Replies

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.

I appreciate your compromising tone, and I think you sum up our positions pretty well. My problem with "God wants all men to be saved" is NOT that I think God doesn't have enough love to spread around. :) Rather, it is that it is one of those statements that God, for His own reasons, is not willing to MAKE happen.

To me, it is like God saying He does not want anyone to sin. It's true, but God isn't going to effectuate it becoming true in full. I see this as very different from "God wants all of His elect to be saved". Here is a "real" example of something God wants, because He will do whatever it takes to make sure it happens in full. So, in a manner of speaking, God would have a "duty" to save the elect, but no such duty to the non-elect.

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.

I think it is the "HOW" we are mostly disagreeing on, the mechanics of what God does, and what God's "duties" are. I don't happen to think that God bases His grace decisions on His foreknowledge. But if He did, then He would detect a "no" answer on the part of someone who already had a "normal" level of grace. If God had really wanted this person to be saved, then at the point of foreknowledge (the beginning), why couldn't God have "upped the juice"? :)

God's promises are for those who persevere. THEY will be the elect after the fact.

But I thought you believed in single predestination. Is this a POV thing?

Christ only releases the burden of sin from those who turn to Him. Completely.

OK, I would call the group of those who turn to Him completely, the elect. If Christ only releases the burden of their sins, then we would agree that Christ did not die for the sins of all men, He only died for the sins of the elect.

My problem with "God wants all men to be saved" is NOT that I think God doesn't have enough love to spread around. :) Rather, it is that it is one of those statements that God, for His own reasons, is not willing to MAKE happen. To me, it is like God saying He does not want anyone to sin. It's true, but God isn't going to effectuate it becoming true in full. I see this as very different from "God wants all of His elect to be saved".

Yes, as I have pointed out previously, God has two wills, which you seem to have picked up on. What "keeps" God from actually saving ALL men regardless is that God is Love. Love cannot but give of itself. Thus, God freely gives man that ability to choose. Even when God graces said man, it is the man in the end whom God allows to choose Him or not - as Moses and Joshua state: Choose! God has shown His "personality" to us through the Christ. Thus, we know that God "condescends" to man by allowing man to Love as well. God desires deeply a loving response to His initiatives. Thus, the result is the possibility of rejection! That is the chance we (and God) takes in Love. We (and God) makes themselves "vunerable" to the beloved, allowing the beloved to choose. Most certainly, God shows His love to us first - a very persuasive love.

I don't happen to think that God bases His grace decisions on His foreknowledge. But if He did, then He would detect a "no" answer on the part of someone who already had a "normal" level of grace.

As a Catholic, I can choose either option. I can believe that God uses His foreknowledge or not when choosing His elect. I happen to believe He does, but that's me.

If God had really wanted this person to be saved, then at the point of foreknowledge (the beginning), why couldn't God have "upped the juice"? :)

Good question, one we'll probably not know on this side of life. God must have some sort of a "balance" that says "That's enough. I have tried enough and this guy refuses me. He has decided to reject Me, so I leave this man to his own ways." On the other hand, if God DOESN'T use this foreknowledge, does God randomly choose men to elect? Who can say...

I thought you believed in single predestination. Is this a POV thing?

Yes, God predestines the elect, but WE don't know whom God has predestined for glory, only for grace. Once baptized or once we realize that we are obeying the commandments, we can know we have been predestined for grace - but this doesn't mean we are predestined for eternal glory - as the Bible clearly states that Christians return to the vomit of their past life, disinheriting the gift of Love. Again, this goes back to our different definitions of "salvation". You say it is a past event only. We say it is an ongoing event, past, present and future.

He died for the sin of the world, as the Bible states. The problem is that the gift is freely given - and some men CHOOSE not to accept it. Again, understand that love is given freely and the beloved must accept the initiatives. When Christ talks about faith, He also invariably talks about man's response to God, for example, in John 3.

Regards