the unregenerate man.

But if all unregenerate men are indeed totally depraved, why does God find fault when such a man resists God's will? It is because God doesn't formulate His Holy standards according to man's abilities - neither does He lower His perfect standards to suit fallen man, when such a fall into sin-caused-inability was not caused by God Himself.

But why hast God made us thus - as this little child who cannot perceive the entire significance of the fire or the mother's instructions - as living souls in corruptible flesh that is inevitably corrupted by sin? Hath not the potter power over the clay - what if God wanted to show forth His love and grace and mercy - and wrath and justice and power - through such transformed children of mercy and obedience, and through the remaining children of flesh that remain under disobedience and wrath.

But the mother then rushes and saves one child from the fire but not another - how can she be partial. This is where the doctrine of election comes in - it would be partiality only if such selection was based on the respective child. But it is not partiality but sovereignty - where such selection is purposed on the basis of God's own will, irrespective of what the children have done.

Still, does not God love all the same? God loved Jacob and hated(loved less) Esau - and there is no unrighteousness in that since God is entitled to show mercy and compassion upon whom He wills.

If God began with His election, purposed in Himself, of those whom He wills to show His enduring mercy upon, irrespective of what any have done yet - and then proceeds forth to creating all in uncorrupted but corruptible flesh - sees His creation fall into corruption - takes no pleasure in the death of any but still upholds His Holy standards of Justice through His commandments and Law, rendering death as wages of sin - offers salvation through faith in Christ to each and every one - desiring all to avail of this offer unto salvation - finding none, no not one, to obey His Law or the Gospel - holding everyone to be deserving of condemnation and wrath in accordance with His Holy standards of Justice - and applying His mercy to those whom He had elected in the first place, transforming such by His grace for grace - teaching the uselessness of the self-nature(flesh) that man is born in and the profitability of the new spirit-nature that he's born-again in - thereby revealing knowledge of all His Glory in all His attributes seen through all these events unto the final Glorification, - where is God to be faulted?

From a humanistic perspective, we tend to resent this all-encompassing attribution of every single good to God alone while nullifying any causative good from man himself - instead of rejoicing in this great privilege of us being permitted to participate non-causatively in God's wonderful causative works - which is contrasted against the causative evil alone that we do.

We do not mind surrendering to God's will - as long as, ultimately, we are the ones doing the surrendering and not God who's doing the conquering. But such is vanity, that we do not know unless God sets out to conquer our hearts first, we would never have 'deigned' to surrender - the former wholly causing the latter.

Only have time to scan this.

I amazed that you can't see that you are saying that God's grace exposes an inherent quality of the soil of men's hearts that either loves righteousness when given the chance, or doesn't love righteousness when given the chance.

The argument is not that this quality of love for right things can be realized by the soil itself. The argument is does God manufacture the soil to be a certain type ahead of time? I don't understand how you can't see your argument says he does manufacture it....and as I've been saying in numbers that far contradict what God himself said about how many he wants to be saved.

 

[ivdavid]

...an inherent quality of the soil of men's hearts that either loves righteousness when given the chance...

Where does this "inherent quality" reside - from what you've written, I assume it's within the heart of man. But a corruption has befallen this soil, thereby hardening the soil = man's heart is hardened as stone. How can the Gardener grow anything on hardened soil?

You say there is "a chance" given where the hardness of the soil is temporarily removed to test if the soil's inherent quality can indeed support the growth of plants - but that's because you've assumed this inherent quality is not altered by this corruption at all. But are they not inextricably linked - when I say a man has a hardened heart of stone - am I not actually saying that this man lacks an inherent quality to love righteousness?

So in this "chance", if you are stating that this hardness being removed in every single man is actually equivalent to resetting the heart without any corruption - you are essentially setting up a virtual case of each person going through Adam's garden of eden scenario. I'd like to know then - do you think that if any other man had been in Adam's place - things just might have turned out differently with regard to sin entering the world? Also, I'd like to know where from the Bible you've derived this concept of a "chance" of having one's heart reset without corruption?

I'd asked you this too before - What does regeneration aim to change in man, according to you?

The argument is does God manufacture the soil to be a certain type ahead of time?

When is this "ahead of time" that you're referring to? Because God creates all soil the same initially - sees all of it get hardened through corruption - and regenerates patches of it after seeing the overall unprofitable hardened state of it throughout. How again do you extend concepts of mercy and freewill to this analogy of soil?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where does this "inherent quality" reside - from what you've written, I assume it's within the heart of man. But a corruption has befallen this soil, thereby hardening the soil = man's heart is hardened as stone. How can the Gardener grow anything on hardened soil?

Okay, good, let's follow this train of thought.

He can't grow anything good in that soil. It has to be broken up. That's what suffering does. But the hardness of the soil hardly means the soil in and of itself does, or does not, have some inherent quality about it that will support what is sown in it. As an example, we know that desert soil is often very fertile. The problem is it doesn't have the grace of heaven (rain) to realize the potential in it.

The problem is, you and others see 'grace' as being given the potential itself to be suitable soil. I'm saying 'grace' means being given the opportunity to realize the potential that is there, but which the soil itself can not realize by itself.

Most soil of men's hearts is found to not be able to support the gracious planting of righteousness in it when God attempts to do that. But some soil is able to support God's gracious planting of righteousness. Obviously, the way to find out is to try to plant some righteousness there. Then the soil will be shown to be what it truly is.

In this view, God does not manufacture the soil ahead of time to be either soil that will accept, or not accept, righteousness if/when it is planted there. But it is definitely soil that God has purposely not planted anything in, and has actually prevented goodness from being planted there (the hardening you're speaking about--the fall of man), until such a time as he chooses to try to plant something there. This is the sovereignty of God. Not that he tells the soil what potential it will have, but chooses the if, when, and where of trying to bring righteousness to fruition in that soil....if it can even support it. Understand? Think about Adam and Eve.

 

[ivdavid]

He can't grow anything good in that soil. It has to be broken up.

Obviously, the way to find out is to try to plant some righteousness there.

I'm assuming your statement about suffering refers to the believer's sanctification - but I'm here concerned about man's regeneration alone. If the soil is hardened and "nothing good can be grown in that soil" without it being "broken up" (I'd say renewed/recreated) - what profit is it to plant any seed of righteousness there when it's anyway going to fall on hardened unprofitable soil and not have any support to grow? Going by the parable of the sower, shouldn't the fruits of righteousness be seen only in the good soil?

The problem is, you and others see 'grace' as being given the potential itself to be suitable soil. I'm saying 'grace' means being given the opportunity to realize the potential that is there, but which the soil itself can not realize by itself.

Yes, and that comes down to whether there is actually any inherent good potential there or not. I did state in my previous post that the corruption of hardness is inextricably linked to the corruption of any inherent qualities - for out of the heart come all evil in sinning. Where is then a good inherent quality when all are found sinners ie all are found to bring forth evil from within their heart? How can an inherently good heart bear bad fruit?

But it is definitely soil that God has purposely not planted anything in, and has actually prevented goodness from being planted there (the hardening you're speaking about--the fall of man)

God purposely prevents goodness?? Kindly clarify. The hardening I'm referring to is the corruption of man by sin - and such sin is not caused by God in any way.

Understand? Think about Adam and Eve.

What am I to draw from Adam and Eve in this context? And I do need to know what you believe regeneration changes in man - for me to understand the consistency of your worldview.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm assuming your statement about suffering refers to the believer's sanctification - but I'm here concerned about man's regeneration alone. If the soil is hardened and "nothing good can be grown in that soil" without it being "broken up" (I'd say renewed/recreated) - what profit is it to plant any seed of righteousness there when it's anyway going to fall on hardened unprofitable soil and not have any support to grow? Going by the parable of the sower, shouldn't the fruits of righteousness be seen only in the good soil?


Yes, and that comes down to whether there is actually any inherent good potential there or not. I did state in my previous post that the corruption of hardness is inextricably linked to the corruption of any inherent qualities - for out of the heart come all evil in sinning. Where is then a good inherent quality when all are found sinners ie all are found to bring forth evil from within their heart? How can an inherently good heart bear bad fruit?


God purposely prevents goodness?? Kindly clarify. The hardening I'm referring to is the corruption of man by sin - and such sin is not caused by God in any way.


What am I to draw from Adam and Eve in this context? And I do need to know what you believe regeneration changes in man - for me to understand the consistency of your worldview.

The potential of the heart to grow righteousness in it is analogous to soil that has the minerals and nutrients that can support life in it. The growth is what man does not have. He does not even have the seeds of righteousness in him.

What he may or may not have is soil that, once planted and watered, will support God's righteousness growing in it. So don't misunderstand. The potential of the soil is not an inherent righteousness. The potential of any one fallen man's heart is if it is a place that can support life planted in it (minerals are not life, that which thrives off of them is the life).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where is then a good inherent quality when all are found sinners ie all are found to bring forth evil from within their heart?

Even the best of soils will only grow thorns and thistles until something good is planted in it. So the question is who will be shown to have good soil and who will not when it's broken up, seeded and watered.

How can an inherently good heart bear bad fruit?

Because it doesn't have any good seeds planted in it yet. And it does not have the ability to seed and water itself. (That's what the grace of God is all about).

What you need to answer from the parable of the seed is how soil that was regenerated can then not be fruitful (soil #2 particularly).

God purposely prevents goodness?? Kindly clarify. The hardening I'm referring to is the corruption of man by sin - and such sin is not caused by God in any way.

You are so wrong. God turned us over to sin:

"20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:20-21 NIV)

"For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11:32)

What am I to draw from Adam and Eve in this context?

They had a choice. They chose not to obey and were, along with all subsequent generations of men, turned over to unrighteousness by God. They had the choice. So do we...when we're presented with that choice.

Whether you can actually see it or not, your doctrine says Adam and Eve had to be manufactured by God to not obey and never had the option of obeying.

And I do need to know what you believe regeneration changes in man - for me to understand the consistency of your worldview.

Regeneration is God taking all the blocks out (the blocks he himself put there) and planting the seeds of righteousness in the heart of man and watering it with the grace and mercy of heaven. Some soil will respond to the invitation to do this. Most will not. Not because God manufactures the soil to be what it is, but because most soil will simply not support righteousness.

 

[ivdavid]

Even the best of soils will only grow thorns and thistles until something good is planted in it.

Firstly, that is to say God did not at all plant any seeds of righteousness in any man before the Gospel call of faith - do you not consider any of God's Holy commandments to be seeds of righteousness that never grew and bore fruit in fallen corrupt man?

Secondly, my earlier point stands - the constant growth of these thorns and thistles do deplete the nutrients/minerals of the "good" soil, turning/corrupting it into "bad" soil - which cannot support growth until it is renewed/regenerated. Why do you assume that man's constant sinning has no effect on the inherent qualities of his heart - is not hardening of the heart an actual absence of such inherent qualities?

What you need to answer from the parable of the seed is how soil that was regenerated can then not be fruitful (soil #2 particularly).

I hold only soil#4 to be regenerated. All others are in various stages of unregenerate corruption.

...and such sin is not caused by God in any way.

You are so wrong. God turned us over to sin:

God did not prevent sin from corrupting us. Is that the same as God causing sin itself?

Whether you can actually see it or not, your doctrine says Adam and Eve had to be manufactured by God to not obey and never had the option of obeying.

Rightly divide the truth - Adam and Eve were sown as natural beings, uncorrupt yet corruptible. There is then the corruption of this natural state by sin - and this corruption is what causes man to disobey. Did God cause sin and corruption here? As to God creating("manufacturing") them in a corruptible state, 1Cor 15:46 is the order of God's plan to show forth the difference between the unprofitable natural state and the life-giving spiritual state. Why do you think God didn't "manufacture" us all in the spiritual state itself, to begin with?

So the question is who will be shown to have good soil and who will not when it's broken up, seeded and watered.

Regeneration is God taking all the blocks out (the blocks he himself put there) and planting the seeds of righteousness in the heart of man and watering it with the grace and mercy of heaven. Some soil will respond to the invitation to do this.

Your description of regeneration(above 2nd statement) - and your description of the "invitation" to regeneration(above 1st statement) - both are exactly the same. Why then call it an invitation to regeneration when regeneration itself is done here?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Firstly, that is to say God did not at all plant any seeds of righteousness in any man before the Gospel call of faith - do you not consider any of God's Holy commandments to be seeds of righteousness that never grew and bore fruit in fallen corrupt man?

You're evading the central point. Until you explain it clearly and concisely, all I see in your doctrine is God determines who will be a believer and who will not without any consideration of the person themselves. I see you saying the consideration he does give them is whatever grace he gave them in the first place to be considered.

I detest this attitude in the church today that say, "I'm saved, and there was nothing I could do or not do before that to affect that, and there's nothing I can do or not do about that now. That's just the way God wants it." This is what I mean by the church erroneously making grace so utterly gracious that we are either made a believer by God, or we are not ENTIRELY at his discretion with nothing being taken into consideration of the person themselves. This is very, very dangerous doctrine--not just because it's wrong--but because of the kind of 'church' it has produced. A very deceived church.

Secondly, my earlier point stands - the constant growth of these thorns and thistles do deplete the nutrients/minerals of the "good" soil, turning/corrupting it into "bad" soil - which cannot support growth until it is renewed/regenerated. Why do you assume that man's constant sinning has no effect on the inherent qualities of his heart - is not hardening of the heart an actual absence of such inherent qualities?

The longer a piece of soil remains hardened, the harder it will get.

I hold only soil#4 to be regenerated. All others are in various stages of unregenerate corruption.

But soil number two believed. How do you explain this if, as you say, it is unregenerate?

And if you do not accept soil number three as regenerate then you are probably condemning yourself as unregenerate. (I say probably because I don't know you, but if you're like most of us you have the weeds to contend with, too).

It's best to look at the soils as also being a progression of soils, not just a state of soil at any one moment in time. We've all been one of the first three soils at one time or another, and some of us Christians are even making it to the fourth kind. (When I get there for more than five minutes I'll let you know.)

God did not prevent sin from corrupting us. Is that the same as God causing sin itself?

You qualified your statement with 'in any way'.

We all have been turned over to the inevitability of sin by God himself. And Paul says in the hope that we will be liberated from that corruption.

Rightly divide the truth - Adam and Eve were sown as natural beings, uncorrupt yet corruptible. There is then the corruption of this natural state by sin - and this corruption is what causes man to disobey. Did God cause sin and corruption here?

Paul says the commandment exposes sin, not births it in a person. It is God's will that man's sinful propensity be exposed for what it is....so we can be saved from that sin and the just punishment for that sin.

As to God creating("manufacturing") them in a corruptible state, 1Cor 15:46 is the order of God's plan to show forth the difference between the unprofitable natural state and the life-giving spiritual state. Why do you think God didn't "manufacture" us all in the spiritual state itself, to begin with?

Spiritual robots do not bring glory to God, no more than raising natural sons of Abraham out of the ground does.

Even the angels were created with choice.

Your description of regeneration(above 2nd statement) - and your description of the "invitation" to regeneration(above 1st statement) - both are exactly the same. Why then call it an invitation to regeneration when regeneration itself is done here?

Out of time, but all I can say is you have failed to illustrate how regeneration works in your doctrine.

What is it in a person that refuses, or accepts the call of God? If you say God gives them the will to choose or deny the truth, that is in effect him creating believers and unbelievers without consideration of the person to choose himself. And worse, making him a liar who said he wants all men to be saved and not die.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Asked and answered already. A long, long time ago:

Just after mentioning Jacob and Esau:


And the rest of Romans 9 answers your question. Just believe it. It DOES NOT negate man's will.

So then you do not believe that 'election' means 'determined by God apart from any consideration whatsoever of the individual and any contribution he makes', or do you?

It's the same author (the same church) that said:

Romans 4:5. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Paul's not confused or schizophrenic. Paul means each person has his own "belief" and "his faith" as well.

Do you mean this as a belief and faith produced in consideration of what the individual wants, or doesn't want? What I mean is, do you believe that the ability to believe and accept the truth was given to him in order to meet the condition for election and be graciously elected by God?

If you do, then I see no difference in that and what I said about God simply pressing believers out of a press as he chooses, apart from the desire of the individual to be a believer or not if he was given the choice.

It's not capital H in "his faith", either.

Hey, I'm only a brain surgeon. I don't know what this means.

Yet he recognizes God choses to have Mercy on whom he choses to.

Do you believe God violates his own word that he wants all men to be saved by the fact that, in the end, he will not having mercy on very many people at all?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Ah, 'God's (His) faith.

I get it now.

(By the way, I did get a C+ on my final exam. The patient lived for 36 hours after the surgery. If he had lived another 24 hours I would have gotten a B+. An 'A' if he recovered and returned to work.)