Elect

[Guest]

Of course God predestines those he foreknew. The word "foreknew/foreknown/foreknowledge" appears roughly only 4 times in the entire NT (it does not appear in the OT). Every single time the word appears, it refers to God foreknowing PEOPLE, personally, not events, ideas, concepts, etc. God in His foreknowledge is knowing His people.
2 times it is the church, 1 time it is Israel, and one time it is Christ. Never in any of the verses is God foreknowing the lost, satan, angels, Judas, etc.
The word "foreknow" in this sense, from the Greek, refers to a personal, loving relationship from God to the person. He is not looking down through a corridor of time at choices they make. He is loving them individually and personally before eternity past. God is not knowing historical events, He is knowing people, like Adam "knew" his wife.

I don't disagree with God knowing people. My concern is that you say that God "is not knowing historical events". How on earth can you know what God can or cannot know? As if knowing a person means you don't know anything about them? God foreknew us but didn't know who the believers were? Why limit God and His foreknowledge? When Adam knew his wife did he know she was his wife?

"You were chosen based on foreknowledge". Exactly. I was chosen based on God knowing me personally before I was born. God did not choose me based on Him looking down through time and seeing that I would "have faith on Wed the 22nd of March". None of the verses where "foreknow" "foreknew" "foreknown" and "foreknowledge" occur even begin to hint or imply that. Remember, foreknowledge and omniscience are not the same thing. The foreknow in these verses is a verb, not a noun. In salvation, God is always the Alpha. He is the source, the initiater. God is proactive, we are reactive. Not the other way around.

Well, I don't know. It seems pretty simple to me. If God knows all things then He certainly knew who the faithful were going to be. Again, to say God chose me but did not look "down through time" is like saying God didn't know what would happen. It's an assertion.

What's more logical:
-God know all things, and always did. -or-
-There was a time when God didn't know all things, at this time God foreknew personally those who would be glorified, without knowing what they would do ahead of time.

If you say that's not what you meant, then I'm sorry but you did say "God is not knowing historical events, He is knowing people".

It seems to limit God. A strange thing for a Calvinist to do.

You know the old adage the people try to pass off as an actual verse "God helps those who help themselves"? Most of us have a problem with that philosophy, but I hope we should all still have just as much a problem with the adage "God elects those who elect themselves". It's the same philosophy. Or "elected because I selected". That's salvation by works. That's performing a deed meritorious to gain God's favor and have Him choose you over your neighbor, because your neighbor did not perform the deed pleasing to God. It's also saying that apart from God's work, we are able to please Him, on our own.

And I submit that this is where Calvinism breaks down, and why I am not one. You have just made the typical Calvinist assertion that is anti-biblical. Faith is not meritorious (Rom 4:2-5). Not only that, faith is contrasted against works! (Rom 4:16, Gal 3:2-3, Eph 2:9) God purifies the heart through faith.

So when you say:

"God did not choose me based on Him looking down through time and seeing that I would "have faith on Wed the 22nd of March"
"elected because I selected" That's salvation by works. That's performing a deed meritorious to gain God's favor and have Him choose you over your neighbor, because your neighbor did not perform the deed pleasing to God."

In an attempt to (mis)represent Arminianism, you contradict the very word of God.

It's one thing to debate what God "foreknew", it's quite another to attribute opposite meanings to words: calling faith a meritorious work.

I'd like to see a biblical exegetical explanation for your assertions.

Getting back to Romans 8-9, everyone who is glorified is also justified and called. This is the golden chain of redemption, unbroken, for all christians. Everyone that is called WILL be justified and glorified. The same group of people that are glorified at the end of the chain are the exact same group who were predestined, called, and justified.

It seems you want to make different categories of christians. Some could be predestined, but not reach glorification? Or... some could be glorified, but were not predestined.
You mentioned in your post that "the predestination is to conformity to Christ's image" Of course it is.
All believers are conformed to Christ's image. That is sanctification, guaranteed for all believers. Some will be more sanctified than others. But all will be glorified (completition of sanctification). There is no further work after glorification; we will all be in heaven. We won't be 'improving' or being further set-apart, since sin will be gone. There won't be a worldliness to be set apart from.

Getting back to the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30, an opponent of "calvinistic" predestination has to prove that the group being glorified is somehow a different group than the one being predestined or justified. I guess in your specific case you'd also have to show how one can be a christian and not be in the process of being "conformed to Christ's image".
BTW, this type of reasoning from the text is exactly what catholics do to get around justification by faith alone. Their salvation is a man-centered, man-glorifying, and man-controlled system which does not guarantee sanctification or glorification. So they argue that one can be glorified without being justified/predestined, and vice versa. They say there is a break in the chain, but never really manage to prove how or why there is a break. They just assume there is, otherwise they would have to admit that God is in control of salvation, and not them and their good works.

One last thing, are you telling me Paul in Romans 9 is answering some imaginary objector in his audience over the charge of God being unjust and unfair over who gets to be "conformed to Christ's image"? Are you also saying there's 2 classes of believers, those who are in the process of sanctification, and those who aren't?

Please, from chapter 8 and 9, show how the context and topic is "sanctification", and no election unto salvation. (the two aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but one is much wider in scope than the other).

About this, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying I object to what you said? Maybe I am missing something but you seem to be arguing against something I didn't say.

I have no problem with God's perfect foreknowledge. He knows all that will come to glorification, so he predestined these to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Although is Paul's other letters he speaks of those who were converted and received the Spirit yet Paul says (in Galatians) he may have waisted his efforts on them, that if they seek to be justified by law that they have been estranged from Christ and have fallen from Grace (Gal 5:4). You can't be estranged from Christ without being in a relationship first, and you can't fall from Grace if you were not in it.

Gal 5:7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
Gal 5:8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you.

How can one hinder a Christian from the truth? That persuasion does not come from Him who calls. They were running well. Is Paul not warning genuine believers, called by God that if they seek justification by law that they will be alienated from Christ? How could he say that to those God calls?

Also, if salvation is up to man's self-exercised faith, then why is there a cry of injustice/unfairness in chapter 9?

The cry of injustice is that of a Jew who thinks his right standing with God comes by law (what he does; Rom 9:32) and by lineage to Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc (Rom 9:6-7). Paul refutes both of these notions, stating in verses 30-32 that they pursued God by works and not by faith. Paul is not speaking against faith, else he would be hopelessly contradicting himself.

Do arminians who believe that faith is not a gift of God, and that salvation is up to each person to will, also believe that God is unjust/unfair? It doesn't fit.

Arminians (at least those I have heard) believe faith is a gift from God. However, one can receive a gift and not exercise it. The Apostles exhort Christians to use their gifts. Jesus' own parables show that God will condemn the steward of God who does not use what God has given him (Matt 25:14-30). So I don't understand how faith as a gift could be viewed as irresistible when other gifts are not.

Also, it's not up to each persons will, as if to say it's apart from God. This is not what Arminians believe. We believe that God acts first, working in man by the Holy Spirit and through the Gospel as well as with signs and wonders.

As far as God being unjust, I don't think He is at all. As a matter of fact, He sent His Son to make atonement for sin. We owe God more than we could ever give. That's why it's of faith, so that it's by Grace we are saved.

I've said enough, thanks for listening.

No problem.

[Guest]

Foreknew:.

The word foreknew as was used by Paul can also be address to the Church instead of individual person since when Paul wrote his letter to Romans that he was actually addressing the Church instead of individual person therefore when Paul wrote Romans8:29-30 it is possible that he was referring to the Church collectively as a group of people and not as an individual person so we can say that God foreknew the Church and he has a personal loving relationship with the Church as a group.

[Guest]

I don't disagree with God knowing people. My concern is that you say that God "is not knowing historical events". How on earth can you know what God can or cannot know? As if knowing a person means you don't know anything about them? God foreknew us but didn't know who the believers were? Why limit God and His foreknowledge? When Adam knew his wife did he know she was his wife?

Real quick: You misunderstood him. Bilbo didn't say God does not know historical events. He said that the word "foreknew" (as used of God's foreknowledge of people) is a relational word, not referring to knowledge of events. The argument is not that you can have relational knowledge with factual knowledge; the argument is about what the Bible is teaching when it speaks of things happening according to God's foreknowledge of people. (Being known about had no power to make Eve pregnant. That doesn't imply the two "knowings" can be separate...But it does mean they're distinct concepts.)

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

QUOTE: "Also, it's not up to each persons will, as if to say it's apart from God. This is not what Arminians believe. We believe that God acts first, working in man by the Holy Spirit and through the Gospel as well as with signs and wonders."

It is my understanding, the Arminian view of salvation by grace through faith is initiated by an act of man's free will. So when you say "it's not up to each persons will apart from God's", then what enables a person who is "dead in tresspass and sin" to respond to the Gospel? His "free will" or...
God's effective grace? Is it hearts made willing, or a willing heart?

Not one person here has answered what I posted in "the regeneration precedes faith" thread on the matter of John 1:12-13.

Peace,
Bob

[Guest]

Guys,

The word foreknew as was used by Paul can also be address to the Church instead of individual person since when Paul wrote his letter to Romans that he was actually addressing the Church instead of individual person therefore when Paul wrote Romans8:29-30 it is possible that he was referring to the Church collectively as a group of people and not as an individual person so we can say that God foreknew the Church and he has a personal loving relationship with the Church as a group.

As I mentioned before that Paul could be referring to the Church collectively as a group.

[Guest]

Sean said: "I don't disagree with God knowing people. My concern is that you say that God "is not knowing historical events". How on earth can you know what God can or cannot know? As if knowing a person means you don't know anything about them? God foreknew us but didn't know who the believers were? Why limit God and His foreknowledge? When Adam knew his wife did he know she was his wife?"

Brother Sean, I am not excluding knowing details of a person or events from God's omniscience. I am getting at the 4 key verses in the NT (Romans, Ephesians, Acts) and how that word is used specifically in the context of those passages. The "foreknow/foreknew/foreknowledge" variations of the original Greek word all are referring to God personally knowing His people, and Christ. None of the verses speak of God knowing their faith, knowing their actions. The word refers to relationship. I am not saying if I know Bill Clinton personally, that excludes me knowing he has a daughter. But I am trying to be specific and say "when I say I 'know' Bill Clinton, I am saying I know him personally, in a relationship kind of knowing". What I am pointing out is the belief from the arminian camp that we are predestined or chosen based on 'foreknowledge', as defined as "God looked down through time and saw we would eventually exercise faith". None of the 4 verses teach that. They say we, the church, each believer, are chosen based on a loving relationship that God has towards us. We are NOT chosen based on Him seeing beforehand that we eventually choose Him. I hope that cleared it up bud.

Sean wrote: "Again, to say God chose me but did not look "down through time" is like saying God didn't know what would happen."
Sean, I am not an open theist, and I believe that God knows the future, and He also has planned the future. God does not learn new knowledge, and is not within time, intaking new information, as we are.

Sean wrote: "If you say that's not what you meant, then I'm sorry but you did say "God is not knowing historical events, He is knowing people".
I did say that, and that is how the term is used in the 4 verses in the NT. You have a subject and an object. The object is God, knowing, the subject is what is known. The subject is not a historical event, exercised faith, etc. The thing being "known" by God is us. Christians. The church. The elect. We ourselves are what is being foreknown. It is not our acts of faith. In that, I am not contradicting God's omniscience in seeing future events such as when we would have faith, or repent, be baptized, go to church, buy a house, etc.

Sean wrote: "It seems to limit God. A strange thing for a Calvinist to do."

Now that I've hopefully cleared up what I meant, I hope you see I was not intending on limiting God. However, I do believe that the arminian view limits God and His power because He is powerless to act until we sovereignly open our hearts to Him. In that scenario, if we pray for God to save someone, He can't answer that prayer if their free will slaps His hand away. To me that is a very limited God, less powerful and subservient to us, His creation.

Sean wrote: "You have just made the typical Calvinist assertion that is anti-biblical."

And why can't I respond and say "you have just made the typical arminian assertion that is anti-biblical"? Remember, Calvinism, as far as Reformed theology, came first. Arminianism, which you hold, came after. It was the black sheep, the rebel, the one that broke away. The followers of Jacob Arminius formed the Remonstrance to protest many things of mainline Christianity which they rejected. The canons of Dordt met for a very long time to examine the claims of the Remonstrance, and found them sub (or anti) biblical, and formed the popular acrostic TULIP as a counter to each of the arminian points.
A side note, but I want to point out that you are in the newer, break-off group, not I. But saying things like "this is a typical ism and anti-biblical" is not really necessary and doesn't get us anywhere. I didn't take it as an insult though either, brother

Sean wrote: "Faith is not meritorious (Rom 4:2-5). Not only that, faith is contrasted against works! (Rom 4:16, Gal 3:2-3, Eph 2:9) God purifies the heart through faith."
Faith is meritorious. It is the very basis and foundation of merit. Hebrews 11:6 says "apart from faith it is impossible to please Him". Romans 8:7-8 says "those in the flesh cannot please God". Combine them both, and you get "Those in the flesh cannot have faith, and therefore it is impossible for them to please Him". In the gospels people asked Christ what kind of a good work for God would be for them to do. Christ answered "this is the work of God: That you believe in Him". He didn't correct them. He told them directly that believing in God is a work, of God (He performs it).

The type of faith God requires is not achievable by us fallible faulty humans. We would eventually be faithless and fail, if it was up to us and by our own effort and steam. Phil 1:6 says "He who began a good work in you shall perfect/finish it". That is faith. Nothing else would come before it. Christ is called the "author and perfecter" of our faith. 2 Peter 1:1 address those who have "received a faith like ours". The defintion for "received" in the Greek there means "to receive by no human effort" and "granted by the gods as a divine bestowing" and "placed upon the receiver apart from any action of their own", etc. Other verses talk about the "faith which comes through Him", meaning, Christ. It comes through Him. Ephesians 2:8-10 says that all of salvation, including grace and faith, is a gift of God. This gift is not given to all mankind.

A simple question: Is God happy/pleased when people exercise faith and become saved? If the answer is yes, then you have to say that faith is something pleasing to God. Anything pleasing to God is meritorious. Remember, all our righteousness is as filthy rags. And our good works that we perform God has already prepared beforehand that we would walk in them (Eph 2:10). The good works that we do that are God-honoring are performed by the Holy Spirit with us, bought by Christ on the cross. When God looks at us, He sees His Son. All of our sin was placed on Christ, and all of His righteousness was placed on us. Romans 8 teaches that those in the flesh cannot please God. Those in the flesh, non-christians, the unregenerate, dead in trespasses and sins, are incapable of exercising faith. 1 Cor 12:3 says that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" (Jesus is MY Lord/deity) apart from the Holy Spirit. There's many more, but hopefully this shows I am not coming at this with a "philosophy" or "argument of logic". These are simple verses. We must consult the whole counsel of God.

Sean said: "I have no problem with God's perfect foreknowledge. He knows all that will come to glorification, so he predestined these to be conformed to the image of His Son."
I am objecting to predestination by works. I am objecting to God predestining christians based on their glorification. I am objecting to God predestining Sean by saying "aha... I looked in the future and saw that Sean is the real deal, and becomes glorified, therefore, I will predestine Sean." Romans 8:28-30 teaches no such thing. Only one verse tells us the basis of being chosen. "You were chosen based on foreknowledge". And I've already explained what that means. No verse anywhere says "you were chosen based on God looking down through time and noticing that you made it all the way to the finish line and glorification".

God is the first, the beginning, the originator, the initiater. We are not at the beginning of the chain. This is simple Ordo Salutis (order of salvation) stuff. The arminian view wants man to be autonomous and control his own destiny, and sit in God's throne, and be master of His own heart. The arminian view always puts man as the Alpha, the beginning. Any view of salvation that has man doing something (including faith) before God regenerating, not only firmly plants the seeds of synergism, but those seeds will eventually sprout up and reveal themselves to be works-based righteousness. Every major movement within Christendom that has something preceding regeneration, whether its baptismal regeneration, faith, etc. will always show later on in the system that man has to do something to keep, maintain, and not lose that salvation. It is salvation within the hands of man, and not God. It feeds man's ego. Christ in John 10 said "I know my sheep, and they know me, and no one can snatch them out of my hand." He said nothing of salvation being in our hands.

Sean wrote: "Is Paul not warning genuine believers, called by God that if they seek justification by law that they will be alienated from Christ? How could he say that to those God calls?"
I think I see your point. You are arguing that genuine Christians can be lost and fall away, losing their salvation, never to regain it again. Unless you're of the wesleyan variety of arminian that thinks some Christians lose and regain their salvation 50 times a day. I have a response to this, and eternal security/perserverance of the saints is a doctrine very close to my heart. I do think it is a little out of scope from this topic (although definitely relatable) and if you want to pursue it in length I think we should start a brand new topic thread on that subject and get others involved. I have a feeling it would be a huge topic

Sean wrote: "The cry of injustice is that of a Jew who thinks his right standing with God comes by law (what he does; Rom 9:32) and by lineage to Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc (Rom 9:6-7)."
How does that explanation you gave jive with the phrase "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" What does that have to do with lineage, faith, works, law? And also the topic of the vessels of mercy/wrath? I don't see it.

Sean wrote: "Arminians (at least those I have heard) believe faith is a gift from God."
Classic arminian and semi-pelagian theology as popularized by Erasmus, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, etc. completely rejects that faith is a gift of God. They would say that saving faith is something all human beings are born with, naturally, and are capable of exercising. They would say you're common run-o-the-mill atheist possesses the same kind of faith as we Christians do. They don't exercise it, we do. They choose not to have faith in God, we do.
The common encounters I have with arminians is that the "faith is a gift of God" is the first thing they go after to refute.
Remember, a gift is never demanded or earned. But the arminian view is that we get 'faith' by "God looking down through time and seeing we choose Him" in this bizzarre time-loop thing that seems to have no beginning or end, chicken-or-the-egg kinda paradox thing.
The simple answer is that faith comes from God, and is only given to certain people. Those people have done nothing to deserve it, earn it, or demand it. Also, if God "gives everyone faith", then it isn't really by grace anymore, is it? Grace imparted to all is not grace, by definition. In a similiar vein, having mercy on a few has meaning because some are getting punished.
What you may have been speaking of is prevenient grace, which is universal in the arminian plan of salvation. God gives everyone grace which lifts them up out of depravity so they can be neutral and choose God or choose death. At that point it is up to them. Catholics also use this term. I see no evidence in scripture anywhere of "prevenient grace".

Sean wrote: "So I don't understand how faith as a gift could be viewed as irresistible when other gifts are not."
I don't think reformed theology teaches that faith is irresistible. The grace that imparts faith is irresistible. Remember, we believe regeneration precedes faith. This involves grace. The response of the now-spiritually alive believer, is 'breathing out' in faith.

My brother Sean wrote:"[i]Also, it's not up to each persons will, as if to say it's apart from God. This is not what Arminians believe. We believe that God acts first, working in man by the Holy Spirit and through the Gospel as well as with signs and wonders." [/i]
Yes, it is up to each persons will, according to arminianism. Its where the rubber hits the road. Its the last hurdle, the final speed bump. You can argue that Christ is the seat belt that saves someone, but, unless by their own free-will choice, they will never be saved. Christ has only gotten you so far where you have to take it the rest of the way. I get in a car crash, but who chose to put the seat belt on? Where does the praise go? Who gets the glory? This is a problem I used to have being an arminian. I thought I had found the loophole in Christianity. It really bothered me. I thought "wait a minute... apart from me Christ could not save me. I made it happen. I have reason to boast. I am the real savior". But then when I saw the scriptural truth that even faith is a gift of God, and not of myself, it all made sense. Now there is no boasting. I am not a savior. It was not by my own effort. All of salvation, from beginning to end, is God's work.

The only thing that we bring to salvation is our own sin. Amen.

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

QUOTE: "Also, it's not up to each persons will, as if to say it's apart from God. This is not what Arminians believe. We believe that God acts first, working in man by the Holy Spirit and through the Gospel as well as with signs and wonders."

It is my understanding, the Arminian view of salvation by grace through faith is initiated by an act of man's free will. So when you say "it's not up to each persons will apart from God's", then what enables a person who is "dead in tresspass and sin" to respond to the Gospel? His "free will" or...
God's effective grace? Is it hearts made willing, or a willing heart?

Peace,
Bob

Hello again Bob,
And how would man initiate salvation by Grace through faith?
Do you believe that an Arminian thinks that he initiates salvation apart from hearing the Gospel, conviction of sin and drawing by the Spirit? They just come up with this on their own?

God initiates this process, man makes the choice.

Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

These passages say what man must do, they also say what God does. Is this not what Peter did in Acts 2, proclaimed the truth about Jesus, the prophecies He fulfilled and that He is Lord and Christ. Then when asked what to do they were told to repent and be baptized (faith).

The word is proclaimed, some believe, some don't. As Jesus said, some soil is not conducive to successful growth of the seed spead there, some is.

Not one person here has answered what I posted in "the regeneration precedes faith" thread on the matter of John 1:12-13.

I thought it was answered, but maybe it was missed. The passage states:
John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

The right to be children of God is given to those who meet the condition set: Belief. To then read verse 13 as if verse 12 isn't there puzzles me.

Belief is a response on our part, a trust not in our own selves but in God. God then regenerates us. The regeneration part is not our doing, it's God's.

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

I think our problem with "regeneration" is how we individually understand the term to mean. We both believe it is a gracious act of God. I believe the bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith, and is used in a very restrictive sense to mean the implanting of the principle of new life. We are completely and entirely passive at this point, and differs (but is related) to conversion and our going on to sanctification and glorification.
In other words, it is the beginning of a new life (conception). All of the passages I have cited from John 1:12-13, and 3:3-8 supports this. There is no cooperation
at this juncture with God whatsoever any more than you cooperated with your parents in your natural birth. Why do you suppose John gives us this kind of contrast? To repeat myself, we don't selfgenerate, physically or spiritually. The Arminian view has man cooperating with God in order to become regenerated. You say we must believe. OK. So does the devil. So if you are going to understand that your regeneration is born out of your belief rather than the gift of God it is and by that you believe, then you'll have some serious theological problems with this kind of logic .
The Arminian view
empties the power of God and makes regeneration entirely innitiated by man. It is nothing but the adoption of a philosophical/ethical system colorized by a lot of biblical "slight of hand" to make it sound plausible.
It denies our radically fallen nature and our seperation from God. It gives force to the notion that man can do something to help God in our salvation. There is no security for the believer in this system because it has multiple requirements or conditions for keeping oneself saved.
Sorry, but to use Steve Brown's pet phrase, "it sure smells like smoke to me". It describes well what I think about the Arminian and semi Pelegian view.

[Guest]

And why can't I respond and say "you have just made the typical arminian assertion that is anti-biblical"? Remember, Calvinism, as far as Reformed theology, came first. Arminianism, which you hold, came after.

Well actually I believe man makes a choice in the process of salvation, as the early church fathers have stated they believed. I'm simply called an Arminian because I disagree with Reformed theology. So since the early church fathers pre-date even Augustine, do I win?

Faith is meritorious. It is the very basis and foundation of merit.

This is simply not true.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works

Paul is contrasting faith and works. Paul says the one who does not work but believes, his faith is counted as righteousness.

Verses 4-5 clarify it: to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. But to the one who does not work but believes his faith is counted as righteousness.

Who's faith is counted as righteousness? His. The one who believes. To say faith is meritorious is directly refuted by Paul. What all Reformed people I have spoken to about this don't seems to grasp is the biblical truth that faith is something done but is not meritorious, nor can it be boasted in.

Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Paul also makes the distinction here:

Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

Hebrews 11:6 says "apart from faith it is impossible to please Him". Romans 8:7-8 says "those in the flesh cannot please God". Combine them both, and you get "Those in the flesh cannot have faith, and therefore it is impossible for them to please Him".

And as I pointed out in another thread, your (IMO incorrect) understanding of these texts you cite pin even your own theology in a corner.

Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

So, in Romans 8 we see that those who do please God are those who have the Spirit dwelling in them. Since the bible affirms many times that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes after faith (Acts 2:38, 11:17, 19:2, Eph 1:13) then please tell me how anyone (from a Reformed perspective) "pleases God" enough to have faith and so receive the Holy Spirit. Not even the Reformed view that regeneration comes first works here, because regeneration is not what is said to please God. What pleases God, in it's strictest sense of the word is the one who has the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. So taking an extreme view that "man can't believe because it would please God" backfires here. So then the entire point Paul is trying to make in Romans 8 is lost.

Paul isn't saying that faith toward God isn't possible before salvation (Cornelius proves man can please God before he has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him). Paul is saying that a life lead by the Spirit is what is pleasing to God. This is what I was getting at in my last post when I mentioned Galatians. Paul is telling Spirit filled people that they are not pleasing to God unless they walk in the Spirit so they do not fulfill the desires of the flesh, because those who please the spirit do not please God. Additionally, if the Galatians could walk so corruptly after receiving the Spirit, then how can you say that their original "faith" was pleasing to God? Yet Paul, speaking of the Corinthians says they are carnal, yet they received the "milk" and were babes in Christ. How were they able to receive the word of God by faith, if they are carnal? Apparently, it didn't surprise Paul that the carnal could believe and be saved, although babes.

In the gospels people asked Christ what kind of a good work for God would be for them to do. Christ answered "this is the work of God: That you believe in Him". He didn't correct them. He told them directly that believing in God is a work, of God (He performs it).

I disagree completely with your "exegesis" of John 6;

Joh 6:27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."
Joh 6:28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
Joh 6:30 So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?
Joh 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
Joh 6:34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

So Jesus tells them not to labor for food that perishes, but to labor for food that brings eternal life.
They ask what is the work, what must we do?
Jesus answered "believe on the one He has sent"

So when they ask what "work" God wants, the reply is "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.

The work that God wants them to do is to believe Jesus is the one whom God has sent. This passage makes no sense to say it means God's work is to believe in the one sent. Why would God need to believe in Jesus?

It is apparent that those Jesus was speaking to understood Him this way because they asked for a sign so they would then believe Him!

Jesus agrees! He says "I am the bread of life". They didn't believe. He had already fed them by miracle. But they didn't believe that was good enough, so they just asked for another sign. He did give them another, but it would not come until the resurrection. This fact later convicted and converted some who earlier did not believe (Acts 2:22-23).

So I don't see how your quote in John is saying that God does man's believing for him, but rather that man's only response be that of belief.

I also believe this because this is re-stated many more times as what God wants us to do (Acts 16:30).

The type of faith God requires is not achievable by us fallible faulty humans.

And apparently, even God given faith wouldn't meet the condition of your interpretation of Romans 8:8, since pleasing God requires the Spirit dwelling in them, something that comes after faith.

As an aside, what kind of life do Christians live? Are they perfect? They are, after all, now salves of righteousness. If you admit that even saved Christians can still be carnal, then you also have to admit that a Reformed view of Regeneration-before-Faith may also not produce a faith that is perfectly pure in every possible God pleasing way. It may also still be carnal. And if a carnal faith can save, (as 1 Corinthians suggests) then where's the problem?

A simple question: Is God happy/pleased when people exercise faith and become saved? If the answer is yes, then you have to say that faith is something pleasing to God. Anything pleasing to God is meritorious.

If this is so, then in the Reformed understanding of regeneration-before-Faith, the regenerated person earns salvation by his "work" of faith because it is meritorious. So even this view is riddled with problems. Now you've got people earning salvation by their meritorious work, and you call this Grace? This non-biblical view that faith is a work comes back against you. Now (regenerated) man can boast! His faith is meritorious in his salvation! Sure, you could say that his very ability to believe was irresistible, but once this man realizes this, he can now boast, because now God must merit His works, like man is on the throne!

I am objecting to predestination by works.

I answered this above.

God is the first, the beginning, the originator, the initiater. We are not at the beginning of the chain. This is simple Ordo Salutis (order of salvation) stuff. The arminian view wants man to be autonomous and control his own destiny, and sit in God's throne, and be master of His own heart. The arminian view always puts man as the Alpha, the beginning. Any view of salvation that has man doing something (including faith) before God regenerating, not only firmly plants the seeds of synergism, but those seeds will eventually sprout up and reveal themselves to be works-based righteousness. Every major movement within Christendom that has something preceding regeneration, whether its baptismal regeneration, faith, etc. will always show later on in the system that man has to do something to keep, maintain, and not lose that salvation. It is salvation within the hands of man, and not God. It feeds man's ego. Christ in John 10 said "I know my sheep, and they know me, and no one can snatch them out of my hand." He said nothing of salvation being in our hands.

I don't know where you got your information, but if you paid for it I'd get my money back. I don't believe man is first, the alpha, but you think I do.

Sean wrote: "Is Paul not warning genuine believers, called by God that if they seek justification by law that they will be alienated from Christ? How could he say that to those God calls?"
I think I see your point. You are arguing that genuine Christians can be lost and fall away, losing their salvation, never to regain it again. Unless you're of the wesleyan variety of arminian that thinks some Christians lose and regain their salvation 50 times a day.

Paul did say:
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.
Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

and then Paul said:

Gal 4:19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!

Wonder what Paul could have meant by that? What kind of "birth" does a child of God undergo? Well, Christ. And he stated "again". Hmmm.

Sean wrote: "The cry of injustice is that of a Jew who thinks his right standing with God comes by law (what he does; Rom 9:32) and by lineage to Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc (Rom 9:6-7)."
How does that explanation you gave jive with the phrase "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" What does that have to do with lineage, faith, works, law? And also the topic of the vessels of mercy/wrath? I don't see it.

Because the objector thinks that God predestined people so that they can only do what God wills, a common Greek misunderstanding of God. Paul corrects this mis-perception of the nature of God by pointing out that by asking the question this person is resisting God by "replying back". I've already given my understanding of vessels made from the lump. Paul also tells us what separates one lump from another: faith and works were confused (Rom 9:32). God accepts faith for justification, not works.

Sean wrote: "Arminians (at least those I have heard) believe faith is a gift from God."
Classic arminian and semi-pelagian theology as popularized by Erasmus, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, etc. completely rejects that faith is a gift of God. They would say that saving faith is something all human beings are born with, naturally, and are capable of exercising. They would say you're common run-o-the-mill atheist possesses the same kind of faith as we Christians do. They don't exercise it, we do. They choose not to have faith in God, we do.
The common encounters I have with arminians is that the "faith is a gift of God" is the first thing they go after to refute.
Remember, a gift is never demanded or earned. But the arminian view is that we get 'faith' by "God looking down through time and seeing we choose Him" in this bizzarre time-loop thing that seems to have no beginning or end, chicken-or-the-egg kinda paradox thing.

Well, all I can say is that I'm not most Arminians. Nor do I believe we get faith by "God looking down through time and seeing we choose Him".
Faith comes by hearing! Nor do we choose Him. Faith has been granted to those who hear the word of God. But as I said, a gift can be neglected or misused. Look at how the Corinthians used their gifts. Their gifts were used according to the will of the person who had them. This is why Paul had to correct them on their use of them, because they had a choice of how to exercise their gift, if at all.

If I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, what gain is there? Why would Paul say that if it was not to encourage people to choose rightly?

Yes, it is up to each persons will, according to arminianism. Its where the rubber hits the road. Its the last hurdle, the final speed bump. You can argue that Christ is the seat belt that saves someone, but, unless by their own free-will choice, they will never be saved. Christ has only gotten you so far where you have to take it the rest of the way. I get in a car crash, but who chose to put the seat belt on? Where does the praise go? Who gets the glory? This is a problem I used to have being an arminian. I thought I had found the loophole in Christianity. It really bothered me. I thought "wait a minute... apart from me Christ could not save me. I made it happen. I have reason to boast. I am the real savior". But then when I saw the scriptural truth that even faith is a gift of God, and not of myself, it all made sense. Now there is no boasting. I am not a savior. It was not by my own effort. All of salvation, from beginning to end, is God's work.

The only thing that we bring to salvation is our own sin. Amen.

The scripture is clear that Christ is the one who has made atonement for sin. He saves us through the Gospel. But as you even pointed out, this is not for those who do not trust in Him. We have access by faith into grace (Rom 5:2)

Jesus died not for our sins only, but for the sins of the world, He destroyed him who has the power of death (the devil) and freed those who all their lives were captive by their fear of death. Belief in the truth of what has already been done by Christ is no more the cause of salvation than the walls of Jericho falling down because they had been encircled for seven days. God caused the walls to fall. Yet Hebrews says it happened by faith.

I'm sorry you had many incorrect beliefs when you were an Arminian. To believe you are your own Savior is certainly incorrect. Trust in the Messiah, the true Savior is salvation.

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

I think our problem with "regeneration" is how we individually understand the term to mean. We both believe it is a gracious act of God. I believe the bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith, and is used in a very restrictive sense to mean the implanting of the principle of new life.

Prove regeneration precedes faith. The entire thread devoted to that topic failed to yield any biblical proof of this notion. So why would I believe it? You import your idea of regeneration into John 1 and say it proves the point. I just read the text that states that those who believe He gave the right to become Gods children. You can't import regeneration before belief before proving it first.

Also, while you have cited this text several times in the other thread, did you ever reconcile your view with John 20:31? Where it says we are given "life" when we believe. Isn't this newness of life regeneration?

I've never gotten anyone with your view to completely come clean as to where this is taught in scripture. (Mark did try in the other thread, but never answered questions we brought up about the texts cited) I'd love to see it so I can give it the consideration it deserves. For your interpretation of John 1 to work, you have to already accept that belief comes after the new birth.

We are completely and entirely passive at this point, and differs (but is related) to conversion and our going on to sanctification and glorification.
In other words, it is the beginning of a new life (conception). All of the passages I have cited from John 1:12-13, and 3:3-8 supports this. There is no cooperation
at this juncture with God whatsoever any more than you cooperated with your parents in your natural birth.

Those passages don't support that. The new birth itself is passive, but belief comes before the new birth, as John 3 in its full context states, those who look on the Son of man that is lifted up and believe in Him have eternal life. Belief is already there, it is a condition stated in the text. You shorten the context and then read the notion of regeneration before belief into the passage.

And just to be clear, it says not of the will of the flesh. It doesn't say not of the will of the parents. My "natural" life did require the "will of the flesh", my parents will. Although they had a part, they did not actively put me together, That process was actually the will of God. Just as one who believes does not regenerate his own heart, it is regenerated by God through faith. That's why it's referred to as "born again" not "born the first time". The first time we were born was physical, so there was not choice. The second birth does not take place except faith be present, so this is why John says how this occurs (John 20:31).

Why do you suppose John gives us this kind of contrast? To repeat myself, we don't selfgenerate, physically or spiritually.
The Arminian view has man cooperating with God in order to become regenerated. You say we must believe. OK. So does the devil. So if you are going to understand that your regeneration is born out of your belief rather than the gift of God it is and by that you believe, then you'll have some serious theological problems with this kind of logic .

Like I said more times that I can count. Prove it. What I keep hearing is propaganda and constant mis-representation of the non-Calvinist belief. This is what Steve Gregg was talking about. Almost every post is filled with "Arminians believe they are their own savior" and "regeneration is born out of your belief rather than the gift of God" leading to "serious theological problems". This is propaganda and mis-representation. Show scripture. Didn't Luther say that if it couldn't be shown by the Holy Scriptures that he was in error that he would not recant? Maybe you don't realize it by you are arguing philosophy. Show me scripture that says regeneration comes before faith and then you've got room to show your interpretation of John 1 and John 3 are correct. Without that, your starting with an assumption that has yet to be proven.

The Arminian view
empties the power of God and makes regeneration entirely innitiated by man. It is nothing but the adoption of a philosophical/ethical system colorized by a lot of biblical "slight of hand" to make it sound plausible.
It denies our radically fallen nature and our seperation from God. It gives force to the notion that man can do something to help God in our salvation. There is no security for the believer in this system because it has multiple requirements or conditions for keeping oneself saved.
Sorry, but to use Steve Brown's pet phrase, "it sure smells like smoke to me". It describes well what I think about the Arminian and semi Pelegian view.

The propaganda machine is running.

Peace bro!