Calvinism vs. DoG??

I do not believe it is a false caricature. The whole point of a synergistic gospel is that God does part of it and man does the rest. Even their own evangelists admit to this. I have personally heard the statement made from the pulpit, "God casts a vote, the devil casts a vote, and you cast the deciding vote." If your salvation rests on your vote did you not, then, save yourself?

 

Yes, a man must have faith to be saved. But is that faith an act of the unregenerate, dead, man, or is it the work of God in regenerating him and giving him the faith to believe and follow Christ?

That is the whole point of the discussion. Allow me to use this illustration. "By grace are you saved through faith." I have a lawn. I water the lawn regularly. The source of the water is the faucet. The means by which the water gets from the source to the need (the grass) is through the hose. Now, think about this. Can the water (grace) get from the faucet (source) to the grass (the lost soul) without the hose (faith) ALREADY BEING IN PLACE? If faith is the conduit through which grace flows unto salvation it must precede salvation, and that is only accomplished by regeneration.

The problem we seem to have is that we are finite creatures and must, in order to try to understand, produce a logical sequence of grace, regeneration, faith, and salvation. We must break these great truths into a logical sequence because we lack the capacity to see it as one complete, inseparable truth.

Salvation is the gift of God according to Ephesians 2:8-9, but we must remember that grace, faith, regeneration, and adoption are all INSEPERABLE aspects of our "so great salvation."

 

So how should be refer to each other to maintain the distinction between our different positions?

If we say "Christians believe that faith precedes regeneration" then counter point that with "But Christians believe regeneration precedes faith" our entire discussion will become incomprehensible (even more so than it already is!).

How about this: Synergists verses monergists. Will that help?

 

The problem with that view is that earlier Amy G. stated that a person must "take his hands out of his pockets and accept the gift." If we put Ephesians 2:8-9 in context we read in verse 1 that the lost man is "dead in trespasses and sins."

In my 37+ years of ministry I have officiated at and attended many funerals. None of the dead persons did anything at all. None of them were able to move at all, let along lift their hands and receive a gift.

Those who are "dead in trespasses and sins" not only don't want anything to do with God, even if they did want it, they could not receive it because they are dead!

To receive that unspeakable gift we must first be made alive.

 

That goes without saying (or at least it should) but it doesn't really address the issue, does it?

 

But so far only two have even commented on the issue and neither of those contradicted the doctrine illustrated by the example given.

If that is not what they believe, now is the time to say so.

 

But, you see, I don't see this as mere banter. I see this as arguably the most important issue facing Christendom today.

Let me ask you a question. Did Christ need your help to save you?

 

So your answer is "no and yes?" He doesn't need your help but He has to ask your permission? And, if you are lost, how can you have faith and belief unless He has already given you a new heart of faith? Remember, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So, how can you have faith and belief in that which you do not receive, consider foolishness, and can not know?

 

I am beginning to think that this obsession with what we call each other is an example of the first quotation in my signature line. We have allowed ourselves to be distracted by the semantics of names to the detriment of the discussion of the doctrine.

Its a good way to avoid the real discussion.