You responded : 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.
You don't know anyone like that? God's promises are for those who persevere in Christ, not someone in a moment of emotion "take on Christ as the Lord of their lives", which many times fails to materialize into reality...
As to the last sentence, I am asking you once to knock it off. I think you are beyond the stage of ignorance on this.
I wrote : If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted?
You wrote : 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.
You are misunderstanding my question. If man sins PERIOD in this life, which God allows, why wouldn't He allow man to sin more often, even to sin grievious and fall away from Him? The fact that man CAN sin tells us that God doesn't actively override our will to prevent us from sinning or falling away. ANY sin is a sin against His infinite justice.
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.
Define what you mean by "Justice". How "just" would God be if He didn't provide ALL men an opportunity to be saved from himself? At the final judgment, we will see that God was just and that no one was unfairly cast into the abyss. They will have rightly earned damnation, as the wages of sin is death. Now, if God did NOT provide any help to such people, what sort of just God is He then? God loves ALL of His creation, it is inconceivable to me that He offers no help to certain parts of creation made in His image. Christ died for the sin of the WORLD - remember that is Scripture.
God directs sunlight over those whom He will, and He puts clouds over others whom He will.
Nice try but it doesn't work that way. Whatever light is available due to God's working of the weather effects ALL men below. This is not a factor in my analogy. God's graces shines on all, the good and evil alike. If man continues to walk in the darkness, as John stresses, then man suffers the consequences.
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.
God created man with free will for a greater good. He desired creatures who could love, as He does. You can't love without free will.
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.
I also believe that God is in control. But I don't see it as a matter of God fighting man to drag him into heaven unwillingly. God desires a being who has freely chosen Him. Regarding God's desire that all men be saved, it is plainly in Scripture. Or are you again going to accuse Catholics of twisting the "plain meaning" of Scriptures? That fact of the matter is, whether you understand or agree with it, is that God desires all men to be saved. It is clearly written and we must clearly accept this as fact. Elsewhere, such as in Peter, the same thing is written. God died for the sake of ALL men, for the sin of the WORLD. Why would God die for the sin of the world if He only intended on saving a percentage of men?
God's plan IS accomplished - He STILL desires ALL men to be saved - but at the same time, He desires them to freely choose God. This falls in the same category as God desires all men to obey His commandments. It is a signified will, not a decreed will.
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.)
This is not the sense I have received from you on this question. These are my beliefs, but I didn't remember we agreed on this issue. God desires all men to be saved, but some choose to reject Him totally. God foresees this. God calls the rest predestined, and graces them appropriately. Thus, the predestined don't merit anything, while the reprobate earn hell. As I have said time and time again, God does not actively choose the reprobate, AND God actively chooses the rest to be the predestined, since God desires all men be saved - but He will not save those who do NOT desire to be saved.
Well, that view requires a very specific paradigm of interpretation that nullifies the so-called "assurance verses"
"Assurance" verses are given to those who persevere, not the presumptive Pharisees. You make perseverance a moot point in your "system". And believe me, there are plenty of perseverance verses...
Therefore, as God ACTS, inside of time, He really doesn't want all men to be saved.
I didn't follow your logic here. God definitely desires all men to be saved - He died for all men while ALL men were still in sin. God foresees that despite His aid in time, some men will still refuse Him. As a loving Father who has tried so many approaches but still is dealing with a difficult child who demands to be disinherited, the Father leaves such a one to His fate - the wrath of God, as in Romans 1. That is what God does to those who rejects Him, leaves them in sin.
And, that a man without faith can do acts which are moral on their face, but still are not pleasing to God.
Thus, every act of an unregenerated man is not sinful, then, is it?
Well, I never thought of Paul as a sadist, but then again, we're all sinners: :)
Sorry, Paul doesn't say the Law was meant to show how worthless man is. He says that merely following the Law does not earn salvation to heaven. To earn salvation by the Law, one must obey it PERFECTLY. Since men sin, we cannot justify ourselves under the Law. We MUST rely on GRACE. God doesn't give us the law for the express purpose of sadistically proving that man is worthless. That is not a Biblical concept. God is like a loving spouse to His bride. Is that the sort of marriage you see between God and man? Go read Song of Songs or Hosea someday.
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.
That is EXACTLY the point I am making. The elect are not forced. You would have God drag EVERYONE to heaven for "God desires all men to be saved"!
It is never "forced" against someone's will, it is that God changes the will to want to come to Christ.
Man is transformed. But according to Protestant theology, man remains unchanged, a lump of crap, covered with the righteousness of Christ. Now, you are saying that man's will is changed for goodness? Perhaps there is hope...
If God wants everyone in heaven, then how strong is God's plea?
Very.
"There is no greater love than this, that one give up his life for his friends"
God died for men who were still in sin, "unfriendly" to God...
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)?
If you are saved by your own positive response, then you are saying you merited heaven. There is no "neutral" response. Either you are with Christ or against Him. Again, that is clear Scripture.
By the way, we are not discussing anything about cooperation with God. That presumes that God is moving me to do His will in the first place. Thus, above, I say "your OWN" positive response.
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?
An inheritance is not earned. We don't "do" anything alone - but we CAN disinherit ourselves from this free gift. Thus, we are told to persevere in Christ, to work out our faith in works of love. Refusing to is akin to rejecting Christ. This is nothing new! When have I said we must do "x" or "y" to earn salvation? Our actions determine whether we are rejecting Christ, as, for example, He tells us in Matthew 25 and the parable of the sheep and goats. If you thought Catholicism was different, don't blame me, blame whoever is telling you such lies as "Catholics believe in works salvation".
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?
That response merely proves again that you don't appreciate the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior - who CHOSE to give of Himself to the fullest - out of love. Who exactly did God owe the death of His Son to, anyway? God didn't have a debt to pay to some other diety to win us back! He CHOSE to show His death in a most humbling manner out of love - both the Son's love for the Father, and the Father's love for mankind.
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?!
Christ's HUMAN will did not desire the impending suffering - but BOTH His wills decided that His Father's will was to be His meat. The Divine Will had decided upon this course of action - not because it was "owed" to anyone, but out of love. What greater way could God have showed how much He cared for us, FK?
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?
God obligates HIMSELF! He is not bound by anything that man does, but what He does, for example, the various Covenants with man. HE BINDS HIMSELF! And we believe that His promises will be fulfilled because God is rigtheous.
Your discussion regarding the Passion has given me cause to question your concept of WHY He did it. It appears that you think God was 'forced' to crucify His only Son! Perhaps I have judged wrongly, but your posts seem to point in that direction.
I assure you, I am still Jo Kus :-)
Regards
I don’t know anyone who elects himself. … I disagree that God’s promises are null and void until after death, which it sounds like you are saying. I believe that they were effective when made. What good are His promises if they apply to no one during life?
You are misunderstanding my question. If man sins PERIOD in this life, which God allows, why wouldn't He allow man to sin more often, even to sin grievous and fall away from Him? The fact that man CAN sin tells us that God doesn't actively override our will to prevent us from sinning or falling away. ANY sin is a sin against His infinite justice.
Yes, any sin is against God and His justice. However, the reason that God’s allowance of one sin does not carry over to the allowance of such sin as to fall away, is that God specifically promises His elect that He will not let that happen. He makes no such promise for a single sin. God must, and does, keep all of His promises.
Define what you mean by "Justice". How "just" would God be if He didn't provide ALL men an opportunity to be saved from himself?
God would be perfectly just if He did this. He would also be just if no one were saved at all. You appear to be applying man’s sense of justice to God. You are obligating Him to be “fair” with you as you define fair. In reality, God sets all the standards and God makes all the rules. His justice is self-defining, and not subject to our scrutiny.
That fact of the matter is, whether you understand or agree with it, is that God desires all men to be saved. It is clearly written and we must clearly accept this as fact. Elsewhere, such as in Peter, the same thing is written. God died for the sake of ALL men, for the sin of the WORLD. Why would God die for the sin of the world if He only intended on saving a percentage of men?
That is a perfectly reasonable question. From what we know is true, the only answer has to be that either God did NOT die for the sin of the whole world, or that He did NOT intend on saving all men, or both. If you believe that God does the actual saving, then to hold otherwise is to say that God failed to achieve His intention. I believe that diminishes God.
God's plan IS accomplished - He STILL desires ALL men to be saved - but at the same time, He desires them to freely choose God. This falls in the same category as God desires all men to obey His commandments. It is a signified will, not a decreed will.
OK, that sounds alright. I was focusing on your use of “intention”, because that signifies something more to me than a signified will. But, if you are saying that it’s all the same, then OK.
Thus, the predestined don't merit anything, while the reprobate earn hell. As I have said time and time again, God does not actively choose the reprobate, AND God actively chooses the rest to be the predestined, since God desires all men be saved - but He will not save those who do NOT desire to be saved.
I agree with the first statement. The way I look at it, if God actively chooses the elect, then doesn’t He implicitly also choose the reprobate by not choosing them to be of the elect? Doesn’t He choose them by default? Perhaps you and I arrive at very similar results, but we use chicken vs. egg reasoning to get there. When you say that God will not save those who do not want to be saved, I can say that is a true statement. But I believe it is true because God does not grace them to want to be saved.
Thus, every act of an unregenerated man is not sinful, then, is it?
Well, in the normal way we think of sin, I would say “Sure”. If, however, someone said that sin is any act outside of God or apart from God, then the answer might be different. Our experience is clear that unregenerated men do acts which we would consider “good”, in the normal sense.
Man is transformed. But according to Protestant theology, man remains unchanged, a lump of crap, covered with the righteousness of Christ. Now, you are saying that man's will is changed for goodness?
I do think the elect are covered with the righteousness of Christ. Righteousness is imputed rather than infused. I didn’t say that man’s will is changed so that he can choose to actually be righteous on his own account. I said that man’s will is changed (from stone to flesh) so that God’s plan of salvation for His elect is accomplished.
When have I said we must do "x" or "y" to earn salvation? Our actions determine whether we are rejecting Christ, …
Well, do we persevere with a free will or not? If you say that God causes the perseverance of His elect, then OK. But, if we persevere through our own actions, then why isn’t that earning salvation?
Your discussion regarding the Passion has given me cause to question your concept of WHY He did it. It appears that you think God was 'forced' to crucify His only Son! Perhaps I have judged wrongly, but your posts seem to point in that direction.
I just don’t think Christ would have given up His life if it was not necessary to accomplish His objective of saving us. I don’t think He was forced because He set up the whole thing from the beginning. He ordained that man would be fallen, and require redemption. He knew that man would not be able to accomplish it on his own, so He ordained that He would do it for us. He didn't owe anything to anyone, it was His choice.
I assure you, I am still Jo Kus :-)
I’m glad to hear it. I would have missed our conversations. :)