The other thread was closed for whatever reason, so I didn't have opportunity to reply to this response from Luke and others:
First my original Quote:Well, that depends on how you define RESPOND. If it is seen as a genuine, reaction, or reply of one agent in RESPONSE to the action or words of another agent, then I do not believe your deterministic system leaves room for this concept of a 'response.' (now, I admit, guys like Biblicist are less deterministic than you are, so I may address him a bit differently on this point).
This is a perfect analogy of puppetry or robotics in your system and the very reason I reject your concept of response. If you think we are mere reactionary (pendulum like) creatures that God punishes for our innate reactions then so be it. But that makes about as much since as someone pulling the pendulum back and then when it swings the other way, taking the pendulum in your hands and yelling at at saying, "Why do you swing the other way! I told you not to do that!" and then slamming it to the ground and kicking it into a fire. It is just non-sense from my perspective. I know it makes since to you, but I'm telling you how I see that view.
Because I do consider that a moral 'response.' If anything it is a innate reflex or instinctive reaction...not a rational moral response.
Question begging...you're assuming determinism's premise is true when that is the very point up for debate.
Continued: Does Faith Merit Salvation?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Skandelon, Jan 15, 2014.
-
1. It is one thing to claim God enables us to respond. (i.e. "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard?"
2. It is another thing to say that God changes our nature so that we will respond in accordance with His predetermined will. (i.e. "How can they believe unless they are first regenerated and given a nature that will certainly desire to believe?")
3. It is yet another thing to say God responds on our behalf. (i.e. "How can they respond unless God does it for them")
Clearly understanding and rationally discussing those distinctions is significant for our debate to maintain any semblance of meaning. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"For it is God which worketh in us both TO WILL and TO DO of His Good pleasure."
Does not this language attribute WILLINGESS to do God's pleasure to God rather than to man?
It that language was applied to the lost man would not your system require you to explain it away? -
So, the last time you sinned, I guess God didn't work in you enough? Isn't that ultimately your contention from before? -
Maybe you've never experienced the 'fear and trembling' part of it.
I'm in a situation right now with 'fear and trembling', I know I better do the right thing.
But go ahead, make light of it to satisify your vain reasonings against His Sovereign Grace. -
Sometime I think people read tones into the typed the word that simply are not there. -
It is an "appeal" to choice that makes room for not only the "whosoever will" of Rev 22 but also the "if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in" Rev 3 and of course it provides the construct for a logical non-arbitrary, reasonable and just "lament of God" in the case of the lost.
in Christ,
Bob -
I would say that since faith is a gift of God it does not merit Salvation!