Can A Person Be a Monergist and a Synergist At the Same Time? Can One Be Neither?

[Eternally-Grateful]

If you miss my point, about man-made constructions of thought and words that are logically vapid —they are not THINGS. It is not a question of whether or not God can do them. It is a question of whether or not they even make sense.

They make perfect sense to me.

If God can not bring a person to understand and make a decision. Who is limited. God or man?

You say, ignoring that point, I think: "With God all things are possible." True they are, if they are 'things'. Would you say it is possible for God to lie? —after all, "with God, all things are possible!"

Once again. He does not make us alive IN SIN.

If regeneration precedes justification. as I have been told since the minute I walked in here. Then the person is made alive in sin,. I can see it no other way

Where did I say anything about limiting God? If I did, I don't read it in the post to which you are responding here.

I just said I was not limiting God. This was not directed to you.

And...?

Then we should see many of the characteristics of God in ourselves. (love, Service, helps)

Why are you telling me these things? What has the wonderful truth of them to do with the question at hand? It is as if you are using a scatter-gun, but it is low on powder.

It shows the character of God. and How tells us to be like him.

It is in response we are not like God.

Were we talking here about the scope of his sacrifice? But, since you bring it up, your example, (as if proving that he sacrificed himself for everyone), shows only at best that he sacrificed himself for all sorts of people, just like others of the 'proof texts' the Self-Determinist uses to prove that God intended (but was unable) to save everyone.

Here is that "unable" strawman again (sorry your the one who accused me of using strawman so I just wanted to show it can come from both sides)

I never said God is unable to save anyone. how would anyone even use this argument in any discussion concerning the gospel of Christ.

Jesus said he was sent to the world. Not to all types of people. Not just a select few people. But to the world.

He was sent, not to judge the world. But that those in the world MIGHT be saved (the possibility is there for everyone. but this does not mean they will all be saved)

These can be found in John 3

He is perfectly able to make everyone believe in him. and in the end. no one reject him. (if he so desired. he could save everyone even against their will)

But he chose not to.. When you force someone to do something, they do not usually respond to you that well..

remember Satan's lie. That is what God is fighting. so it never happens again

I know you have never stated that. That is why I keep pointing it out. You seem not to realize (contemplate) that that is what the notion of salvation via any faith that is of human derivation (I didn't say 'origin', since you so cleverly point out it comes from whomever you trust in, because they have convinced you) —again, faith of human derivation, by which I mean faith that you apparently mean is what we produce upon being convinced, does. Your construction elevates your ability to choose to that of God's ability to cause.

where does love come in? (I ask this in all sincerity) where does the love of John 3 come in? where does the love Jesus showed when he came to earth. when he went to everyone.. and invited them all in. And was saddened when they were unwilling?

This part of your discussion is what I see as Calvinism 101.

"Anyone who believes we are born again because we looked to the cross and believed. Is self determinate and hence trying to earn salvation" (I believe you call it synergism)

So your arguing from this point.. Which is fine. If you believe this. Believe it. But maybe look outside like I did a few decades again. and understand some of what you may be taught may not be true.

Self-Determinist is a word I use for short, for "Those Who Insist on Self-Determinism". You don't want to be categorized under any -ism, yet, there you are, consistently claiming that WE cannot be saved unless by US choosing Christ.

Another strawman. (Bolded - again I would not even be using this term because I hate it. I just want to discuss, but you accused me of using strawmen arguments)

I did not chose Christ. I have absolutely no comprehension where this through even originated from. Yet I hear it all the time and it makes my skin crawl.

Christ chose me. He offered his salvation to me.

I was like the tax collector. The tax collector did not chose God. He cried out in pain and suffering understood he had no way to go (he came to his knees and became poor in spirit)

Jesus did not say he chose me. Jesus said he went home justified. The tax collector did not do anything by cry out.. He did not chose Christ

The children of Israel did not chose God when they looked to the serpent. God Chose them. He offered them the gift of salvation (from what killed them) they chose to receive it. and lived while others chose to reject Gods provision of salvation and died in unbelief

again I go back to john 1

But as many as have RECIEVED HIM to THEM he gave the POWER (Gk exousian - the authority, the power, the right, jurisdiction, strength) to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name

If you look in the Greek. it appears it is saying he gives us the right to save ourselves, to make ourselves children of God. but we both know that is not true.

Because of the next verse

Who were born, not of blood (it is not passed down from father to child) nor of the will of the flesh (I can not will myself saved) nor of the will of man (Another loved one my not will me saved) but of God

The power (the authority, the right, the jurisdiction, the strength) is Christ. He is our power. once we receive him in faith.

You have spent long paragraphs and many posts explaining that, reducing and expanding that, even defining faith by that boundary while claiming it comes From God.

It does,

But my point was I thought we would stop assuming. and stop accusing, and continue to discuss. (not you in particular. but everyone)

 

[Arial]

see, now I can not see this, They can not be brought to life UNTIL their sin debt is resolved.
As for spiritually dead people being brought to life because they understood. it is all over the place. John 1 - 6 would be a great place to start.

In john 6. Jesus even lets them know. You do not see because you do not believe.

They are brought to life so that their sin debt can be/is resolved. If they are not, then no matter how many times they hear the gospel, they will not believe it. Paul tells us this in 1 Cor 2. Jesus tells us in John 3. They must be born again before they can see. Perhaps you need to give a definition of what you say being born again means. My definition is the same as we find in Ez 11:19-21 ANd I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh that they may walk in my statures an dkeep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people and I will be their God. But as for those whose heart goes after their detectable things and their abominations, I will bring their deed upon their own heads, declares the Lord God.

Jeremiah 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be my people.

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God; Everyone who has hear an learned from the Father comes to me--

Romans 2:28-29 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

They understood because they had been brought to life. The human heart had been changed by God from hard against God in Adam to soft towards God in Christ. Willing and receptive. Their ears had been opened to hear, and their eyes to see. There is no way around the conclusion of man's contribution to his salvation, when one says God helped in his understanding, but it was the man's choice to accept a gift offered, that precipitated his own new birth---and that grace. There just isn't.

 

[Arial]

This is the second (or is it the third) you have refused to counter point what I said. and just went back to your doctrinal view.

My post that you quote is countering your position. To which you repeated your position, simply going back to your doctrinal view. See how these statements like the above are counter productive?

I point by point took us through the passage.

And all you say is I am wrong, and no counterpoints of your own.

Not to me you haven't. Someone who is dead in their sins has to be brought to life before anything else happens. Spiritually dead people can't believe. There is nothing in Scripture about God helping dead people to understand so he can bring them to life.

What would you call the above?

You accused me of not understanding Eph 2 by claiming Eph 2 says exactly what you claim it did.

It would be helpful if you discarded the word "accused", especially when you are using it in an accusatory sentence to someone else. Disagreeing with someone and stating their own view is not an accusation. If I were to follow your example, I could justifiable retort: You accuse me of not understanding Eph2 by claiming Eph 2 says exactly what you claim it did. Counter productive responses.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

My post that you quote is countering your position. To which you repeated your position, simply going back to your doctrinal view.

Actually. No I did not go back to my doctrinal view. I went to the passage. and I broke it down point by point. Showing you why I believe what Paul said. that our new birth is by grace through faith.

Sadly. Youi did not counter any of those points. So ????

See how these statements like the above are counter productive?

So going over the same stuff multiple times is productive?

What would you call the above?

I would call this you speaking to me based on your theology

Where as I took you through a passage point by point. so as to not go just though my theology.

It would be helpful if you discarded the word "accused", especially when you are using it in an accusatory sentence to someone else. Disagreeing with someone and stating their own view is not an accusation. If I were to follow your example, I could justifiable retort: You accuse me of not understanding Eph2 by claiming Eph 2 says exactly what you claim it did. Counter productive responses.

You could

Except I took everyone through the passage. I did not accuse you of getting anything wrong. I just put it there for everyone to see

All you had to do was counter point and take us all through to see it your way.

 

[Arial]

Actually. No I did not go back to my doctrinal view. I went to the passage. and I broke it down point by point. Showing you why I believe what Paul said. that our new birth is by grace through faith.

According to your doctrinal view. Which is how I interpret it----according to my doctrinal view. You and others have complained about circular arguments, but constantly posting with circular posts produces nothing else.

Sadly. Youi did not counter any of those points. So ????

Since I showed you where I did, this becomes a false accusation. I suppose, since I still didn't agree with you, that becomes not countering it?

So going over the same stuff multiple times is productive?

Red herring. It is not what I said was unproductive?

I would call this you speaking to me based on your theology

Did you want me to speak according to someone else's theology? Yours perhaps? Is that the only theological view that is important in a two way conversation?

Where as I took you through a passage point by point. so as to not go just though my theology.

Uhh, EG, your theology determined what your point by point was. Did I not go through what I was saying point by point? Do you think any statement about God or Christ is NOT theology?

Except I took everyone through the passage. I did not accuse you of getting anything wrong. I just put it there for everyone to see

So did I. So have others. Is me doing that accusing you of getting it wrong but when you do that it is not accusing me of being wrong?

All you had to do was counter point and take us all through to see it your way.

I have said nothing that I did not support with Scripture in opposition to what you have said. As long as you keep saying that I do not do what I have done, you leave the impression that no one does it until they agree with you.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

According to your doctrinal view.

This is the last post I will respond concerning this issue

I wrote the passage down

I discussed what the passage said.

I walk through the passage and wrote down what I saw the author was saying point by point.

I did not do it based on a religious view, or a doctrinal view. or any other view. We do not study the word this way. if we do. We are in serious trouble because if we are wrong. the word will never speak to us.

I am of the view we use the word to form our belief system, not our belief system to form our interpretations.

I did what I would do with any writing, whether it be writings of God. writings of man. Or text books.

It is HOW we should do this. (do you study, do you not study this way? I would hope so!)

I gave you an opportunity to respond. But you did not. You keep telling me I do it by my doctrinal position.

You have every opportunity even now to break it down like I did. and show me how to interpret that passage any other way. (hence give me a reason to change my view on what Paul says in eph 2: 1 - 9)

Its in your hand. I will no longer respond unless you are willing to break the passage down also.

 

[Arial]

This is the last post I will respond concerning this issue

I wrote the passage down

I discussed what the passage said.

I walk through the passage and wrote down what I saw the author was saying point by point.

I did not do it based on a religious view, or a doctrinal view. or any other view. We do not study the word this way. if we do. We are in serious trouble because if we are wrong. the word will never speak to us.

I am of the view we use the word to form our belief system, not our belief system to form our interpretations.

I did what I would do with any writing, whether it be writings of God. writings of man. Or text books.

It is HOW we should do this. (do you study, do you not study this way? I would hope so!)

I gave you an opportunity to respond. But you did not. You keep telling me I do it by my doctrinal position.

You have every opportunity even now to break it down like I did. and show me how to interpret that passage any other way. (hence give me a reason to change my view on what Paul says in eph 2: 1 - 9)

Its in your hand. I will no longer respond unless you are willing to break the passage down also.

All doctrinal views aside, what you do not listen to is what people are saying to you outside of all doctrinal views. You simply deny you are doing what they say you do. For example: You say I post what I do according to my doctrinal views. That I read the word according to my doctrinal views, but that you do not. That I in use my belief system to form my interpretation, but you do not.

WHEN IN FACT I form my doctrinal views from the Bible. So does Calvinism. So does Reformed theology.

Paul wrote those words in Eph 2. I have never denied he wrote them. I have never denied their meaning. But I use the full counsel of God and all the other things that Paul has said that God says and especially who he is according to himself, all the things Jesus has said on the same subject, and the other apostles; I use the occasion of the writing, who he is writing to, any cultural and historic things that come into play; from this I determine what he is saying. Not from Calvinism. Not from Reformed theology.

I do not believe that your assertion that free will to choose to believe is biblically sound. It does not fit the picture God gives of himself. It does not fit the subservience of the creature to God as the Bible presents it. It wrecks many portions of Christ's work and its effectiveness because it becomes dependent on man's choices. The Bible never discusses "free will" in coming to Christ. Never mentions making a decision or accepting or rejecting an offer. Never attaches, "choose" before repentance or belief, concerning Christ.

But your belief in the necessity of free will in this area is stronger than all else. So when you say Eph 2 is saying that our faith is what generates our new birth, it is to keep that belief in tact. It doesn't look to see if it is correct or not or if there is another way of seeing it that does not contradict anything in the Bible, take anything away from it, or add to it. (The Bible.) You do the same with John 3 and John 6. When you have discussed those chapters, what is done is (in effect) say sure that is what it says, but look what it says a few verses down, which, if taken to mean what you say, contradicts what was said before. And you won't listen to being told that. Or look to see if that might me the case. You point to the serpent being lifted up, in one case, carry it back to its OT reference, interpret the new by the old, and frankly butcher what Jesus is saying in that passage, who he is saying it to, and why. Two people have shown you exactly how you are doing that, and it is obvious, and yet you continue to use it incorrectly. A lot of things are a matter of opinion and some things are not. It is things like what I am saying here, that you will not listen to. You simply say, and I am quite certain you will do it again, that I am accusing you, misrepresenting you, saying you believe things you do not. I am bad, bad, bad.

I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[makesends]

They can not be brought to life UNTIL their sin debt is resolved.

Can you live with, "simultaneously"?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Can you live with, "simultaneously"?

I could

Except now I have a problem with time

How can you go for no knowledge Not even the ability to understand anything. to in one split second know everything, without the ability to ask questions. or contemplate what you see..

Again, God Drew me for weeks. Most people I know is the same people asking questions, It can sometimes be a panful endeavor.. Remember God draws (lateral drags) us kicking and screaming Because our flesh does not want to admit everything we are hearing.. and worse yet. that we can do nothing of our self to resolve the situation. Those goes against human reasoning. God has to break into that pride.. I have witness people get so close. but in the end, they walk away, they just can not do it.. so they return to what they trusted.

 

[makesends]

They make perfect sense to me.

You understand that you have just claimed that self-contradictory statements make perfect sense to you? Do you not mean that to you the statements you make are not logically self-contradictory? Please explain how it is 'possible' for God to do something logically self-contradictory? Explain how it is possible for God to make something happen that is entirely from outside himself. Explain how the notion that First Cause can cause something he did not cause, is not self-contradictory.

If God can not bring a person to understand and make a decision. Who is limited. God or man?

What does God's ability have to do with what is a self-contradictory notion? It is man who is limited, coming up with self-contradictory notions as though claiming God can do them to makes them a reality.

If regeneration precedes justification. as I have been told since the minute I walked in here. Then the person is made alive in sin,. I can see it no other way

That is wrong. The sequence is causal—not temporal. Regeneration has changed them from death to life. In my view, that includes all sorts of things, to include love, salvific faith, justification, salvation-by-faith. The regenerated IS justified, sins atoned for, saved. Your view necessarily makes the salvation-by-faith, a result of a person exercising that faith.

I just said I was not limiting God. This was not directed to you

You didn't mean to imply anything? What was the point of saying it?

Then we should see many of the characteristics of God in ourselves. (love, Service, helps)

Of course. What was the point of saying so?

makesends said:
Why are you telling me these things? What has the wonderful truth of them to do with the question at hand? It is as if you are using a scatter-gun, but it is low on powder.

It shows the character of God. and How tells us to be like him.

It is in response we are not like God

You are still not proving anything. What has God telling us to be like him to do with our argument? Are we told to be like him in choosing to accept his salvation or something? What are you doing with this track?

makesends said:
Were we talking here about the scope of his sacrifice? But, since you bring it up, your example, (as if proving that he sacrificed himself for everyone), shows only at best that he sacrificed himself for all sorts of people, just like others of the 'proof texts' the Self-Determinist uses to prove that God intended (but was unable) to save everyone.

Here is that "unable" strawman again (sorry your the one who accused me of using strawman so I just wanted to show it can come from both sides)

I'll leave that, and a few other references to logical fallacies, alone for now, to avoid invoking Rule 4.4 since it seems I'm the only one willing to call it into application.

But notice that you did not address my question: Were we talking about the scope of his sacrifice?

I never said God is unable to save anyone. how would anyone even use this argument in any discussion concerning the gospel of Christ.

Jesus said he was sent to the world. Not to all types of people. Not just a select few people. But to the world.

He was sent, not to judge the world. But that those in the world MIGHT be saved (the possibility is there for everyone. but this does not mean they will all be saved)

These can be found in John 3

He is perfectly able to make everyone believe in him. and in the end. no one reject him. (if he so desired. he could save everyone even against their will)

But he chose not to.. When you force someone to do something, they do not usually respond to you that well..

remember Satan's lie. That is what God is fighting. so it never happens again

Do you think God has a problem "fighting" Satan's lie?

But again, as I said above, here you want to defend your view that "world" means everyone. It is not a question under consideration. Forgive me for mentioning that even your statement defeated it. That was off-topic on my part.

where does love come in? (I ask this in all sincerity) where does the love of John 3 come in? where does the love Jesus showed when he came to earth. when he went to everyone.. and invited them all in. And was saddened when they were unwilling?

This really does not prove nor support your point. If you think it does, please show how it ties in. If you think you have shown it, forgive me, but please humor me.

This part of your discussion is what I see as Calvinism 101.

"Anyone who believes we are born again because we looked to the cross and believed. Is self determinate and hence trying to earn salvation" (I believe you call it synergism)

Explain to me how looking to the cross and 'believing' CAUSES salvation. Or, since you invoke Calvinism 101, show how it is mistaken to claim that one can not (per Romans 8 and many other places) even seek God nor in any way please him, nor does he want to 'look to the cross'. And, no —God making him aware of his sin and his desperate need for Christ IS a result of regeneration.

So your arguing from this point.. Which is fine. If you believe this. Believe it. But maybe look outside like I did a few decades again. and understand some of what you may be taught may not be true

I have been "outside" of Calvinistic / Reformed belief most of my life. No need to tell me that.

Another strawman. (Bolded - again I would not even be using this term because I hate it. I just want to discuss, but you accused me of using strawmen arguments)

I did not chose Christ. I have absolutely no comprehension where this through even originated from. Yet I hear it all the time and it makes my skin crawl.

Christ chose me. He offered his salvation to me.

And when he offered his salvation to you, what do you say that you chose? You chose Christ —is that not what you say? Did you not reach out for rescue?

I was like the tax collector. The tax collector did not chose God. He cried out in pain and suffering understood he had no way to go (he came to his knees and became poor in spirit)

All on his own, yet! God didn't bring him to that point? How did he get there? So much humanly empirical relevance added to the "salvation experience" as though what WE see and what WE do is the fact of becoming born again?

Jesus did not say he chose me. Jesus said he went home justified. The tax collector did not do anything by cry out.. He did not chose Christ

The children of Israel did not chose God when they looked to the serpent. God Chose them. He offered them the gift of salvation (from what killed them) they chose to receive it. and lived while others chose to reject Gods provision of salvation and died in unbelief

Whoa there! You just said, above, "I did not chose Christ. I have absolutely no comprehension where this through even originated from. Yet I hear it all the time and it makes my skin crawl. Christ chose me."

At least now maybe you can see "where this through even originated from".

again I go back to john 1

But as many as have RECIEVED HIM to THEM he gave the POWER (Gk exousian - the authority, the power, the right, jurisdiction, strength) to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name

If you look in the Greek. it appears it is saying he gives us the right to save ourselves, to make ourselves children of God. but we both know that is not true.

Because of the next verse

Who were born, not of blood (it is not passed down from father to child) nor of the will of the flesh (I can not will myself saved) nor of the will of man (Another loved one my not will me saved) but of God

The power (the authority, the right, the jurisdiction, the strength) is Christ. He is our power. once we receive him in faith

You qualify the whole construction that you suppose to defeat mine, in the end, with that — "once we receive him in faith" — and that is synergism.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You understand that you have just claimed that self-contradictory statements make perfect sense to you?

No.

I said the fact that God can do anything makes perfect sense to me.,.

The fact that God can draw a person to him, and help them to see his true self so they can receiver his gift makes perfect sense.

there is no contradictions in those statements

Do you not mean that to you the statements you make are not logically self-contradictory?

You make them logically self contradicting, I do not You make them man made constructions. I do not see it that way

Please explain how it is 'possible' for God to do something logically self-contradictory?

do what?

Explain how it is possible for God to make something happen that is entirely from outside himself.

I do not make it outside himself. again you do

Explain how the notion that First Cause can cause something he did not cause, is not self-contradictory.

Your trying to talk to me based on your theology. Ask me a question that is from the word. not from your theology.

We keep going down this road.. We will get no where.

What does God's ability have to do with what is a self-contradictory notion?

this is getting old real quick..

It is man who is limited, coming up with self-contradictory notions as though claiming God can do them to makes them a reality.

This does not even make sense my friend.. What are you trying to accomplish here

Can God do anything he wants. or is God limited?

If God choses to serve based on love, is that contradictory?
If God choses based on love, to give the right to become children of God to those who receive him, and not to those who do not receive him contradictory?

No.

they are what you would expect from a God who claims to be a God of love;. and no a respecter of persons. Who loves all freely and openly.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

had to break into two posts as was too long

That is wrong. The sequence is causal—not temporal. Regeneration has changed them from death to life.

Yes.

As I explained in eph 2 to another user multiple times We who have been made alive who were dead in trespasses and sin (for by grace we have been saved) which paul makes clear. this salvation by grace is through faith not of works lest anyone should boast.

In my view, that includes all sorts of things, to include love, salvific faith, justification, salvation-by-faith. The regenerated IS justified, sins atoned for, saved. Your view necessarily makes the salvation-by-faith, a result of a person exercising that faith.

But the word says we are saved by faith.

when you remove faith from the equation of regeneration. you remove what God commands

You didn't mean to imply anything? What was the point of saying it?

I felt I was being accused of limiting god. so I made the point, it is not me who is limiting God.

Of course. What was the point of saying so?

makesends said:
Why are you telling me these things? What has the wonderful truth of them to do with the question at hand? It is as if you are using a scatter-gun, but it is low on powder.

lol.. To explain what I see.

if you do not see it. thats fine. I am not trying to force you to see it.

we are made in Gods image, to me that is what it means.

You are still not proving anything. What has God telling us to be like him to do with our argument?

No. I never made any such claim.. (frustrated again)

Are we told to be like him in choosing to accept his salvation or something? What are you doing with this track?

No. Again, we are like him

SINCE we are like him, we have the ability to chose..

Saying we can not. is saying we are not like him

makesends said:
Were we talking here about the scope of his sacrifice? But, since you bring it up, your example, (as if proving that he sacrificed himself for everyone), shows only at best that he sacrificed himself for all sorts of people, just like others of the 'proof texts' the Self-Determinist uses to prove that God intended (but was unable) to save everyone.

I'll leave that, and a few other references to logical fallacies, alone for now, to avoid invoking Rule 4.4 since it seems I'm the only one willing to call it into application.

You would need to make it against yourself also then

But notice that you did not address my question: Were we talking about the scope of his sacrifice?

ETERNAL AND ALL INCLUSIVE.

Sorry if it seems I am screeming, But I have said this over and over.

John 3. He died for THE WORLD. so that ANYONE WHO (whoever will) may be saved.

how are they saved? By trusting him.

who are they not saved? By continuing in willful unbelief

he who believes is not condemned, he who des not believe is condemned already

Do you think God has a problem "fighting" Satan's lie?

I see it all the time.. God does not have a problem with it. But people keep buying into it

But again, as I said above, here you want to defend your view that "world" means everyone. I

its not a view per say, because in the geek. the word literally means the population of the earth. It does not mean a partial population. And it does not say the elect. If jesus wanted us to think he only died for the elect. I think he would have not said the world. He would have said the elect,

And again, He said he was not sent to judge the world. But that the world (same world) MIGHT be saved.

If he died just for the elect. the term might be saved would be a mistake. because everyone would be saved.. (that he died for)

.

t is not a question under consideration. Forgive me for mentioning that even your statement defeated it. That was off-topic on my part.

Thank you. we all make mistakes.. I am not innocent of this myself

This really does not prove nor support your point. If you think it does, please show how it ties in. If you think you have shown it, forgive me, but please humor me.

where does Jesus love come in?

Did he love those who would reject him any less than those who would receive him?

John said he came into his own., but his own received him not. Do you think he did not love them?

then he goes into the verse. But as many as have received him....

Just because someone does not receive him does not mean he does not love them, He showed this on his last week. crying over Jerusalem how he loved them as a mother hen, and so wanted to gather them together, but they were unwilling

Explain to me how looking to the cross and 'believing' CAUSES salvation.

it does not.

When you mother hands you a plate and you receive it. it does not cause you to eat.

Not does looking to Jesus cause you to be saved. anymore than them lookin gat the serpent cause them to be healed.

God is the cause.. We receive his love, or we deny it..

Or, since you invoke Calvinism 101, show how it is mistaken to claim that one can not (per Romans 8 and many other places) even seek God nor in any way please him, nor does he want to 'look to the cross'. And, no —God making him aware of his sin and his desperate need for Christ IS a result of regeneration.

This is Calvinism 101 as I see it

I have only heard this from reformed Calvinistic believers. I have not heard this from any other source.

Grace believers, or those who believe in salvation by grace through faith are not all Calvinistic. We are many. Calvin is just one of those who follow this belief

We are saved by grace through faith. this justification by faith is the cause of our regeneration.

But it is all of Christ.

I have been "outside" of Calvinistic / Reformed belief most of my life. No need to tell me that.

And when he offered his salvation to you, what do you say that you chose?

I ask again, did the tax collector chose christ? because I did what the tax collector did

My answer is no. We did not chose christ, we begged for his mercy, because we acknowledged our sin and we had nothign to offer

Again, we became poor in spirit.

Jesus said, blessed are the poor in spirit. for theirs is the kingdom of God.

If A person does not come to the point they are bankrupt in spirit. they will never receive Christ

You chose Christ —is that not what you say? Did you not reach out for rescue?

I chose to be saved, rescued, not christ.

You need to put it in perspective

All on his own, yet! God didn't bring him to that point?

yes. Its why he was where he was. Like I was.

How did he get there?

Ask God

So much humanly empirical relevance added to the "salvation experience" as though what WE see and what WE do is the fact of becoming born again?

The simplicity in christ.

People try to make it difficult.

God brought us to our knees. Some of us needed alot more dragging and pulling than others.. But in the end, we all came to the position of the tax collector

Or God realized nothing he would do would change our mind so he moved on to someone lese.

Whoa there! You just said, above, "I did not chose Christ. I have absolutely no comprehension where this through even originated from. Yet I hear it all the time and it makes my skin crawl. Christ chose me."

At least now maybe you can see "where this through even originated from".


You qualify the whole construction that you suppose to defeat mine, in the end, with that — "once we receive him in faith" — and that is synergism.

Synergism says I earned salvation.

I am monergism, I did not earn what I could never buy.

Jesus offered his grace gift to me. I received it like the tax collector did.

Christ chose me,

Now your who theology as i remember is based on God chose you. So its ok for you. but not for me?

 

[Arial]

How can you go for no knowledge Not even the ability to understand anything. to in one split second know everything, without the ability to ask questions. or contemplate what you see..

Who says it is one split second? Who says we have to understand everything all at once? Who even determines what we are to believe (even without understanding it) that comes with the new birth. Not all people are the same, have had the same life experiences, come from the same place. We are not one size fits all with God. With me, it was I knew everything in the Bible was true because it was from God. Did I know everything that was in the Bible? Was that something I found in my hard heart that was at enmity with God? Or was that a new heart given to me by God? Did I turn to God instead of being turned away from him? Is that the ultimate repentance? Then and only then he taught me----through his word. Until then it was foolishness to me. The point was, I believed God before I understood.

I began reading in Gen w and Matt 1 and read all the way through. And I believed everything I read. There was a lot I did not like, but I believed it and I bowed down to it. It was God. Where else could I go?

Again, God Drew me for weeks. Most people I know is the same people asking questions, It can sometimes be a panful endeavor.. Remember God draws (lateral drags) us kicking and screaming Because our flesh does not want to admit everything we are hearing.. and worse yet. that we can do nothing of our self to resolve the situation.

That was your experience. Does that define what everyone's is? Is it sufficient on his own to create a doctrine out of? Perhaps the human perspective is inadequate to determine what is true with God? Is it possible to just let God be God?

God has to break into that pride..

God has to change a heart.

I have witness people get so close. but in the end, they walk away, they just can not do it.. so they return to what they trusted.

Close is no cigar. It is also arbitrary. You really have no idea what their true state of mind was. What they were thinking and not saying. They didn't believe. What does Jesus say about that? "You do not believe because you are not my sheep." He did not say, "You are not my sheep because you didn't accept the gift of salvation."

 

[Arial]

This is Calvinism 101 as I see it

Is that supposed to mean it is wrong? Where did the Reformers (and one ought to be on their knees thanking God for giving them to us) get their theology and doctrine from? Why did Christ's church need a reformation?

I have only heard this from reformed Calvinistic believers. I have not heard this from any other source.

One should never forget how often God tells us he works with remnants. Not the masses. How the gate to eternal life is narrow and few---and the other is wide, and many.

 

[makesends]

I could

Except now I have a problem with time

How can you go for no knowledge Not even the ability to understand anything. to in one split second know everything, without the ability to ask questions. or contemplate what you see..

Who said one goes from any knowledge, or no knowledge, to know everything?? There is no contemplating or asking that can bring one to know everything, anyway. That's why I say that the Spirit of God generates our salvific faith.

But is that your only "problem with time?"

Again, God Drew me for weeks. Most people I know is the same people asking questions, It can sometimes be a panful endeavor.. Remember God draws (lateral drags) us kicking and screaming Because our flesh does not want to admit everything we are hearing.. and worse yet. that we can do nothing of our self to resolve the situation. Those goes against human reasoning. God has to break into that pride.. I have witness people get so close. but in the end, they walk away, they just can not do it.. so they return to what they trusted.

Yet you still don't know everything; none of us do. But God does. The Spirit of God does.

 

[makesends]

Can God do anything he wants. or is God limited?

Why would God want to do something self-contradictory?

If God choses to serve based on love, is that contradictory?

Do you expect a yes or no answer to that, as though that was all that need be considered?

But, show that he choses to serve based on love, and why, without bringing up a man-made construction.

If God choses based on love, to give the right to become children of God to those who receive him, and not to those who do not receive him contradictory?

Have you never considered whether God loves based on his choice?

No.

they are what you would expect from a God who claims to be a God of love;. and no a respecter of persons. Who loves all freely and openly.

A little off-topic here, but what makes you think he loves all freely and openly? What do you think "no respecter of persons" means, and please, in the context of where the Bible says that. Is God not particular who comes to him? What do you think "Elect" means?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Who said one goes from any knowledge, or no knowledge, to know everything??

Well if your a natural man one second. not able to make a decision because you can not uderstand anythi8ng.

To being born again the next second. and at the same time, have faith to be justified by faith (it is all at the same time) then how else would I see it?

There is no contemplating or asking that can bring one to know everything, anyway. That's why I say that the Spirit of God generates our salvific faith.

What all do you need to know? What is the gospel? Do I need to know everything?

But is that your only "problem with time?"

Yet you still don't know everything; none of us do. But God does. The Spirit of God does.

Yes, My point is. what do we need to know to be saved? Do I need to understand the trinity. how old the earth is, Whe3n Christ will come back. Is God done with Israel. What is love, Why do I give, why do I serve? What is spiritual gifting?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Why would God want to do something self-contradictory?

what do you deem is self contradictory?

Do you expect a yes or no answer to that, as though that was all that need be considered?

Its a question. an honest and sincere question. If God chose to serve me in love, is that contradictory.

No. it is one thing that should be considered. You asked the question about being self -contradictory.

But, show that he choses to serve based on love, and why, without bringing up a man-made construction.

I think I did this by using Lev 26.

And that is just one example

Have you never considered whether God loves based on his choice?

Why would his choice be to be a respecter of persons. in other words. I Chose you, I do not chose you?

Or, I chose these two twins, I chose this one to go to hell. and this one to go to heaven, before they are even born

I know the big answer is who are we to question God. But Moses Questioned God. and Many other people did. I think We have thjat right, and God wants to answer us.l

A little off-topic here, but what makes you think he loves all freely and openly?

His live is limited by his justice. Justice demands a payment for sin. and his love can not overrule that.

That's why he proved his love to the universe by coming to earth. and making atonement for all mankind.

Now if he only made it for some. again, his love comes into question. IE, You have 100 People here who are in extreme danger, and if they are not rescued they will die. But you chose to only save a few of the 100, you let the other ones die. and not even offer them the possibility of salvation. How can you claim to be a God of love.

What do you think "no respecter of persons" means, and please, in the context of where the Bible says that. Is God not particular who comes to him? What do you think "Elect" means?

I was chose. based on Gods foreknowledge to be conformed to the image of God.

There are two general views which I think could be used. and one I disagree with

1. God elected me personally, although he did not elect the person next to me, So I will be saved no matter what, he will not no matter what

2. God chose me based on his will. he looked in the future and saw what would happen. (it is the will of the father in heaven that whoever sees and believes will have eternal life and I will raise them on the last day - john 6) so in essence. God elected me based on the fact I would be given the right or power to become his child and I received him. so he elected to conform me to his image.

It was explained to me one day in a way that makes sense. although nothing in the bible says this.. Before creation. God (they) sat and looked into the future. They saw that 1/3 of the angels would rebel. then they would make man. And he to would rebel. The decided to come up with a plan to save his human creation. Love could not over rule his justice. so he could not just say its ok I forgive you. But love could plan a way. The Son took it on himself that he would set aside his deity, come to earth as a man. and die for his creation. This would open up the ability of all man to be saved (see john 3. He did not come to judge the world. that it might be saved) And they determined at that time. that everyone who would receive this gift. They were chosen or elected to be Gods children, and they would be saved.

of all reasonings or examples. this is the best I have heard trying to explain it in a way we can understand


There is another election. this group is still beloved. although most of them will end up in hell. Paul calls them beloved according to the election. but hated according to the gospel

 

[makesends]

Well if your a natural man one second. not able to make a decision because you can not uderstand anythi8ng.

To being born again the next second. and at the same time, have faith to be justified by faith (it is all at the same time) then how else would I see it?

What all do you need to know? What is the gospel? Do I need to know everything?

Yes, My point is. what do we need to know to be saved? Do I need to understand the trinity. how old the earth is, Whe3n Christ will come back. Is God done with Israel. What is love, Why do I give, why do I serve? What is spiritual gifting?

I'll cut to the chase. Did you ever ask yourself if you really did reach for that life preserver? Where is the obedience, the evidence of your salvation?

It is not your reach that made salvation yours.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I'll cut to the chase. Did you ever ask yourself if you really did reach for that life preserver?

I gave my testimony. Week after week I was reaching out trying to get saved. Begging God to not condemn me, I know I was a sinner. Sin Sin Sin I was like the tax collector.

Then one sunday morning I walked up to the pastor during the call. and a deacon took me back to the baptismal dressing room. and walked me through the gospel stop by step so it made sense. And this time, I got on my knees and just like the tax collector. Called out for Gods mercy.

I walked out of that room a changed man

Where is the obedience, the evidence of your salvation?

Again, I walked out a changed man

It is not your reach that made salvation yours.

No its Gods reach that made my salvation mine I just recieved it

again I go back to this verse..

He came to his own, but his own received him not (the lost)
But as many as have received him, to THEM he gave the power to becomes sons of God. even to those who believe..

The power is Christ. But we have to receive that power. again (i know it sounds like a broken record) he does not force you to take it