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
I do agree.
"Many will say, 'Lord, Lord'", and Jesus will say 'I never knew you'". Chilling words to the self-elected...
Yes, they certainly would be, and I am glad I don't know anyone like that. The reason you call us "self-elected" is that your leaders have interpreted scripture to deny certain of God's promises. That is understandable, given that the Church supersedes the Bible.
If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted?
Because in this world we don't always get what we want. :) Concerning the elect, I believe God thinks it is more important that they are saved than that they get everything they want during this extremely brief presence on earth.
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.
Why bother if God's foreknowledge is not rewritable? What chance does such a man have if God already knows it's over? You say God gives this man an opportunity, but what is it? This is contradictory.
You are missing the point. If God's clouds blocked the light, ALL men would be affected...
Actually, I'm still quite enamored with myself for that little quip. :) How do clouds work? If there is a thunderstorm, then there is no light. But, most of the time there are some clouds and some light, right? This is the analogy I was suggesting. God directs sunlight over those whom He will, and He puts clouds over others whom He will.
WHY would God have to "fight" against this force, this [free] will, to execute His plan?
Because of original sin. I know that we disagree about the "nature" of our born nature, but in either view, it still doesn't point toward God, does it? From God's POV, man's free will is His enemy. My point is that man's free will is in opposition to God's will. Our sin nature always opposes God.
Rom. 7:14-20 : 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
This describes to me a struggle between man's nature (his free will to rebel), and God's will.
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?
Well, under my view God is in full control, He gets all the credit, and His plan will be accomplished in full. I am trying to show you that you do not believe any of these things. :) For example, God is not in full control if He REACTS to the decisions of others rather than makes the decisions Himself. God does not get all the credit if man makes the final salvation decision. And, God's plan is not accomplished if He desires all men to be saved.
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.
I think I was the one who split this discussion into two parts so there may be some crossover of issues (meaning I didn't split it very well, sorry). :) But in any event, I have always thought that God sees clearly who will reject Him, and that He has full foreknowledge. I honestly do not know what I said to make you think otherwise. (You don't have to do a big search, paraphrasing should do it.)
And regardless of what you might believe, an individual does not know his final destiny until He is standing face to face with God.
Well, that view requires a very specific paradigm of interpretation that nullifies the so-called "assurance verses". Tradition says that there is no assurance, therefore, these verse are interpreted out of meaningful existence. Since I believe that the Bible is the first level of visible truth, I must take those verses as being true.
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.
Now wait a minute. :) This isn't so simple. :) You say that God's decisions and men's decisions for Him all happen simultaneously, as far as God is concerned, right? So, with no time elapsing, God wants all men to be saved, UNLESS they refuse, WHICH He already knows in the simultaneous act. Logically, then, God actually spends NO TIME wanting all men to be saved, because He already knows of some who will reject. Therefore, as God ACTS, inside of time, He really doesn't want all men to be saved.
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.
Yes to the last sentence. I think we cleared this up on the other line by agreeing that man can do nothing good in God's eyes without faith. And, that a man without faith can do acts which are moral on their face, but still are not pleasing to God.
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.
LOL! Well, I never thought of Paul as a sadist, but then again, we're all sinners: :)
Rom. 3:19-20 : 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
---------------
Heaven would be worse than hell for those who didn't want to be there in God's presence.
Yes, that might be true if there were any people like that in heaven. There are not. I think there is a big misunderstanding when your side uses words like "force" or "coerce" to describe how we think God saves His elect. The elect never, ever, experience being forced. From their POV, it is always a willing coming to Christ. They are unaware that it was "actually" God who made it ALL happen. Therefore, no one is dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. :) The concept of "force" is simply to describe who alone accomplished the salvation. It is never "forced" against someone's will, it is that God changes the will to want to come to Christ.
EVERYONE would be in heaven, if they didn't reject God's plea to ALL men.
If God wants everyone in heaven, then how strong is God's plea? God tells us openly that the road is narrow, and that most will be lost. God's plea could be of any strength He wished, correct? Why is it so apparently weak?
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.
Wow. This is new. If I am not saved by a positive response, then what is the difference between NOT rejecting Him (neutral response) and accepting Him (positive response)?
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.
So from birth salvation is ours to lose??? Joe, this is completely brand new. For an inheritance to work out, all a legatee need do is sit there and wait. In certain cases, he could sin and forfeit his legacy by going to jail or something, I suppose, but there is normally no act that is required of him. This goes against everything I know of Catholicism. Where is this coming from?
[FK on the necessity of the crucifixion for the salvation of man:] 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.
What??? I don't appreciate the Passion and the crucifixion because of what? In your view, the Father could have snapped His fingers to effect the atonement of all of men's sins, but instead, He decided that Christ would go through all that because He loved us so much??? Where is the love in an unnecessary death?
[continuing:] 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.
The reason for the crucifixion was so that Christ could overcome the large obstacle of not wanting to die on the cross? You've lost me completely. Who are you, and what have you done with Jo Kus?!
God is not "forced", it is His nature to exist, to be.
That is why I used quotation marks, to relay an idea not necessarily associated with the normal use of the word. The real Jo Kus would have known that.
I don't see God's Passion as necessary or forced, since that takes away His free will.
And on the other line you were so quick to tell me that God has obligations to us since He decided that He desires all men to be saved. When is it that God's free will applies?
Certainly, God could have shown His great love for us through other means, correct?
You have already heard me give an explanation as to why I don't think so, in posts 5085 and 5126.
Now you are starting to sound like God owed us His death!
The real Jo Kus would know better than anyone that this is something I would never think.
I don't know, Joe. You sure aren't sounding like yourself in this post.