"Your" side has a problem with God being outside of time.
God sees everything done, from the first day that God created time, to the last day of time in the future, as one view. One NOW. Thus, EVERY SINGLE THING that you do, brother, is seen all at once by God. It is seen at the same time as creation came into being. Thus, God doesn't "wait" for us to choose Him or not choose Him. There is no "waiting" for God - that implies time, which God is outside of. Thus, when God makes a "choice" of who will be of the elect, it is based in part on His SIMULTANEOUS knowledge of our first day of existence and our last day of existence. All of this is from God's point of view, naturally. It is only a small peek into the mystery of God and how He interacts and decides.
With this in mind, it becomes more clear (hopefully) that God, from our point of view, "waits" on our choices that we make. His "foreknowledge" (from our point of view) of 27 February 2006's decisions are seen "already", although from His point of view, He views today and the first day of creation simultaneously. Thus, placing God on a linear time frame and viewing Him strictly from our point of view is a mistake. God cannot help BUT see our actions and reactions to His graces, since He sees all simultaneously. Thus, the Scripture sometimes speaks from man's point of view - and that God had DECIDED (past tense) something. But to Him, God did not "decided" something --- He DECIDES NOW EVERYTHING... Does that twist your noodle enough? ;)
What rational person would choose hell if he really had EVERYTHING he needed?
People choose hell over heaven all the time. By choosing your will over God's will, you are choosing an eternal life without God - hell. Some people prefer life without God.
if God stands out of the way on the final choice, then what is that "thing" to distinguish between those who choose and those who don't?
God is involved in every decision. He doesn't "stand out of the way". We are saying that we do not make decisions ALONE, and we are also saying that God does not overpower our choice to choose. Otherwise, you make a mockery out of the Decalogue and the choice to obey it.
We say our salvation is complete from the beginning of time from God's point of view
How can you know God's point of view on this issue???
The sinner's prayer just help us to know it too.
Your own story proves that false, at least absolute assurance.
We don't believe that God sits there with His giant eraser, constantly blotting out names in the Book of Life on a second to second basis, and then re-writing them back in later as the case may warrant.
We don't believe God does that either - see above. However, from OUR point of view, it would seem that is exactly what happens. Sometimes, we are righteous in God's eyes, and other times, we sin and fall away and are not righteous in His eyes in the present. Again, Scripture is generally written from man's point of view.
There is no "need" to say the sinner's prayer more than once if it was effective the first time. But of course, many people don't yet have a full understanding of their faith and may feel a need to say it again.
Again, how do you know it WILL be effective? We can look back in retrospect and judge that we are more or less living in Christ. But the future? That is pure presumption. The "sinner's prayer" is not an objective point that ensures our salvation from that time - since you have said that it might be required to say it again.
My pastor actually alluded to this idea this morning by comparing it to saying "I do" at marriage. Does anyone really understand all that it means when they say it? NO. Some people repeat their vows, but likewise it is unnecessary, but useful to the people involved if they so choose to do it.
Perhaps. I understand your point. We don't have sexual relations with our spouse one time - we desire to reaffirm our covenant relationship. But we know that we were married on a specific date. This is not about reaffirming the covenant - but making sure we are part of it to begin with! Since Protestantism's theology says that salvation cannot be lost, they go to great lengths to cloud this very issue. It is really double-talk. "I know I am saved when I say the sinner's prayer" --- "unless I fall away in the future, then I was never saved to begin with". See the theological gymnastics required? Logically speaking, one cannot know they are saved, because nothing guarantees you will die in Christ in the future.
So every epistle that uses the familial "you can know", or some form of it, doesn't at all refer to the readers of the letter, or to Christians in general? Instead it refers only to the mysterious elect and no one can know he is a member of that elect until after death. That would make these some very strange letters.
The conditional is presumed when the Epistles speak familially. Paul presumes that those Christians he write to will CONTINUE walking the walk. But he makes provisions for the inevitable person who falls away elsewhere. Paul often teaches "IF...THEN..." If I walk in Christ, I will be saved eternally. If I turn away from my family, the community, I will not be saved. It is not a matter of "I never was saved"!
This is a misunderstanding of the word "saved". Saved means to heal. Are you saying that a person who is healed from a sickness was not really healed the first time if he gets sick again? Why is it so difficult to see that a person can be healed of sickness, get sick later and require the healing touch again??? Isn't it clear from life that this is how things work?
Christ paid for all the sins of His elect, past, present, and future
Again, another shortcoming in this theology...Christ paid for all sins. Not just the elect:
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. 1 John 2:2
Clearly, misinterpreting the Scriptures can lead to some faulty theology. Basing your theology on something that is anti-Scriptural is bound to lead to error, presuming that Christ died ONLY for the elect - which leads one to falsely presume that no one can "lose" their salvation.
Brother in Christ
It appears you are saying that God makes His "choice" of the elect simultaneously with the elects' choices of Him. If it truly is simultaneous AND God does not cause it, then our God is the luckiest God ever, isn't He? He guessed right every single time.
People choose hell over heaven all the time. By choosing your will over God's will, you are choosing an eternal life without God - hell. Some people prefer life without God.
Again, only those without full information. You say that God loves those from whom He withholds this information (grace). This doesn't make sense.
God is involved in every decision. He doesn't "stand out of the way". We are saying that we do not make decisions ALONE, and we are also saying that God does not overpower our choice to choose.
How does God "involve Himself" in a man's decision to go to Hell? No man would choose Hell with full information. God has full information and the authority to bestow it on anyone He loves. Why does God give it to some and not to others?
FK: "We say our salvation is complete from the beginning of time from God's point of view."
How can you know God's point of view on this issue???
The Bible tells us plainly and without need of any lens:
Eph. 1:4-6 : 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
---------------
FK: "The sinner's prayer just helps us to know it too."
Your own story proves that false, at least absolute assurance.
That depends on your definition of "absolute assurance", which, as of the post I am responding to, you still have not given me.
The "sinner's prayer" is not an objective point that ensures our salvation from that time - since you have said that it might be required to say it again.
I never said that a member of the elect ever needs to say it again. I honestly don't know if it happens that a true member of the elect, predestined by God from before time, ever says the sinner's prayer falsely at first, and then repeats it later so it "counts". I don't really see that it makes any difference. If someone is of the elect, he WILL say some equivalent of the prayer and it WILL count. God has ordained it already.
[Protestantism's theology] ... is really double-talk. "I know I am saved when I say the sinner's prayer" --- "unless I fall away in the future, then I was never saved to begin with". See the theological gymnastics required? Logically speaking, one cannot know they are saved, because nothing guarantees you will die in Christ in the future.
There are no gymnastics. I didn't set it up, but that's how God's promises work. The elect are saved, they can KNOW they are saved, and they can KNOW that they cannot be snatched out of God's hands. God does guarantee that the elect will die in Christ. That's what the unfiltered Bible says.
Paul presumes that those Christians he write to will CONTINUE walking the walk.
Really? I didn't know that. Well, I guess that's proof positive that Paul was a Calvinist! :)
This is a misunderstanding of the word "saved". Saved means to heal. Are you saying that a person who is healed from a sickness was not really healed the first time if he gets sick again? Why is it so difficult to see that a person can be healed of sickness, get sick later and require the healing touch again??? Isn't it clear from life that this is how things work?
"Saved" ALSO means to heal. You left out other, perhaps more prominent definitions. Here is something from a website called "Truth or Tradition?" :
"The Greek word translated “salvation” (soteria) denotes “deliverance and preservation” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words); “Safety, preservation from danger or destruction. It is contrasted with death (2 Cor. 7:10) and destruction (Phil. 1:28)” (E.W. Bullinger A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament). It also means “wholeness” or “health.” Fundamentally, we are saved from two things: sin and death. We are saved from sin and death by justification and the corresponding gift of everlasting life."
"Therefore we define “salvation” as a state of being saved, rescued or delivered from something that threatens death or destruction, that is, being brought to a place of safety. The Hebrew word for “salvation” also means a place of safety (yasha). Logically, if we are still in jeopardy of somehow losing this salvation, we are not in a very “safe” place."
---------------
FK: "Christ paid for all the sins of His elect, past, present, and future."
Again, another shortcoming in this theology...Christ paid for all sins. Not just the elect ...
Once again, 'Yes', the payment Christ made was sufficient to pay for the sins of all mankind, even if God had willed that all would go to Heaven. But since not all go to Heaven, then it really only matters to the elect. That's all I'm saying in the above comment.
Clearly, misinterpreting the Scriptures can lead to some faulty theology.
On that, you and I could not possibly agree more! :)
God Bless.