OK, I think I see where you are coming from better, thanks. I don't think that God passes over anyone without "knowing" anything. Nothing is ever hidden from God. I do NOT think the system is set up as follows: God gives 10 units of grace to Jim, and also 10 units to Bob. Jim uses his free will together with the grace and accepts Christ. Bob uses his free will also, with the grace, but he chooses to reject God.
Instead, to quantify it for example, I believe there are "X" amount of units of grace for each person that will guarantee a decision for Christ. The "X" might even vary from person to person. Anyway, God gives the "X" amount to all of His elect, and He does not for everyone else. Man contributes nothing to his own salvation. It is all in God's hands.
Now, I also think that God does not choose His elect randomly. I cannot tell you how He arrives at His decisions, but it doesn't seem to me that God would be in full control if He ever rolled the dice on anything.
Finally, I believe that God retains His justice because He has no duty to save anyone. Do you believe that man must have free will for God to be a just God, or that God's justice demands that some are saved?
God doesn't need to ordain something to be still in control. God keeps things in existence. ... God always retains control, no matter what man chooses to do. How could this not be so, since God sees into man's future and has already seen the end of time???
To me, this sounds like a very passive control, at best. God watches and knows what man will do, but God does not intervene, at least very much. A baseball club owner can watch a game. He owns everything, but does he control the outcome of the game? No. My idea of control is much more active, perhaps more like an athlete in an individual sport.
Explain to me why crucifixion HAD to be the manner in which God chose to save man. Are you now taking away God's free will in the manner of our salvation?
God chose the manner of our salvation, for His own reasons, so His free will is intact. Let's separate it into death and manner of death. God could have ordered the universe such that a snap of the fingers would have accomplished the salvation of mankind. But He chose not to. I know that because of the fact of the crucifixion. That He died must have been necessary, in view of His justice, or else He committed suicide unnecessarily. It would make no sense for Him to give up His life if a viable alternative was some other way.
As you well know, in those days the ultimate method of execution was the crucifixion. It was ultimate pain, ultimate suffering, and ultimate humiliation. By comparison, John the Baptist got off quite easily, wouldn't you say? :) I believe this must also have been necessary or else it wouldn't have happened. If a single man had run Him through or lopped off His head, then the whole focus of the faith would have been thrown off. This was a corporate murder by "all" the people, including us.
Here, brother, is where we must accept Revelation, even if we cannot fully understand how two different concepts can co-exist. Try not to rationalize mystery too much.
That sounds exactly like what Spurgeon said. I guess you do like some of his stuff. :) I agree there are plenty of mysteries that we will never understand fully while on earth. I still think it's fun to try to figure things out, as long as it doesn't corrupt the most important points of faith.
In the physical world, would you say that someone was just for denying someone water or food who lived in a prison cell and did not have the ability to feed themselves?
No, in that case the withholder would not be just, unless there was a lawful sentence of death by starvation. The jailer has a duty to feed the inmate. God has no such duty to save.
You can't hold to both ideas: God is Just/God withholds grace from people without knowing their response.
I hope I explained above why I do not hold the latter view. Let me know if I need to explain more.
The Bible is full of testimony in which God turns His eyes from His people AFTER they turn from Him.
I agree both that it happened, and that it was just.
What faith is required of a person who has seen the mountains move?
Apparently in many cases, plenty. I have always been astounded at how quickly the Jews turned away from God after they all just witnessed the parting of the Red Sea.
FK: "Here is another example of God's dependence on man. God foresees man's exercise of his free will, and then God is bound not to withhold. Under your view, man steers God's will."
YOUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THIS! That God bind Himself to YOU! You utterly rely on God's promise of eternal life! Does this mean that God has given up control to you, FK, because now God "has to" reward you?
While I do rely on God's promise of eternal life, AND that He won't take it away from me once I have it, I don't think His promises are kept out of a duty owed by Him to me for something I did with my free will. I see the salvation promises as being one way. So, yes, I would see it as God giving up control if He "risked" losing one of His elect to himself.
The Bible is pretty clear that man will be judged for WHAT HE HAS DONE - in other words, in complying with the graces that God has given.
Yes, there is scripture on this, but we have an honest disagreement on the subject of the judgment, in cases like this. Based on the context, I believe that judgment can be either for salvation or for other rewards once in heaven.
But it is impossible to obey God in a pleasing manner - faith working in love - without the grace of God. Not even once.
I agree. In my view, there is no such thing as "man's morality". There is only God's. Each man lives up to it to whatever degree he does. God ultimately decides this by the disposition of His graces. I think it says somewhere in the Bible that martyrs receive a higher praise from God. I don't feel cheated because it is unlikely that I will ever become an actual martyr. I am perfectly content to leave it all up to God.
Then how is He omnipotent (using your own argument)?
But I think you are mistaken aboyut not letting you go. Matthew 21:43 says
I don't think God gives everyone equal graces, but He gives everyone sufficient grace to turn to Him in some manner. Otherwise, this would nullify Scripture that says "God desires all men to be saved", among others like it.
Anyway, God gives the "X" amount to all of His elect, and He does not for everyone else. Man contributes nothing to his own salvation. It is all in God's hands.
I see it in a reverse order. Since God wants all men to be saved, HE does not "pick and choose" which will be tossed out based on no evidence of response. Thus, God foresees those who reject Him outright. The rest will be predestined. This fits well with God being positively in control of the elect and ALLOWING the condemned to condemn themselves. IF you say God chooses the condemned, you say God is the author of sin - which is not a Christian concept.
it doesn't seem to me that God would be in full control if He ever rolled the dice on anything.
LOL! Why wouldn't God be in control when He foresees all of our actions and is able to aid those who even try slightly to come to God?
Finally, I believe that God retains His justice because He has no duty to save anyone.
Strictly speaking, if God did not present any Scriptures, you'd be correct. But He has PROMISED He desires men to be saved! All of them. He DIED for ALL of them. He binds HIMSELF to the salvation of mankind - if you believe that God is righteous. Thus, God presents the ability for ALL men to be saved - if only they do not "close their eyes to the light".
To me, this sounds like a very passive control, at best. God watches and knows what man will do, but God does not intervene, at least very much.
God is more active than a baseball owner watching a game. We require His graces daily. We rely on Him for every good gift. But this doesn't do away with our ability to refuse Him. People do it all of the time - even regenerated people.
That He died must have been necessary, in view of His justice, or else He committed suicide unnecessarily. It would make no sense for Him to give up His life if a viable alternative was some other way.
As I said, God is not bound by necessity in the HOW in saving us. Nor did Christ commit suicide since He didn't kill Himself. He gave Himself up in obedience to the Father, an expression of ultimate love. God went to the extreme to show His love for us.
God has no such duty to save.
He does if He binds Himself to such a task - which He did in the Garden of Eden. IF God is righteous, we trust that He will execute this promise.
Yes, there is scripture on this, but we have an honest disagreement on the subject of the judgment, in cases like this. Based on the context, I believe that judgment can be either for salvation or for other rewards once in heaven.
So how would you explain the many verses of Scripture that rules out the "judgment based on rewards within heaven"? There are quite a few that make it clear that judgment is for heaven or hell. Some of these verses are spoken to CHRISTIANS, the "saved"! What then?
In my view, there is no such thing as "man's morality". There is only God's.
I think you mean that man's morality has little worth when it contradicts God's morality. Man has many ideas of morality - some really think it is OK to kill unborn kids...
Regards