election/predestination concerning salvation

[fairbank]

Melinda and Miranda,
You both ask questions so well, and Miranda, I too am glad you find our answers to be kind-hearted. That is certainly the intention.

Melinda, to engage with your question who decides? People do make a decision to follow Christ. The question is who enables them to make that decision. If a man acts alone, that is works. If the Spirit changes the heart, that is the work of the Lord. The doctrine is referred to as election for two reasons. First, that is the actual word you will read in your bible. Second, like an election, the one elected was chosen. They did not elect themselves. If God elected someone based upon a foreknowledge of their response, God would be electing someone based upon their ability to elect themselves, once again, that is works. In John 6:44, Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." See also Romans 9:16-24, and Ephesians 1:3-6. Continue to wrestle with this one and let us know your thoughts. May the Lord bless and keep you, sincerely.

Eric

[Soulfyre]

melinky said:

I've come up with two different thoughts on this subject and I'm not sure which, if either, goes along with what you're saying.

• Our salvation is predestined because God sees the beginning, the middle and the end. We still have choices that are our own to make, but He knows what we'll do before we do it. Therefore, He knows who belongs to Him and who doesn't.
  
  or
  
  
• Each of us has been predestined from the beginning of time to accept or deny salvation. In other words, God has determined which of us will be saved and which of us won't.

I guess what I'm asking is does God DECIDE who belongs to Him, or does he just KNOW because He sees from beginning to end?

Yours in Christ,

Melinda

Melinda, the classic position of Reformed theology would be closer to the former. It is certainly, in some senses, preferable than postulating that God's redemptive purpose was in some manner dependant upon our own choices. Nevertheless, the difficulty is that both attempt to create a satisfactory explanation from a human perspective of the sovereign act of God, who is at once infinite and eternal. The question of how His eternal decree intersects the finite and temporal to touch our humanity can never be adequately defined. Whether one holds that God's calling is inherently salvific, enlivening our dead hearts resulting in an inevitable, although uncoerced, positive response on our part, or whether God's expression of grace is prevenient, in which our conscience is enlivened to the extent that we have unfettered choice, and may accept or reject His wooing, the conclusion is that from an eternal perspective, salvation is an unmerited, sovereignly bestowed gift of God, and that His eternal decrees are sure.

T-U-L-I-P, often referred to as the Five Point of Calvinism (which were not specifically elucidated by Calvin, but by the Synod of Dort), is a logically tight system. And Sproul is certainly correct that one might argue persuasively that to the exent, however small, that our salvation is dependant on, and hence an ultimate result of, our own choosing, it appears to be meritorious. If my salvation is the result of my choosing God, and not the result of His choosing me, then to that extent I have bragging rights, if only to say that some other poor shmuck out there failed to make the perceptive decision that I made. It is clear from the Bible, however, that this is not the case. I was dead in my trespasses and sins, not merely ailing from them. Aside from God's regenerative power, I had no ability to participate in my own salvation. Yet the Bible also indicates that we are not automatons. We make uncoerced choices that affect history. These same choices are evident in believing the gospel, and choosing to be obedient. I prefer to hold these issues in a dynamic tension without feeling forced to explain either in terms of the other, for ultimately, before the infinite, loving God, my human understanding is limited and frail, only perceiving as through an ancient mirror of polished metal--dimly.

Rather, let us hold firm to what we first believed. Let us press on to our high calling in Jesus Christ. Let us work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[KCsr]

Hi everyone. I'm friends with Ron "rgrove" (we go to the same church) and he told me about this board, so I thought I'd check it out. You all are having some great conversations, so I thought I'd join in.

mandapanda said:
"Here is the problem. Suppose God chose some for salvation, such as the doctrine of election puts forward (or from what I gather, at least). The problem remains that He is, by doing so, showing favoritism by saving some and condemning some to hell... the Bible says that He holds Himself to the standard of Love towards all without favorites. This seems to me to be contradictory to the doctrine of election, in which He chooses only to save some."

Hi mandapanda,
Sorry if I repeat anything that anyone has already said... I just skimmed through all the replies to catch up. I have to say I agree with the adoption example that fairbank gave. The Bible does not say that God "holds Himself to the standard of Love towards all without favorites." A verse you brought up is Romans 2:11... which is not speaking of favoritism in regards to love, but favoritism in regards to justice.

I understand what you mean by "total Justice in the character of God" –God holds everyone to the same standard and judges every sin. He does not show favoritism to some in regards to the law, and just let others off the hook. He will punish every sin, whether upon an individual or on their Savior. God's law emanates from his character, he cannot deny himself in regards to justice by showing favoritism. As far as I can tell, whenever scripture says things like: "God... shows no partiality" (Dt. 10:17) it is not referring to mercy but justice: "the Father... without partiality judges" (1 Pt. 1:17). Since this is a part of his nature to judge righteously and without partiality, it is a part of his law: "You shall not show partiality in judgment" (Dt. 1:17). It is a perversion against the character of God to show partiality in regards to justice: "You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality" (Dt. 16:19). God says he condemns those who "have not kept My ways But have shown partiality in the law” (Mal. 2:9). This is the type of partiality that the scribes were referring to when they tried to test Christ: "You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth" (Lk. 20:21). God shows no favoritism in regard to the law. He will not judge one man for murder and let another murderer free without his sin being punished. It is against God's character.

However, love is different. It is also a part of God's character to love, and so the the law requires love, but love is freely expressed. God is not required by his nature to love everyone in the same way. God can freely choose people to love in a special way. He can show choice and favoritism in regards to love: “Remember me, O LORD, with the favor You have toward Your people. Oh, visit me with Your salvation, That I may see the benefit of Your chosen ones” (Ps. 106:4-5). There are numerous places we can see this favoritism that God shows for his people. For instance Noah, who "found favor in the eyes of the LORD" (Gen. 6:2) and Mary, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” (Lk. 1:28). God is also free to love his chosen people in different ways–for instance, among the disciples Christ loved John in a special way (John 20:2).

God is also free to choose to not show this favor and mercy to others: "He who made them will not have mercy on them, And He who formed them will show them no favor" (Is. 27:11).

I was free to choose my wife, and I show a favoritism and love for her that I do not express for every other person. Scripture shows that God was also free to choose his wife, and show a favoritism and love for her that he does not show to others.

-Casey

[melinky]

Soulfyre said:

Melinda, the classic position of Reformed theology would be closer to the former. It is certainly, in some senses, preferable than postulating that God's redemptive purpose was in some manner dependant upon our own choices. Nevertheless, the difficulty is that both attempt to create a satisfactory explanation from a human perspective of the sovereign act of God, who is at once infinite and eternal. The question of how His eternal decree intersects the finite and temporal to touch our humanity can never be adequately defined. Whether one holds that God's calling is inherently salvific, enlivening our dead hearts resulting in an inevitable, although uncoerced, positive response on our part, or whether God's expression of grace is prevenient, in which our conscience is enlivened to the extent that we have unfettered choice, and may accept or reject His wooing, the conclusion is that from an eternal perspective, salvation is an unmerited, sovereignly bestowed gift of God, and that His eternal decrees are sure.

I think that, at least for now, I'm going to have to agree that it is impossible to adequately define God, or His ways in a manner we can understand. (I think that's what you were saying. ) One of my thoughts on theology is that it isn't necessary for me to know and understand the subtle nuances of all God's plans.

““All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
(Matt. 11:27, NIV)

““So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.”
(Matt. 10:26, NIV)

I'm not giving up on this, I will continue to ponder it until the time our Father deems that I should understand. Meanwhile my head will continue to spin though quite frankly, I'm getting rather dizzy!

I have a couple of questions. Do things happen in life that God doesn't control? If so, do people ever die before their time as a result of one of these instances?

Melinda

[rgrove]

melinky said:

I'm not giving up on this, I will continue to ponder it until the time our Father deems that I should understand. Meanwhile my head will continue to spin though quite frankly, I'm getting rather dizzy!

Very good attitude to have towards it. Like I said in my original post it was months before I ever understood the importance of the discussion.

I have a couple of questions. Do things happen in life that God doesn't control? If so, do people ever die before their time as a result of one of these instances?

My answer is probably rather predictable by now, but no, nothing happens outside of God's providential control (Eph 1:11) and nobody ever dies before their time (Acts 17:26). I could put out a list of verses, but might I recommend one of the books on Open Theism? Bruce Ware's book "God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism" is not very long at all and deals with many of the things you've brought up. Open Theism is the belief that God does not know the future, but is a remarkably good guesser because he is God. Dr. Ware looks at all of the verses that Open Theists use to support their assertion and works through them one by one. He then lays out in a very clear and concise format how God has absolute and exhaustive knowledge of the future.

Since you are Methodist the things that those of us here who are Reformed might be saying are probably somewhat foreign. The most famous Methodist dealing directly with these issues today is Dr. William Lane Craig and he is probably the leading advocate of the Molinist Middle Knowledge view that you showed some familiarity with in an earlier post (although it seems to be combined with simple foreknowledge view to a degree).

Our salvation is predestined because God sees the beginning, the middle and the end. We still have choices that are our own to make, but He knows what we'll do before we do it. Therefore, He knows who belongs to Him and who doesn't

That's a fair attempt at looking at this from a "Middle Knowledge" perspective. As you read essays or books proposing this viewpoint, I would only ask that you look closely at whether they are starting off with philisophical assumptions or constructs about God, or whether they build their case for Middle Knowledge from the direct, didactic portions of the Bible where God answers the questions. I never found a Middle Knowledge argument that built it's case from Biblical exegesis as much as I preferred this view originally. It was the first metaphysical argument I was ever exposed to and I read a lot of Dr. Craigs work and read every debate of his with atheists I could find on the Internet. Ultimately, though, the fact that he wasn't building his doctrine of God from the Bible became more and more problematic for me. I would listen to his arguments and then seek Biblical support for them. Generally, I couldn't find it. The direct, didactic teaching of the Bible seemed to contradict what he was saying and I began to have serious questions. Statments like the following combine both what I liked best about Dr. Craigs arguments at the time as well as what I had serious misgivings about. His home page is here:

www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/

The following quote comes from this article:
www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle2.html

"Those who are judged and condemned on the basis of their failure to respond to the light of general revelation cannot legitimately complain of unfairness for their not also receiving the light of special revelation, since such persons would not have responded to special revelation had they received it. For God in His providence has so arranged the world that anyone who would receive Christ has the opportunity to do so. Since God loves all persons and desires the salvation of all, He supplies sufficient grace for salvation to every individual, and nobody who would receive Christ if he were to hear the gospel will be denied that opportunity. As Molina puts it, our salvation is in our own hands."

He firmly holds to the view that if you don't accept Christ you aren't going to heaven and attempts to demonstrate that God is doing no injustice by not sending missionaries to many lost peoples. At the time that was the kind of "fair" that I was looking for. It also put me in charge of my salvation, which I believed to be right at the time. At the same time, however, I was reading Reformed writers and their arguments seemed to be making a strong Biblical case against this. The last sentence just didn't sit well with what I was reading in scripture, but it's the ultimate goal of the Middle Knowledge view. I couldn't help but notice that Middle Knowledge writers were not basing their views on scripture in the same way that Reformed writers were. As I looked at the origins of the Molinist Middle Knowledge view I realized, again, that I was right in the midst of these reformation arguments again. Molina was a Catholic writer who was charged with coming up with a system to counter that proposed by the Reformed churches, particularly Calvin. James Arminius was either familiar with Molina's works as some have shown, or came up independantly with similar views at about the same time in history. Modified Molinist arguments have continued to be the second most common alternative to the Reformed view (simple foreknowledge being the most popular), but have gained popularity because of William Lane Craig's efforts as well as a couple others like Paul Copan. They are very compelling writers and speakers. All I ask is that you look past how good the arguments look and compare them to what the Bible teaches directly. I eventually came to a Reformed, compatibilist point of view and the Biblical teaching on grace is how I finally became confirmed in it. I hope you do to.

[KCsr]

For some odd reason my post above dissappeared, so I am reposting it:

Melinky said,
"I'm sure there is more to this than I realize, but I just can't buy into the idea of salvation being predestined. If it is predestined, why bother to pray for someone to find God, why bother trying to bring others to Christ, why bother with anything if it's already been decided?"

Hi Melinky.
I thought I would try to respond to what you said here–you are bringing up a common objection that many people have when they think of predestination. Soulfyre's reply to you was very good, and so I thought I would tie that idea of "means" together with the framework that rgrove laid out above:

Christ tells us that rebirth is absolutely necessary:
"You must be born again." - John 3:7

It is not by a choice of our wills that we are born the first time, and it is not by our choice that we are born again either:
"who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" -John 1:13

We are not born again by choosing Christ, or by doing good works, but through God's mercy, by God's choice:
"it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy... he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" - Romans 9:16, 18

By God's mercy we are born again:   
"According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again" - 1 Peter 1:3

And so it is by his choice that we are born again:
"Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth" - James 1:18

And the means that God uses–to cause those he has mercifully chosen to be born again–is his word:
"you have been born again... through the living and abiding word of God" - 1 Peter 1:23

Therefore Christians must be faithful and preach the word to every creature. This is how God will cause his chosen to be born again. This means that, not only did God choose who he would show mercy on, he chose the means by which they would be born again.

He chose that believers would pray that this sinner would hear and understand the gospel preached to them. God chose those prayers to be the means by which he raises up a preacher to be sent that sinner. God chose that preacher to be the means by which his word would be preached to that sinner. God chose this word to be the means by which the Holy Spirit causes that sinner to be born again. God uses this new birth as the means by which that person can now hear the word preached. God uses this hearing as the means to author faith in the heart of this sinner. God uses this faith as the means to cause this sinner to profess and call upon him and be saved.

This profession and calling upon God is an act of man's will, but pleasing acts of the will are in response to being born again: "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

So although we do not know who God chose to be be saved, we do know that God uses means. Apart from the means he has appointed, no one is saved. Those means need to be exercised!

"For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Rom 10:13-15).

Hope this helps!
-Casey

[Soulfyre]

Thanks for re-posting! I just noted the problem, and will remove the empty post (or more accurately, I will remove the post that is NOW lost, but once was found).

God bless and keep you and yours always,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[melinky]

I still can't say that I agree with this doctrine, but I will continue to prayerfully consider it.

I've never heard of this "Middle Knowledge" doctrine and what I've heard of Open Theism makes me think that I need to run hard and fast away from it. LOL At this time, the only books I feel the need to learn from are my Bibles. I love reading God's word and the sudden clarity that comes to previously puzzling passages through study and prayer. To me, the Bible is like a top-secret spy mission; the details are on a need to know basis and a person's need to know is determined by God alone. (I think we might agree on that one.)

The more I think about it, the more I feel sure that I don't need to know all of the answers right now. All I need to know is that there is only one way to the Father and that is through the Son.

Yours in Christ,

Melinda

[fairbank]

Melinda, this is a teaching that often must stew in the crockpot of the mind. The microwave approach did not work for me either. I also respect and appreciate your desire to be taught from Scripture rather than through extrabiblical means. Once again, I suggest repeated reading and prayer in Romans 9:16-24, and Ephesians 1:3-6. Let that slow cook, and once well-seasoned, let us know your thoughts. What a delight: wrestling with the autobiography of Him who loves us most! Bless you.

Eric

[mandapanda]

KCsr said:

A verse you brought up is Romans 2:11... which is not speaking of favoritism in regards to love, but favoritism in regards to justice.

I understand what you mean by "total Justice in the character of God" –God holds everyone to the same standard and judges every sin. He does not show favoritism to some in regards to the law, and just let others off the hook. He will punish every sin, whether upon an individual or on their Savior. God's law emanates from his character, he cannot deny himself in regards to justice by showing favoritism. As far as I can tell, whenever scripture says things like: "God... shows no partiality" (Dt. 10:17) it is not referring to mercy but justice: "the Father... without partiality judges" (1 Pt. 1:17). Since this is a part of his nature to judge righteously and without partiality, it is a part of his law: "You shall not show partiality in judgment" (Dt. 1:17). It is a perversion against the character of God to show partiality in regards to justice: "You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality" (Dt. 16:19). God says he condemns those who "have not kept My ways But have shown partiality in the law” (Mal. 2:9). This is the type of partiality that the scribes were referring to when they tried to test Christ: "You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth" (Lk. 20:21). God shows no favoritism in regard to the law. He will not judge one man for murder and let another murderer free without his sin being punished. It is against God's character.

However, love is different. It is also a part of God's character to love, and so the the law requires love, but love is freely expressed. God is not required by his nature to love everyone in the same way. God can freely choose people to love in a special way. He can show choice and favoritism in regards to love: “Remember me, O LORD, with the favor You have toward Your people. Oh, visit me with Your salvation, That I may see the benefit of Your chosen ones” (Ps. 106:4-5). There are numerous places we can see this favoritism that God shows for his people. For instance Noah, who "found favor in the eyes of the LORD" (Gen. 6:2) and Mary, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” (Lk. 1:28). God is also free to love his chosen people in different ways–for instance, among the disciples Christ loved John in a special way (John 20:2).

God is also free to choose to not show this favor and mercy to others: "He who made them will not have mercy on them, And He who formed them will show them no favor" (Is. 27:11).

I was free to choose my wife, and I show a favoritism and love for her that I do not express for every other person. Scripture shows that God was also free to choose his wife, and show a favoritism and love for her that he does not show to others.

-Casey

Thank you! This makes a lot of sense to me, and although I will have to think about it some more , that post helped a lot!

[Kenny]

Okay, I am in very well agreement with Melinda. I know no one can know God and all that mumbo jumbo...however it perturbs me to think of God who:

Made Adam sin
Made Eve sin
Makes me sin
Makes you sin
Makes you decide on whether or not you go to hell
Makes me type this out
Contols my thoughts, my actions, and my feelings as if I am a robot - nothing more than an angel.

This is what predestination is. God predestining your actions before it was made. Not God knowing your actions, but choosing your actions...

Why did God create us? So that we can bring him Glory, that's what we are made for...so how can we bring him glory if he is the one controlling us?

How are we any different from any other creation if he chooses our paths, our decisions, our desires, when we sin, how we sin, if we reject him, if we don't reject him, if we get up in the morning, if we kill someone, etc.

Now, I believe in Free Will, but not total freewill. I use the example of a horse in a fenced in yard. The horse has freewill to roam wherever it so chooses, but it cannot get out of the fenced in area. I believe this is what God has done. We have choices that we can make; however, we cannot go out of the choices given to us by God (e.g. God's will).

So, rgrove, fairbank, or Matthew - feel free to tear my posts to pieces.

[Soulfyre]

The gauntlet has been thrown! Alas, I fear that I am not the one to "tear". The nature of Adam's choice among the Reformed tradition is debated between those who are "infralapsarian" and those who are "sublapsarian". I will define those more completely under definitions, but essentially the infralapsarian views election as essentially remedial, occuring in logical sequence after the fall. Thus, while election would be active, reprobation would be essentially passive, or permissive. The sublapsarian views election as determinative prior to the fall (in essence, double-predestination, in which both redemption and reprobation are active). The sublapsarian view appears arbitrary, even to the Calvinist.

This, however, illustrates what I believe to be the problem inherent to Reformed theology, which essentially baptized the scholasticism of the Roman Catholic church. While it removed dogma from the exclusive control of the magesterium, it nevertheless retained the somewhat mechanistic approach to theological speculation. It is an unfortunate human tendency to treat every scriptural conundrum as solvable with a good dose of rationalism and a little exegetical elbow-grease. However, I believe that the mystery of the interaction between the Divine Infinite Eternal and His creation is not fully defined by the Bible. Certainly it is clear that God is sovereign in election, and that His choosing in not dependent upon the merit of the individual, for God is no respecter of persons. Yet it is equally clear that we are called to make significant choices. And because our choices can change the course of history (remember the "butterfly" effect?), our choices have eternal consequence, for which we are both responsible and accountable. Are our choices essentially a sham? Are we held responsible for behavior that is beyond our control? Some interpretations of John 6 and Romans 9 would seem to imply that we are. Others would argue that even a passing acquaintance with reality would say that we choose in accordance with our nature. Hence, our choices are determined only within the confines of our own desires. They are uncoerced. But we cannot choose outside of our nature.

However, this explanation does have its difficulties. Although I prefer it among most Reformed explanations, it still smacks of a Skinnerian approach to salvation. Skinner was the behavioral psychologist who wrote Beyond Freedom and Dignity, and would argue that the human being is essentially a bundle of biological and social determinism. One is then forced to ask the question, "Are we ever free to make a choice? Are we always slaves to our own nature?" Most who are Reformed would respond affirmatively, pointing to this hideous effect of the Fall that leaves us not merely spiritually "unwell", but "dead" in our trespasses and sins. We have a complete and utter inablity to choose God, without His regenerative intervention. It would then follow that it is only the regenerate who are restored to essential freedom. Even Paul would seem to argue this, when he wrote in 5:1, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." In his great book of contrast of law vs. grace, submission to the flesh vs. submission to the Spirit, and bondage vs. freedom, it seems manifest that the Christian, in virtue of his or her redemption, has a certain freedom unavailable to the unsaved.

Much of the strength in the Reformed argument is in their understanding of the radical effect of the Fall, requiring the active intervention of God to overcome its effect through regeneration. And such was the argument of Augustine, in contradisctinction to Pelagius, who argued that the will of man is always free to choose either good or evil. Pelagius went farther, however, in denying God's internal grace to keep His commandments, effectively allowing the possibility of salvation to any "good" person, regardless of their faith in Jesus Christ. Clearly, Pelagius was not only preaching another gospel, truly his was no gospel at all.

The Eastern church, however, has steered a careful course in ascribing a certain freedom to the will as evidence of the imago dei, although original sin, in separating man from God, left him essentially powerless to resist the overwhelming fallenness of the world and the impulse to sin. While the Reformed look upon the exercise of faith as essentially meritorious (hence, the understanding of Ephesians 2:8-9 to establish that faith itself is a gift of God), the Eastern church does not ascribe merit to faith. Nor does the Eastern church deny the ability of man to freely repudiate God after placing faith in Him. They see election/predestination as a condition which may only finally be known from the hindsight of eternity, and therefore view salvation as, from the human perspective, a process. That Jesus Christ accomplished the redemption of the elect, his spotless Bride, is not in doubt. But they would caution against any conclusions regarding God's foreknowledge in any specific instance. Rather, "by their works you shall know them."

One must admit, however, that this difference between Calvinism and Eastern Orthodoxy is diminished by the loophole of the "perseverance of the saints" (the "P" in T-U-L-I-P), which asserts that the truly saved will "persevere in good works". It seems to be a bit of an escape hatch among Calvinist's to reserve the right, ex post facto, to deny a person's effectual calling by a subsequent analysis of their works, and at the same time deny any sense of contingency. Of course, it sometimes seems as though the Canons of Dordt (from which the five points of "Calvinism" are derived), although more accurate to the theology of Calvin than the Remonstrance of the students of Jacobus Arminius, nevertheless drew conclusions that pressed the theology of Calvin past what Calvin himself believed.

Is the Eastern church essentially Semi-Pelagian? There are, perhaps, some similarities, although the Eastern church would say that the conflict between Augustinian and Pelagian theology was a controversy in which Eastern Christendom simply did not participate. Both the full sovereignty of God and the significant choice of man were affirmed, and no attempt was made to reconcile either in favor of the other. The found no need to explicate what to them did not seem to be fully defined by scripture.

If this somewhat rambling exposition appears to be somewhat inconclusive, I must admit that this is where I find myself. I am loath to "over-define" the nature of the interaction between God and man. I know that my salvation rests solely in the grace of God. I can neither merit it nor endeavor to earn it. Nor does my obedience in faith to Jesus Christ finally commend me to God, for Jesus Christ is the source of my righteousness, both juridically and practically. Yet I strive to work out my own salvation, knowing that it is God who works in me both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Am I saved? I believe in Jesus Christ alone as my Saviour and Lord, and it is to him I repair. I seek to be obedient to my calling, and trust in God alone to finally accomplish that salvation which He has begun in me. I am, however, as always, willing to stand corrected.

God bless and keep you and yours,

Matthew (soulfyre)


BTW, I do not believe that even the angels are robots, Kenny...

[melinky]

Soulfyre said:

If this somewhat rambling exposition appears to be somewhat inconclusive, I must admit that this is where I find myself. I am loath to "over-define" the nature of the interaction between God and man. I know that my salvation rests solely in the grace of God. I can neither merit it nor endeavor to earn it. Nor does my obedience in faith to Jesus Christ finally commend me to God, for Jesus Christ is the source of my righteousness, both juridically and practically. Yet I strive to work out my own salvation, knowing that it is God who works in me both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Am I saved? I believe in Jesus Christ alone as my Saviour and Lord, and it is to him I repair. I seek to be obedient to my calling, and trust in God alone to finally accomplish that salvation which He has begun in me. I am, however, as always, willing to stand corrected.

God bless and keep you and yours,

Matthew (soulfyre)


BTW, I do not believe that even the angels are robots, Kenny...

Matthew, you've hit on something that I agree with 100% when you say you are, "loath to 'over-define' the nature of the interaction between God and man." As I was reading your response, the thought that kept going through my mind was, "Does it really matter if we are predestined for salvation or not?" My salvation doesn't rest on my conclusion, nor does God's grace. My conclusion will also not change my Christian duty to God. Perhaps my free-will is nothing more than an illusion, but that's okay. The bottom line for me is that God loves me enough to send Jesus to die for my sins so I might live forever in His Kingdom.

Melinda

[mpethe]

melinky said:

"Does it really matter if we are predestined for salvation or not?"

I believe that the way we think, the ideas we have, and the theology we believe have very significant implications for the way we will end up living out our faith.

In that sense ... I would say that it actually does matter.

[Soulfyre]

mpethe said:

I believe that the way we think, the ideas we have, and the theology we believe have very significant implications for the way we will end up living out our faith.

In that sense ... I would say that it actually does matter.

I would put it, perhaps, another way. It is important you believe in a sovereign God that predestines. It is also important that you believe in the significant choice of one who bears the image of God. It is the interaction between the two, however, that remains largely in mystery. For the decrees of God are not dependent on human vacillation. God is not having to continually revise His plan. Yet we are not automotons, reflecting God's eternal choices like a hand puppet. This would do violence to the understanding of the imago dei in our lives, and would make a mockery of both atonement and judgment. The two realities coexist within the framework of the inexpressable Infinite Eternal, and need not be reconciled except in the mind of God.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)