Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
I could give you a theological answer, or a verse answer, but I'm guessing you've heard them all before?
If I tried to be honest and personally examine it I'd have to describe what I know, or call, faith and go from there. But then that might not be what you're looking for either.
Not trying to be facetious, but if you could give some direction or elaborate a little more or differently, perhaps I could answer more to the point you're looking for.
I think I understand.
Part of the main difference in views is between whether God foreknows the elect or whether he picks some and predetermines they are elect.
Hope I’m explaining the difference clearly.
Yes, the bible says those whom He foreknew.
“However, since this is the second (or third, depending on Kolo’s answer to my response to him) recent post challenging that supposition, I am happy to recalibrate my understanding. :)”
FK, I think I’ll stick with my reply at 7126. That really is what we are talking about as Harley will concur, I am sure. Monergism and Synergism are quite different theological systems. A monergist would necessarily view Orthodox synergism as you do.
Now here’s the interesting thing. HD has maintained that the West was essentially monergist at least since Blessed Augustine but has generally fallen away from that position and has either adopted, or moved towards adopting, the Orthodox position since the Reformation. I find that fascinating. What do you think, Jo?
Many of you have written on this, and so I will accept that this is your view. One of my responses was in 7,158.
That payment is held in reserve until and unless we repent. [---] But the payment is not made for us specifically for specific sins until we repent of that sin. We get no free pass. Otherwise repentance has no meaning.
Well, then the payment was not a payment in full. Rather, it was more of a deposit with the balance being due from the individual in order to secure salvation. Or, it could be characterized as a conditional payment, dependent upon specific performance. IOW, what Jesus did definitely had strings attached, it was not a free gift, as you say above. Of course we would disagree and say that Jesus did it all, and that salvation is indeed a free gift.
I have seen Apostolics say before that salvation is a free gift, but that it must be accepted. But here, in more detail, more is required than simply saying "yes". Here, specific action is required in the form of repentance. It sounds like much more of a bargain situation than a gift situation. I mean, in free will I would imagine that repentance is no snap of the fingers.
But, according to the Reformed, nothing that we do has any meaning. So therefore what significance has repentance in the overall scheme of things except as a meaningless gesture.
Meaning is in the eye of the beholder here. If true meaning comes from the glorification of man, his free will, and power, then you are right. We don't focus on that so much. :)
God's impartiality is established in the Bible. A perfect Judge must be impartial in order to render impartial justice to all. He cannot be swayed by your faith, your looks, your influence, your wealth, etc.
God judges everyone justly and appropriately. If you are judged righteous in His eyes then you are truly righteous, even if others don't see it that way. Your righteousness is not His opinion, or taste, or just "favor." It's a fact.
Likewise, if you are judged evil you are truly evil and not just labeled as evil because God is offended by your sin. It's not His opinion; it's the truth.
So, in His judgment He is just in either case. You are not judged either way because He "likes" you or "hates" you, but accoridng to what you really are. You can't fool God. You can't buy His favor. You can tithe your way into heaven, but you can bribe your way into hell.
God is no respector of persons. Each of us will get what we rightfully deserve, even if we think otherwise.
Selah!
You are playing with words. This whole discussion over partiality started over God being an impartial judge, as all judges should be in their judgment. That God is impartial is established in the Bible. It says on more than one occasion that He is impartial, or words to that effect (synonyms). End of discussion.
Yes, as long as I understood what it was. Every witness is going to be partial to something
So if you have witnesses protecting a murder, with false alibis—that's good?
Imagine you got busted on a bum rap and at trial your lawyer called your priest as a character witness
If I were innocent I would want nothing but the truth. If I wanted to get out of a crime I committed by pretending that I am innocent, I would want someone to "fabricate" my innocence because "they're my buddies" and they won't say bad things about me.
If I were accused improperly I would want the truth to come out. I would want my priests to say only the truth about me. If you did nothing, then truth will set you free (in an unbiased system). If you are convicted before you even had a chance to defend yourself, then the judge and the whole legal process is a charade.
Thank you oh so very much for all of your insights and for sharing the Scriptures with us!
Praise God!!!
It comes down to what the word "foreknows" actually means. Is it merely an awareness of future events, or it is an ordination of future events?
Let's see what Scripture says...
"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" -- Acts 2:23
Did God merely know ahead of time that Christ would be crucified, or did God ordain the cross according to His plan of salvation?
According to Scripture, God does not elect based on His foreknowledge of the future actions of men. What could be clearer than Romans 9:11?
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth"
Some excellent articles on the subject are...
And...
And finally...
"...As we have said, there is no real difference among men, except in their hidden election. Some theologians would make foreknowledge the mother of election, and that very foolishly and childishly. They say that some men are chosen and others rejected by God, because God, from whom nothing is hidden, foresees of what sort each man will be. But I ask, Whence comes virtue to one and vice to the other? If they say, "From free will," surely creation was before free will. This is one point. Besides, we know that all men were created alike in the person of Adam. . . . And what does this mean except that the condition of all who come from the one root is the same? I am not discussing "special gifts." I admit that if our nature had not been corrupted and we all had the same assurance of blessedness, we would be endowed with a variety of gifts. . . . But since in Adam all are sinners, deserving of eternal death, it is obvious that nothing but sin will be found in men. Therefore, God's foreknowledge cannot be the reason of our election, because when God [looks into the future and] surveys all mankind, he will find them all, from the first to the last, under the same curse. So we see how foolishly triflers prattle when they ascribe to mere naked foreknowledge what must be founded on God's good pleasure. . . . When Moses prays to God not to break his covenant with Abraham, God answers, "I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." What does he mean? He means that the reason for God's keeping some for himself and rejecting 295 others is to be sought nowhere but in God himself. When he says, "I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion," the repetition may seem empty and dull; but it is in reality emphatic. . . . The reason for compassion is compassion itself..."
Children don't get to pick their parents and no one is born accidentally.
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
The new creation, of which Christ is the exemplar and the firstborn, is God's plan for mankind. Christian believers are made in that image, just as all creatures are made for God's purposes. All flesh is grass.
Isaiah 40:6
The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry ? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Actually, no, I have not heard them all before. In fact, I haven't heard anything. Every time I ask the question people normally give me vague or wishy-washy answers but never give me a straight forward answer. My guess is they refuse to want to give God the glory for their faith because they have to give up on believing in their free will.
Not trying to be facetious, but if you could give some direction or elaborate a little more
Where does faith in God come from? This isn't rocket science. I'm not sure what type of direction you're looking for in such short question.
Yes, I still believe that.
What I posted by St. Worm earlier was rather intriguing about the Orthodox never getting involved in the Pelagius/Augustine controversy, especially since the Orthodox would favor a synergistic view. I would concur with St. Worm that the Orthodox has a completely different way of looking at things like the atonement, judgment, etc that the Pelagius/Augustine debate never bothered them.
Of course, the east and west did not have email accounts so communications was a bit more difficult to discuss some of these theological points. You send a monk off to ask what synergism was and three years later you would hear back. By then you would have forgotten the question.
Why people don't believe God chooses His own is beyond me especially when our Lord Jesus says, "You did not choose me but I've chose you". It made perfect sense to me once I heard it.
Of course it's full. His death made it possible for all ment to be saved, as God desires. He is the master phyiscian who offered to save anyone's life if they come to Him. The condition does not make it partial. This is like saying that all Canadians have been given the right to American citizenship. They stll have to apply.
So Jesus is not really The Savior, He is The Enabler?
Baptism is a sacrament of adption into the Body of Christ. That means those who are baptized are His. Baptized babies are saved in that they are assured to enjoy the full bliss in the presence of God. Unbaptized babies may too, but we don't know.
I remember there being some kind of a proxy thing, but am not sure if you are talking about that above
Godparents accept the faith on account of the infant, by commititng themselves for life to raise that child in faith.
OK, so it looks like you are saying that Christ's "effect" on sin is the same throughout. It allows us to ask for forgiveness for sins, and as infants this happens by proxy?
Infants have not committed any sins. There is nothing to repent of.
You say it is ridiculous to be able to repent of future sins and we say it is ridiculous to repent and believe by proxy
No one repents by proxy. Children do not sin. A baptized child is raised in faith. No on believes by proxy.
The Spirit moves all believers to want to come back to Him, and giving a guilty conscience is one motivational tool.
Why feel guilty if your sins are forgiven? There is no motivation whatsoever. If you feel guilty and wish to repent means you feel that you have unforgiven sins. To a Protestant that is an oxymoron.
We consider that we are justified because of CHRIST'S righteousness, not our own.
You can't claim righteousness through someone else. Either His righteousness is given or, as some would say, imputed the end result is the same. It makes no difference whence came the bragging right, whether you paid for it, or whether it was a gift. It's still given to you. And those who feel righteous have no reaosn to feel the need to repent.
Certainly. It is Scripture and I believe it. I simply believe that you are misinterpreting it.
Mark 3:
28
Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them.
29
But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.”
Matt 12:
31
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
There is the Word of Jesus. It is directly said by Him; we are to take those Words as Gospel. As a matter of fact, with it being repeated in two of the Gospels, it is indicated that we had really better pay attention to it.
He says that it is possible for all men to condemn themselves by their actions; namely blasphemy against the Spirit. That is man being the final arbiter of his own destiny. Notice that it says that all sins other than that WILL be forgiven them. How does your theology deal with these verses?
Will you say that these are only of the elect? Will you say that these don’t apply to all men? Your list of proofs grows thin.
I give you Gospels and now in desperation you depart from out of context Paul and give me out of context Psalms.
Good verses.
They do seem to indicate that it is up to the man to love God or not, don’t they?
Certainly salvation is conditional. We cannot be saved against our wills. The verses from Mark and Matthew (several posts ago) have Jesus saying directly that man can lose his own salvation - by blaspheming the Spirit. Therefore salvation is conditional and no amount of twisting Pauline or OT verses can possibly gainsay it.
Repentence is a life-long thing, and not just a one-off event for past and future sins. Repentence is taken very seriously by Catholics - the Sacrament of Reconciliation is considered just about as important as the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
We understand that man by himself cannot possibly attain salvation. That was lost in the original sin of Adam. Only through Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross can that way be opened again. But it is a way - Via, the early Christians called it - Jesus called Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life - it is a journey and we must travel it. We get no limo ride; we don’t get to point at those walking and know that they are going straight to hell and there’s nothing that they can do about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.