Protestants: Do You Believe in Free Will or the Monergism of Sola Gratia (by grace alone)?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Reformed Theology, which includes Monergism, draws heavily on the roots of the Protestant Reformation.

Definitions of Monergism: Link: monergism.com/what_is_monergism.php

These are quotes from Monergism.com

I am a Christian in the Protestant Sector, and I do not accept the assertions of Monergism. I do not believe Monergism is supported by Scripture.

So, my brothers and sisters in the Protestant Sector, what do you believe about salvation?

**Are we predestined for either salvation or damnation? **

Do you believe God is not an "equal opportunity Savior?

Is man incapable of cooperating with God in Salvation?

Does man’s “free will” always choose to reject God, apart from God’s intervention to “regenerate” man and prepare him for His “irresistible” call to salvation?

Is our acceptance of Christ not a joint venture between us and God, but a unilateral move on God’s part?

Do you believe God has always shown more mercy to one people than to another?

Do you believe God’s pre-temporal choice to save one person over another is not based on the fact that God knew which persons would believe of their own free will?

Are the “elect” chosen by God, based upon God’s “sovereign good pleasure,” alone?

Must one be “regenerated” by God before he can turn to Christ for salvation?

Do we have “Free Will” in any part of salvation?

I welcome all comments from all Faiths. Please feel free to answer the questions of your choosing.

Anna

Why not find out how all these things come together in Calvinist doctrine ?​

As they stand in your post, each one of those points needs exposition & clarification, otherwise the questions answered would be “loaded”, and the answers would imply that Calvinists believe what they don’t.

Sorry, but Calvinist theology is not cereal-packet theology, & if people want cereal-packet theology they are seeking to force the richness of God’s work in Christ into the poverty and meanness & threadbareness of our damaged and sinful hearts. That is to turn into dishwater the Blood of Christ. St. Paul says “In understanding be men…”, not “In understanding be toddlers…”, and it is infantile to expect something that one admits is “of God” to be reducible to a theology that could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

A few points:

• Salvation is monergistic - God alone saves
• …so synergism is absolutely excluded
• God alone has free will - man has free agency, and this gives him liberty of choice between alternatives, even in his fallen & unregenerate state
• Man is in several states: innocence before the Fall, unregenerateness, regeneration, glorification (which is peculiar to the redeeemed hereafter
• Free will & Free choice in man are real or not according to his state - an unregenerate elect person and & an unregenerate non-elect person both have free choice, but their wills are bound, not free. As Luther & Calvin both explain in their books The Bondage of the Will.
• Fallen man has volition, but not free will, for only the Will of God is truly free
• Fallen man is born outside of God’s friendship; he has no native strength to have faith in God, so he cannot be saved apart from God. Whence the saying that the virtues of pagans are but splendid vices. An Aristotle can have great natural gifts, and do a great deal with them, to the great advantage of his hearers & readers: but the least prayer of the least Christian, because coming from faith in Christ & arising from His efficacy & intercession, is far more valuable - for it is the prayer of a person with faith in Christ.
• Fallen man cannot be the author of the salvation which it is God’s alone to bestow on whom, when, as, how He wills.
• It is an utterly free gift - IOW, it is free grace. It cannot be earned, cannot be extracted from God by force. There is nothing at all in any creature that can be a title to it. It does not find, but makes, men pleasing to God.
• It is given therefore for, & despite, nothing in man.
• So election to salvation is based on nothing in man - it proceeds entirely from the decree of God to fashion for Himself a People for His own good pleasure, & these people were chosen in Christ before the kosmos began, that they might be His, & so, be holy, to the praise of His glorious grace;
• not that they might boast, for all they have, they have as free gift, not as something earned by any good works done in a rigfhteousness other than Christ’s. They cannot earn anything in that way - for no righteousness exists that is not Christ’s: He is their Righteousness, Wisdom, Justification, Sanctification. Which is why a Christian cannot be justified, thgereby becoming Christ’s, through works - for how can he be more righteous than the Lord [his] Righteousness ? To talk of being more righteousness than, or apart from Christ, is to talk of what is not.
• God shows mercy to whom He wills - it is His gracious sovereign freedom so to do. The elect & the non-elect are distinguished solely by God, & by nothing in them.
• If God can elect earth & not Jupiter, man & not dionosaurs, Abraham & not his brother Nahor, David & not his brethren: then why can his graces in forming an elect People in Christ not be as free ? It is God Who has made the US a great nation: it was His sovereign pleasure so to do, for the Glory of His Son - I don’t see folk in the US complaining of God’s good pleasure in so doing. Yet what is the US more than any other nation, apart from God’s mercy & election ? Dust.

That is scratching the surface.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Why not find out how all these things come together in Calvinist doctrine ?​

As they stand in your post, each one of those points needs exposition & clarification, otherwise the questions answered would be “loaded”, and the answers would imply that Calvinists believe what they don’t.

Sorry, but Calvinist theology is not cereal-packet theology, & if people want cereal-packet theology they are seeking to force the richness of God’s work in Christ into the poverty and meanness & threadbareness of our damaged and sinful hearts. That is to turn into dishwater the Blood of Christ. St. Paul says “In understanding be men…”, not “In understanding be toddlers…”, and it is infantile to expect something that one admits is “of God” to be reducible to a theology that could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

Gottle of Geer: It’s good to bump into you again on the forums. Your posts are always lively and always welcome.

It is not my intent to promote a “cereal-packet view of Calvinist Theology” (or any other Theology); nor is it my intent to reduce, that which is of God, to a “theology that could be written on the back of a postage stamp.”

I do appreciate your analogies, because they remind us, all, of the seriousness of the topic.

I think that in spite of our best human effort, we can never fully comprehend or fully explain our Holy, Eternal, Infinite God; much less, every infinite detail regarding the way in which God accomplishes our salvation.

However, our human limitations should not stop us from seeking to know God, and to love God with all our mind, heart, and soul; and to strive daily for a closer walk with our Savior.

Granted, we cannot accomplish any of these things, to even the smallest degree, without God enabling us to do so.

• Salvation is monergistic - God alone saves
• …so synergism is absolutely excluded
• God alone has free will

 

[Contarini]

You speak of “prevenient grace.” If I understand correctly: Monergism claims that God’s call is “irresistible,” once “regeneration” takes place (at least that is what the folks at Monergism.com claim)----which contradicts the idea of “prevenient grace,” which is grace that enables us to respond to God’s call; and at the same time, allows us “free will” in our response. Please correct me if I do not have this quite right.

One can believe in “prevenient grace” and also in “irresistible grace.” In other words, one can believe that prevenient grace is given to the elect only and is never resisted. Or, to reflect the Augustinian position more accurately, one can believe that prevenient grace leads to regeneration but that *persevering *grace is also necessary to prevent the regenerate from falling away. A further distinction made by the post-Reformation Thomists is between “sufficient” and “efficient” grace. “Efficient” grace is never resisted; “sufficient” grace may be.

In the Wesleyan position, which I hold to (although with significant (name removed by moderator)ut from Augustinian/Thomist theology and philosophy), prevenient grace (indeed, all grace) may be resisted by human free will. But the idea of prevenient grace itself can go along with a doctrine of “irresistible grace.”

It seems that you are saying we are predestined for salvation, and yet God chooses to permit certain people to be damned by their own will.

I’m not quite sure I understand how salvation is not based on God’s foreknowledge, but damnation is a result of God’s foreknowledge.

Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. God’s choice to permit damnation is based on His foreknowledge. For a Thomist, this gets tricky, because God’s knowledge is always causative. Aquinas seems to get himself off this hook by saying that evil isn’t a thing and therefore is not directly known or caused by God. But one of the basic principles that we must maintain–one way or another–is that God is not the author of evil.

It is certainly paradoxical to say that predestination to life is not based on foreknowledge but reprobation is. But I don’t think it’s contradictory. There are various solutions which in my opinion avoid actual contradiction, although none of them are perfect.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Just a butt in from the “cheap seats”.

Being, as I am, uncomfortable with the whole Idea of “It’s All God” and I have no part in it, I make bold to propose something differently similar to “Predestination” - That is Predisposition. That there are those who by the strength of their nature, are predisposed to accept or reject the Graces God freely offers. All we need to do is turn toward God to activate said grace.

It is like the sun. The Sun Shines and gives warmth and light. But if we flee from the sun, turning away from it, and hiding in th eshadows, we remain cold and unilluminated. If we come out of the shadows and turn toward the Sun, we immediately feel it’s warmth, it’s nourishment and we feel lightened and invigorated.

Some are simply more inclined to come out of the shadows while others fear or hate to.

Peace
James

 

[2nd_Adam]

Some are simply more inclined to come out of the shadows while others fear or hate to.

Peace
James

So, for those who are inclined to come out of the shadows and embrace the light, what was the cause of that inclination to come into the light? Is it based on something within the creature to come into the light, or was there something outside of the creature to enable certain creatures to embrace the light? Please consider Lydia’s conversion. And notice that Lydia had special treatment in her ability to embrace the light.

The Conversion of Lydia

So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days. And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. - Acts 16

 

[Anna_Scott]

One can believe in “prevenient grace” and also in “irresistible grace.” In other words, one can believe that prevenient grace is given to the elect only and is never resisted. Or, to reflect the Augustinian position more accurately, one can believe that prevenient grace leads to regeneration but that *persevering *grace is also necessary to prevent the regenerate from falling away. A further distinction made by the post-Reformation Thomists is between “sufficient” and “efficient” grace. “Efficient” grace is never resisted; “sufficient” grace may be.

In the Wesleyan position, which I hold to (although with significant (name removed by moderator)ut from Augustinian/Thomist theology and philosophy), prevenient grace (indeed, all grace) may be resisted by human free will. But the idea of prevenient grace itself can go along with a doctrine of “irresistible grace.”

Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. God’s choice to permit damnation is based on His foreknowledge. For a Thomist, this gets tricky, because God’s knowledge is always causative. Aquinas seems to get himself off this hook by saying that evil isn’t a thing and therefore is not directly known or caused by God. But one of the basic principles that we must maintain–one way or another–is that God is not the author of evil.

It is certainly paradoxical to say that predestination to life is not based on foreknowledge but reprobation is. But I don’t think it’s contradictory. There are various solutions which in my opinion avoid actual contradiction, although none of them are perfect.

Edwin

Edwin:

Thank you for clarifying and making reference to different theological positions, such as the Augustinian position, post-Reformation Thomists, and the Wesleyan position.

It is difficult for me to reconcile God’s knowledge always being causative and predestination of the elect, with free will.

You said, “It is certainly paradoxical to say that predestination to life is not based on foreknowledge but reprobation is. But I don’t think it’s contradictory.”

This does seem to be paradoxical. It would seem that God’s foreknowledge would apply equally to salvation and reprobation.

I do think the assertions that Monergism is the position of “Historical Protestantism” (Monergism.com) may be over zealous. Disagreements seemed to have erupted early in the Reformation; and, obviously, continue in the Protestant sector, today.

Anna

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This does seem to be paradoxical. It would seem that God’s foreknowledge would apply equally to salvation and reprobation.

I do think the assertions that Monergism is the position of “Historical Protestantism” (Monergism.com) may be over zealous. Disagreements seemed to have erupted early in the Reformation; and, obviously, continue in the Protestant sector, today.

Anna

Molinism solves this dilemma:

Note to Edwin: Contemporary Molinism, that is!

Molinism is an attempt to provide a solution to the classic philosophical problems associated with God’s providence, foreknowledge and the freedom of humanity.

Read about it here:

theopedia.com/Molinism

 

[Anna_Scott]

Just a butt in from the “cheap seats”.

Being, as I am, uncomfortable with the whole Idea of “It’s All God” and I have no part in it, I make bold to propose something differently similar to “Predestination” - That is Predisposition. That there are those who by the strength of their nature, are predisposed to accept or reject the Graces God freely offers. All we need to do is turn toward God to activate said grace.

It is like the sun. The Sun Shines and gives warmth and light. But if we flee from the sun, turning away from it, and hiding in th eshadows, we remain cold and unilluminated. If we come out of the shadows and turn toward the Sun, we immediately feel it’s warmth, it’s nourishment and we feel lightened and invigorated.

Some are simply more inclined to come out of the shadows while others fear or hate to.

Peace
James

James,

Very interesting take from the “cheap seats.”

Your comments lead me to this question: Does God create the “Predisposition” in the elect?

If so, we are right back where we started in terms of God’s role in influencing free will.

Even though I am the OP on this topic: I’m starting to realize this many be one of many issues that may not be fully understood this side of eternity.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Molinism solves this dilemma:

Note to Edwin: Contemporary Molinism, that is!

Molinism is an attempt to provide a solution to the classic philosophical problems associated with God’s providence, foreknowledge and the freedom of humanity.

Read about it here:

theopedia.com/Molinism

CHESTERTONRULES:

Thank you for your contribution to this topic.

Do you have some particular quotes from your link that would contribute to the topic?

Anna

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES:

Thank you for your contribution to this topic.

Do you have some particular quotes from your link that would contribute to the topic?

Anna

I’ll just summarize.

According to contemporary Molinist thought, God knows not only what we will choose, but he also knows what we would have chosen had circumstances been different.

Based on this knowledge(called middle knowledge) God designed the world in such a way as to allow for our free will and to accomplish his goals(via grace and other means) simultaneously.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ll just summarize.

According to contemporary Molinist thought, God knows not only what we will choose, but he also knows what we would have chosen had circumstances been different.

Based on this knowledge(called middle knowledge) God designed the world in such a way as to allow for our free will and to accomplish his goals(via grace and other means) simultaneously.

CHESTERTONRULES:

Thank you for comment regarding “middle knowledge.”

I am the OP, and as I look through the comments on this short Thread; I see many conflicting ideas about God’s role in our salvation and our role in our salvation (if we have a role.)

Since we cannot all be right, some or all of us are misrepresenting God’s intent, foreknowledge, call, and action regarding salvation.

I ponder the words of 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 regarding the “thoughts of God” and the “Spirit, who searches everything, even the depths of God.” The passage speaks of the Spirit received, who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

1 Corinthians 2:10-12 (ESV):

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

Who has the “Spirit that they may understand”? This is more of a theological/philosophical question, for me personally. Though I do welcome any comments.

I would guess both Protestants and Catholics will claim this “Spirit.” I am not saying this in a judgmental way, nor do I not claim to hold the answer.

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

Since we are on the topic, let’s discuss the famous riddle from the Puritan John Owen.

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?
John Owen

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, “Because of unbelief.”

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

 

[JRKH]

James,

Very interesting take from the “cheap seats.”

Your comments lead me to this question: Does God create the “Predisposition” in the elect?

If so, we are right back where we started in terms of God’s role in influencing free will.

Even though I am the OP on this topic: I’m starting to realize this many be one of many issues that may not be fully understood this side of eternity.

Anna

Which has been my point all along

I know they can be nteresting and I do occasionaly lurk around them but ultimately it boils down to

1. We cannot KNOW if or how God does what He does. (we aren’t suppose to)
2. Even if we DID come to a widely accepted consensus it would not effect how I approach the journey, or how I would encourage others on their journey.

So I’ll leave it to the “egg-heads” to hash out.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

So, for those who are inclined to come out of the shadows and embrace the light, what was the cause of that inclination to come into the light? Is it based on something within the creature to come into the light, or was there something outside of the creature to enable certain creatures to embrace the light? Please consider Lydia’s conversion. And notice that Lydia had special treatment in her ability to embrace the light.

(snip)

I truly don’t know and can never know for certain.

How about an answer of “Both”. God has created me, therefore all that is in me is a gift from him. Whether I use these gifts is another matter.
I have (or had) a pretty good ear for music and as a child a good singing voice. My mother tried very hard to get me to practice piano and develop these gifts. I refused. Now that I am older, those gifts are greatly diminished from neglect and abuse.
So - I had a gift from God (the outside force) that I did not appreciate and utilize (the inside force). The result is that the gift faded.
So did I not develop this talent because God did not give me sufficient fortitude? Do I lay at God’s feet my sin of Sloth for not practicing?

I will not do this for God is a God of Love and wishes for all men to be saved.

God gives to each the seed needed to grow. He will quicken us in our journey and He will prune us with hardships. But it is we who must DO the growing. It is WE who must Practice the virtues and grow closer to God. This is why Jesus preached a Gospel of Action. (**Go and **sin no more, **Go and **Do likewise, **Go and **Sell all you have)

Personally I have my hands full just trying to get the “Doing” right. That is living my faith as Christ taught us to do. The rest I need to leave up to Him.

Peace
James

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Hum. For my part, I believe we have free wills and free discernment, which God has given us license to exercise. Even if so, though, He’s the One who instilled the free will in His creations, so I don’t believe there’s anything good one can do with it that doesn’t ultimately redound to His credit.

Even before I knew thing one about Catholic doctrine, I could never grasp the Calvinist objections that a Catholic-type understanding of free will undercuts God’s sovereignty–if free will is a gift of God, then exercising it is ultimately taking nothing out of His hands.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES:

Thank you for comment regarding “middle knowledge.”

I am the OP, and as I look through the comments on this short Thread; I see many conflicting ideas about God’s role in our salvation and our role in our salvation (if we have a role.)

Since we cannot all be right, some or all of us are misrepresenting God’s intent, foreknowledge, call, and action regarding salvation.

I ponder the words of 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 regarding the “thoughts of God” and the “Spirit, who searches everything, even the depths of God.” The passage speaks of the Spirit received, who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

1 Corinthians 2:10-12 (ESV):

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

Who has the “Spirit that they may understand”? This is more of a theological/philosophical question, for me personally. Though I do welcome any comments.

I would guess both Protestants and Catholics will claim this “Spirit.” I am not saying this in a judgmental way, nor do I not claim to hold the answer.

Anna

Paul wrote:

10 these things God has revealed to** us **through the Spirit.

Who is us?

I believe that it is the apostles and the Church.

Who do you believe he is referring to?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Paul wrote:

10 these things God has revealed to** us **through the Spirit.

Who is us?

I believe that it is the apostles and the Church.

Who do you believe he is referring to?

The body of Christ.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The body of Christ.

Not every member of the body of Christ is a teacher.

We are to follow the message of the apostles if we are not an apostle.

Notice the distinction between you and I vs. the leaders of the Church:

15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. 20"My prayer is not for them alone.** I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message**, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to** the teachings we passed on to you**, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Not every member of the body of Christ is a teacher.

We are to follow the message of the apostles if we are not an apostle.

Notice the distinction between you and I vs. the leaders of the Church:

15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. 20"My prayer is not for them alone.** I pray also for those who will believe in me through their **message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to** the teachings we** passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

CHESTERTONRULES:

I do realize I opened the door to the “authority” discussion, when I said, “Who has the “Spirit that they may understand”? This is more of a theological/philosophical question, for me personally. Though I do welcome any comments.”

I appreciate your comments and the Scripture you quoted. That are important to our discussion. Any time the discussion involves beliefs and interpretation, the question of “authority” arises.

In reconsidering the direction of our current Thread Topic,** “Protestants: Do You Believe in Free Will or the Monergism of Sola Gratia (by grace alone)?”; **perhaps the “authority” issue would be better served on another Thread.

I’m already in a discussion regarding “authority” on the Thread: “Protestants, how can this be possible?” Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=375584.

Here are some partial quotes from that Thread, in case you want to continue the “authority” issue there:

This is my story regarding Matthew 16:19:

What I am about to share with you is intensely personal. . .

. . . However, the Early Church understood the “binding and loosing” to be referring to the discipline of the Church, where the Bishop has the authority to make decisions about how things are to be run, and even the angels in Heaven are called upon to obey the Bishop, and God Himself counts it as a sin to disobey whatever command he makes. . .

. . We are just commanded not to use the Scriptures to create false doctrines. Thus, if our "personal interpretation’ contradicts the guardian and Final Interpreter of Scripture (i.e. the Magisterium), then we must change our doctrine to fit the Truth. In your case, God spoke quite clearly to you through the Scripture and your testimony gives greater Glory to God and His Word!

As to the Binding and loosing, and the Binding and Casting out, I would say they are two seperate things. . .

. . I do carefully consider your words regarding the authority of the Catholic Church. I think about this more often than you realize.

One of the things that has kept me from embracing the authority of the Catholic Church (aside from a lifetime of Protestant indoctrination ) is the issue of interpretation of Scripture.

I believe God’s Word is “living and active”; and I believe God can use His Word in an infinite number of ways to accomplish His Divine Purposes. . .

. . .We ALL can gain specific help from specific passages in specific situations. No reason why we shouldn’t. To use your testimony, the Church would NOT say you were wrong in how you applied “Bind and Loose” to your situation. It would only be a problem is you tried to teach that this was the ONLY meaning of “Bind and Loose”. .

. . .Just to be clear, the church DOES hold the authority to difinitively interpret scripture. However, in nearly 2000 years, except for a handful of verses, she has not done so. Also I think that the CC is more cognizant of the idea that some terms or passages have more than one application. The definition of “Church” is one. Many protestants accept the “Body of Believers” definition while staunchly rejecting the “authority” or “governing” aspect of Church. The CC sees both. The Structure is there to help guide and protect the Body of believers. Therefore “Church” means both things. . .

Again, thank you for contributing to this Thread,
Anna

 

[mmmcounts]

mmmcounts: Thank you for taking time to respond to this Thread.

You’re welcome. Thanks for asking good questions.

(Lordship Salvation)
Appreciate the reference, and I welcome any quotes you want to provide from this source that pertain to our topic.

It would have taken you less than 10 seconds to get the general idea by looking at it. Here’s a relevant quote.

“Lordship salvation is the position that receiving Christ involves a turning in the heart from sin and, as a part of faith, a submissive commitment to obey Jesus Christ as Lord. It also maintains that progressive sanctification and perseverance must necessarily follow conversion. Those who hold to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints see this not only as a requirement, but an assured certainty according to the sustaining grace of Christ.”

That’s the first paragraph. Do you really just refuse to click on links at all?

There are, indeed, many passages in the Bible that refer to Predestination.

Does the reference to predestination mean that God knows who will, and who will not answer His call? Or, does the reference to predestination mean that God chooses who he will enable or “regenerate” to answer His call, removing man’s “free will” in salvation?

**Romans 11:32: does say, **“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”
This does appear that God is affecting “free will” by “consigning all to disobedience.”

Do you believe this means our “free will,” in the salvation process, has been removed for all time?

God does know who will or will not answer His call. There is a reason behind who does and does not answer His call. Ultimately, that reason is God. The position of compatibilism is that this does not remove man’s free will in salvation. Incompatibilists exist on both sides of this issue. I don’t think incompatibilism is a good choice.

God has consigned all to disobedience. That means we are dead in our sins. As an illustration, let me present to you an example of a dead person: Lazarus. We, like Lazarus, all start off dead in our sins. This spiritual death is every bit as real as physical death. The only difference is that one kind of death is spiritual and the other is physical. Lazarus obviously had free will, just like everyone else. However, when he was dead, he was unable to cooperate with Jesus’ act of raising him to life. He was, after all, dead.

And so were we all, once.

The statement, “Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe,” seems to directly contradict Monergism’s assertion that God’s “pretemporal choice was not based on the fact that God knew which persons would believe of their own free will”

I don’t think there’s a contradiction. God did know- from the beginning- who would and would not believe. But His pretemporal choice was, at best, indirectly based on us. God’s choice was based on God’s will.

If the call of God is “irresistible” (as Monergism asserts,) and Christ promises He will draw all people to Himself, wouldn’t it follow that all men will be saved due to the "irresistible call of Christ?

Christ’s call to “all men” refers to the inclusion of Gentiles. The immediate cause of this “call” is His death on the Cross. Your argument fails because it equates this “calling of all men” with the Spirit’s work of regeneration. This call “to all men” is the work of Jesus. Irresistible grace is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Is man incapable of cooperating with God in Salvation?

Is a dead man capable of cooperating with God in raising him to life?

Monergism espouses a hard determinism. You are welcome to state how you believe these other ideas or theologies pertain to our topic.

If you want to do monergism and hard determinism, it’s doable. But it’s certainly not a necessity, nor do I believe it’s the right choice.

Does man’s “free will” always choose to reject God, apart from God’s intervention to “regenerate” man and prepare him for His “irresistible” call to salvation?

Let me answer your question with a question. Would you pray this prayer?

“God, I give you glory for everything else, but not my faith … This is the one thing that is my very own that I produced of my fallen natural capacities. For this little bit the glory is mine. So I thank you Lord that I am not like other men who do not have faith. When you extended your grace to all men some did not make use of it, BUT I DID.While You deserve glory for all I have Lord, my faith was the one part that I contributed to the price of my redemption, apart from and independent of the effectual work of Your Holy Spirit.”

Is our acceptance of Christ not a joint venture between us and God, but a unilateral move on God’s part?

Man has free will, and God is still as sovereign as He ever was. I don’t dispute your decision to lock the horns of God’s foreknowledge and our free will, but I do dispute the way in which you’ve done it.

Must one be “regenerated” by God before he can turn to Christ for salvation?

Again. Dead person.

Do we have “Free Will” in any part of salvation?

Yes. But. God is still sovereign. This is the essence of compatibilism.

I welcome any quotes, you wish to provide, in relation to our topic.

I hope you like them.

What part of “my story” to you find illogical?

I don’t find it illogical. Story logic, in this case, refers to a floor plan of your belief structure. It shows what is there and how it all connects. I’m not implying that your floor plan is internally inconsistent. I just asked you to take a look at your floor plan, compare it to that of Open Theism, and compare the floor plans to see if they are fairly similar.

In much shorter form, you might say “check your story logic against that of Open Theism and see how well it matches up.” I have my own story logic- or floor plan, if you will. It looks nothing like Open Theism.

You may not speak for how I feel. I would not wish that anyone lose their salvation.

I can speak for what your beliefs are. They include an opposition to personal assurance of salvation (did you miss that?) After all, you can’t discount the possibility of self-deception. I’m sure you’ve had that conversation before.

I’m also certain that you would wish that I stop believing that my perseverance in Christ is an assured certainty. And I understand the story logic behind it. I hope that I can help you understand the story logic from this side. That’s why you started this thread.