Man must exercise his free will?

[atpollard]

When Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment, He responded with TWO commandments
(Paraphrasing)

• Love God with all your EVERYTHING.
• Love other people the way you love yourself.

Was Jesus just showing off, or was He really stating that those TWO commands were really just one interconnected and inseparable command:

• It is impossible to love God, until and unless you can love those that hate you as much as you love yourself, and THAT sort of REAL LOVE can only come from God … His love for and through is and our love submitted to Him.

This probably seems completely off topic. Perhaps it is. On the other hand, perhaps contemplating the measure of God’s Love and how far short I come every day has opened my eyes to a deeper truth in this eternal “Monergism” vs “Synergism” debate? What IS the role of LOVE in election, justification, sanctification and glorification (collectively known as SALVATION)? What is the monergistic component of “perfect love”? Is there a synergistic component in the Love of the “GREATEST COMMANDMENT”?

I seem to remember something about the Law and Prophets hanging on this greatest commandment of “LOVE”.

[Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.]

 

[Arial]

Hmm...

Justification does not depend upon man's will at all, nor is faith said to depend upon man's will. Justification is by God's grace, through faith, but there is no mention of either depending upon the will of man.

I tend to agree with this.

It is not man's will that is freed, but his heart that is changed in regeneration. He still has his same nature as a sinner as the result of being born in Adam. He still wrestles with the world, the flesh, and the devil. (Eph 2:1-10; Romans 7:14-25) The difference in the choices we make after regeneration and being place in Christ, regarding to sin or not to sin, is because of the work of God in us, through the Holy Spirit's sealing and indwelling, is continuously sanctifying us, conforming us more and more into the image of Christ----the image we were created to mirror. (Romans 8:28-30) The difference is, we are not slaves of sin as it can no longer condemn us, but rather Jesus has condemned sin, that is, judged it and paid its penalty defeating its power. (Romans 8:1-4)

It is said in some Calvin/Reformed circles that we do choose Christ and freely choose Him, because we have been regenerated. I say it is not even then a matter of choosing, and has nothing to do with our will making choices. We are placed in Christ by God, and that is why we believe. It was predestined by God that that was our destiny. To be given to Christ, placed in Him. He is in no way violating our will, for our will has nothing to do with it.

 

[fastfredy0]

[Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.]

Interesting thoughts. Start a new thread. Please include a definition of "love".
My definition: God’s love is a passionless, immutable, holy (separated from evil, ethical Habakkuk 1:13b You cannot look on wickedness with favor, 1 Corinthians 13:6 Love rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth) disposition to favor (goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight,) according to the ethical loveliness and divine likeness of the object which is a bond of unity – Colossians 3:14 for everything is bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best for others); God himself and those “in Christ” being bonded in agreement.

 

[David1701]

I tend to agree with this.

It is not man's will that is freed, but his heart that is changed in regeneration. He still has his same nature as a sinner as the result of being born in Adam. He still wrestles with the world, the flesh, and the devil. (Eph 2:1-10; Romans 7:14-25) The difference in the choices we make after regeneration and being place in Christ, regarding to sin or not to sin, is because of the work of God in us, through the Holy Spirit's sealing and indwelling, is continuously sanctifying us, conforming us more and more into the image of Christ----the image we were created to mirror. (Romans 8:28-30) The difference is, we are not slaves of sin as it can no longer condemn us, but rather Jesus has condemned sin, that is, judged it and paid its penalty defeating its power. (Romans 8:1-4)

It is said in some Calvin/Reformed circles that we do choose Christ and freely choose Him, because we have been regenerated. I say it is not even then a matter of choosing, and has nothing to do with our will making choices. We are placed in Christ by God, and that is why we believe. It was predestined by God that that was our destiny. To be given to Christ, placed in Him. He is in no way violating our will, for our will has nothing to do with it.

Yes; we are given repentance and faith, when God makes us born again; although, the new heart that he gives us is also a soft and willing heart.

We have a new nature (new heart and spirit), the old one has gone and we are new creations in Christ; however, our flesh has not been made new yet (that happens at the resurrection), hence our continuing struggles with sin.

 

[David1701]

As Calvinists, we Love, LOVE Love Sola Gratia. But we should Love Sola Fide just as much, if not more. Why let Provisionists Love Sola Fide more than we do?

Hmm ... again.

Why would we love "by faith alone" more than "by grace alone", since faith is merely God's method, whilst grace is his motive?

 

[Josheb]

When Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment, He responded with TWO commandments
(Paraphrasing)

• Love God with all your EVERYTHING.
• Love other people the way you love yourself.

Was Jesus just showing off, or was He really stating that those TWO commands were really just one interconnected and inseparable command:

• It is impossible to love God, until and unless you can love those that hate you as much as you love yourself, and THAT sort of REAL LOVE can only come from God … His love for and through is and our love submitted to Him.

This probably seems completely off topic. Perhaps it is.

Whether off topic or not is is not correct. Jesus explicitly stated, "The second is like it....." as in "The second greatest commandment is like the first greatest commandment..." so, correctly understood, Jesus did not answer the question with two commandments; he answered the question regarding which was the greatest commandment with one commandment and then preemptively added an additional answer to an unasked question, "What might be the second greatest commandment," or "Which commandment comes after the first?'

On the other hand, perhaps contemplating the measure of God’s Love and how far short I come every day has opened my eyes to a deeper truth in this eternal “Monergism” vs “Synergism” debate? What IS the role of LOVE in election, justification, sanctification and glorification (collectively known as SALVATION)? What is the monergistic component of “perfect love”? Is there a synergistic component in the Love of the “GREATEST COMMANDMENT”?

I seem to remember something about the Law and Prophets hanging on this greatest commandment of “LOVE”.

Given the fact no one loves the LORD with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength, the application of love to soteriology can only be monergistic. No one helped Jesus volunteer to be crucified. That was an agreement between he and His Father. Earthlings were no consulted. Sinfully dead and enslaved humans whose minds are hostile to God and who do not and cannot please God were not consulted and they did not contribute any love to his perfect life, violent death, death-defeating resurrection, and ascension. He was, in fact, abandoned. Keep in mind the matter had been decided prior to a single human ever being created (1 Pet. 1:20).

It is only afterwards that anyone loves God soteriologically...... and scripture explicitly states that is due to God, not man. In other words, this is one of the occasions where scripture explicitly assigns causality to God and not the sinful sinner.


1 John 4:15-21
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.


Granted, that statement could be read to say either, "Humans love because God first loved humans," OR "We converts to Christ love because God first loved us converts," but if we go back to Matthew 22 where Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment and we ask ourselves, "Why are the Pharisees asking Jesus, 'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?'?" Is it because the Pharisees, those who professionally study and teach the Law do not know the answers? We are told they went to Jesus because they had heard Jesus "silenced" the Sadducees. Is this a case of "Ah! That Jesus guy silenced the Sadducees so let's go see if we can silence him!"? If so..... then the question itself, the question they asked Jesus was not asked in love; it was asked with disingenuous intent. By asking that question with an intent to silence Jesus they were actively contradicting the Law of God, the greatest of all commandments.

And I suspect the moment was not lost on them.

That is why Jesus answered with both the first and the second greatest commandments. He was implicitly indicting the Pharisees: by seeking to trip me up and silence me you have broken both commands; you have disrespected God, and you've disrespected me.

Not only was the moment not likely lost on them but they ended up being silenced when Jesus asked them a question about why it was Daivd called his descendant, "Lord," when ordinarily David would have been lord to any of his progeny.

Matthew 22:46
No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.

Keep in mind this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees is simply one of several between Jesus and the Sadducees and Pharisees that occurred throughout one single day, the day after Jesus had cleared out, cleaned out the temple. The narrative begins at Matthew 21:18 and continues on for 5+ chapters and ends at Matthew 26:5, by which time.....

Matthew 26:3-5
Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him. But they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise a riot might occur among the people."

They were plotting to murder Jesus.

Synergistic love contributing to synergistic salvation?

NO!​

Give the whole narrative an uninterrupted read keeping in mind everything from Matthew 21:18 all the way through Matthew 26:5 occurs in one single day and two days later Jesus would be murdered and dead...... to demonstrate God's love .

[Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.]

Great observation, imo. Just needed a little tweaking.

Isaiah 53:10
But the LORD was delighted to crush him, causing him grief; if he renders himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

All the (sinful) humans did to contribute to that was 1) sin, and 2) (sinfully) drive in a few nails.

 

[Carbon]

I tend to agree with this.

It is not man's will that is freed, but his heart that is changed in regeneration. He still has his same nature as a sinner as the result of being born in Adam.

However, the work of God in man involves his intellect, his feeling as well as his will. God prepares a man for conversion by bringing about a fundamental change in the heart, in his very core, the center of his being. Which underlines all his thinking, feeling, and willing. Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. Prov 4:23.

He still wrestles with the world, the flesh, and the devil. (Eph 2:1-10; Romans 7:14-25) The difference in the choices we make after regeneration and being place in Christ, regarding to sin or not to sin, is because of the work of God in us, through the Holy Spirit's sealing and indwelling, is continuously sanctifying us, conforming us more and more into the image of Christ----the image we were created to mirror. (Romans 8:28-30) The difference is, we are not slaves of sin as it can no longer condemn us, but rather Jesus has condemned sin, that is, judged it and paid its penalty defeating its power. (Romans 8:1-4)

After reading on, I see you basically said the same thing, so I copied you. Sorry.
Whats that saying? Great minds think alike.

It is said in some Calvin/Reformed circles that we do choose Christ and freely choose Him, because we have been regenerated.

I believe this is so. Why would we need the gift of faith if we don't express it?
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10.

I do believe it is our faith, our willingness, however I believe we find ourselves believing.

I say it is not even then a matter of choosing, and has nothing to do with our will making choices. We are placed in Christ by God, and that is why we believe.

Makes perfect sense to me. But we still have to deal with Romans 10.

It was predestined by God that that was our destiny. To be given to Christ, placed in Him. He is in no way violating our will, for our will has nothing to do with it.

We are saved by grace. It's all God's doing.
But, it's through faith. The faith (belief) is our part. Which justifies. It's nothing we generate ourselves, you might say, it's from being restored, we are now believers.

 

[Arial]

I believe this is so. Why would we need the gift of faith if we don't express it?
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10.

We do express it. I don't think I am exactly understanding what you are saying.

I do believe it is our faith, our willingness, however I believe we find ourselves believing.

If we have faith, which becomes our faith only when God gives it to us, that is believing is it not? Our will is bent towards the things of God, whereas before it was bent away from Him. But nothing of our will is involved in being redeemed.

We are saved by grace. It's all God's doing.
But, it's through faith. The faith (belief) is our part. Which justifies. It's nothing we generate ourselves, you might say, it's from being restored, we are now believers.

Yes---and I am just starting to see this, so bear with me---but faith isn't our part. There I would have to disagree slightly, though I see what you are saying. We aren't contributing it. It is given to us and so we have it. Our will concerns the actions we take, but faith is what we have. And because our hearts have been changed, and we are placed in Christ, what we once loved now we hate,and who we once hated, now we love. This affects our will but our will played no part in this change. In fact, we cannot even take a bit of credit for even the ongoing sanctifying work that the Holy Spirit does in us. This is God's will first, before it is ours.

 

[atpollard]

Whether off topic or not is is not correct. Jesus explicitly stated, "The second is like it....." as in "The second greatest commandment is like the first greatest commandment..." so, correctly understood, Jesus did not answer the question with two commandments; he answered the question regarding which was the greatest commandment with one commandment and then preemptively added an additional answer to an unasked question, "What might be the second greatest commandment," or "Which commandment comes after the first?'

“GEZERAH SHEVA”: “comparison of equals” … a common Rabbinical teaching technique that links two passages of scriptures that share a common word (like “LOVE”) with the implication that each interprets the other.

Responding to an expert in the Law, Jesus offers:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
Leviticus 19:18

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
Jesus message was more fundamental and transformational.

Cutting to the heart of and transcending the “Calvinism” vs “Arminianism” debate.
There is no synergism without Monergism, and no Monergism without synergism. The Monergism is vertical, from God to man, and the synergism is lateral, from man to man. Without one, the other is a counterfeit shadow of a true “new man” reborn in the image of Christ.

YMMV,

 

[atpollard]

Interesting thoughts. Start a new thread.

I have given up arguing for Lent and rolled it into a New Years Resolution.
Now I just state my point and go back to creating digital artwork.

 

[Mr GLee]

One major problem is, that they think such is because they really have no clue, scripture does not connect the dots for them with their human wisdom. They think it does, but it does not. They cannot comprehend the fact of regeneration before faith and how it affects a man.

Regeneration is a labor of Christ love, a work of his belief. The law of faith . . . . .believe the unseen things of God made know by that which what is seen .

Let there be and it was God good.

In that way Emmanuel is both the just according to the letter of the law death "as it is written" Let there be. and the justifier the new creation is good .

Salvation,is all together one work of God, the Faithful Creator .

The two laws (death and life) must be mixed to create one new perfect law.

Romans 3:26o declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus

Deuteronomy 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

 

[Carbon]

Yes---and I am just starting to see this, so bear with me---but faith isn't our part. There I would have to disagree slightly, though I see what you are saying. We aren't contributing it. It is given to us and so we have it. Our will concerns the actions we take, but faith is what we have. And because our hearts have been changed, and we are placed in Christ, what we once loved now we hate,and who we once hated, now we love. This affects our will but our will played no part in this change. In fact, we cannot even take a bit of credit for even the ongoing sanctifying work that the Holy Spirit does in us. This is God's will first, before it is ours.

This reminds me of sanctification. Let me explain.
As you said above, we are placed in Christ we now hate unchristian things, and what we once hated we love. Truth.

Consider for some. Perhaps many people, once they are regenerated, they do begin to hate certain things. For instance, I know people who threw out all their rock music and stopped going to places they shouldn't go to. Like out drinking. They just don't hang around with certain of their friends who live an unchristian lifestyle. We all know of these things, we all have done some of them and even more.

Now did we do these things because we want to do our part working with God? Or did we do these things because we were forgiven and clean by the blood of Christ? I believe that we are clean by the blood of Christ. He makes us righteous by renewing our nature and removing the uncleanliness of sin. Is this not sanctification? And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11.

I say, of course, we wanted to do things because we loved God and felt it was the right thing to do or stop doing.
But we are still the same people once regenerated. But we are also sanctified, Christ is our sanctification. We give up many practices because of what God alone has done in our lives. We continue to rid of things in our lives that we know are not right, it's not because we are working out our salvation with fear and trembling. It's because we have been made clean from Christ and salvation. And we shed these things because we do not want them in our lives. This is how sanctification works I believe.

So, is sanctification a joint work of God and man? I think it's plain to see in the case of a new believer, the house has been swept clean, and because it is clean (new heart) we can see the dirt we still have and do not want it. If it were the case of God and man working together, it could hardly be said that we are saved by sola gratia.

Sorry for rambling on.

 

[Josheb]

“GEZERAH SHEVA”: “comparison of equals” … a common Rabbinical teaching technique that links two passages of scriptures that share a common word (like “LOVE”) with the implication that each interprets the other.

Responding to an expert in the Law, Jesus offers:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
Leviticus 19:18

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
Jesus message was more fundamental and transformational.

How does that change what I posted? Please be specific. If the answer is....

Cutting to the heart of and transcending the “Calvinism” vs “Arminianism” debate.
There is no synergism without Monergism, and no Monergism without synergism.

Then I think a mistake has been made understanding both the Matthew 22 passage and the two soteriologies mentioned, and the resultis a red herring.

The Monergism is vertical, from God to man, and the synergism is lateral, from man to man.

That is incorrect.

• Monergism is from God to man alone.
• Synergism is from God to man supplemented by man to God.
• Secular humanism is man to man.

The last one has nothing whatsoever to do with synergistic soteriology (or monergistic soteriology).

Without one, the other is a counterfeit shadow of a true “new man” reborn in the image of Christ.

YMMV,

Scripture and Post 26 prove otherwise. Salvation was decided before any human was ever made. God did not ask the then non-existent sinfully dead and enslaved sinner if he wanted anything, and rabbinical teaching does not change that fact. Any comparison of equals existing in the Mt. 22 text is a post-creation-post-disobedient condition. It's part of the problem to be solved, not the solution!

 

[atpollard]

Monergism is from God to man alone.

I stated nothing contrary to this.
I 100% agree (everything begins with and is sustained by God).

 

[atpollard]

Synergism is from God to man supplemented by man to God.

Synergism is the love of God through a "new man" that empowers us to love our enemy as our self. It is the "Second Commandment" being the living embodiment of the "First Commandment" ... see 1 John 4:20 and James 2:26 ... the second PROVES (reveals as genuine, perfects) the first.

 

[Josheb]

I stated nothing contrary to this.

Well, my impulse is to say, "Yes, and my repeating it was an affirmation. Receive the affirmation as intended."

However, the "alone" makes things different," so you did, in fact, post something different than the alone. The "alone" is important. Monergism does not require synergism. The statement There is "no Monergism without synergism," is incorrect. Leaving out the alone is saying something different. The "mono" in monergism means there is nothing else. God and God alone is the sole, the singular, the only, the one, causal agent in salvation. to add anything is to immediately leave singular causality of monergism.

And that is why monergism is tough for some. It's challenging to see we did nothing to accomplish our salvation until after we'd been saved from sin and wrath - and some monergists argue against the "after."

 

[atpollard]

Well, my impulse is to say, "Yes, and my repeating it was an affirmation. Receive the affirmation as intended."

However, the "alone" makes things different," so you did, in fact, post something different than the alone. The "alone" is important. Monergism does not require synergism. The statement There is "no Monergism without synergism," is incorrect. Leaving out the alone is saying something different. The "mono" in monergism means there is nothing else. God and God alone is the sole, the singular, the only, the one, causal agent in salvation. to add anything is to immediately leave singular causality of monergism.

And that is why monergism is tough for some. It's challenging to see we did nothing to accomplish our salvation until after we'd been saved from sin and wrath - and some monergists argue against the "after."

Is a Reprobate Christian a possibility?
Can such a thing exist?
Can a person be both "saved" and completely unchanged and worldly?

If the answer is "no" [as I believe it is] then the 100% monergistic transformation required of the Greatest Commandment (which is impossible for any fallen man to contribute one iota to) MUST come as a gift of grace (unmerited favor) from God to a people dead in sin and making them alive. However, such a TRANSFORMATIVE EVENT cannot stand alone. To be subject to Ephesians 2:8-9 necessitates one walk in Ephesians 2:10, not merely as an act of obedience, but because "God's Masterwork" cannot do otherwise. As a fallen man has no choice but to be what he is - slave to his fallen nature - a "new creation" cannot be other than a servant to his new nature - the nature of Christ in him.

The Second Commandment is not an "oh, by the way, you should probably also do this and earn some brownie points", it is a fundamental descriptor of what it means to LOVE GOD with all your "mind and thoughts", "every part of your life", and all your 'OOMPH' ("Leave it all on the field" is the closest English idiom to the Deuteronomy "all your all" that is often translated "strength"). This is accomplished by a synergistic process (God THROUGH us) of loving our enemies as Christ did.

[shrug] I tried to explain. Time to move on.

 

[Josheb]

Synergism is the love of God through a "new man" that empowers us to love our enemy as our self. It is the "Second Commandment" being the living embodiment of the "First Commandment" ... see 1 John 4:20 and James 2:26 ... the second PROVES (reveals as genuine, perfects) the first.

No, it is not. That's a nice sentiment, but synergism is the arrogant position "I the sinner contributed to my own salvation of my own sin by contributing something of my sinful self that God needed from me, the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner."

That is what synergism is.

As I said in Post 26, Jesus was highlighting their sinfulness right then and there. He was NOT making a soteriologically synergist argument. Their destinies were already decided. They were going to kill Jesus. This becomes clear - shockingly apparent - when the whole 5+ chapter narrative is read at one time.

 

[Josheb]

“GEZERAH SHEVA”: “comparison of equals” … a common Rabbinical teaching technique....

Yes, but Jesus is not using that technique to teach salvation. Normally, the commandment to love others is a Law that testifies about Jesus. On this occasion Jesus is using this to indict the Jewish leaders. That portion of the text where Jesus is questioned about the greatest commandment is intended by his inquirers to trip him up. Their motive is disingenuous. When that exchange is considered in the context ofa lengthy set of exchanges covering the whole day this become more apparent.

Jesus comes into Jerusalem. He does so knowing he'll be dead before the week is out. He marches in with the annual herding of the Passover lambs. The likely reason people put down palm fronds was to keep him from stepping in sheep droppings. They were honoring him, but they were honoring him because they expected him to overthrow the Romans (and Herod) and (re-)establish a new monarchy. Had they known Jesus' plan was to get himself killed they'd have all stayed home.

He shocked everyone by chasing out the money changers (and exposing the corruption of the Sadducees and Pharisees). Jesus was simply applying the Law of Moses. The Law required an infested house to be cleaned out and no one could inhabit the cleaned-out house for seven days. If the infestation remained gone seven days later then folks could return. Jesus cleaned out his Father's house that had become a den of thieves and he then left the city. He did so monergistically.

Jesus returned the next day (Mt. 21:18), and he began teaching in the temple. It was necessary to see if the infestation would return and it did. He began teaching and in verse 23 the priests interrupt him to challenge him, "the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?" Jesus addresses their subterfuge decisively, and he tells a parable foreshadowing what will ensue over the course of the next few days. Jesus is the son sent into the vineyard the tenants will kill. The only thing synergistic about it man's murderousness. It is the sin from which they are being saved. It's not the second greatest commandment. It is the exact opposite of that commandment; the antithesis of love. This is proven by the statement that concludes the parable between the chief priests and Jesus.

Matthew 21:45-46
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.

Jesus is NOT preaching salvation! He's preaching judgement. The passage is eschatological much more than it is soteriological (the two are not mutually exclusive of one another).

We then turn the page and discover Jesus continuing in this vein and the exchange ends with, "Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said," and they send their disciples to test Jesus. This goes back and forth with the Sadducees (Mt. 22:23), and then the Pharisees again (vs. 41), and then Jesus has had enough. The matter of the temple's cleanliness has been decided. The infestation has returned, and Jesus launches into the litany of "woes," whereby he egregiously indicts the Pharisees, calling them a white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones. More importantly, he declares the temple their house! and he declares their house desolate. He told those guys the blood of the prophets was falling on their heads..... and the next day they are shouting to Pilate, "His blood be on us and on our children" (Mt. 27:25). This is not salvation. This is judgment.
Turn the page. After indicting and judging the Pharisees, Jesus walks out of the temple and the disciples ask Jesus to admire it. Keep in mind Jesus has already declared himself to be God's temple (John 2:19-21). Jesus tells them everything they see will be destroyed. It is NOT about salvation; it is about judgment. They leave the temple and walk across the saddle up to the mount of olives where, sitting on the hillside looking down on the roof of the temple (the mount of olives sits about 200 feet above the top of the temple), the disciples ask Jesus when "these things" (the judgment of the Pharisees and the destruction of the temple) will occur and what will be the signs of his coming. Jesus spends the next two chapters answering that question and none of it is specifically soteriological; it's all eschatological and all of it points to the fact those Jesus is talking about are dead, dead in sin, dead in disobedience, faithless, and unrighteous. The few parts that are soteriolgical have to do with being saved from the coming onslaught.
The end of Matthews account then suddenly moves from that conversation among the apsotles sitting on the mount of olives to the meeting of the Pharisees. The entire passage - it began in Matthew 21:18 and conclude at Matthew 26:5 - the entire passage ends with,
Matthew 26:3-5
Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him. But they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise a riot might occur among the people."

The only things humans are contributing to salvation is murderous sin.

Matthew 22:39 is NOT about salvation. That Law testifies about Jesus, but Jesus is using it as an indictment. If we go backwards in Matthew (and chronologically in the other gospels) we find that Jesus moves away from talking about repentance and the kingdom of God to the matter of salvation. But, as Jesus approaches Jerusalem for the last time his parables turn from salvation to judgment and after he enters Jerusalem the parables of judgment become more indicting. I strongly encourage anyone who doubts this to re-read the gospel with this mind to verify whether or not what I have posted is correct.

 

[Arial]

Consider for some. Perhaps many people, once they are regenerated, they do begin to hate certain things. For instance, I know people who threw out all their rock music and stopped going to places they shouldn't go to. Like out drinking. They just don't hang around with certain of their friends who live an unchristian lifestyle. We all know of these things, we all have done some of them and even more.

That often happens in false conversions too, where an altar call has been given and a prayer said, with an invitation for Christ to come into their lives; then are told that because they said the prayer, they are now saved. In that case, we can refer to the parable of the sower. However, you clearly say the ones you speak of are regenerated----so I will address that.

Now did we do these things because we want to do our part working with God? Or did we do these things because we were forgiven and clean by the blood of Christ? I believe that we are clean by the blood of Christ. He makes us righteous by renewing our nature and removing the uncleanliness of sin. Is this not sanctification? And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11.

I think it is because we were forgiven and clean by the blood Christ that we want to do our part, to be obedient to God. And it is in our lack of knowledge in this newborn state that we think it is all up to us to change ourselves. So we set about doing it, or attempting to. I think the majority of us probably start out a bit legalistic without realizing it. Some stay that way unfortunately. But yes, we feel that way because we have been cleansed, and can see the dirt. And yes, it is sanctification in its earliest stages, no matter how we may be looking at it.

I say, of course, we wanted to do things because we loved God and felt it was the right thing to do or stop doing.
But we are still the same people once regenerated. But we are also sanctified, Christ is our sanctification. We give up many practices because of what God alone has done in our lives. We continue to rid of things in our lives that we know are not right, it's not because we are working out our salvation with fear and trembling. It's because we have been made clean from Christ and salvation. And we shed these things because we do not want them in our lives. This is how sanctification works I believe.

I agree----no matter how we may be looking at it.

So, is sanctification a joint work of God and man? I think it's plain to see in the case of a new believer, the house has been swept clean, and because it is clean (new heart) we can see the dirt we still have and do not want it. If it were the case of God and man working together, it could hardly be said that we are saved by sola gratia.

The work is not a joint work. That is all the work of God. We would never do it ourselves and we could never do it ourselves. Jesus died to save us from that impossible dilemma. All we are doing---and there is doing in us---is being obedient to our Father. Just as He created our first parents to be. That is what God is restoring in redemption. That relationship with Him we were created for, with Him dwelling among us.