I really wasn't trying to be sarcastic (this time! :) When I said "always" I meant "at any given time". I know that you believe that God always HAS the power to intervene in anything, but I thought you would say that God would not ever use it "against" man, if man's free will would be quashed. You know how many times I have read on this thread that God loves us so much that He will not force us to do (or not do) anything, so this is where my comment is coming from.
FK: "I can't believe God left it to chance that all the authors of the Bible would never choose to ignore His grace on what to write."
Again, you are forgetting God's foresight. He sees everything before it happens in time - and KNOWS what is necessary to happen for His will to be done. He knows what events must occur for a man to choose "x" - if that is God's desire.
Well if I'm interpreting you correctly, then we agree. When you said that God "knows what events must occur ...", I take that to mean you are saying the fix was in because God caused those events. I am fine with that. Whether God put the fix in while they were literally writing, or whether God set up the billions of details in advance to get them to write what He wanted is all the same to me. Either way, God guaranteed each word of the scriptures.
FK: "And God's foreknowledge is of no help here, because you would still have to believe in an amazing freak of luck that no author strayed, seeing as how "hands-off" you believe God is."
How is that? Did I say that man wrote the Bible without any help from God? Did He not inspire it?
You never said either of those things, but this is where my above argument comes in. I have been buried in statements that God will not interfere with man's free will. However, if you are now saying that God proactively placed whatever events in the lives of the writers to cause them to write what they wrote, then that is an override of what their will is/was, and I agree. That is putting the fix in.
God did not use man as some sort of puppet, placing man in a trance to move his hand! God wouldn't need man at all if that is the way God planned to give the Scriptures. Why would He need man at ALL to write the Scriptures?
God didn't "need" man to write the scriptures. :) (He seemed to do OK with the Ten Commandments.) But, if you'll agree that God set up everything such as to leave nothing to chance, then I'm fine with that.
Whoopie, we agree on something...
My sarcasm meter is pegging right now... :)
Faith is not only something given by God to men, it is a RESPONSE to God's grace. Faith ALSO depends on man. (emphasis added)
This is for what I have labored so hard and for so long to hear. :) I think this takes away from God's sovereignty, and this difference is one of the main points (tangentially, if not explicitly) of the original article of this thread. You can't really tell me then, that "everything" comes from God. It cannot, if your sense of free will really is true.
[On whether it makes sense for there to be "perseverance scriptures" to the elect, if the elect are already guaranteed to comply:] FK: "It's a perfect revelation of God's will, and therefore a wonderful teaching tool to seekers. ..........
Sorry, it is wishful thinking, not in compliance with Scriptures. God's promises are for those who persevere - from our point of view.
(And only the elect persevere, so God's promises are only for the elect, you are saying ...).
Scriptures used to teach seekers about perseverance are not in compliance with scriptures? Revealing God's will that His elect persevere is not in compliance? What are you talking about? -- Besides, what good are any of God's promises to those who persevere when none of them (those who persevere) can be known until after their dead?
God doesn't say that YOU will persevere. Only His elect. Being regenerate does NOT mean you are of the elect.
Again, what good are God's promises here if they apply to no one in particular? Why do you bother to read them? You seem to know that they don't apply to me because I claim to be of the elect. How or why do they apply to you?
FK: "I don't put the burden on my shoulders to perform to such and such a level. God already says He will take the burden for us."
God says His burden is light and easy. He doesn't say He "takes it away".
Here are a couple of examples:
Is. 46:3-4 : 3 "Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. 4 Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.
Deut. 1:31 : ... and in the desert. There you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place."
And of course the obvious question to you would be: Do you consider your sins to be a burden? Did God relieve you of that burden by dying on the cross, or does man take care of his own burden by doing deeds and sacraments to redeem his own burden of sin? I know you don't believe that. Is this a misunderstanding?
If you have no problems with Jesus telling parables, why can't the OT have parables?
I don't have any problem with the concept, I will just never assume that something is a parable, (a) if there is no indication that it is, and/or (b) just because I can't scientifically explain every detail of the story to the satisfaction of today's scientists. MY presumption will always be that the story is meant to be taken as factually true, unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.
FK: "God's "literal" word was intended to be interpreted at times."
God's "literal" word is eternal and not subject to interpretation by man. Thus, the problem with Islam, brother. Christianity can thrive because we CAN realize that God's Word is mediated through man. The Church CAN interpret it - making the Scripture LIVING.
No Islam problem here. Jesus gave a parable one time, and then He turned right around and interpreted it for His disciples right there. Here is an example of God interpreting His own word, even though you do not believe that can ever happen. I think the principle lives on to this day. The Spirit interprets the word of God for us. We just disagree on who the Spirit has on His speed dial.
The Church can make the scripture LIVING? God delegated that one away too, eh? Well, I hope it isn't the Church that is trying to make the Constitution LIVING! :)
I see the problem that St. Augustine and others had when arguing a point of view. Sometimes, one can argue a side so aggressively that the balance is tilted. We have two apparently contradictory truths here: Man has free will And God desires that all men be saved. By arguing to aggressively "man has free will", it leaves God's divine sovereignty in apparent trouble. This is the problem with arguing such theological issues. We must not argue one too much - in either direction - that the other is excluded or contradicted. This is a difficult thing to do.
Because you hold to only ONE of these truths, I have been arguing free will. Probably more aggressively than need be. The truth of the matter is that we really don't know the interaction of these two TRUTHS. They are BOTH found in Scriptures and must BOTH be held! I see you only holding to one, while paying lip service to the other. This will not do. St. Augustine said that "faith comes first, then reason". Thus, we must have faith that BOTH of God's revelations are true - although we may not have the reasons to explain our particular discussion to our fullest mental satisfaction.
Men have the free will to choose God. Men are empowered, by God, to obey His commandments. Man will be judged based on how he complies. On the other hand, God desires all men to come to Him. He has the power to actually bring ALL men to Him if He desires this as a decree. God has ALWAYS desired men to come to Him and has empowered them with a desire to do so:
"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." Gen 4:26
Obviously, it is GOD who placed this desire within mankind! But why does God NOT give ALL men "efficacious grace"? Does He foresee their rejection? We have been arguing this off and on for quite awhile. All I can say for sure is that we must hold to both truths, not fully understanding the HOW.
This is for what I have labored so hard and for so long to hear. :) [Faith is not only something given by God to men, it is a RESPONSE to God's grace. Faith ALSO depends on man] I think this takes away from God's sovereignty, and this difference is one of the main points (tangentially, if not explicitly) of the original article of this thread. You can't really tell me then, that "everything" comes from God. It cannot, if your sense of free will really is true.
I have been reading and studying John's Gospel, the Gospel of Faith, as called by some. I think you may find your answers in there. God calls men to Him. But at the same time, faith is also a response to the message of Christ. Jesus preached to the entire audience, but only some came to follow Christ. Perhaps to help, it might do good to remember the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. The soil is man's response. It is certainly prepared and chosen by the Lord, but the seed, God's Word, falls on this soil. So the Word finds fruit in the faith in which a man responds to God's prompting. Christ is calling for a relationship between us and Him. A relationship requires a response when one makes the initiative. Our response is not our own, certainly. But it is not God alone, either. God has given us the gift to respond - but we must use it. And this is the daily choice we face. To sin or not.
Besides, what good are any of God's promises to those who persevere when none of them (those who persevere) can be known until after their dead?
God is promising that He will not pull the rug out from under those who respond to Him - NOT that God will reward us with heaven no matter what we do after our faith proclamation made 20 years ago. God's promises are for those who persevere. THEY will be the elect after the fact. God doesn't promise that those who enter the Church are the elect. Remember the parable of the wheat and the weeds? We just don't know that I am of the elect. We know that God will keep His promise to reward those who persevere, who obey His commandments, who ask for forgiveness of sins. He doesn't promise heaven to those with dead faith.
And of course the obvious question to you would be: Do you consider your sins to be a burden? Did God relieve you of that burden by dying on the cross, or does man take care of his own burden by doing deeds and sacraments to redeem his own burden of sin? I know you don't believe that. Is this a misunderstanding?
They are a burden until I confess them to our Lord and Savior, admitting my failure and promising to make an effort in the future to do better - with His help. I know many a Christian who ARE burden with sins. Some on this very thread seem to be burden with hatred for things Catholic. Hatred IS a burden that they carry, even though Christ died on the cross 2000 years ago. Christ only releases the burden of sin from those who turn to Him. Completely.
Regards