Not all of us are seminary grads versed in the subtleties of ancient languages or privy to well accepted lexicons. Some of us just read the Bible. I could reference verses that present salvation from the sinner's perspective and verses that present salvation from God's perspective. I always come to the conclusion that any confusion about the process is strictly my own. God has it all figured out and its under His control and every human born will be fairly judged or pardoned. And I do believe that the saints' response to God's gracious pardon in which they give Him all the credit and glory is real and sincere.
Yes. The two who "cooperated" would be an example of Synergism.
I suppose you can look at "forced" as a negative thing. I tend to look at it differently. Consider this from Biblicist's post earlier in this thread:
To say that God forces Himself on poor sinners misses the meaning of His grace. God will use circumstances to bring one of His elect home. A sinner can be under conviction or the direct leading of God, while still not regenerated. If God can command the wind, He can bring the circumstances to bear in the life of a sinner that will expose them to encountering the gospel message. But it is not until the Holy Spirit quickens the heart through regeneration that the sinner is given spiritual eyes to understand.
Did I leave you with the impression that Joe wanders aimlessly for nine years before he is regenerated? I was like Joe when I first heard the Gospel. I did not leave the church regenerated only to come to faith at a later time. I left the church dead and sin but under tremendous conviction. Regeneration happens in an instant; quicker than a snap of the fingers.
God regenerated me and then I believed.
FYI: The story of the African tribesman in a remote village that had yet to hear about God was part of a John MacArthur sermon I heard several years ago. The gist of the short autobiography that MacArthur read from was that at some point in the young man's life he became convicted of his sinful lifestyle. Soon after God providentially provided the gospel message and a life was saved. As I remember it, MacArthur used the story to make the point that God saves in the most unlikely places under the must unlikely circumstances. And that He never disappoints the serious seekers.
Anecdotal stories are so hard to respond to. No one wants to call another person an exaggerator or a liar. I am on record as saying that God ordains the means as well as the end result. Did God send the gospel to this tribesman because of his sincere conviction of sin or because God had elected him (Eph. 1:3) and conviction was part of the process God used? I think you know which way I come down on this. Still, we rejoice that a sinner was saved.
I believe God is destroying Satan and the works of Satan. And, "salvation," is the means by which Satan and his works will be destroyed.
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
I am a monergist. God does it all and has told us about his work.
Hi Fin, for the record, I am a "layman."
My training in bible study was provided in the discipleship program, and in the leadership taring program, conducted by
our teaching Pastor, who held a Master's at the time, and is now holds a doctorate.
As far as access to "well accepted lexicons" they are "on line."
Strong's, Thayer's and the NAS Lexicon.
All the so called confusion on salvation comes from our interpretation of Ephesians 1:4.
Was this election for salvation individual or corporate?
My view is that election, before creation, was corporate, He chose us in Him meaning when God chose His Redeemer, He also in effect chose those His Redeemer would redeem, as the target group of His Redemption Plan.
Therefore, when implementing His plan He would choose us individually for salvation through faith in the truth.
Now the problem with thinking Ephesians 1:4 refers to the individual election of foreseen folks with foreseen faith, is that scripture is clear we were individually chosen out of the world (not before the world was created.)
In James 2:5, we see those chosen (1) were poor to the world, (2) were rich in faith, and (3) heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.
Obviously this refers to being chosen during our lifetime, not before creation.
(See also 2 Thess. 2:13, chosen through faith, not foreseen faith, and 1 Peter 2:9-10, chosen to be a people after existing not as a people.
Again foreseen is not found.)
Strongs! LOL! ROFLOL! Root fallacy and cognate errors galore. Strongs is NOT a lexicon. It is a concordance!
Thayers! Out dated and theologically liberal.
NAS! Nothing but Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary (also out dated), reanimated. Keyed to the Nazi anti-semite Gerhard Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." A serious methodological problem with TDNT is that of illegitimate totality transfer. Etymological etiology is not the same as philological usage. Kittel makes that error over and over again.
Fin, you can count on TC to disparage non-Calvinist leaning lexicons, and provide no alternative on-line lexicon. However, lets take a look at part of a verse using Strong's lexicon.
Now from Strong's, we have the transliterated Greek word, and Strong's number.
En (G1722) arche (G746) en (2255) ho (G3588) logos (G3056)...
Now we can look up the word meanings:
G1722 (translated here as In) is a preposition used to indicate a fixed position (in place, time or state) and here the idea is at the time of the event (beginning).
G746 (translated here as beginning is a female noun indicating the first or initial origin of something.
Here the idea is creation, with the Word existing at the time of creation, and thus not created.
Fin, with these on line study tools (Blue Letter Bible) you can check word meanings, do word studies, and grow in your understanding of God's word.
Please do not lie about what I said nor what I do. A good lexicon is a good lexicon because it is accurate, not because it is "non-Calvinist leaning" or "Calvinist leaning." It is accurate because it is accurate.
Fin:
If you want a good lexicon try Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Zondervan, 2006.
Or, Frederick William Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Or Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (United Bible Societies, 1999).
Spiros Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. AMG Publishers, 1991.
Forget this folly of only using on-line resources. They are on line for a reason. They are in the public domain because they are so outdated nobody would pay good money for them.
Spend some money on a good lexicon. Mounce is about $20. Zodhiates about $30.
By refusing to spend such small sums on good reference material you become just another "internet commando." Ignorant of how ignorant you are.
And once you get the reputation of being an "internet commando" you lose all credibility and nobody, except another "internet commando" takes you seriously.
I think there is one thing everybody here agrees on is that nobody comes to Christ unless God (through the Holy Spirit) first does something.
Some say that drawing is the conviction brought by the Holy Spirit through Gospel preaching.
Others say that drawing is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.
But all agree the Holy Spirit does something to enable the hearer to respond. Where we differ is what, exactly, that "something" really is. And whether or not that "something" is always efficacious.
Again, Fin, note that TC did not provide any on-line lexicons, and disparaged the use of online study tools.
Pay no attention is disparagement posts offering home cooking sources.
Yes a book shelf of resources, such more than one bible version, an Exhaustive Concordance, a Bible Dictionary and other study tools certain can supplement you efforts.
Note the use of the word "enable?"
No one can respond to the gospel unless they hear the gospel, therefore hearing the gospel "enables" a person to respond.
Everybody probably agrees with that.
But can everyone respond?
What about the first soil of Matthew 13.
Those folks have been disabled.
Thus even if they "hear it" they do not understand and therefore cannot respond.
Now the second, third and fourth soils can hear and respond, but not all embrace the gospel with all their heart.
Were they unable or did they choose to not engage fully?
Food for thought Fin.