Unconditional Election

[Josheb]

.........And the fact that a condition (believing) is before the salvation in Acts 16:31 in no way changes anything in Eph 2:8. Your critique of my position is a non-sequitur; the God-centered view of faith being a gift and being ultimately sourced in God in no way changes the fact that faith is a condition prior to salvation in Acts 16:31; both are true..........................

Yes, faith is not of ourselves. This is a genitive of source. The ultimate sourcing of the faith that people excercise is from God. Again, the ultimate source is God. This does not negate the human action of believing; rather, the ultimate sourcing establishes the human action of believing.

It does negate the establishing of human action of believing prior to regeneration!

It negates it for three reasons. The first has to do with the nature of God versus the nature of the one being saved. The blunt fact is salvation is God's and God's alone and sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate humans can do nothing with faith even it's given. The entire Bible is a record of people knowing of God's existence (not merely speculating with confidence or intellectually assenting to His existence, but knowing He exists and still acting faithlessly. The second is the fact it is not of ourselves. The third is that what you're actually asserting is salvation through faithfulness, not salvation through faith. At some point the faith has to operationalized to demonstrate or prove the existence of faith. You're arguing that demonstration can be performed prior to regeneration. If it is prior to regeneration then it is a work of the flesh, a work of sinful flesh, NOT a work of the Spirit. The essence of the argument is God gifted a gift (faith), and then the dead-in-sin sinfully-enslaved sinner used that gift for his own interests, in his own might (of himself) to prove to God s/he believes so that salvation by grace may occur - oh, wait, that is not "may" occur, but must occur. That last part always stands in odd juxtaposition to those synergists who say, "God does not coerce salvation," because they are implicitly saying the sinner can coerce God into saving the sinner through the sinner's fleshly act of faithful confession to a gifted faith.

God had previously spoken of this many times, most notably in Isaiah.

Isaiah 64:2-7
As fire kindles the brushwood, as fire causes water to boil— To make Your name known to Your adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Your presence! When You did awesome things which we did not expect, You came down, the mountains quaked at Your presence. For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him. You meet him who rejoices in doing righteousness, who remembers You in Your ways. Behold, You were angry, for we sinned, we continued in them a long time; And shall we be saved? For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one who calls on Your name, who arouses himself to take hold of You; for You have hidden Your face from us and have delivered us into the power of our iniquities.

This idea God gives faith and then the still sinfully dead and enslaved sinner uses his flesh to assert the gifted faith in a righteous manner bluntly contradicts this passage in two ways. The first contradiction is the implication once the gift is given the sinner does then seek God. The second is the premise the righteous act of operationalized faith (faithfulness being the act of confession, "I believe in the name of Jesus!") is NOT still filthy rags. Because it comes from the still-dead and still-enslaved sinner who has only his flesh (not yet gifted the Spirit, according to "faith-precedes-regeneration") it is a righteous act of sinful flesh and God says those do not merit anything.

Which brings up a fourth reason . Supposedly the faith through which one is saved is a gift, and the grace by which a person is saved is a gift (and neither are of the sinner) but because the sinner is not yet regenerate those and the sinner has operationalized those gifts with his/her still-sinful flesh...... this means sinfully dead and enslaved humans can receive God's gifts and use them (or not use them) for their own purposes with only the flesh as their source of power. You've written about the power of God in this process, but the underlying, unstated, logically necessary implication is that it is the still-sinful, Spirit-vacant flesh that wields the power of these gifts.

Yes, faith is not of ourselves.....

Yes, that is correct.

The ultimate sourcing of the faith that people excercise is from God.

So too is the ultimate power to use the gift! The gift is not given the sinful flesh to be exercised by the sinful flesh in a sinful way (selfishness is sinful). The moment the protest, "But it is used in a righteous way!" the protester has argued a works-based salvation and negated his/her own synergism .

Again, the ultimate source is God.

Yes, and the power exercising the gifts is also God.

This does not negate the human action of believing; rather, the ultimate sourcing establishes the human action of believing.

Yes, it does. It is God who works in us to do His will and serve His purpose.

 

[Josheb]

This does not negate the human action of believing; rather, the ultimate sourcing establishes the human action of believing.

Yes, it does. It is God who works in us to do His will and serve His purpose.

There's something very important, very critical being left out or neglected in the conversation with @Arial. What's being neglected is verse 10 of Ephesians 2. Verse 10 is not an add-on. It is part of the larger multi-verse narrative. Salvation is by-grace-through-faith, and salvation-by-grace-through-faith is a gift of God wherein both grace and faith are gifts..... but so too is the being created in Christ!!! What does the text state is the purpose of being created in Christ? To do good works, and not just any good works, but works God has planned for that person to perform, works He had planned for them before He saved them! So we see that salvation includes grace, faith, and creation in Christ, and all are gifts of God, not of ourselves. There are no people saved by grace through faith that are not also created in Christ. Why synergists leave that creation out as part of salvation and think the still sinfully dead flesh can exercise God's gifts to effect their own salvation is incomprehensible.


Therefore, when we read,

Ephesians 2:1-10
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

...and not just a half of verse 8, and apply it to Acts 16:31,

Acts 16:31-32
They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

We necessarily understand the jailer was gifted three gifts of God, not two. He was gifted grace by which he was saved, he was gifted faith through which he was saved, and he was created in Christ so he could perform works God had previously planned for the jailer to perform long before the earthquake ever happened ! When the jailer is told, "Believe!" that command is said in the context of an already gifted grace, and already gifted faith, and also an already gifted creation in Christ. Without being created in Christ he cannot perform good works God had already planned for him to perform; his righteous act performed by the still dead and enslaved flesh without the Spirit is filthy rags.

But let's not stop with Ephesians 2:10. Look at what else Paul wrote.

Ephesians 2:11-16
Therefore, remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands — remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

I won't take up more time and space apply this passage other than to say that Gentile jailer was brought near to God. We know from other texts the jailer was called and chosen (and he was NOT asked if he wished to be either). He had been separate from Christ and excluded from the commonwealth of God's chosen people - those who live by faith - and lived in enmity (likely without his knowing it). God made the two one. God made that jailer one with the covenants of promise and established peace with him, and reconciled that jailer through the cross, putting to death the previously existing enmity. In other words, in that moment in the rubble of the jail there is a LOT that has transpired and ALL of it is explicitly attributed to God. Not one sliver of it is attributed to the still-sinful, unregenerate flesh.

This does not negate the human action of believing....

The angel is in the details . Ephesians 2 (the whole chapter, not just half of one verse) negates the still-sinful, Spirit-less flesh from being the exerciser exercising the multiple gifts of God to effect salvation.



And good morning, everyone .

 

[Arial]

I am more than willing to admit that my statement @His clay

But election is unconditional---has no prior conditions. And therefore, neither does salvation---being saved.

needs qualifiers and clarification. But your first and only objection to the OP was this:

Election is all of God, by grace, through faith. We contribute not one jot or tittle to our being saved. Nothing of our will, nothing of our desire, nothing of our efforts. We are but baby birds in the nest, with mouths wide open.

I believe that statement does clarify my meaning, relating it to unconditional election. It is not stating that no faith is required. That is not what it is dealing with. So our difference is not a difference in what we each believe concerning salvation, or the fact that we both believe that faith is necessary for salvation. It is that we are talking about two different things. From there we got sideways of each other.

I was actually prepared when I first read your post, to accept the correction (and I still do) with grace and humility, and acknowledge that yep, I messed up. But as I reread it, I see what the actual disconnect is and it is pure misunderstanding of one another as to what each is saying and more importantly, where they are coming from. So I am not arguing with you here, or dismissing your points, but simply trying to clarify what has happened.

"It was not Acts 16:31 that was being countered, but the interpretation given of it." I can partly agree with this. We all have interpretations. Just because something is an interpretation does not therefore mean it is wrong or without objective grounding. And this is where I'm going to push back. I can claim to have an interpretation, but my interpretation is better and more biblically grounded than your interpretation because I am backed by objective features of the text. See post #17. My 4th, 5th, and 6th points demonstrate both the parsing of key verbs, and it demonstrates an understanding of the context. You will need to interact with the points that I made (rather than omitting dealing with them) if you wish to succeed at supporting your interpretation.

I don't believe I actually gave my interpretation of Acts 16:31, at least not in the way you are proposing that I did. In any case, I was not disputing your interpretation of it. I was disputing the interpretation that is given to it by those who use it and such scripture statements, to dispute unconditional election. "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." When used in that way, something is added to the scripture that is not there.

And I'll be direct. "It is the question of recognizing that when it says "Believe on the Lord---" it is not imperative that that be seen as a prior condition. It simply states that if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you are saved. In that sense, it also does not imply a choice as it is said to." (post #16)

I agree here that I did not say what I intended to say which is "it is not imperative that "Believe in the Lord---" be seen as as a prior condition of our making a choice from our own volition and will, apart from the electing actions of God." If He elects, He also provides what is necessary for salvation. IOW when such passages are used as an objection to unconditional election, the implication of "Choose to believe---" is added to the Scripture, something that is not actually there. I am not saying that "Believe in the Lord is not an imperative, though my careless statement did say exactly that. It is a glitch I sometimes find in my own brain---that of assuming I have presented what I was thinking but actually leaving much out, having got either ahead of or behind myself, or flatout said it wrong and not proofed my writing.

It is my stated position that "Ephesians 2:8 does not counter Acts 16:31. It supplements it and helps us to properly understand the human response of faith." This is my position.

That is my position too.

I used the word "counter" (in post #17) precisely because your post #16 stated, "Which is countered by . . ." Hence, I borrowed your wording to state my view, and my view was that Eph 2:8 supplements Acts 16:31. Multiple verses give us a well rounded understanding. Eph 2:8 is more God-centered, and Acts 16:31 is more man-centered for the reasons given (see post #17: points 4 & 6). Both are true. This is my actual position. Please do not misrepresent my position; I never said or implied that Eph 2:8 was countered by Acts 16:31. And the fact that a condition (believing) is before the salvation in Acts 16:31 in no way changes anything in Eph 2:8. Your critique of my position is a non-sequitur; the God-centered view of faith being a gift and being ultimately sourced in God in no way changes the fact that faith is a condition prior to salvation in Acts 16:31; both are true. I have already gone on record stating my views on both passages (post #17: 2nd point states my view of Eph 2:8, and 4th 5th & 6th points states my view of Acts 16:31.

Perhaps it is a difference in the way "counter" is being used by you and me. I am not sure. Maybe just a different "mind set" as to what was exactly being discussed. I am discussing objections given to refute unconditional election and the scripture you give and those like it stating that belief is necessary for salvation, are typically used as argument against unconditional election. That is what I am addressing specifically.

So when I say Eph 2 counters Acts 16, I am not saying it contradicts Acts 16, but that it shows the belief/faith that is necessary, is also given by God. If I were actually having that debate with someone, I would of course expound on it with Scripture. I only didn't with you because I know we are coming from the same place on that issue. That being the case, I had difficulty grasping that you were using the passage of Acts 16 as I do and exploring it. It seemed more like you were both disagreeing and agreeing with both sides at the same time. Whereas I continued from my pov of its being used to discredit unconditional election. We really are not in disagreement on any of it. Yes, faith is a necessary component of salvation. Yes, there is volition on our part. Yes, there is will on our part. Yes faith is an imperative. Yes, there is responsibility on our part.

But it is all monergistic.

This in no way changes the fact that you stated, "I agree with all of that. But election is unconditional---has no prior conditions. And therefore, neither does salvation---being saved." I am responding to your statement. This is precisely the statement that has brought about my comments. Your statement concerning salvation, in the quote, is the chief focus of disagreement.

Our salvation is unconditional in the same sense that our election is unconditional.

So here is my comment on the "dispute" that arose and that I hope is not considered harsh but in the spirit of communion which it is given.

If you had just ask me what I meant, or even did I mean that there were no factors such as faith etc. in salvation, I would have answered. "Of course not. But our salvation is unconditional in the same sense that our election is unconditional."

 

[His clay]

I am more than willing to admit that my statement @His clay

needs qualifiers and clarification. But your first and only objection to the OP was this:

I believe that statement does clarify my meaning, relating it to unconditional election. It is not stating that no faith is required. That is not what it is dealing with. So our difference is not a difference in what we each believe concerning salvation, or the fact that we both believe that faith is necessary for salvation. It is that we are talking about two different things. From there we got sideways of each other.

I was actually prepared when I first read your post, to accept the correction (and I still do) with grace and humility, and acknowledge that yep, I messed up. But as I reread it, I see what the actual disconnect is and it is pure misunderstanding of one another as to what each is saying and more importantly, where they are coming from. So I am not arguing with you here, or dismissing your points, but simply trying to clarify what has happened.

I don't believe I actually gave my interpretation of Acts 16:31, at least not in the way you are proposing that I did. In any case, I was not disputing your interpretation of it. I was disputing the interpretation that is given to it by those who use it and such scripture statements, to dispute unconditional election. "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." When used in that way, something is added to the scripture that is not there.

I agree here that I did not say what I intended to say which is "it is not imperative that "Believe in the Lord---" be seen as as a prior condition of our making a choice from our own volition and will, apart from the electing actions of God." If He elects, He also provides what is necessary for salvation. IOW when such passages are used as an objection to unconditional election, the implication of "Choose to believe---" is added to the Scripture, something that is not actually there. I am not saying that "Believe in the Lord is not an imperative, though my careless statement did say exactly that. It is a glitch I sometimes find in my own brain---that of assuming I have presented what I was thinking but actually leaving much out, having got either ahead of or behind myself, or flatout said it wrong and not proofed my writing.

That is my position too.

Perhaps it is a difference in the way "counter" is being used by you and me. I am not sure. Maybe just a different "mind set" as to what was exactly being discussed. I am discussing objections given to refute unconditional election and the scripture you give and those like it stating that belief is necessary for salvation, are typically used as argument against unconditional election. That is what I am addressing specifically.

So when I say Eph 2 counters Acts 16, I am not saying it contradicts Acts 13, but that it shows the belief/faith that is necessary, is also given by God. If I were actually having that debate with someone, I would of course expound on it with Scripture. I only didn't with you because I know we are coming from the same place on that issue. That being the case, I had difficulty grasping that you were using the passage of Acts 13 as I do and exploring it. It seemed more like you were both disagreeing and agreeing with both sides at the same time. Whereas I continued from my pov of its being used to discredit unconditional election. We really are not in disagreement on any of it. Yes, faith is a necessary component of salvation. Yes, there is volition on our part. Yes, there is will on our part. Yes faith is an imperative. Yes, there is responsibility on our part.

But it is all monergistic.

Our salvation is unconditional in the same sense that our election is unconditional.

So here is my comment on the "dispute" that arose and that I hope is not considered harsh but in the spirit of communion which it is given.

If you had just ask me what I meant, or even did I mean that there were no factors such as faith etc. in salvation, I would have answered. "Of course not. But our salvation is unconditional in the same sense that our election is unconditional."

This is good. I think that we have clarified things well enough. I think that your position is that "salvation" understood very broadly, and with a focus upon election, has its beginnings with unconditional election and is therefore unconditional at its start. I'm fine with that, and most importantly I think that scripture supports such a position. Thanks for the response and the clarification.

I've been ignoring @Josheb to some degree, so now I'm going to turn my attention in his direction.

 

[Mr GLee]

It negates it for three reasons. The first has to do with the nature of God versus the nature of the one being saved. The blunt fact is salvation is God's and God's alone and sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate humans can do nothing with faith even it's given. The entire Bible is a record of people knowing of God's existence (not merely speculating with confidence or intellectually assenting to His existence, but knowing He exists and still acting faithlessly. The second is the fact it is not of ourselves. The third is that what you're actually asserting is salvation through faithfulness, not salvation through faith. At some point the faith has to operationalized to demonstrate or prove the existence of faith. You're arguing that demonstration can be performed prior to regeneration. If it is prior to regeneration then it is a work of the flesh, a work of sinful flesh, NOT a work of the Spirit. The essence of the argument is God gifted a gift (faith), and then the dead-in-sin sinfully-enslaved sinner used that gift for his own interests, in his own might (of himself) to prove to God s/he believes so that salvation by grace may occur - oh, wait, that is not "may" occur, but must occur. That last part always stands in odd juxtaposition to those synergists who say, "God does not coerce salvation," because they are implicitly saying the sinner can coerce God into saving the sinner through the sinner's fleshly act of faithful confession to a gifted faith.

No such thing a "hypostatic union" a wile of the devil deceiving mankind. Catholic design Teaching others God is a dying Jewish man as King of kings.

God has no nature he alone he cannot be found in a microscope or through a telescope. He is supranatural (without beginning or end) We do not know him after the dying rudiments of this world.

Believers a carrying out the appointment to die once . They have no faith of power that could please supernatural God .

Flesh signified as sinful was needed to show the unseen power of God's, Faith that works in sons of God (Christian) He give us little of His Faith enough to please his good eternal will working in us .

 

[Josheb]

God has no nature...

That is incorrect.

....he alone he cannot be found in a microscope or through a telescope.

That is a red herring.

He is supranatural (without beginning or end)

That begs the question.

We do not know him after the dying rudiments of this world.

That is a red herring.

Believers a carrying out the appointment to die once. They have no faith of power that could please supernatural God.

That is correct.

Believers a carrying out the appointment to die once. They have no faith of power that could please supernatural God.

"Supra" or "super"?

Flesh signified as sinful was needed to show the unseen power of God's, Faith that works in sons of God (Christian) He give us little of His Faith enough to please his good eternal will working in us .

Got scripture for any of that?

The word "nature" simply means the basic, inherent features or attributes of someone. To say God has no nature is to say He has no basic and/or inherent features or attributes. God is not natural (phenomenologically of the physical world), but He does have a nature. The entire Bible is His accounting of His nature.

Hebrews 1:1-4 BLB
God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages, who, being the radiance of His glory and the exact expression of His substance, and upholding all things by the power of His word, through having made the purification of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become by so much superior to the angels, as much as He has inherited a name more excellent beyond theirs.

Apparently, God has substance .

And it could be observed under a microscope or telescope, just not one made by human hands. It would have to be a scope of infinite observation , that's all.

 

[His clay]

It does negate the establishing of human action of believing prior to regeneration!

. . . .

Yes, it does. It is God who works in us to do His will and serve His purpose.

Unfortunately, the quotation of the other post contributes to the total word count, so it is necessary for me to omit a great deal of the quoted post to make room for my own comments. Other posters, please read the prior post before reading my response. Thanks.

"It does negate the establishing of human action of believing prior to regeneration!" My focus was upon the idea of an unconditional salvation (where unconditional election seemed to be conflated into an unconditional salvation) void of human agency. As such, your pointing out the importance of regeneration in the saving process of dead sinners only serves my purpose. Further, this in no way changes the meaning of the Acts passage that I spent time parsing, quoting, and explaining. A conditional salvation is clearly presented there (believe and you will be saved). One either deals with the objective features of the passage there, or one ignores it. Since it is God's word, your comment is irrelevant (red herring) and poorly thought through; for no one was arguing for what you are critiquing (addressing a straw man). I've already presented my thoughts on the term salvation, and this impacts the meaning of the passage. It is dealing with a very narrow sliver of the larger salvation process that many have in view, and the reason for it is probably due to the imperative focusing upon the jailer's responsibility in this situation.

Now I get that your comment is important to you, but it is simply irrelevant to the points I was making. And I still see no need to elaborate upon various aspects of hamartiology to be able to make the point the Acts passage makes. And hamartiology is precisely where you go next.

Above, I asserted that you are critiquing a straw man, and here is the straw man, plain as day.

The third is that what you're actually asserting is salvation through faithfulness, not salvation through faith. At some point the faith has to operationalized to demonstrate or prove the existence of faith. You're arguing that demonstration can be performed prior to regeneration. If it is prior to regeneration then it is a work of the flesh, a work of sinful flesh, NOT a work of the Spirit. The essence of the argument is God gifted a gift (faith), and then the dead-in-sin sinfully-enslaved sinner used that gift for his own interests, in his own might (of himself) to prove to God s/he believes so that salvation by grace may occur - oh, wait, that is not "may" occur, but must occur.

Your first sentence is false. Your third sentence is false. Your fifth sentence is false. At every step in which you claim to portray my position, you falsely portray my position. However, I am open to seeing what very specific words you think demonstrate what I am here claiming to be a straw man. So I'll ask a question. What words of mine are your specifically referring to in your first, third, and fifth sentences? Hence, I see no need to respond further to what is only in your imagination of me.

In the paragraph of the above quote, you bring up two other main points. The first deals with the sinfully dead. And the second deals with the "not of yourselves" portion of Eph 2:8. I've already responded to point two. The genetive of source being found ultimately in God does not negate the human volition inherent in believing (Heb 11). In point one you make a problematic assumption of "faith" as if it is disconnected from the volitional side of people. To be given faith is akin to your final sentence. "It is God who works in us to do His will and serve His purpose." God moves in the person to will and to do, and this is connected to what I mean by God gifting faith.

"That last part always stands in odd juxtaposition to those synergists who say, "God does not coerce salvation," because they are implicitly saying the sinner can coerce God into saving the sinner through the sinner's fleshly act of faithful confession to a gifted faith." Their position holds to libertarian freedom, which I think that we both deny. You deny its relevancy in the discussion. I deny it because it is incoherent, at odds with scripture, and impossible to live out. Hence, the main target here is libertarian freedom. In contrast, I hold to a compatibilistic model of human volition and responsibility (it is radically important to understand the ramifications of my view in contrast to lib freedom).

It is precisely their assumption of libertarian freedom that creates the situation of coercion. And as you rightly point out, they are at odds with their own position (internal self-contradiction or double standard).

Thank you for quoting Isaiah 64:2-7. It is a good passage.

"This idea God gives faith and then the still sinfully dead and enslaved sinner uses his flesh to assert the gifted faith in a righteous manner bluntly contradicts this passage in two ways." Again, this does not represent my position. What of my comments (specifically) has led you to make such a critique? I see no need to address your two points which follow from the above quoted straw man. It's kinda interesting to read your thoughts, but they are irrelevant to my position.

(response continued in next post)

 

[His clay]

(response continued from previous post) @Josheb

"Which brings up a fourth reason . Supposedly the faith through which one is saved is a gift, and the grace by which a person is saved is a gift (and neither are of the sinner) but because the sinner is not yet regenerate those and the sinner has operationalized those gifts with his/her still-sinful flesh...... this means sinfully dead and enslaved humans can receive God's gifts and use them (or not use them) for their own purposes with only the flesh as their source of power." Another straw man. To me, it looks like you are reading your own concerns into me (projecting), and I'll keep looking at you funny, because your critique isn't relevant to my views. Burn that straw man, and I'll cheer you on as you go about it. Again, what of my own words, specifically, leads you to make these assumptions of my view? That "or not use them" is only allowable if one holds to libertarian freedom; I do not.

"You've written about the power of God in this process, but the underlying, unstated, logically necessary implication is that it is the still-sinful, Spirit-vacant flesh that wields the power of these gifts." Did you not read post #9 when I stated the following.

Second, the salvation process, in part, is referring to God's ultimate initiative. God is back and behind every step bringing those He has chosen to Himself. Election is unconditional. New life is imparted by God and a new nature. Faith is gifted so that a person believes. God justifies (judicially declares one to be just). On the basis of and because of God's gracious activity, man works out the salvation. Philippians 2 tells believers to work out their own salvation, for it is God who works in them to will and to do of His good pleasure. Here, we see a DEPENDENT synergism. God is the foundation upon which human works are done. It is a both/and scenario. Yes, I've used the term "synergism," but it is radically different than one where God contributes in one domain, and man contributes in another domain. No, when I say DEPENDENT, I'm addressing a causal relationship between human action founded upon God's grace, where both God and man are acting. Hebrews 11 points (among other things) out that "faith" is demonstrated through living, and this living takes place between the prior mentioned elements and glorification. Yes, the sanctification process itself can be understood in the context of God's overall working in a believer's life and is another aspect of the order of salvation.

I've already addressed your straw man in post #9. It would have been helpful to us both if you had truly considered these words. It would have saved us a lot of time. I'll be specific, what you say is the "logically necessary implication" is simply not representative of my position. Nor do I see your comment as logically necessary of anything I have written. Rather, I see a false assumption or a person willing to jump to conclusions upon incomplete evidence.

"So too is the ultimate power to use the gift! The gift is not given the sinful flesh to be exercised by the sinful flesh in a sinful way (selfishness is sinful). The moment the protest, "But it is used in a righteous way!" the protester has argued a works-based salvation and negated his/her own synergism ." When God moves to work and produces faith in a person, that is His power. I disagree with distancing the gifting of faith from the power of God. He works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. And the poster never "argued a works-based salvation," for you have only conflated your imagination of the poster with the actual position of the poster. Sadly, your straw men have led you to slander me. I see a lot of your assumptions projected upon me, but I simply do not hold to your projections, and thusly your conclusion (arguing a works-based salvation) is nothing less than a non-sequitur built off a straw man. And the wind and the waves came, and great was the destruction of the house built upon sand. If you are to salvage your argument, then you need to be much more specific with respect to my words. I am still wondering what specifically has led you to jump to such unwarranted conclusions.

The rest of your post #21 has already been addressed, so I see no need to repeat myself. Josheb, you are usually very perceptive, and I have benefited from your posts many times. Sadly, this is an exception. I hope that it will be a rare one.

 

[His clay]

@Josheb
If you want to see a more thorough view of my stance on regeneration, then read this article. In my opinion, it is simply the finest argument (and most scholarly) I've ever seen arguing for regeneration logically preceding faith.

The Logical Priority of Regeneration to Saving Faith - Snoeberger.pdf

drive.google.com

As always, just because I generally view something favorably, it does not mean I turn my mind off and accept it in its entirety. So if you disagree with parts of the author's work, then I would be happy to discuss that with you.

 

[Josheb]

"It does negate the establishing of human action of believing prior to regeneration!" My focus was upon the idea of an unconditional salvation (where unconditional election seemed to be conflated into an unconditional salvation) void of human agency.

That would be a mistaken conflation and therefore not something I need to comment on further other than to reiterate the negation of human action prior to regeneration.

 

[Josheb]

Your first sentence is false. Your third sentence is false. Your fifth sentence is false. At every step in which you claim to portray my position, you falsely portray my position.

It is not enough to just claim falsehood. You have to explain how and why it is false. Perhaps the problems are not yet seen in your own pov.

However, I am open to seeing what very specific words you think demonstrate what I am here claiming to be a straw man. So I'll ask a question. What words of mine are your specifically referring to in your first, third, and fifth sentences? Hence, I see no need to respond further to what is only in your imagination of me.

In Post 19 the following is posted,

Yes, faith is not of ourselves. This is a genitive of source. The ultimate sourcing of the faith that people excercise is from God. Again, the ultimate source is God. This does not negate the human action of believing; rather, the ultimate sourcing establishes the human action of believing.

Yes, faith is not of ourselves. This is a genitive of source. The ultimate sourcing of the faith that people excercise is from God. Again, the ultimate source is God. This does not negate the human action of believing; rather, the ultimate sourcing establishes the human action of believing.

[/indent]
The argument that faith (and grace are from God does not negate the human action of believing. Well, first of all that is a red herring. No one says faith gifted from God negates human action. The devil is in the details. The monergistic argument is that grace AND faith AND regeneration AND election AND a bunch more stuff is from God and not of ourselves. The second problem is if that is presented as the monergistic/Calvinist position then it's a straw man (and if it's not then it has no business being mentioned in this thread because it's non sequitur. The third problem is the implied argument since faith (like grace) comes from God human action (prior to regeneration) is not negated. No rationale for that claim is provided. It is stated as a given and it is incorrect. EVERYTHING built on that position is, likewise, incorrect. The entire synergist schema falls apart because of that predicate falsehood.

The reason human action is negated is because the text explicitly states, "this is not of yourselves."

• Grace is not of ourselves.
• Faith is not of ourselves.
• Salvation by grace through faith is not ourselves.
• Being created in Christ is not of ourselves.

The minute human action is injected the scripture has been denied. It does not matter where it is injected if it is asserted prior to regeneration. Logically speaking, all the unregenerate has is sinful flesh. The synergist argument is, "Yes, but sinful flesh is not so far gone with sin that it cannot cognitively understand and respond to the gospel," and that, in turn, necessarily and always leads to a denial of many other scriptures (like Romans 8:6). The cascade of denial become exponential in volitionalism.

Human action is negated. Post 19 said it wasn't. Post 19 is wrong.



Regeneration is also a gift from God. It also is not of ourselves. Assuming faith being a gift from God does not negate human action and therefore precedes other gifts is baseless. Salvation is by grace through faith that is gifted in regeneration is the correct way to understand both Ephesians 2 and all that scripture has to say on salvation when it comes to the placement of regeneration and faith in the ordo salutis. Jus because Paul did not mention anything other than grace and faith does not mean those are the only gifts. Nor does it mean Paul has established a sequence, causal or otherwise.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb
If you want to see a more thorough view of my stance on regeneration, then read this article. In my opinion, it is simply the finest argument (and most scholarly) I've ever seen arguing for regeneration logically preceding faith.

The Logical Priority of Regeneration to Saving Faith - Snoeberger.pdf

drive.google.com

As always, just because I generally view something favorably, it does not mean I turn my mind off and accept it in its entirety. So if you disagree with parts of the author's work, then I would be happy to discuss that with you.

I've read it. Snoeberger's sophistry is not impressive. It has the appearance of a rational case, but many of his facts and both his logic and his exegesis of scripture are poor. No one should consider that article worthy of consideration.

As I often tell others here in the forums: Be as critical of your sources as you are of my posts and you will save yourself and everyone else a lot of time, effort, and space.

If you are intelligent enough to know what a red herring and/or a straw man is then you are intelligent enough to identify the red herrings and straw men in the Snoeberger article (there are several). I'll gladly go through the article with you claim by claim once we're done with Post 19, but if Post 19 was based on Snoeberger there are many underlying, unstated problems with that post.

 

[Josheb]

I've already addressed your straw man in post #9.

No you haven't. All you've done is throw around the label "straw man," assuming it is true without identifying the straw man or explanation how and why what I posted is a straw man.

It would have been helpful to us both if you had truly considered these words.

It would be helpful if you stopped being lazy and engaged this discussion with all your abilities. That would save us all time.


The crux of the issue is the claim Ephesians 2's faith being genitive does not preclude human action. Unless and until you can prove the case for that claim every single post in this thread bearing your handle fails. Faih being genitive does not negate human action but the "not of yourselves" does. So too does the "created in Christ."

Try NOT to borrow from Snoeberger. I say this for two reasons. 1) Snoeberger is not here, and you need to be able to defend your posts with your own words. 2) That Snoeberger article is deeply flawed so arguing from Snoeberger will, likewise and necessarily be deeply flawed. Post 19 makes it very clear Snoeberger's positions are thought logical but no one using Snoeberger is making a logical case for regeneration preceding faith because Snoeberger did NOT make a logical case. That you think it is the finest case you've ever seen is the problem to be solved.

For example (and this is the only point I will make about the Snoeberger article before we're done discussing Post 19), he sets up two straw men immediately when he tries to define terms. The first straw man is that his definitions are correct and valid and that he can then base his critique on those definitions . He cannot. He cannot do that and be thought to be making a logical argument. The second straw man is his use of Calvin's 16th century definition of regeneration. No one uses that definition anymore, not even Calvinists. Every single sentence in that article designed to dispute that definition is arguing a straw man. There are more than a dozen such errors in that article by my count. There is no way an article with more than a dozen straw men can be considered the finest logical argument for anything. And I am guessing if you weren't so enamored with Traditionalist volitionalism and re-read that article objectively then you'd find at least some of those errors and no longer consider the Snoeberger article logical.



Post your case for the genitive nature of faith not negating human action. Try to do that in a manner that does not run into the problems already listed in Post 21.

• Salvation is God's and God's alone.
• The text in question explicitly states salvation by grace through genitive faith is not of ourselves.
• The minute "action" is asserted that is faithfulness, not faith. There's a difference between faith and faithfulness.
• The still sinfully dead and enslaved sinner who has only his sinful flesh with which to act cannot use God's gifts unsinlessly.
• God is not dependent or reliant on anything of sinful flesh.
• Regeneration is also a gift from God, a gift that changes sinful man, not one predicated on sinful man's actions.

These are points you should consider aides. They are there to help you refine your case. When ANY of them cannot be surmounted the correct, appropriate response is to discard the current synergism and all allegiance to it. Either find a better synergism or become monergist.

 

[Josheb]

"So too is the ultimate power to use the gift! The gift is not given the sinful flesh to be exercised by the sinful flesh in a sinful way (selfishness is sinful). The moment the protest, "But it is used in a righteous way!" the protester has argued a works-based salvation and negated his/her own synergism ." When God moves to work and produces faith in a person, that is His power. I disagree with distancing the gifting of faith from the power of God. He works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. And the poster never "argued a works-based salvation," for you have only conflated your imagination of the poster with the actual position of the poster.

Well, that's wrong. The errors may not be understood, but they are there.

Part of the problem, one of the most obvious errors, is the misuse of Philippians 2:13

Philippians 2:12-13
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

The verse does NOT say God works in the unregenerate faithless sinfully dead and enslaved sinful flesh to will and to work His good pleasure. That is a heretical, desolate, abominable abuse of God's word. The "us" in verse 13 is those already saved, NOT those not saved. The "us" in verse 13 is "the saints in Christ" (vs. 1:1). The "us" in verse 13 is the "beloved," those who "have always obeyed," those who are "working out their salvation." Throwing out the label "strawman" blind to your own strawmen is hypocritical wrongdoing. Make sure your own posts are void of strawmen before thinking to use that appeal again, and if that is to happen then Snoeberger cannot be used because Snoeberger often failed at the audience identification in the verses he selectively used. Every time he made that mistake, he argued a false equivalence and what ensued was a strawman presentation of scripture.



No one can take verses written about the already regenerate and apply them to the unregenerate. It does not matter whether it is a monergist or a synergist who does it. It is always wrong. It is always shoddy exegesis.



Now the good part is the disagreement with the distancing of faith from the power of God. That's good as long as the alternative is correct. Do you agree with the causal immediacy of God's power to gift faith AND the causal immediacy of that gifted faith? If not, then that is the problem to be solved and the case for God's gift not having immediate causal effect according to His purpose must be made. The onus is on you, not anyone else. You said,

Yes, faith is not of ourselves. This is a genitive of source. The ultimate sourcing of the faith that people excercise is from God. Again, the ultimate source is God. This does not negate the human action of believing; rather, the ultimate sourcing establishes the human action of believing.

And until you prove those claims and do so in a manner wholly consistent with your own other claims AND do so in a manner that avoids the many problems already cited, that soteriology is unscriptural and irrational.


Make the case for genitive faith not negating human action of believing... prior to regeneration.

 

[His clay]

nt

 

[Josheb]

nt

Make the case for genitive faith not negating human action of believing prior to regeneration.

 

[His clay]

Make the case for genitive faith not negating human action of believing prior to regeneration.

I'll try something very simple. Does it surprise you that I hold to regeneration logically preceding saving faith?

 

[Josheb]

I'll try something very simple.

No, you'll make the case for your own statements in your own words, and you'll do so with well-rendered scripture in a logical manner, or I will reject the prior claim as a fiction invented by your own mind and leave the record of this thread one of silent inability and unwillingness to prove the claim.

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.

And that will happen without shifting the onus onto me.

Does it surprise you that I hold to regeneration logically preceding saving faith?

No, not at all. For all I know you could irrationally hold to disparate and irreconcilable views and feel no need to reconcile them. Lots of synergists do that every day. I subscribe to the exact same position but wholly reject the premise of faith evidencing human action of belief prior to regeneration. That does not explain, evidence or prove genitive faith does not negate human action of believing prior to regeneration. That and that alone is the case for which you were asked to provide.

Make that case, please.

 

[Arial]

No, you'll make the case for your own statements in your own words, and you'll do so with well-rendered scripture in a logical manner, or I will reject the prior claim as a fiction invented by your own mind and leave the record of this thread one of silent inability and unwillingness to prove the claim.

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.

And that will happen without shifting the onus onto me.

No, not at all. For all I know you could irrationally hold to disparate and irreconcilable views and feel no need to reconcile them. Lots of synergists do that every day. I subscribe to the exact same position but wholly reject the premise of faith evidencing human action of belief prior to regeneration. That does not explain, evidence or prove genitive faith does not negate human action of believing prior to regeneration. That and that alone is the case for which you were asked to provide.

Make that case, please.

I have read through this discussion and not once has @His clay presented any synergistic view. Not once has he made any statement that can legitimately be construed as saying belief precedes regeneration. On the contrary, he has stated that it does not precede regeneration. And more than once.

You simply at some point thought he was saying that, and once you had that in your head nothing else could enter---no matter how many times what he was/is saying and meaning was repeated. You continued to and still continue to argue with an utter straw man. A lot of unnecessary and senseless arguments are perpetrated by this same tendency.

 

[Josheb]

I have read through this discussion and not once has @His clay presented any synergistic view.

Did I say he had?

Not once has he made any statement that can legitimately be construed as saying belief precedes regeneration.

Nor did I ever say he had.

On the contrary, he has stated that it does not precede regeneration. And more than once.

And I explicitly acknowledged that fact AND agreed.

You simply at some point thought..........

{personal remarks, self defense, baiting, contentiousness, domineering orders given to poster, edited by admin}

I do not know that I disagree with @His clay, and any assumption to that effect on anyone's part is misguided. I simply do not yet believe the comment on "genitive faith" is correct and I have accordingly asked him to prove that position. If the case presented (whenever that may be) is impeccable then I will be persuaded accordingly and acknowledge that fact with gratitude. If the case is flawed then I will say so and note how and why, giving him the opportunity to amend his case accordingly because it is best for the both of us to agree with the whole of scripture and not merely with each other.

Please do not put words into my posts I did not write again. Clay is completely capable of speaking for himself and making the case for what he believes without your help (or interference), and we can work out any difference we may have. Proverbs 26:17.