It took me a minute to figure out what you were saying, but that's because you switched topics on me in between sentences. :) Sure, man chooses to sin. That is our common experience, whether saved or not. But I don't think this is at all the same as with the ultimate issue of eternal salvation. We both agree that God chooses an elect, and it is a certain elect. We also agree that the entirety of this elect have all chosen to sin. That makes it two different things, doesn't it? God's choice and man's choice.
Clearly, God does not force us to never sin. There is clear evidence. However, that still leaves it completely debatable about how an elect CERTAIN comes into being inside time. There is no similar evidence. It is a separate issue.
A real world example? One used by St. Augustine and St. Thomas might help. The sun shines equally on all people as a gift of light to mankind. We remain in this light - unless we willingly shut our eyes to it. ...
God also made clouds, and He puts them wherever He wants them! :)
Will is not free if something can not be rejected. Do you or do you not believe that man has free will? Can you, in any given moment, choose to reject a commandment of God?
The answer to the second question is an unfortunate "Yes". The first question is more difficult to answer because I think we see and use the term differently. I'll even give you that I've been more eclectic. :) Whenever I "downplay" free will, I am thinking of it from God's POV. I believe that God selected His elect without regard to His foreknowledge, and those specific elect WILL be saved, regardless. God will grace those individuals to whatever degree necessary, and they all WILL accept Christ, and they all WILL persevere. I understand that this does not "sound" like free will.
However, when I speak positively of man's free will, I am talking from man's POV, because that is what we really experience. When I said my Sinner's Prayer, before I knew a thing about theology, I really felt that I had made a free will decision to accept Christ. It was real to me at the time. I didn't feel forced at all. So, in that sense, I did have free will.
In addition, now that I am "saved", I believe I have free will from either POV. Clearly, sometimes I do God's will and sometimes I do my will, and I experience that I choose, although I now know that any good I do is really God acting through me. Praise be to God that as I continue through my sanctification, I have seen the balance tip ever more slightly toward the former.
Read from verse 18 to the end of Romans 1. Consider what IS the wrath of God...It is leaving men to their own will.
I just read it, and the message to me was that knowledge, without faith, equals destruction. I agree that leaving men to their own will leaves no chance for such a man.
They have a Law written on their heart (as per Romans 2). Even they are without excuse. We, with THIS LAW, CAN obey it - or choose not to obey it. But if we choose not to, God does what? He leaves man to their devices.
So man, just as he was born COULD obey the law? Is it just a coincidence that the scorecard so far is 20 billion (or whatever) to ZERO? I thought one of the points of the OT law was to prove that we could not live up to it.
Forcing men to "believe" in God is not what love is about.
I would say that saving men through whatever means necessary is what love is all about. :)
Man doesn't choose God separately, because God is intimately intertwined in all of our decisions. No one can take our thoughts and actions and divide them up and say "this part was God, and this part was me".
Why can't we divide them up? Not in a labeling sense, but just in the sense that some part was over here (God) and some other part was over there (man). Isn't that how you think of free will? You have said that free will is not coerced, which makes me think you mean it is independent of anything else.
With any free will agreement, two (or more) parties come together and must independently agree. That is why I see your salvation model as being that man agrees to accept Christ along with performing various duties throughout his life. God agrees to let him into heaven. Yes, God helps, advises, counsels, cajoles, and makes it sound like a really sweet deal, etc. However, if the man is still free to say "No", then it still is really an independent decision by the man, isn't it? For the elect, my view is that the man has no objective freedom to say "No". The man, like me, will be oblivious to this, but it is nonetheless true.
BTW, God is "intimately intertwined" with our decisions to sin?
I didn't say Christ died unnecessarily! I said that God the Father could have chosen a different manner of saving mankind. But once the Father chose to show His love for man through such a means, it remained for Christ to obey His Will. Certainly, Jesus didn't die unnecessarily!
There, you just said it again! :) If the Father had options short of death, but chose death anyway, then it was unnecessary. It was a preference. I don't see how the Father could have chosen to put Jesus through all that IF there were viable options that also would have satisfied His justice. What is one explanation?
What makes something that God does "necessary"? Is God forced to do anything? You might say it is necessary for us, but for God, nothing is "necessary".
Going back to my "big rock" argument, anything that is required to be consistent with His nature is "necessary" for God to do. I would say that God is "forced" to continue existing, He is "forced" to not lie, He is "forced" to keep His promises, etc. So, in this light, was Christ dying on the cross necessary to be in keeping with His stated natures of justice and of loving man (His elect)? I would say "Yes".
The wages of sin is DEATH - ETERNAL... A person does not have "faith" who does not convert His ways to Christ. Faith is not a one-time declaration, as we have discussed before - and I thought you agreed. "Many will say, 'Lord, Lord'", and Jesus will say 'I never knew you'". Chilling words to the self-elected...
Clearly, God does not force us to never sin.
If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted? Again, I see God as One who KNOWS who rejects Him before He creates man. But God is a just God and has given even this man an opportunity. And of course, God's overall plan MUST include varying degrees of perfection - from the wicked to the righteous.
God also made clouds, and He puts them wherever He wants them! :)
You are missing the point. If God's clouds blocked the light, ALL men would be affected...
Whenever I "downplay" free will, I am thinking of it from God's POV.
I don't understand your aversion to free will. It is God's greatest gift to us. Rocks don't have it. Horses don't have it. Plants don't have it. Only rational beings outside of heaven have free will. That would be us. Alone. WHY would God have to "fight" against this force, this will, to execute His plan? How is it that God's great gift has become a liability to His ultimate plan? You are not giving God enough credit for being able to maintain control over His creation "despite" man's free will. Even in the face of poorly executed free will of men, God's plan will be accomplished, correct?
I believe that God selected His elect without regard to His foreknowledge, and those specific elect WILL be saved, regardless.
You still haven't explained - again - how God does NOT see who will reject Him AND have foreknowledge at the same time...Either He does or He doesn't.
God will grace those individuals to whatever degree necessary, and they all WILL accept Christ, and they all WILL persevere. I understand that this does not "sound" like free will.
I agree with this - but I will define free will from man's point of view, because WE are making a decision, one that God knows the outcome, but we don't. We don't know God's viewpoint or His foresight. And regardless of what you might believe, an individual does not know his final destiny until He is standing face to face with God.
I agree that leaving men to their own will leaves no chance for such a man.
And why does God leave men to their own ways? Because He foresees man's rejection. God desires ALL men to be saved - unless they refuse to be saved. That is the simplest way to put the Scriptures' view on this issue.
So man, just as he was born COULD obey the law? Is it just a coincidence that the scorecard so far is 20 billion (or whatever) to ZERO? I thought one of the points of the OT law was to prove that we could not live up to it.
Do you or do you not believe that man can perform a morally good deed? You said you did before, but now you say he can't. Which is it? Man CAN obey the law, but not consistently enough to earn the reward of heaven. If even PAGANS can follow the law in their heart sometimes, what makes you think NO ONE can obey the law even ONCE? And the OT Law was NOT given to man just to show him how worthless he was! That is sadistic thinking on whoever told you that. God gave the Law with the intention of it being obeyed, not to say "Na, na, you can't obey my law"... The Law was highly prized gift given to the Jews. Read Psalm 119 some day. It is a gift, a means to learning how to please the Almighty God! Perhaps you are confusing Paul when he says that God did not give man the means to OBEY FULLY the law - enough to EARN salvation. Thus, the need for the Spirit - which was available to some degree prior to Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.
I would say that saving men through whatever means necessary is what love is all about. :)
Heaven would be worse than hell for those who didn't want to be there in God's presence.
Why can't we divide them up? Not in a labeling sense, but just in the sense that some part was over here (God) and some other part was over there (man).
Because you can't tell what part was "yours" and what part God did. We presume that He guided us and moved our will, but we don't know to what degree or on what particular. Anyway, this sort of speculation probably leads to pride more than any sort of useful knowledge. I realize that I cannot do good alone without God. But I also know that God chooses not to force me to love Him. There is cooperation at some level, and it doesn't really matter at what point or to what degree. Alone, I am a branch not attached to the vine - and thus, I'd have no life within me. That is all that really matters.
With any free will agreement, two (or more) parties come together and must independently agree. That is why I see your salvation model as being that man agrees to accept Christ along with performing various duties throughout his life. God agrees to let him into heaven
God allows man into heaven purely on HIS desire to save ALL men - before even contemplating man's acceptance or rejection. Thus, we do not merit salvation. We attain it because we do not reject Him, such is His will. God doesn't await our acceptance. EVERYONE would be in heaven, if they didn't reject God's plea to ALL men.
For the elect, my view is that the man has no objective freedom to say "No". The man, like me, will be oblivious to this, but it is nonetheless true.
God chooses ALL men to be elect - unless they reject Him. Thus, you have free will to reject God, which would be your fault, or you can NOT reject Him, which would be God's free will to let you in heaven. You are not saved by your positive response, but you are condemned by your negative response.
An example:
Our parents love us because they are good, not because we deserve it. We know they will continue to love us, even if we don't cut the grass or wash the dishes. They love us regardless of what we do. However, over time, if we continue to refuse their love, we might be disinherited. Does any parent DESIRE this? No. But it is the child's fault, the one who no longer desires the unconditional love. In the same manner, God loves us, despite any good deeds (or even a few bad deeds) that we do. However, continued rejection of this unconditional love will sadly cause God to disinherit us.
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ...(Romans 6:23)
We do not earn heaven, it is an inheritance - potentially for all men. But individual men can lose salvation by "earning it" through continued sin.
God is "intimately intertwined" with our decisions to sin?
God does not cause us to sin. He is intertwined in our decision in the sense that He tries to lead us towards Him without overriding our free will.
There, you just said it again! :) If the Father had options short of death, but chose death anyway, then it was unnecessary. It was a preference.
Sadly, that's because you do not appreciate the Passion and Death of our Lord and Savior - realizing that it was an act of Love that led Him to give up His life for the rest of the world. God was not forced into sending His Son to death. He choose this manner to show man His love for ALL of us. Love overcomes obstacles. The greater the love, the greater the obstacle that can be overcome. I would say that death by crucifixion would be a tremendous obstacle of obedience for the Son - who overcame it to show His love for you and me and the world.
I would say that God is "forced" to continue existing
God is not "forced", it is His nature to exist, to be.
So, in this light, was Christ dying on the cross necessary to be in keeping with His stated natures of justice and of loving man (His elect)? I would say "Yes".
It is necessary only to the degree that God would show His love for man by the greatest means possible. I don't see God's Passion as necessary or forced, since that takes away His free will. He chose to save us in this manner. Certainly, God could have shown His great love for us through other means, correct? Who would demand that God must have died on the cross? Now you are starting to sound like God owed us His death!
Regards