What role could envy play in the salvation process?

Yet, as my questions indicate you have not even attempted to speculate as to what purpose God might have for using such means. I know because I tried to answer the same question as a Calvinist. This reveals ONE of the many weaknesses of the system. Objective readers will see this.

Then you have still failed to understand LFW. An invitation is sufficient to invite the guest. An appeal is sufficient to elicit a response. The gospel is sufficient. The signs and wonders along with envy are meant to provoke man's will.

I have four kids. Last night I was trying to get my 3 year old to eat his vegetables. Sometimes when I tell him to eat his food he will, but last night he was being especially stubborn. He didn't want them. His will was SET against eating his veggies. Instead of threatening him, I started talking about how proud I was of his older brothers for eating all their food and about how they would be getting dessert. I could see the envy provoking him in his eyes. Slowly he picked up his fork and starting eating. Why?

The command to eat his veggies is sufficient to get a response...sometimes favorable and sometimes not. But, when the command didn't work I used envy to provoke his will and get him to change his mind. It is really that simple. Don't over complicate it.

You must be working off another definition. The one I think best represents true biblical free will is: "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

Not at all the same. Jesus simply knows that the people of the ancient cities weren't so hardened and rebellious as to not be convinced by the signs and wonders that these modern cities were privy too. The level of their rebelliousness matters not in a system where the determinative factor is God's eternal election and subsequent effectual work of regeneration. They could be a thousand times more rebellions and stubborn than these cities and the effectual work of regeneration would convert them regardless of the number of signs and wonders shown to them.

This is not the only place where Jesus appeals for his hearers to at least believe the signs and wonders, again something that seems quite silly if he believes that they can't due to their inborn nature. It would be like rebuking a man born blind for his not being able to see. It just makes no sense.

 

Why go down a road you can foresee will only reveal the weaknesses of what you believe? You have wisdom beyond your years.

 

So, the work of "regeneration" is accomplished with these emotions? Can you point to any passage which teaches this perspective?

Then you don't understand LFW, or have been working off a weak definition of it.

WEEEEEE..... Push me again....... WEEEEEEEEEEE:laugh:

 

Correct. :thumbsup:

He also said, "GOD will cause the emotion that He desires to LEAD us and DRAW us to Himself."

Since "draw" for the Calvinist means the work of effectual "regeneration," then what he has said is, "God will cause the emotion that He desires to effectually regenerate us."

I simply asked for clarity on that point and he accuses me of being the one who brought it up?

 

:applause::applause::applause: Thank you. It is not weakness to appeal to mystery where the scripture leaves things mysterious. The bible clearly reveals the purpose of envy and its potential. It is meant to provoke man's will and it has the potential to lead one to salvation (Rom 11:14). We know the purpose and potential effect of signs and wonders (Matt. 11:21). These purposes and potential effects are mysteries only to a system that cannot accept the clearly revealed truth of the scriptures because they see how it contradicts that system. It reveals a willingness to put ones theological construct above the clearly revealed truth of Scripture.

 

But according to Calvinists the ONLY means with the power to change man's will to want to repent and believe is the MEANS OF REGENERATION, thus leaving the purpose of these other provoking means in question.

One can become hardened into his own theological system for so long that he simply cannot view an argument or point of contention with true objectivity. That is true on both sides of this debate. I know because I've been on both sides.

I can honestly tell you that I would probably still be Calvinist had I not been a cross-examine debater in High School and College. It is a developed and learned skill to be able to step back from ones own perspective and view something with fresh objective eyes. It is VERY difficult to do and requires practice and a very strong willingness to be fair to both perspectives. Had I not had that skill drilled in me for over a decade by several different coaches I don't think I could have ever seen the perspective of the Arminian arguments with clarity and objectivity.