Unconditional Election

[Arial]

Did I say he had?

Then what is it you are arguing about and making those personal remarks about?

Nor did I ever say he had.

Then why are you arguing about it?

And I explicitly acknowledged that fact AND agreed.

Where?

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.

The no jerks allowed rule is still on the books. So stop being an arrogant unrepentant jerk. I say this as a caution from admin. You make yourself impossible to have a decent conversation with. You always trash it.

 

[His clay]

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.

God himself has placed the onus on you by stating in His word, "let everyone be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath." God also states, "Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another." The onus is not on me to correct the mountain of straw men you have propagated; the onus is on you to correctly represent others and be honest. God has spoken, and you would do well to listen His authority over you.

You stated, "I subscribe to the exact same position but wholly reject the premise of faith evidencing human action of belief prior to regeneration." Does it bother you that I just finished stating that my position is that regeneration logically precedes saving faith? Who then are you arguing against? Because when you respond to me, as if I held that position; you are espousing a direct contradiction with what I just stated actually is my position. I added underlining of the quote of Josheb to highlight the critical straw man portion.

You stated, "That does not explain, evidence or prove genitive faith does not negate human action of believing prior to regeneration." Again, not my position. You are doing exactly what you are accusing @Arial of doing (post #40); you are putting words into my mouth I never said or wrote. You are literally responding to my post which says the exact opposite of what you are here asserting is my position. And if you are not here asserting that it is my position, then who have you been arguing against? I added underlining to highlight the critical phase that makes the quote a straw man.

Therefore I ask you again. Does it surprise you that I hold to regeneration logically preceding saving faith? Does it surprise you that I brought up the Snowberger article (p#29) to state an argument supporting regeneration logically preceding faith? Does is surprise you that in post #9 is mentioned, "New life is imparted by God and a new nature. Faith is gifted so that a person believes." Now, granted, sentence order does not explicitly give the logical priority, but anyone can see that the sentence on new life and new nature comes before faith. And yet your statement, just quoted in blue assumes a position I do not hold. Why are you deliberately seeking to misrepresent my view here? And I say "deliberately" because you've been corrected. I'm perfectly content to watch you flail away and slaughter your straw men. My real position is not bothered in the slightest. Why waist your time and ours with the straw men bonfire?

 

[Josheb]

The third is that what you're actually asserting is salvation through faithfulness, not salvation through faith.

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

My statement is not false, and I have explained how and why. The statement in question is the "genitive of source" does not negate human action of believing. What you may mean to say is God being the source of a person's belief does not preclude them from taking action after believing (being gifted faith), but that's not what Post 19 actually states.

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.

What is states is that the source established human action. Aside from the ambiguity inherent in "establishes" (is belief causally established or not?) the claim is that "a genitive of source" does not preclude human action. Belief is faith. Action is faithfulness. Faithfulness is works. If the action is human then that is salvation by faithfulness, not salvation through faith. That may not be what you intended to communicate, but that is what the posts say. This runs into direct contradiction with the three parts of Ephesians 2:8-10....

1. Salvation by grace,
2. Salvation through faith,
3. Salvation that creates a person in Christ for good works.

The emphasis has been placed on human action and the genitive of source faith is said not to preclude human action when the text explicitly states salvation by grace through faith is not of ourselves' we are created in Christ. No action on the part of any human can create the person in Christ. Only God can do that. The initial belief and its subsequent action are both from and by God and God alone.

Maybe the problem is in the wording, so clarify and better articulate what you mean when saying God being the source of faith does not preclude human action. I understand you (and agree) when you say you believe regeneration precedes faith. You have got to sort out this circular God is the source of belief that does not negate the human action of believing. Belief is not an action. That's why I drew attention to the distinction between faith and faithfulness, belief and works. It was your statement, so only you can clarify it.


My statement is not false. You may not have intended to post a salvation-by-faithfulness position and you may not believe that position but that is what "not negate the human action of believing" says.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Your third sentence is false.

My third statement is not false; it is axiomatically true. You may not believe that faith precedes regeneration (you've gone on record stating the opposite, and I agreed), but that does not change the fact what has been asserted with the genitive of source faith from God not precluding human action of belief is a problem. Post 2 says, "of belief," not "in belief," (or "in the gifted faith from, of, and in God's Son), and post 2 says the belief is a human action. That's problematic both in the human and the action because the belief is gifted from God (it is not our own, or of ourself), and belief is faith, not faithfulness (action).

Paul confirms what I said when he wrote salvation is not by works. It does not matter whether the works occur prior to regeneration or afterwards; they do not save. They are the purpose of salvation once a person has been created in Christ. Paul explained this with the example of Abraham, who was justified and deemed righteous by faith but by faithfulness proved the receipt of God's gifts (grace, faith, and creation). The only difference is that Abraham waited and did not find perfection until the body of Christ was established (Heb. 11).


So my statement is not false. It's straight-out-of-the-Bible axiomatic truth. It may have nothing to do with your thinking, but it remains true as posted. If it's not what you mean to say (whether due to an imperfect post on your part or an imperfect reading on mine) the onus is still on you to clarify your own statement. I cannot speak for you.

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.

Make the case for God sourcing belief not precluding human action of belief, and do it without falsely accusing me of making false statements. Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

 

[Josheb]

God himself has placed the onus on you by stating in His word, "let everyone be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath." God also states, "Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another." The onus is not on me to correct the mountain of straw men you have propagated; the onus is on you to correctly represent others and be honest. God has spoken, and you would do well to listen His authority over you...............

I see.

The impulse to make the discussion personal cannot be resisted. I simply want the statement questioned in Post 2 proven. Only you can do that. My concern is valid and op-relevant. There's nothing personal about it. God gifting faith does preclude human action of belief, but not in belief, or after post-regeneration belief. The solution may be that simple but how would I or anyone else know given,

Therefore I ask you again. Does it surprise you that I hold to regeneration logically preceding saving faith?

I already answered that question.

Does it surprise you that I brought up the Snowberger article (p#29) to state an argument supporting regeneration logically preceding faith?

I already answered that question and explained how and why Snowberger is unreliable. We all may agree regeneration precedes faith, but that does not mean Snowberger's case is valid or correct.

Does is surprise you that in post #9 is mentioned, "New life is imparted by God and a new nature. Faith is gifted so that a person believes."

No! It's not a point in dispute!

Now, granted, sentence order does not explicitly give the logical priority, but anyone can see that the sentence on new life and new nature comes before faith. And yet your statement, just quoted in blue assumes a position I do not hold. Why are you deliberately seeking to misrepresent my view here? And I say "deliberately" because you've been corrected. I'm perfectly content to watch you flail away and slaughter your straw men. My real position is not bothered in the slightest. Why waist your time and ours with the straw men bonfire?

Irrelevant.

Post 2 states the "genitive of source" faith from God does not negate the human action of believing, and that is incorrect. The ultimate sourcing doe NOT establish the human action of believing; it established the divine action of believing. Once that is established, having been created in Christ then the former non-believer has been ontologically changed from a non-believer into a believer..... and can then act accordingly.

Snowberger either got it wrong, or poorly worded his argument. Since Snowberger is not here to explain his views and you are here to explain your, I asked you.

God himself has placed the onus on you.....

Thank you for your time. Let me know if and when you're ready to explain and discuss the statements made in Post 2.

 

[Carbon]

What do you mean by we are not entirely passive beings in the salvation process?

Interesting question. I just started reading this thread, now I must read on.

 

[Carbon]

What do I mean when I write of the "salvation process" and "not entirely passive beings"?

First, the term "salvation" has a semantic range. This just means that it has more than one potential meaning. Sometimes, salvation is used narrowly focused with respect to justification. To be saved is to justified. Sometimes, salvation is more future oriented, as in final salvation. Sometimes, theologians use the Latin "ordo salutis" (order of salvation) to refer to the various steps beginning with election and ending in glorification. It is the final use of the term to which I am referring.

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.

This does not even begin to address everything, but I think that the response here gives a decent enough answer to your question.

Hmmm, I think yours and @Josheb beliefs in this are quite similar. Though at one time Josheb disagreed with me, it seems he may have changed his mind.

These few things you mention I believe state sanctification is monergistic. After all. it seems thats whats being addressed.

New life is imparted by God and a new nature.

Agreed, all of God's doing. Monergistic.

Faith is gifted so that a person believes.

Amen! Which is the only reason he now believes. This belief isn't something man had part of, in other words, now since he has the gift he must exercise it.
Instead, it is who he is now, in Christ. Belief is irresistible.

On the basis of and because of God's gracious activity, man works out the salvation.

Man, as a regenerate Christian, can no more not work out his salvation (because it describes him) than an unregenerate can not work out salvation.

In other words, the sanctification process is progressive. With God working in the man to will and do, man progressively wills and does. Because he is a new creation created in Christ Jesus for good works.

As the unregenerate, does not, because he cannot. So he practices the unregenerate life, naturally.

 

[Arial]

Man, as a regenerate Christian, can no more not work out his salvation (because it describes him) than an unregenerate can not work out salvation.

Scripture does tell us to work out our salvation, so we need to ascertain what that means. It cannot mean that your salvation depends on your work as that would contradict vast amounts of scripture to the contrary. I think it is a ways of saying to not let our knees grow weak and your arms hang slack. Neither be complacent or crumble beneath the weight of waiting for Christ's return amidst troubles and persecution. IOW don't lose hope or become discouraged, but keep on being obedient, to the word, learning, and growing in the Lord. It is encouragement for the brethren.

 

[Carbon]

Scripture does tell us to work out our salvation, so we need to ascertain what that means. It cannot mean that your salvation depends on your work as that would contradict vast amounts of scripture to the contrary. I think it is a ways of saying to not let our knees grow weak and your arms hang slack. Neither be complacent or crumble beneath the weight of waiting for Christ's return amidst troubles and persecution. IOW don't lose hope or become discouraged, but keep on being obedient, to the word, learning, and growing in the Lord. It is encouragement for the brethren.

Sure, I can go with that. Where the rubber meets the road, = take it serious.

And because we are Christians, we run the race. Not that it's our part to contribute, but it's because of who we are.

 

[Josheb]

Hmmm, I think yours and @Josheb beliefs in this are quite similar. Though at one time Josheb disagreed with me, it seems he may have changed his mind.

Tell me specifically 1) with what is it that you and I agree, and 2) how are my views percevied to have cahnged.

These few things you mention I believe state sanctification is monergistic. After all. it seems thats whats being addressed.

While I disagree with @His clay's second" comments, I agree: salvation is monergistic.

Agreed, all of God's doing. Monergistic.

Yep

Amen! Which is the only reason he now believes. This belief isn't something man had part of, in other words, now since he has the gift he must exercise it.
Instead, it is who he is now, in Christ.

Yep

Belief is irresistible.

If "irresistible" is understood to mean God's grace accomplishes its intend task, then I agree. If, on the other hand it is defined as the human's ability to resist God, then I do not agree. Within Calvinism, TULIP's "I" is defined differently than the word's normal, ordinary meaning and both Cals and non-Cals get it incorrect.

Man, as a regenerate Christian, can no more not work out his salvation (because it describes him) than an unregenerate can not work out salvation.

I agree.

In other words, the sanctification process is progressive.

Yep

With God working in the man to will and do,

Monergistically

man progressively wills and does.

Synergistically, having already been saved and regenerated, his/her salvation assured.

Because he is a new creation created in Christ Jesus for good works.

Yep.

As the unregenerate, does not, because he cannot. So he practices the unregenerate life, naturally.

Yep. 100%

 

[Carbon]

Belief is irresistible.

@Josheb said: If "irresistible" is understood to mean God's grace accomplishes its intend task, then I agree.

Of course it does.

If, on the other hand it is defined as the human's ability to resist God, then I do not agree.

Why would you think I would think such a thing? Man cannot resist God.

Within Calvinism, TULIP's "I" is defined differently than the word's normal, ordinary meaning and both Cals and non-Cals get it incorrect.

I'll try to explain my understanding of irresistable grace for you.

First, we are savd by grace. So, at the apointed time, a dead sinner is regenerated and made alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit. That's grace, and it is not only amazing but irresistable. It's Irresistable because the person is alive now (after being regenerated) and can see the kingdom and this new creation in Christ, having been crucified with Christ can now see him, know him and trust him. it's irresistable because there is no way he cannot believe, matter of fact believing is something the new man in Christ posesses.

Thie is my understanding of Irresistible grace in the bible, or you can say in Calvinism.

 

[Carbon]

Tell me specifically 1) with what is it that you and I agree, and 2) how are my views percevied to have cahnged.

I thought for a minute that you agreed that sanctification is monergistic.

 

[Carbon]

Synergistically, having already been saved and regenerated, his/her salvation assured.

So, once we get the hang of it, God lets us help so we work together.

 

[Carbon]

Yep. 100%

Well, I'm glad we agree here. So, there is still hope for you in this doctrine after all.

 

[Carbon]

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

Yes, "to do His will"

Not to work with Him, that's not His purpose. Or He would say so.

 

[Carbon]

But it is all monergistic.

Amen!

 

[Carbon]

Amen!

@Arial

This reminds me of, "salvation is of the Lord." Sanctification cannot be taken out of the ordo salutis, it is part of salvation. God does not leave a part for us to work it through with Him.

 

[Josheb]

Of course it does.

Why would you think I would think such a thing?

I do not, but many do. We read IG being misrepresented in the soteriology boards quite frequently.

Man cannot resist God.

Correct.

I'll try to explain my understanding of irresistable grace for you.

First, we are savd by grace. So, at the apointed time, a dead sinner is regenerated and made alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit. That's grace, and it is not only amazing but irresistable. It's Irresistable because the person is alive now (after being regenerated) and can see the kingdom and this new creation in Christ, having been crucified with Christ can now see him, know him and trust him. it's irresistable because there is no way he cannot believe, matter of fact believing is something the new man in Christ posesses. Thie is my understanding of Irresistible grace in the bible, or you can say in Calvinism.

You cannot use the word being explained in the explanation. That's called begging the question and it is always and everywhere a fallacious argument. It's also unnecessary because we already have an agreed-upon definition: God accomplishes the task (or purpose) set for His grace to accomplish.

I say this often: Monergism is entirely God-centric. The moment we begin to define terms following the "T" in terms of what we are or what we do, we've left monergism. The ULIP can and should always be defined solely as what God does (or does not do) and not what the unregenerate sinner does (or does not do). The failure to stick to that "mono" part is what often leads to the outsider's misunderstanding. Monergistic soteriology is always and entirely about what God does and never about what the unregenerate sinner does. The unregenerate can do nothing. and that is all that needs to be said about him/her. God's grace accomplishes its task. Period.

And to that the synergist should say, "Yes, of course. Amen!" and then we have consensus, not division. Even though they may disagree with ensuing details, that point of agreement then becomes a measure of their own dissent. It's not us versus them when that point of agreement has happened. It's them versus their own inconsistency. That's just aggravating. Which is why the red herring, straw men, ad hominem, and other fallacies follow. That is why they'd like to keep the conversation about the sinner. It's not the nature of God where the disagreement occurs.

The almighty God accomplishes what He purposes for His grace to accomplish.

 

[Josheb]

I thought for a minute that you agreed that sanctification is monergistic.

We debated this matter at great length. Sanctification is monergistic in the beginning, but because the purpose of salvation is for us to perform works God already planned for us to perform, one of which is maintaining a clean disposition, sanctification becomes Spirit inspired and empowered synergism after regeneration/conversion. Two weeks after tfter that debate THIS OP was posted in which multiple noted Calvinists were quoted saying the exact position I'd asserted in our debate. The conclusion of that op states,

Conclusion
"So what do we see in this short survey of Reformed theologians. For starters, we do not see the exact language of monergism or synergism applied to sanctification.
Second, we see that, given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit. “Monergism” can work because sanctification is God’s gift, his supernatural work in us. “Synergism” can also work because because we cooperate with God in sanctification and actively make an effort to grow in godliness.
Third, we see in this Reformed survey the need to be careful with our words. For example, “passive” can describe our role in sanctification, but only if we also say there is a sense in which we are active. Likewise, we can use the language of cooperation as long as we understand that sanctification does not depend ultimately on us.
And if all this is confusing, you can simply say: we work out our sanctification as God works in us (Phil. 2:12-12). Those are the two truths we must protect: the gift of God in sanctification and the activity of man. We pursue the gift, is how John Webster puts it. I act the miracle, is Piper’s phrase. Both are saying the same thing: God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves. With the right qualifications and definitions, I believe Calvin, Turretin, A Brakel, Hodge, Bavinck, and Berkhof would heartily agree."​

What Piper, Calvin, Turretin, Brakel, Hodge, and Berkhof agree upon is exactly what I'd previously posted.

Then.....

I was invited to participate in THIS OP, which discussed sanctification based on a book of comparative theology. During that discussion the fact each of the five theologians contributing to that book defined sanctification differently was observed and it was the Calvinist Sinclair Ferguson who used the same definition with which I identify. It was the Lutheran Gerhard Forde's view (with some hesitancy) with you identified at that time. In other words, according to your own report, your view of sanctification is Lutheran, not Calvinist, and my view has been consistent with Calvinism (and many noted Calvinists) since the beginning of these discussions. The reasons for my disagreement with Forde can be found HERE.

So I am not sure why my name was mentioned in this thread to say we have agreement because I changed my views.

Hmmm, I think yours and @Josheb beliefs in this are quite similar. Though at one time Josheb disagreed with me, it seems he may have changed his mind.

If we agree then it is because you changed your mind, not the other way around. But, if you have become more Calvinist/Sinclairian and less Fordean then I am delighted to read that .

 

[Josheb]

So, once we get the hang of it, God lets us help so we work together.

Exactly.

Well, I'm glad we agree here. So, there is still hope for you in this doctrine after all.

And you as well .

Yes, "to do His will"

Glad we agree...... but....

Not to work with Him, that's not His purpose. Or He would say so.

Then you had to go and mess with it . His will is that we work with Him (as opposed to working against Him) to do His will. There is no third option.

Matthew 21:30
The one who is not with me is against me; and the one who does not gather with me scatters.

Mark 9:40
For he who is not against us is for us.

God working in us to do His will and our working with Him to do His will is not a mutually exclusive condition. False dichotomies must be avoided. As you once said.....

"given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit. “Monergism” can work because sanctification is God’s gift, his supernatural work in us. “Synergism” can also work because because we cooperate with God in sanctification and actively make an effort to grow in godliness."​

The only reason anyone can work with God to do God's will worked in us by His Spirit is because they've been saved, regenerated and created in Christ for the purpose of performing works God had already planned for us to do before He saved us.