What is Election?

[Tristan]

Let's take this one step at a time - let's get back on the same page given that you've been responding to questions I've never asked. I have fully acknowledged your concepts so far - that of God's complete foreknowledge of how each man would respond, whenever his will is opened up to a 'free unhindered crossroad decision' - that of God 'planning' out a scenario to implement/fulfill based on such foreknowledge - that of God rejecting all other unfavorable scenarios - that of God declaring boldly what He has foreseen to happen, incorporated into His grand plan - what else? Have I misstated any of your beliefs here? If not, then I've understood your position quite clearly all along. Where did you perceive that I've not been considering your concepts - did you get that from my questions? But you've misunderstood what I'm asking.

I'll try and restate my point here. What I've asked above IS indeed absolutely theoretical - What if no man ever chose rightly whenever he was opened up to such "free crossroad decisions"? You reply saying God would have complete foreknowledge of such a scenario, would deem it unfavorable and would Not implement such a plan - have i got your response right here? And you proceed further with the example of how God uses such foreknowledge to Reject the very different plan of making "salvation completely and utterly on the merit of man's goodness" since He foreknows it would be unfavorable to His purposes. But here is where you've misunderstood me - I am not contrasting between 2 different plans of God. I am operating under one single plan of God that is now currently operational in our world - and within that single plan, I'm contrasting between 2 different responses from mankind.

Could I say that the current soteriological plan of God includes the following -
1) "build up a nation of people in Christ to live for God"
2) "build this up on the basis of Grace and not their own meritorious strength"
3) "Allow each individual the initial independent 'free crossroad decision' to be included in this nation of people or not, aided and preserved further by the grace and work of God."

Now I'm not contrasting this above plan of God with some other plan with say a different point 2) which states "only on the basis of individual merit etc." I'm referring to the very same plan above - and asking what would have happened in case of the theoretical possibility of Point 3) failing. What if No individual 'freely chose' to be part of this nation in the first place itself, inspite of the promised preserving grace and aid by God? What then? Having foreseen this unfavorable outcome, what other plan would God be able to resort to - which of the above 3 points would He then alter to fulfill His desired purposes?


Where are you getting this from? I've never once implied that any act of obedience is against one's will. It'll serve our discussion better if you could ask and clarify my beliefs when in doubt. I've anyway stated all my beliefs relevant to this thread in this post.

We don't have to chose rightly. See what I take issue with is that God's will involves every little thing that happens. God doesn't need to micromanage everything to have his will fulfilled. I believe it is more powerful if God can have his will manifest even when people maintain their free will. I maximize the possible glory of God. If God can be glorified even when people are evil, that is incredible powerful. That is awe-inspiring...the thought that no matter what I do, God will work through me. That isn't to say I should do evil so that good can come of it, but more that God is glorified even in my failures. His purpose for humanity is fulfilled even though I'm sinful. God didn't pick outcomes for all of us, but his greater plan accommodates for our choices.

Concerning the three points for God's soteriological plan that you brought up well I'm not sure what is meant by the third one. I'll explain myself further.

I do believe that there is a certain amount of predestination. I do feel a very strong feeling of fate, like there is something I'm destined for...but I know that it's the calling of the Holy Spirit. It's something that I embrace. It's still a choice to embrace it or not to. I can chose to reject God, yet I still work for his purpose. I can kill and destroy his followers, but I'm still working for him, because his greater purpose is the salvation for as many as possible. That's the will that can't be thwarted. So when God raised Pharaoh to that position, it was because he would serve a purpose through his own choices. God knew what was coming and so Pharaoh served God's purpose. That isn't to say God forced Pharaoh to chose what he did, it's more that God knew what was coming and set Pharaoh up to be part of the purpose. It's the same thing with Pontius Pilate (who was later removed for cruelty...by the cruel Romans). He rose to that position of power and served God's purpose.

God set up his plan knowing in advance what would happen. There IS no other alternative. It can't fail because if it failed, God didn't have foreknowledge. If I make a "wrong" choice, then that would make God's foreknowledge, and hence his plan, wrong.

 

[ivdavid]

It's not unjust because of what God does after man falls into his predictable pattern, and bondage to, sin. If he left us there and condemned us without consideration of mitigating factors, then yeah, maybe then it wold be unjust.

This is the closest we've gotten to the crux of this topic. I'm sure you agree that God always does Right - and no part of what He does can amount to Wrong. So, we cannot have God doing 1 Wrong and compensating for it later by many Rights. Concerning the condemnation under the Law without 'free choice' - and the subsequent Plan of salvation by grace that includes the required "free choice Ys" and other 'mitigating factors' - we have 2 distinct events occurring, as captured in each Covenant. Each of these events taken individually must amount to Rights each - but here you're saying that the condemnation under the Law without "free choice" is unjust, when by itself - which is the only point I've been getting at over all these posts. How can any part of what God does be unjust? Therefore, even when considered by itself, shouldn't the default condemnation be declared Just?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is the closest we've gotten to the crux of this topic. I'm sure you agree that God always does Right - and no part of what He does can amount to Wrong. So, we cannot have God doing 1 Wrong and compensating for it later by many Rights. Concerning the condemnation under the Law without 'free choice' - and the subsequent Plan of salvation by grace that includes the required "free choice Ys" and other 'mitigating factors' - we have 2 distinct events occurring, as captured in each Covenant. Each of these events taken individually must amount to Rights each - but here you're saying that the condemnation under the Law without "free choice" is unjust, when by itself - which is the only point I've been getting at over all these posts. How can any part of what God does be unjust? Therefore, even when considered by itself, shouldn't the default condemnation be declared Just?

Actually, this is too tangled up and far removed from my point that it would take time I do not have to unravel.

It's not fair and right that I suffer because of what Adam did before me. But it's also not fair that I gain because of what Jesus did. But that's just the way it is. To try and weave this into a discussion about God making believers and unbelievers apart from their own choice in the matter to be either is misguided, IMO.

Your other post is addressing the issue in a more useful and direct fashion. I will address that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...when God raised Pharaoh to that position, it was because he would serve a purpose through his own choices. God knew what was coming and so Pharaoh served God's purpose. That isn't to say God forced Pharaoh to chose what he did, it's more that God knew what was coming and set Pharaoh up to be part of the purpose. It's the same thing with Pontius Pilate (who was later removed for cruelty...by the cruel Romans). He rose to that position of power and served God's purpose.

I wonder why this is so terribly unacceptable to those who think God made Pharaoh, apart from his own choice, one who would resist God. I can't think of one legitimate objection to this. It satisfies any concern about justice, and preserves the free will of both, God, and man.

People in hell should be content with the fact that God simply created them for that purpose with no opportunity to choose to not be that? Really?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is quite similar to the texas sharpshooter scenario, isn't it?
"a marksman shoots randomly at the side of his barn and then paints bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he's a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don't necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship."

Having foreknown how people would choose, God then designing His will around that and claiming His will cannot be thwarted - which obviously it cannot be, since He has anyway factored His will around all our choices in the first place - does seem quite silly. If you hold that God's will was purposed in Himself irrespective of man's will [Eph 1:9] - then you'll have to attribute God's success to chance/luck where man's will happened to coincide with His - again not worthy of the Biblical God.

So God making bullets that can only hit the bulls eye, and calling him a sharpshooter for it, is somehow a noteworthy achievement?

Actually, I'm not overly concerned about man having freewill or not - my concern stems from attributing ALL the glory of salvation to God Alone - no sharing any part of the glory to any part causative contribution from any other source.

Going back to the analogy of the gardener, we don't heap praise on the flower when it flourishes in the garden tended by the master gardener, even though we know that not all plants flourish under the care of the master gardener. Some plants are simply flawed and will not respond well. Even though we know this clearly, we don't decide then that the praise belongs to the flower that flourishes because it had within itself the right stuff to flourish under the hand of the gardener. But according to your thinking the flower itself really should get the credit for it's own growth.

Specifically, I believe man in the flesh never can choose to obey or please God, ie he always actively chooses otherwise - because of the sin-nature/flesh that we're born into. Agree/Disagree? Hence, for man to choose to obey or please God, the influences of this sin-nature/flesh must be overcome by something stronger. Agree/Disagree?

Not directed to me, but I agree. That something being 'faith'--the supernatural ability to know something is true that you otherwise can not believe and, therefore, can not place your trust in to be saved.

God's grace in salvation (besides the blood of Christ, of course) is the gift of faith that shows us the gospel is true. And now, being able to know it's true, can then place our trust in his promise and be saved. Most people reject the revelation of Christ given to them through the power of faith and make him out to be a liar (1 John 5:10). Only a few retain that faith--that word of truth-and then place their trust in that which they now know is true.

So, the 'something' is not regeneration (being saved first so you can be saved? That doesn't even make sense.). The something stronger and outside of our natural selves that enables us to obey the gospel and be saved is the supernatural work of faith.

This overcoming of the sin-nature/flesh is done by God regenerating us in the God-nature/spirit. Now, we are able to see God without blinded minds and hardened hearts and hence choose to love and worship Him. The act of choosing is still maintained here - it's just preceded by God's regenerative work. And "election of grace" (different from various other events/means elected by God) is the doctrine that explains why such regenerative work is not worked out in all sinners - explaining it with the doctrine of God's Sovereignty.

The mistake you're making here is equating 'faith'--simply knowing something is true by divine revelation--with the work of 'believing', that is, then putting your trust in that which God has shown you to be true through the gift of faith. There is no benefit in salvation in knowing something is true. You must then trust in that which you know to be true for faith to be of benefit in salvation. Faith is itself that enabling of free will I was talking about that God gives bound sinners to make a choice for life they did not have before. A few choose life and their will is captured by God to do right. Most choose death and their will is not only returned to the captivity of sin, but eventually hardened in that place.

 

[chessman]

People in hell should be content with the fact that God simply created them for that purpose with no opportunity to choose to not be that? Really?

Who's the one that says this here? I forget. But it's not half bad so I'll use it:

Scripture please?

Just where do you find in Scripture that the lost had no choice in the matter?

You'll find people saying that, but not Scripture. Even Pharaoh and Judas made there choice. Even rats choose which way to scurry around.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Who's the one that says this here? I forget. But it's not half bad so I'll use it:

Scripture please?

Just where do you find in Scripture that the lost had no choice in the matter?

You'll find people saying that, but not Scripture. Even Pharaoh and Judas made there choice. Even rats choose which way to scurry around.

So we're in agreement then?

I'm on the side of choice...not meaning pre-programmed choice, but the legitimate free choice of a perosn that can choose to be saved, or not be saved. Everybody in hell will be there because they willfully chose to not be in the kingdom, not because God MADE them to choose to be in hell.

Hope this clears up my POV. Looks like we're on the same page(?)

 

[Tristan]

Jethro has summed up my rebuttal so I'll leave it for now.

 

[chessman]

So we're in agreement then?

I'm on the side of choice...not meaning pre-programmed choice, but the legitimate free choice of a perosn that can choose to be saved, or not be saved. Everybody in hell will be there because they willfully chose to not be in the kingdom, not because God MADE them to choose to be in hell.

Hope this clears up my POV. Looks like we're on the same page(?)

On this subject and specific point yes. I find that it's the people that hate election that say there's no choice in the matter. It's a strawman, because election does not negate free choice to begin with.

 

[mondar]

People in hell should be content with the fact that God simply created them for that purpose with no opportunity to choose to not be that? Really?

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Amazingly, your argument and the argument of Pauls hypothetical opponent is identical.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Amazingly, your argument and the argument of Pauls hypothetical opponent is identical.

Do you personally see the difference between God knowing ahead of time that a person will choose not to believe, because he will be free to choose, but going ahead and creating that person anyway to suit God's own purpose, and God knowing ahead of time that a person will choose not to believe, because he made him that way, to suit God's own purpose? I do.

Who are we to question God's purpose in making people he knows ahead of time will choose of their own free will, when the Spirit of faith visits them, to reject him and be sent to hell? That is what I see Paul saying in reply to his opponent. But some people see Paul's reply to the argument there in Romans as being who are we to question God's purpose in making people whom he has pre-programmed to not believe and go to hell for that unbelief.

 

[ivdavid]

Actually, this is too tangled up and far removed from my point that it would take time I do not have to unravel... Your other post is addressing the issue in a more useful and direct fashion.

While the 'usefulness' of a post is entirely subjective, dependent on each one's intents and purposes - I politely resent you implying this post was anything but 'direct'. Besides, if you'd re-read my posts, this is the only point I've been getting at in this line of argument - that God is Just even in holding man accountable for something he doesn't have free choice over. What is that far-removed point of yours that is reconciling this? To help save your time, I'll try restating it in a more 'direct' binary format -

Premise 1. No part of what God plans or does can be found Wrong, even when considered by itself. True/False?
Premise 2. God's plan of Salvation includes - a) the old covenant Law of works and the default (potential) condemnation we're born into without free choice - and b) God's new covenant gift of grace factoring other mitigating factors including free choice, to result in the final (real) condemnation / justification. True/False?
Inference. Each of these above parts of God's plan must be Just and Right.
Conclusion. God's plan a) old covenant default condemnation apart from free-choice is Just and Right, even when considered by itself.

Jethro Bodine: " If he left us there[old covenant] and condemned us without consideration of mitigating factors, then yeah, maybe then it wold be unjust."

I am simply asking reconciliation of this contradiction. What part of this argument needs untangling?

It's not fair and right that I suffer because of what Adam did before me. But it's also not fair that I gain because of what Jesus did. But that's just the way it is.

This is what we call a contradiction - and we do not gloss over them with a "that's just the way it is". What are you reasoning out here - that 2 Wrongs make a Right!? And I'm not talking about what's fair or deserving to us - I'm talking about what's Right and Wrong by God. Why are you comparing apples and oranges above - God has committed no Wrong in showing mercy to the undeserving by what Jesus did, which they can receive through their own free-choice - but has God committed any Wrong or Injustice in holding us accountable to sin and the consequent condemnation by default apart from our free-choice - that is the question?

This is what we get when we take our beliefs to their logical conclusions - and the reformed view accepts this conclusion, that God is Just and Right in all things including His old covenant plan considered all by itself - thereby reconciling any contradictions.

And the reformed view rejects the view that "we suffer because of what Adam did before us" - Adam is only our federal representative, in that he only represents what each one of us would have chosen and done ourselves, had we been made the first 'Adam'. Thereby, we effectively suffer because of what we inevitably would have done - hence, there's nothing Unfair or Wrong in our default condemnation. This reconciles God to be Just and Right in all His ways. How are you reconciling these in your view apart from a "that's just the way it is"?

 

[ivdavid]

So God making bullets that can only hit the bulls eye, and calling him a sharpshooter for it, is somehow a noteworthy achievement?

Are you reading in the "freewill of the bullet" into this analogy? This analogy doesn't provide room for that on both sides - The analogy was specifically applied to determine the sequence(in order of events and not in time) of God's purposing His will and His foreknowledge of the firing of the bullets - but if you want to extend it, very well.

Then I'd see this as God drawing up a bullseye first[purposing in Himself, His will to raise a kingdom/cluster of people/bullets], foreknowing where each bullet would hit given any firing mode under All variances, predestining everything concerning the bullets he elects to hit the bullseye, then putting the exact same bullets in the chamber[all men are created equal in the flesh], aiming the gun at the bullseye but on auto-fire mode, and then stepping back after triggering the auto-firing mode when a strong wind, not caused by Him, blows across.

Each of the bullets miss the target because of the strong wind. Every time the bullet that God had predetermined to hit the bullseye comes up in the firing round, God foreknows that this too would miss the bullseye if He continued to stay back - but having purposed to get this 'elect' bullet within the bullseye and having predetermined the exact way of doing so, He now steps up to the gun, cocks it to manual mode, and shoots at the bullseye in such a way to overcome all opposing variances - and He hits the bullseye. Then He again sets it on auto-firing and steps back until His next 'elect' bullet comes up. God's will covers all aspects and is fulfilled perfectly in all aspects, while displaying God's sharpshooting skills too.

When Tristan wrote that "God's will cannot be thwarted", I see your version of the analogy could be one of two scenarios - One, God first foreknowing where each bullet would hit given any firing mode under All variances, then drawing up a bullseye[purposing His will] based on this foreknowledge of where the bullets would hit, then putting the exact same bullets in the chamber, aiming at the bullseye and stepping back after triggering the auto-firing mode under a strong wind. How can we say in this case, that God was a sharpshooter whose Will was not thwarted when He anyway painted a bullseye around a favorable cluster(purposed His will) after the foreknowledge of where the bullets would hit?

The second scenario would be God purposing the bullseye first and then having foreknowledge, aiming and triggering in auto-firing mode. But in this case, His will has nothing to do with the end-result of the bullets, since they're mutually independent, given that He cannot influence it by stepping in manual mode - God has to simply accept the cluster that He gets. Edit/add scenarios for your position if you think I've misstated or missed out on something.

 

[ivdavid]

my concern stems from attributing ALL the glory of salvation to God Alone - no sharing any part of the glory to any part causative contribution from any other source.

...we don't decide then that the praise belongs to the flower that flourishes because it had within itself the right stuff to flourish under the hand of the gardener. But according to your thinking the flower itself really should get the credit for it's own growth.

Note the part where I said, "no sharing any part of the glory to any part causative contribution from elsewhere" - I'm not saying the flower should get ALL the credit - but neither can you say that the Gardener gets ALL the credit, for there is a part-contribution to the plant's growth caused by the "right stuff" that these plants have within themselves. We may choose not to praise the flower for that minuscule causative contribution, but giving credit where it's due and avoiding false modesty, the flower is entitled to glory just that minuscule much for its infinitesimal contribution. On the other hand, I'm only seeking to give ALL credit and hence ALL glory to God alone.

The mistake you're making here is equating 'faith'--simply knowing something is true by divine revelation--with the work of 'believing', that is, then putting your trust in that which God has shown you to be true through the gift of faith.

Semantics. Look up the word "believe [in]" in any concordance - I'm using Strong's and in that it is G4100 (pisteuō) - which is derived from the root G4102 (pistis), commonly translated "faith" in our Bible. Grammatically, just as the noun "refusal" is the very act of the verb "refusing", so is the noun "faith" the very act of the verb "believing in/upon". So, they are just different grammatical forms of the same word, but not different in meaning at all. I do acknowledge the difference between simply giving mental assent to a fact, and to depending on the sufficiency of somebody to fulfill what is promised/expected based on their abilities/nature - however, "faith" does not refer to the former meaning - rather it refers to the latter, its verb form being "believing in/upon".

How would you interpret Heb 4:1-2? According to your definitions, shouldn't the phrase "not being mixed with 'believing'" be used - else, it seems that they came short of the promise because it was not mixed with the God-given freewill-enabling 'faith'.

So, the 'something' is not regeneration (being saved first so you can be saved? That doesn't even make sense.).

Not when you misuse terms - no, it doesn't make sense. Regeneration is simply one step in the entire process of salvation which includes conviction of sin, repentance through confession, choosing faith(believing in Christ), forgiveness of sins, justification unto imputed righteousness, adoption as sons and daughters, and preserving sanctification. If I were to equate any of these distinct steps with "being saved", I'd end up with the absurd premise that "I need to 'be saved'<step of salvation>, to be saved<overall salvation>".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Premise 1. No part of what God plans or does can be found Wrong, even when considered by itself. True/False?

False.
What you have to do is take God pre-programming people--real people, like you and me and our families--who will suffer an eternity in hell simply because God wants them that way and make it a good and righteous plan all by itself.

Unlike other seemingly 'bad' things God does, there is no redeeming value you can draw out of that plan that makes God look good.

Premise 2. God's plan of Salvation includes - a) the old covenant Law of works and the default (potential) condemnation we're born into without free choice -

Sounds bad, but we know the story doesn't end there. But show me where the story ends good for pre-programmed people in hell?

...and b) God's new covenant gift of grace factoring other mitigating factors including free choice, to result in the final (real) condemnation / justification. True/False?

If this can be summarized as 'condemnation, then salvation', of course the answer is 'true'. We already know God bound all men over to disobedience so he can have mercy on them (Romans 11:32). But you doctrine leaves off the 'so he can have mercy on them' part for the vast majority of men for whom the passage does not apply. Stop and think about all the 'for whosoever' passages that simply don't apply to, and were never intended to apply to, those God pre-programmed to not be saved, but to be sent to hell.

Inference. Each of these above parts of God's plan must be Just and Right.
Conclusion. God's plan a) old covenant default condemnation apart from free-choice is Just and Right, even when considered by itself.

That's your conclusion. And you haven't shown how it's possible to come to that conclusion. But I've been showing you how you can't come to that conclusion.

Jethro Bodine: " If he left us there[old covenant] and condemned us without consideration of mitigating factors, then yeah, maybe then it wold be unjust."

I am simply asking reconciliation of this contradiction. What part of this argument needs untangling?

For starters, your concept of the law. But that's a whole other thread. I suspect you are but another victim of the church's indoctrination about the law. That's why I say it would take a lot of time to get to the fundamental, flawed premises you have about the law first before we could use the law properly in this discussion.

This is what we call a contradiction - and we do not gloss over them with a "that's just the way it is". What are you reasoning out here - that 2 Wrongs make a Right!?

No. I'm saying that considering only one part of a plan is wrong.

Now, applying that to this argument, show me what other pieces of the plan fit into God's plan that somehow makes it okay for the 'so he can have mercy on them' part' to not apply to the majority of mankind. That's what you need to do to somehow defend the righteousness of pre-progamming the bulk of humans who have lived to not believe and go to hell. In a doctrine of choice, God is cleared of any wrong doing in sending people to hell.

And I'm not talking about what's fair or deserving to us - I'm talking about what's Right and Wrong by God. Why are you comparing apples and oranges above - God has committed no Wrong in showing mercy to the undeserving by what Jesus did....

No, no, no. That's not the injustice of Jesus dying for us. Obviously, it's not unjust to us to benefit from Christ's death. It's an injustice to Christ. That's what I was getting at.

...but has God committed any Wrong or Injustice in holding us accountable to sin and the consequent condemnation by default apart from our free-choice - that is the question?

Yes.
The removal of free choice to not remain in the condemnation of Adam's actions is unjust. Besides that, as I've shown, it simply contradicts scripture that says God desires all men to be saved. But you are saying he desired that MOST men not be saved according to his express, unchangeable will.

What you have to do is show how it is just and righteous to pre-program people to go to hell...and how it somehow fits in with the revelation of God that says he wants all men to be saved.

This is what we get when we take our beliefs to their logical conclusions - and the reformed view accepts this conclusion, that God is Just and Right in all things including His old covenant plan considered all by itself - thereby reconciling any contradictions.

But your logical conclusion has God actually wanting most men in hell, not saved as the Bible says. So it's obvious you are the one who has come to a false conclusion.

And the reformed view rejects the view that "we suffer because of what Adam did before us" - Adam is only our federal representative, in that he only represents what each one of us would have chosen and done ourselves, had we been made the first 'Adam'.

Don't misrepresent the view. It's only unjust if he left us there. But as it is, in his justice he sent an injustice he bore himself in the person of Jesus Christ into the world to right the injustice of what we suffer because of Adam.

Thereby, we effectively suffer because of what we inevitably would have done - hence, there's nothing Unfair or Wrong in our default condemnation. This reconciles God to be Just and Right in all His ways.

No it doesn't reconcile it--even if it's true. The problem with what you're saying here is the fact that God does not condemn us on what we might have done. That is unjust. We are condemned because of what we really do.

How are you reconciling these in your view apart from a "that's just the way it is"?

Since what you say is false, there is no reason to reconcile it with anything. 'That's just the way it is' doesn't diminish the fact that Christ's suffering is also part of 'the way it is'.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Are you reading in the "freewill of the bullet" into this analogy? This analogy doesn't provide room for that on both sides - The analogy was specifically applied to determine the sequence(in order of events and not in time) of God's purposing His will and His foreknowledge of the firing of the bullets - but if you want to extend it, very well.

It does include free will when you consider that free will is expressed in the analogy in the design of the bullet.

You say God shoots bullets that by his own design, and without consideration of the skill of the shooter, hit the target no matter what, while he also shoots bullets that by his own design and without consideration of the skill of the shooter, can in no possible way hit the target. Add to that, this is somehow glorious as to the greatness of the skills of the shooter?

My analogy has God shooting bullets of all kinds and qualities, flawed and unflawed, but being the marksman he is, is able to take all factors into consideration (the quality of the bullet, wind, etc.) and still land shots in the bullseye. All to the glorious praise of the shooter, not the bullets.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Note the part where I said, "no sharing any part of the glory to any part causative contribution from elsewhere" - I'm not saying the flower should get ALL the credit - but neither can you say that the Gardener gets ALL the credit, for there is a part-contribution to the plant's growth caused by the "right stuff" that these plants have within themselves. We may choose not to praise the flower for that minuscule causative contribution, but giving credit where it's due and avoiding false modesty, the flower is entitled to glory just that minuscule much for its infinitesimal contribution. On the other hand, I'm only seeking to give ALL credit and hence ALL glory to God alone.

I know that sounds like a pious and humble thing to do, but Biblically, it's not accurate. I'm not saying we deserve any glory in being saved. I'm saying God does reward those who retain faith and trust in God for salvation. There's clearly an element of something we did in salvation for which God credits good to us, but which we take no glory in:

“The work of God (the work God requires--see context) is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:29 NIV)

Somewhere along the line the church decided that even the work of believing we are required to do is included in Paul's teaching about the works that can not justify. Which led to the interpretation of the teaching of election in the Bible as meaning 'God does our believing for us apart from our will, or else that would be works'.

As a side note, it's interesting to see how so many doctrines of the present day church are all related in that they all stem from the same basic misunderstanding about law and grace. It's quite intriguing. This subject of 'elective predestination' is no exception.

Semantics. Look up the word "believe [in]" in any concordance - I'm using Strong's and in that it is G4100 (pisteuō) - which is derived from the root G4102 (pistis), commonly translated "faith" in our Bible. Grammatically, just as the noun "refusal" is the very act of the verb "refusing", so is the noun "faith" the very act of the verb "believing in/upon". So, they are just different grammatical forms of the same word, but not different in meaning at all. I do acknowledge the difference between simply giving mental assent to a fact, and to depending on the sufficiency of somebody to fulfill what is promised/expected based on their abilities/nature - however, "faith" does not refer to the former meaning - rather it refers to the latter, its verb form being "believing in/upon".

So you see the difference between just 'believing' something and knowing it's true, and actually placing your trust in that which has been shown to you to be true, but you resist the semantic difference 'faith' and 'believing'? How is that possible?

Read 1 John 5. There you will see John explaining how people hear the word of faith through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. They are shown that what they can not see is true--that is the Biblical definition of faith. But they reject that word of faith and in effect call God a liar.

It's clear that the calling that God sends out into the world to all men when he calls them is the Spirit of faith. And that it is given so men can make an informed decision for the gospel. But most people in the church immediately equate an experience of 'faith' (knowing something is true) with being saved, but we can clearly see in John's teaching that merely knowing something is true (the definition of 'faith') is not enough. You must retain what God has shown you to be true through the gift of faith to the world for it to be of saving benefit to you. Most people will reject the gift and not retain it in their hearts, by their own choice, and will be lost. John's teaching clearly debunks your doctrine that says a person gets regenerated (saved) first in order to have the capacity to get saved. As I say, that doesn't even make sense.

How would you interpret Heb 4:1-2? According to your definitions, shouldn't the phrase "not being mixed with 'believing'" be used - else, it seems that they came short of the promise because it was not mixed with the God-given freewill-enabling 'faith'.

'Having' faith means retaining the message of faith. IOW, to 'have' faith is to believe and trust in that which God has shown you to be true by the voice and ministry of the Holy Spirit sent out into the world to do that. To 'have' faith doesn't mean what John said some people do, that is, hear the message of the gospel, know it's true, and then reject it calling God a liar. You'll have a hard time selling that as 'having' faith. But clearly, the person who hears and retains the message of faith is the one who 'has' faith, trusting in that which they have been shown is true. But the church doesn't make this distinction between faith (just knowing something is true) and 'having' faith (placing your trust in that which you know is true) for all that I just explained that means.

Not when you misuse terms - no, it doesn't make sense. Regeneration is simply one step in the entire process of salvation which includes conviction of sin, repentance through confession, choosing faith(believing in Christ), forgiveness of sins, justification unto imputed righteousness, adoption as sons and daughters, and preserving sanctification. If I were to equate any of these distinct steps with "being saved", I'd end up with the absurd premise that "I need to 'be saved'<step of salvation>, to be saved<overall salvation>".

If all you're doing, then, is assigning the hearing of the message of God and being able to see it's true by a supernatural enablement of faith a step toward regeneration, then I have no argument with you. But I hardly think you can call hearing the message of God 'regeneration'. Salvation is regeneration, not simply hearing the gospel message and knowing it's true. You get regenerated when you place your trust in that message. Knowing something is true, by the power of faith that enables you to know it's true, does not regenereate anybody. Placing your trust in what you have been shown to be true by the power of faith, aka 'believing', is what regenerates.

 

[jasoncran]

some where eternal security will get mentioned then the fireworks tween the Calvinists, the calivinist light, and the arminists will begin.

 

[Chopper]

There's still something not being addressed here, so I feel the need to pipe up.

God has complete foreknowledge of what is going to happen in his universe. He's the creator, and he exists outside of the influence of time. Having this knowledge, God also has a desire, and will (those two are different things!) Knowing what people are going to do, he THEN raises people up to certain purposes that fulfill his will. We still have full choice in the matter...it's just that God knew in advance, and by making our choices, we are fulfilling his will (which cannot be thwarted). I'm looking at this starting at the beginning and looking toward the end (not the other way around!)

In the end, God still makes a final judgment. He may have already known what the end result would be, but that doesn't mean we were forced to comply. He just anticipated our choices and planned accordingly. So anticipation is the key word here. God chooses those he knows are going to respond to him. That doesn't mean others are disqualified, it means God knows that of their free will, LATER, they won't choose him.

What Calvinists attempt to do is remove our free will from the equation. I believe it's 100% necessary, and God accommodates it. We don't have foreknowledge but God does, that's really the key factor here. Foreknowledge does not equal fate or divine force.

Hi Tristan, Glad you piped up. I think that what most people don't see in the Calvinist view is, the person who God calls to be a part of His remnant of followers can refuse. I don't know where people got the idea that the one God chooses has no choice in the matter. Look, God did not look into the future and see who was good and call that individual. Scripture is clear on that point. God does call that individual with a calling

 

[Chopper]

Hi Tristan, Glad you piped up. I think that what most people don't see in the Calvinist view is, the person who God calls to be a part of His remnant of followers can refuse. I don't know where people got the idea that the one God chooses has no choice in the matter. Look, God did not look into the future and see who was good and call that individual. Scripture is clear on that point. God does call that individual with a calling

Sorry, couldn't finish my post, had a errand to run. As I was saying, God does call with an irrestible calling, but the decision is up to that individual. Look at Jonah, he was called but refused. In the end he complied.