Calvinist or Arminian

Why me ? </font>[/QUOTE]Ask God when you get to heaven. However, He might answer you the way He answered Job, so don't be disappointed if you never find out.

 

You are evading Webdog.

Ask why again. What is the next level up? When you get done asking "Why"... what is the final answer?

 

I'm glad you were wise enough to "choose Christ on your own." Pat yourself on the back and boast a little.

 

Good, no... good decision, absolutely...He is good and gracious, absolutely. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for a straight answer... I have found those very rare from your side.

But as to your answer, it is unbiblical. A decision is the result of a process of work. Every decision is so even if the work isn't planned.

You might say I didn't think, I just reacted... but still, that reaction was due to decisions and thoughts you have been conditioned with.

But in this case, the work certainly is planned. One hears the gospel, considers it, then decides whether to make that "good choice" or not. Sorry but scripture declares that it is not the result of good we have done.

BTW, how can a person who is not "good" make a "good" decision? They would have to have some "goodness" or else they would choose "bad", right? </font>[/QUOTE]Since you are overanalyzing the process of a decision, it will be hard to carry on this conversation. The "work" was done on the cross. Faith comes by hearing (understanding) and understanding by the Word of God. Since the Bible is clear that all men are drawn, the work was completed to make a decision. It is our responsibility to "choose life". My answer is not "unbiblical". Ephesians 2:8-9 is the basis for my answer.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--
Eph 2:9 not from works, so that no one can boast.

If faith was the gift given along with grace, the word "this" would have been "these". Faith, then, is not somthing given to some and witheld from others. Faith is not a gift, and the passage is clear that faith is not a work. Your argument fails on the last point.

 

I'm glad you were wise enough to "choose Christ on your own." Pat yourself on the back and boast a little. </font>[/QUOTE]Your sarcasm aside, you have much to learn about grace and Ephesians 2:8-9. I cannot boast, nor would I ever "pat myself on the back".

 

???
Are you sure this post was intended for me?

But to play the game I think you are, the same argument could be used about sin and it's origin.

 

???
Are you sure this post was intended for me?

But to play the game I think you are, the same argument could be used about sin and it's origin. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Your last post on the previous page.

You just repeated "what" believers did... not what their motives were but most importantly the ultimate source of those motives.

Are the motives ultimately a work of God in the unbeliever or some goodness in the unbeliever?

 

After reading my last post on the last page, I still fail to understand your point.

Entirely from God. As a monergist, I do not believe there is "some goodness in the unbeliever" that leads to faith in Christ. The drawing of the Holy Spirit is upon ALL MEN, not all elect men. The gift is put in front of everyone...accept it and live, reject it and die. Easy to understand theology.

 

So if all are drawn what is different between those who accept and those who don't. Why do some reject while others accept? What is the source of motivation to make either decision?

Easy to understand theology questions.

 

Free will.

Forced love and devotion is not real love and devotion.

 

"Free will" is not an answer to the question. That is a means, not a motive.

What makes some make the "free will" choice to believe while others make the "free will" choice to reject? Any "free will" decision has a motivation. Where does the motivation to accept Christ come from?

It is difficult to tell whether you really don't understand what I am asking or are avoiding giving a direct answer. So I will give you two potential answers:

a) God regenerates the individual thus changing their nature. The free will choice consistent with the new nature is belief.

b) Man evaluates the choice under God's drawing and makes a decision based on something within himself apart from God doing anything. Thus spiritual change is a result of the decision rather than the decision being a result of the change.

You shouldn't even think of this in terms of time but rather in priority. What is the "first cause" in an individual's decision to believe?

 

C) Man evaluates the choice under God's drawing and makes a decision based on the understanding of God's Word, and his situation as he stands now (separated). Thus spiritual change is a result of God's showing the sinner the need for a Savior, and the offer to accept or reject His gracious Gift with the consequences made perfectly clear, which would be faith.

 

So it is the good choice out of the good will of the individual, right? If God didn't ultimately cause the choice then the sinner must have.

Or alternately... the sinner that gets saved decides not to resist God's drawing while the lost do.

Either way, your answer makes the ultimate, prime cause of individual salvation an independent good will decision by that individual. All decisions are the result of a thought process. Thought processes are work/deeds... and they certainly qualify as good or bad.

I disagree with your answer for these reasons since salvation cannot ultimately be based on any good that we have done.

 

BTW, thanks for giving a real answer as opposed to what the others have done.

But how do you claim to be a monergist considering that you believe that the point of diversion between the saved and lost begins with a human choice?

I thought monergist held that God was sovereign in salvation?

 

So man is sovereign in Salvation and God is feckless?

 

This will be my last post on this thread. It amazes me how some have been so brainwashed into letting other tell them how sovereign God "is" or "has to be". The argument that if God allows man freedom to come to Him depletes His "sovereignty" title and gives it to man goes to show how little we as humans actually know about God's sovereignty. I have never claimed that man overides God's sovereignty. I have never claimed that there is "anything good" within man to warrant salvation. Salvation is totally of God and His grace (monergism). How He sees fit in offering that to man is fine by me. I will not confine God to a little "sovereignty box" with rules and requirements on how He is to be soverign.

 

This statement by Webdog is inconsistent with his answer "c" where he attributes the ultimate cause for an individual accepting Christ to that person's evaluation of the offer.

 

This is a flat out lie.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]No it isn't. If so, why did you quote your own response out of the context of the first sentence?

You stated: "C) Man evaluates the choice under God's drawing and makes a decision based on the understanding of God's Word, and his situation as he stands now (separated)"- Followed by a "thus".

Thus, cites the conclusion drawn from the explanation.

Even in the part you quoted, you leave the "choice" to have or not have "faith" with man to do with as he pleases... that choice has to have a underlying motive and is the result of an evaluation process that separates those who choose to believe from those who do not. The underlying motive must be some kind of "goodness" and the process that leads to the choice can be nothing else but a "good work" of the intellect.

I assign the cause of that motive to God's changing the nature of that person by regeneration. You seem to want to say the same thing but can't bring yourself to do it.

 

do much for his last post on this thread...