God's judicial wrath (hatred) on the reprobate

[Craig kennedy]

One more question, Craig: Do you think God ever truly "offers" an individual something He never (from eternity) intends (or intended) to give them?

Hi rlhuckle (Roger),

Thank you very much for your question and I do have clear convictions on these issues.

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel and common grace but I need to unpack these terms and labels and explain to you what I mean by them.

When I speak of the free offer of the gospel I do not propose that God is "offering" someone something that he never intended to give them. All I mean by the term is that Christ is so lifted up before all men as the only mediator between God and man, that all men are commanded to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. You have read my posts on what I mean by "free will" and "creaturely otherness" - in view of these explanations, I believe all men are seriously commanded to lay down their arms and their opposition to Christ; they are urged to make a decision, viz: "Choose this day whom you will serve...!"

All men are urged to exercise the natural duties of repentance and faith which - in view of their God-endowed wills - they as rational, moral agents can perform. However, they have no moral ability to enact or perform saving repentance and faith. God gives moral ability only to the elect and only intends to give it to the elect!

God would delight if men in their natural creaturely states would repent and believe the gospel; but even in this God is not frustrated because he knowingly determines and determinedly knows who are his! God only determines in his wisdom to grant moral ability to the elect! God always gets what he wants and never begs.

As for common grace, I believe there is a love of God for the non-elect; it is a love of God for men as men - the moral creatures who are the works of his hands. There is a common goodness of God, a common bounty, a common compassion of God for all men; but there is only a special, saving love of god for his elect who he determined to bestow moral saving ability upon before the foundations of the world.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Roger, I'm enjoying this - please feel free to keep asking me questions on this. I realise that my understanding of these issues is probably not your position. I am not threatened, at all, if we do disagree. It's good to get these issues out into the open and think about them and discuss them.

I look forward to your responses,

Yours in Christ,

Craig

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Brandan and Milt,

You have no doubt been following my posts closely under this thread and observed my thoughts on "free will" and "creaturely otherness".

In view of my presentations and in the light of Milt's astute assessment of "labels" in a recent post to me, I am now deeply persuaded that the label arminian does not sit comfortably with me.

I further believe that Cheung's definition of arminianism is far too narrow and ignores many important distinctions in biblical theology. It, honestly, was only Cheung's definition of arminianism that led me to revise my profile on PN.

In the light of these considerations, I reject the arminian tag outrightly and I have revised my soteriological profile on PN to simply read: "I don't know" ie I don't know what tag to put on it or how to label it.

I am sure these amendments will draw a wry smile from you, gentlemen, along with Highly Favoured and LionofJudah who intimated that this is what I should have done in the first place.

Yours in Christ,

Craig

[Highlyfavored]

Hi Brandan and Milt,

You have no doubt been following my posts closely under this thread and observed my thoughts on "free will" and "creaturely otherness".

In view of my presentations and in the light of Milt's astute assessment of "labels" in a recent post to me, I am now deeply persuaded that the label arminian does not sit comfortably with me.

I further believe that Cheung's definition of arminianism is far too narrow and ignores many important distinctions in biblical theology. It, honestly, was only Cheung's definition of arminianism that led me to revise my profile on PN.

In the light of these considerations, I reject the arminian tag outrightly and I have revised my soteriological profile on PN to simply read: "I don't know" ie I don't know what tag to put on it or how to label it.

I am sure these amendments will draw a wry smile from you, gentlemen, along with Highly Favoured and LionofJudah who intimated that this is what I should have done in the first place.

Yours in Christ,

Craig

Craig, none of us here have a problem with someone taking time and considering while wrestling with the scriptures. I appreciate your honesty and hope you find your answers.

Greg

[rlhuckle]

Hi rlhuckle (Roger),

Thank you very much for your question and I do have clear convictions on these issues.

I do believe in the free offer of the gospel and common grace but I need to unpack these terms and labels and explain to you what I mean by them.

When I speak of the free offer of the gospel I do not propose that God is "offering" someone something that he never intended to give them. All I mean by the term is that Christ is so lifted up before all men as the only mediator between God and man, that all men are commanded to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. You have read my posts on what I mean by "free will" and "creaturely otherness" - in view of these explanations, I believe all men are seriously commanded to lay down their arms and their opposition to Christ; they are urged to make a decision, viz: "Choose this day whom you will serve...!"

All men are urged to exercise the natural duties of repentance and faith which - in view of their God-endowed wills - they as rational, moral agents can perform. However, they have no moral ability to enact or perform saving repentance and faith. God gives moral ability only to the elect and only intends to give it to the elect!

God would delight if men in their natural creaturely states would repent and believe the gospel; but even in this God is not frustrated because he knowingly determines and determinedly knows who are his! God only determines in his wisdom to grant moral ability to the elect! God always gets what he wants and never begs.

As for common grace, I believe there is a love of God for the non-elect; it is a love of God for men as men - the moral creatures who are the works of his hands. There is a common goodness of God, a common bounty, a common compassion of God for all men; but there is only a special, saving love of god for his elect who he determined to bestow moral saving ability upon before the foundations of the world.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Roger, I'm enjoying this - please feel free to keep asking me questions on this. I realise that my understanding of these issues is probably not your position. I am not threatened, at all, if we do disagree. It's good to get these issues out into the open and think about them and discuss them.

I look forward to your responses,

Yours in Christ,

Craig

Hi Craig and thanks for your answers. As others have said, you are not very far from my own convictions either. I too believe that all men are commanded to repent, as Paul teaches in Acts, however when un-elect men in their naturalness attempt repentance, the result is tares among the wheat--which Christ says will be harvested and burned. He says they are planted by Satan.

While we cannot know who these individuals are for sure, I do not believe God has any love for them whatsoever, and never offers them anything in exchange for their repentance. God is very clear on His hatred for the wicked--and that is precisely what the tares are.

Thanks for the clarification of terms and while I don't like the ambiguousness of the term 'free offer' because it invites many tares into the church, I'm glad that you are revisiting the Scriptures you use to justify your convictions.

BTW, do you realize that when Joshua asked the Israelites to choose, he was speaking to them AFTER they had been rescued from the 'world'? He was actually speaking to the assembly--the tares and wheat--not to the entire sea of humanity. Additionally, can a tare actually choose to serve God when they have not been given the gift of faith and anything not of faith is sin? Anyway, I've heard that Scripture used to justify the free offer so many times, well...I'm sure you have too.

[lionovjudah]

I am sure these amendments will draw a wry smile from you, gentlemen, along with Highly Favoured and LionofJudah who intimated that this is what I should have done in the first place.

Yours in Christ,

Craig

I think you do know though Craig!!!! Cheung is not the label police.

[Craig kennedy]

From http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=415:

"The proposition being defended is that God has one unified purpose for all created things and his passions are never in conflict." (Higby)

It seems to me that the reason there is a conflict over whether God has two wills or one unitary will relates to verses like 2 Peter 3:8, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

But this verse is faily easy to explain if you believe God has just one unitary will. "All" means "all kinds" or "types" of people.

Other verses are not as easy to explain:

Matthew 23:37: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

Ezekiel 18:23: "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"

Isaiah 45:22: "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other."

These verses seems to indicate that God's passions are in conflict. I'm not sure what to say about them.

Hi Spatula,

Firstly, I want to thank you for your excellent posts on this thread and the significant contribution you have made to advance this discussion. I have particularly appreciated your insights on God being the "remote cause" of sin (rather than, always, the active, proximate cause of sin) and the whole idea of creaturely "otherness".

These ideas and concepts ring sweetly in my ears and cut deeply in my soul. I agree wholeheartedly and your proposals, I think, have the divine stamp of approval from holy writ itself!

I do want to address, however, the issue you have raised about whether God's passions are in conflict, on the basis of the scriptural verses you have presented; and in view of Bob Higby's assertion that God has one unified purpose for all created things and his passions are never in conflict.

You will have followed closely my posts in this thread and observed the strict context in which I hold to "free will" and "creaturely otherness". I know you are in absolute agreement with me here. You will also have observed from my postings in response to rlhuckle and Unhinged Square that I believe that God only ever intended to give moral ability (saving repentance and faith) to the elect; however, you will further observe in my post to rlh (Roger) that I believe in duty faith and repentance ie that all men in their natural unregenerate states are commanded seriously by God to repent of their sins and believe the gospel.

All men can perform the natural duties of repentance and faith; this is because God has created all men with a God-endowed will that is capable of conscience, reason and doing the externally "right thing". God earnestly calls upon all men to exercise these God-given faculties. However, God knows that men in their natural states cannot savingly repent and believe the gospel, because they have no moral ability.

God in his all-wise and determined counsels, knows who his elect are; and he is determined to give moral saving ability to them only. God also knows in his all-wise and determined counsels, who will exercise false repentance and faith; none of this takes God by surprise or catches him unawares!

Now I believe in the "two wills" concept as Milt well knows. I believe there is a decretive will of God and a will of delight (I do NOT call this a will of "desire" because I believe God always gets what he wants). In his will of delight, I believe another dimension of God's awesome character and holiness is at work and wondrously displayed.

In the verses you have presented, Spatula, I do not believe God's passions are in conflict; in fact, God's passions are never in conflict! I believe God knowingly determines and determinedly knows all things, including the actions of free moral agents. God's passions are in absolute harmony with his decretive will! God is not - and I say it reverently - a split personality, tragically divided within himself without the power to execute what he has willed and planned.

Still more, in the verses you have presented, Spatula, I believe that God expresses his delight that men would heed his commandments; honour him as the only, true, supreme Deity and repent and believe the gospel! God grieves as an extension of his holiness that these groups cited have spurned his royal character and authority; God has compassion and a general love for the non-elect here that indicates that he recognises that these creatures are the works of his hands; it is a display of God's tender mercies (common grace but non-saving grace) being over all his creation.

God is totally in control in all of this process! He is Sovereign - he always gets what he wants. God is never in conflict. In these verses, God far from being in conflict within himself shows dimensions of his character and holiness that can only draw awe and praise from a regenerated soul.

Therefore, I agree with Bob Higby that God always gets what he wants; that God never begs; that God is in unity within himself and has a unified purpose! I arrive at this conclusion, however, from holding to the "two wills" concept as I have explained above.

Yours in Christ,

Craig

[rlhuckle]

Hi Craig, after reading your last few posts, I think you misunderstood my earlier post regarding begging. I was talking about man begging God; i.e.: how much begging does God require of man before He bestows saving grace upon him and enable him to beg in the right way (via TRUE repentance and faith-- according to your conviction).

Additionally, how do you reconcile the synergism in your soteriology--that Christ atones, yet God must enable the "required" acts of faith on man's part so the two (Christ AND man) can work together to effect one's salvation? Does this particular "enabling" by God in producing the required repentance in man constitute any violation of man's will or is it an act of puppetry by God in your eyes?

Also, you never mentioned looking at the link to the 1 Timothy 2:4 discussion and whether it had any effect on your understanding of the verse and what it is actually teaching and how you are applying it in your studies.

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Craig, after reading your last few posts, I think you misunderstood my earlier post regarding begging. I was talking about man begging God; i.e.: how much begging does God require of man before He bestows saving grace upon him and enable him to beg in the right way (via TRUE repentance and faith-- according to your conviction).

Additionally, how do you reconcile the synergism in your soteriology--that Christ atones, yet God must enable the "required" acts of faith on man's part so the two (Christ AND man) can work together to effect one's salvation? Does this particular "enabling" by God in producing the required repentance in man constitute any violation of man's will or is it an act of puppetry by God in your eyes?

Also, you never mentioned looking at the link to the 1 Timothy 2:4 discussion and whether it had any effect on your understanding of the verse and what it is actually teaching and how you are applying it in your studies.

Hi Roger,

I do appreciate your posts and they are serving to advance the discussion on these issues.

I do not believe that God ever "begs" in the sense of going "cap in hand" to mere fallen men and somehow persuading men that they must decide for him. I reject these notions as shallow and superficial and indicative - at large - of the massive apostasy in the modern church.

Unhinged Square intimated in a previous post that the methods and approach of "decision" theology run counter to God's electing graces. I share these sentiments, and I assert that begging, decision theology and altar calls have no place in a robust biblical theology that is centred on Christ's Person and Work.

I do not believe that my theology is synergistic ie man co-operating with God. I do not hold or believe this. I believe, rather, that my theology recognises clearly and compellingly that God uses means to accomplish his appointed ends. In his electing graces and purposes, God has seen fit to use means to sovereignly bring to pass all the counsel of his good pleasure. He does this in such a way that the Sovereignty of God and the moral free agency of man are both upheld and affirmed.

I really feel close to your theology, Roger, in the sense that I am not constrained to "button hole" people with the gospel; nor do I think that vast hordes of people will be attracted to the true message of the gospel. I am sure we share solidly the view that God is in control and his sheep will hear his voice and follow him.

Therefore, I am deeply persuaded that the "divine enabling" comes in such a way that God's people are never forced into something they never want; no, they are made willing in the day of his power! The Holy Spirit so sweetly and graciously works in the hearts of God's elect that their wills are NEVER violated but regenerated; NEVER violated but made anew; NEVER violated but made a new creation in Christ Jesus!

There is never an act of PUPPETRY by God on the elect, because he works his regenerating graces in their changed wills in perfect harmony with the exercise of their moral free agency.

And yes, Roger, thank you for the link to 1 Timothy 2:4 which I did follow through with. These arguments are not new to me, concerning a special and definite atonement only for the elect. My heart and mind have been heavily exercised over the years with these issues. I stand very close to this position but I am unable, at this present time, to affirm this tenet as you so hold it. I do respect your postion, however, and I am not antagonistic to it. There is little that separates us here in this deeply nuanced and highly controverted subject.

I personally believe in an Unlimited Atonement ie Christ died for all men to remove any obstacle of any man in coming to Christ for salvation. However, God intended to save the elect only by it - so, in this sense, it is a special or definite atonement for the elect alone. This resonates with the assertion that Christ is the Saviour of all men, especially those (ie the elect) who believe; the Holy Spirit only savingly applies the benefits of Christ's redemption to the elect.

I realise all of this does not fit into a "neat system"; but I hold it - at least at this time - because it seems to deliver to me plain biblical teaching free from the "labels" and schemas of men.

Yours in Christ,

Craig

[rlhuckle]

Hi Craig,
Again, you appear to dwell on "God begging" instead of "man begging"-- which is what I was trying to understand. In your soteriology, Christ's work is not enough to accomplish the salvation of men; in essence, you are teaching that God must enable man to "do" something in order to benefit "specially" from Christ's work. This is a form of synergy.

My initial question relates to it in that I was asking you how much begging on the part of man is required BEFORE God enables the "elect one" to perform the work necessary to benefit specially from Christ's atonement.

You still have not answered the question--all you have said, again, is that God does not beg and you don't see synergism in your system. Am I not understanding you or am I not communicating my questions in a clear manner? Is there something more that I can add to clarify?

Thanks again for the discussion.

[Nicholas Heath]

"we must still explain how it is possible for God to permit something without causing it, and yet immutably decree it to happen in a sense that is not merely an expression of prescience. If we can't, then we are Arminians.
Also, if God merely permits us to do something, then I would also demand a metaphysical explanation on how it is possible for a creature to direct and control its own mind. That is, is it possible for a created thing to function at all under God's bare permission without his constant causative determination? How?"

They can not answer the simple questions! All I wanted to know is, the how? That is simple. All they do is blow smoke, and use pretty language to cover the truth, or dance there way around it.

I believe there is a need to clarify quotes, especially this one. I believe the wording if very important, and accurate. This is for those of you who do not believe God actively controls the thoughts and actions of men, whether for good or evil. You must explain how it is possible for God to permit something with out causing it, and yet IMMUTABLY DECREE it to happen in a sense that is not merely an expression of PRESCIENCE. If YOU can't, you are arminians. Why? From what I understand, all systems of false religion, base it on prescience, or foreknowledge (arminianism is probably the most prominant one out there, and alot of Cheungs writings refute arminianism). You also run into a numerous amount of other problems, that deny major biblical doctrines. Major doctrines such a God's soveriegnty (even though you profess God's soveriegnty, still looking for the "how" from the ?'s above.) Then, you must affirm dualism. For God not to be the active cause of all things, including the thoughts and actions of men, there must be some other power that is, and that is dualism. So, whether you are arminian, popular calvinist, or any other doctrinal system that bases it on prescience, and not active causation, run into theological problems that are impossible to solve. So, please go ahead and keep on protecting God from evil, and ascribing some sort of freedom to man, I will have none of it. Why? Because

Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Psa 39:5 Behold, thou hast made my days [as] an handbreadth; and mine age [is] as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state [is] altogether vanity. Selah.

[MCoving]

Well first excellent post Nick! Its exciting to be in Gods Word and to be refreshed by the truth, its freeing. I dont know why I haven't been in His Word more, if I had maybe my life would have been a little different lately.

So I think it was in this thread that Craig talked about all, and I know its been discussed way too many times before. But I found another cool verse about the word all. 'Cause I know how some of my armininian friends always bring the point up that God requires all to repent, that Christ died for all, that all have the option to accept Christ, you know the stories..

Well this verse is cool:
Acts 2:39- For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.

So in this verse it says the promise is for all who are far off, but then it says as many as the Lord calls to Himself. Well it doesn't say as all that the Lord calls, and the promise cant be for every single person. the all here must mean without exception, for all kinds of people. I just thought it was cool cause it said for as many as the Lord calls. God doesn't call everyone, only His children. And that which He calls comes to pass (2 thessalonians).

Also Acts 13:48- and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

I dont know if my thoughts made sense here.. the verses did when I read them! haha enjoy.. later

Mary

ps: Milt brought these verses up before too but I just saw them as well... where the word all is used and does not mean every single person but without excemption.. John 12:32 and Matthew 10:22, in John Jesus doesn't draw all men, every single person to Himself and in Matthew not all men, every single person hates the disciples, or hates each other... context context context is all I can say.

[Spatula]

Firstly, I want to thank you for your excellent posts on this thread and the significant contribution you have made to advance this discussion. I have particularly appreciated your insights on God being the "remote cause" of sin (rather than, always, the active, proximate cause of sin) and the whole idea of creaturely "otherness".

Hmm. I willing to say that God is the active cause of sin, but not the proximate cause. My point here is that God is on an entirely different level than we are. Isaiah 55:9: "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." There are two different kinds of causation at work. There is divine causation, which is like the author writing the story in my analogy, and there is human causation, which would be the sinners in the story acting according to their own characters. God can actively cause all the events of history without violating the internal logic and causality of the story.

Hebrews 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."

I don't want to leave a single quark or neutrino outside of God's will. Anything that happens outside of God's will happens by chance. How could we ever understand such an event? It would make no sense.

It seems to me that "passively ordain" is an oxymoron. God doesn't just watch things go by. Ordaining something is, in the nature of the case, active. Stories don't write themselves, except in a figurative sense. Authors actively write them. Neither jot nor tittle can exist without the author putting his pen to the paper.

[GraceAmbassador]

I don't want to leave a single quark or neutrino outside of God's will. Anything that happens outside of God's will happens by chance. How could we ever understand such an event? It would make no sense.

It seems to me that "passively ordain" is an oxymoron. God doesn't just watch things go by. Ordaining something is, in the nature of the case, active. Stories don't write themselves, except in a figurative sense. Authors actively write them. Neither jot nor tittle can exist without the author putting his pen to the paper.

Dear Spatula:

In a lighter note, do you have copyrights on the phrases above or can I use it for free? I loved them!

Milt

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Craig,
Again, you appear to dwell on "God begging" instead of "man begging"-- which is what I was trying to understand. In your soteriology, Christ's work is not enough to accomplish the salvation of men; in essence, you are teaching that God must enable man to "do" something in order to benefit "specially" from Christ's work. This is a form of synergy.

My initial question relates to it in that I was asking you how much begging on the part of man is required BEFORE God enables the "elect one" to perform the work necessary to benefit specially from Christ's atonement.

You still have not answered the question--all you have said, again, is that God does not beg and you don't see synergism in your system. Am I not understanding you or am I not communicating my questions in a clear manner? Is there something more that I can add to clarify?

Thanks again for the discussion.

Hi Roger,

Yes, I must admit in your previous posts that I thought you were alluding to the erroneous notion of God "begging" man to accept salvation. At least you know, anyway, that I have never held to this error - nor have I ever taught it! I am confident that I have clearly communicated to you in my posts that I believe that salvation is by grace alone, based on Christ's finished work on the cross and that it is always bestowed on God's terms!

I see now that you meant to convey to me, how much "begging" must be done on the part of men in order to specially benefit from Christ's work. Roger, the answer is so simple to me. In a word "NONE!" I reject this concept totally and I fear that the way you have posed this question implies that you consider this idea to be inherent in my theology.

I have said repeatedly in my posts on this site that I believe that faith and repentance are natural duties that all men are called upon by God to exercise. God knows that without his electing grace, those who do exercise their "natural" duties do these things in vain - in a saving sense; that is, those who do believe and repent in their natural strength will demonstrate fake and phoney conversions and will pop up as the "tares" in the church. All of this fulfils God's purposes and plan. God only gives the gifts of saving faith and repentance to his elect.

Moreover, man can never "beg" or ask God for his saving mercies in his natural, unregenerated state. There is no synergism in my theology as I have presented it to you in this thread. Synergists believe that God works in man only the ability to believe, not faith itself. I do not believe this. How many times do I have to say it - I believe, according to scripture, God bestows not only the power to believe but also faith itself (see Ephesians 2:8-9; Phil 1:29).

I DO NOT BELIEVE that saving faith depends on man's own decision, man's "begging" to God pleading for him to grant salvation, man's good conduct or works or his omission of opposition to the gospel. Scripture is crystal clear to me that all who believe in Christ believe solely by virtue of divine grace (which is only given to the elect) and NOT through their own power or effort.

As a Christian and a bible believer I believe firmly and with a clear and strong head:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day". (John 6:44).

This is God's electing grace which is given only to his people! God is in control of this process and God always gets what he wants!

Roger, I do not believe that man can do anything to earn or procure salvation. It is God's choice and his alone. I think where you may have become confused with my theology - and this applies to Nick and Mary as well, among some others - is with the use of "terms" and "labels" that I have used in this discussion. You must read in context what I am saying - and what I am NOT saying.

For example, I have said I believe in "free will" but I have defined in my posts clearly what I have meant by this term and what I do not meant by this term; I have said I believe in the "two wills" of God but I have explained that God is not a split personality and always gets what he wants. The list could go on; I consider some of the "labels" on the PN profiles are ambiguous and more options are sometimes needed to do justice to the nuances of meaning inherent in the questions.

Roger, I have always believed that those who are saved are saved by God's grace alone without any merit or begging on their part.

I know having said all this, there are still some differences between us on our exact, precise formulation of biblical soteriology. However, I do not think we are that far apart; and we just might be a bit closer than you think.

I am confident that I have answered your questions thoroughly and disclosed to you my understanding of these biblical issues and matters.

Let's keep up the communication and keep exploring where some "road blocks" may possibly arise and where the differences arise. I have no agenda! All that matters to me is the truth of God, no matter who is "right" or "wrong"; and the truth of God will shine forth and soar above all the opinions of tradition and men.

Yours in Christ,

Craig

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Craig,
Again, you appear to dwell on "God begging" instead of "man begging"-- which is what I was trying to understand. In your soteriology, Christ's work is not enough to accomplish the salvation of men; in essence, you are teaching that God must enable man to "do" something in order to benefit "specially" from Christ's work. This is a form of synergy.

My initial question relates to it in that I was asking you how much begging on the part of man is required BEFORE God enables the "elect one" to perform the work necessary to benefit specially from Christ's atonement.

You still have not answered the question--all you have said, again, is that God does not beg and you don't see synergism in your system. Am I not understanding you or am I not communicating my questions in a clear manner? Is there something more that I can add to clarify?

Thanks again for the discussion.

Hi Roger,

Yes, I must admit in your previous posts that I thought you were alluding to the erroneous notion of God "begging" man to accept salvation. At least you know, anyway, that I have never held to this error - nor have I ever taught it! I am confident that I have clearly communicated to you in my posts that I believe that salvation is by grace alone, based on Christ's finished work on the cross and that it is always bestowed on God's terms!

I see now that you meant to convey to me, how much "begging" must be done on the part of men in order to specially benefit from Christ's work. Roger, the answer is so simple to me. In a word "NONE!" I reject this concept totally and I fear that the way you have posed this question implies that you consider this idea to be inherent in my theology.

I have said repeatedly in my posts on this site that I believe that faith and repentance are natural duties that all men are called upon by God to exercise. God knows that without his electing grace, those who do exercise their "natural" duties do these things in vain - in a saving sense; that is, those who do believe and repent in their natural strength will demonstrate fake and phoney conversions and will pop up as the "tares" in the church. All of this fulfils God's purposes and plan. God only gives the gifts of saving faith and repentance to his elect.

Moreover, man can never "beg" or ask God for his saving mercies in his natural, unregenerated state. There is no synergism in my theology as I have presented it to you in this thread. Synergists believe that God works in man only the ability to believe, not faith itself. I do not believe this. How many times do I have to say it - I believe, according to scripture, God bestows not only the power to believe but also faith itself (see Ephesians 2:8-9; Phil 1:29).

I DO NOT BELIEVE that saving faith depends on man's own decision, man's "begging" to God pleading for him to grant salvation, man's good conduct or works or his omission of opposition to the gospel. Scripture is crystal clear to me that all who believe in Christ believe solely by virtue of divine grace (which is only given to the elect) and NOT through their own power or effort.

As a Christian and a bible believer I believe firmly and with a clear and strong head:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day". (John 6:44).

This is God's electing grace which is given only to his people! God is in control of this process and God always gets what he wants!

Roger, I do not believe that man can do anything to earn or procure salvation. It is God's choice and his alone. I think where you may have become confused with my theology - and this applies to Nick and Mary as well, among some others - is with the use of "terms" and "labels" that I have used in this discussion. You must read in context what I am saying - and what I am NOT saying.

For example, I have said I believe in "free will" but I have defined in my posts clearly what I have meant by this term and what I do not meant by this term; I have said I believe in the "two wills" of God but I have explained that God is not a split personality and always gets what he wants. The list could go on; I consider some of the "labels" on the PN profiles are ambiguous and more options are sometimes needed to do justice to the nuances of meaning inherent in the questions.

Roger, I have always believed that those who are saved are saved by God's grace alone without any merit or begging on their part.

I know having said all this, there are still some differences between us on our exact, precise formulation of biblical soteriology. However, I do not think we are that far apart; and we just might be a bit closer than you think.

I am confident that I have answered your questions thoroughly and disclosed to you my understanding of these biblical issues and matters.

Let's keep up the communication and keep exploring where some "road blocks" may possibly arise and where the differences arise. I have no agenda! All that matters to me is the truth of God, no matter who is "right" or "wrong"; and the truth of God will shine forth and soar above all the opinions of tradition and men.

Yours in Christ,

Craig

[Spatula]

Dear Spatula:

In a lighter note, do you have copyrights on the phrases above or can I use it for free? I loved them!

Milt

You may quote them freely and use them as your own.

[MCoving]

Hi Craig! I was just reading through this thread more and came across your profile as well. I just am hoping you'll continue to think upon things, I know you are still searching.. I remember being in the same shoes. I pray that you'll come to see the Truth, and that the things of the Bible will be revealed to you more and more. Though I was just curious what Bible verses back up these doctrinal beliefs of yours in your profile and the reasoning you have:
1. God loves all men
2. Jesus died for all men
3. Salvation is offered to all men
4. God elected some to Heaven
5. God did not elect some to Hell

I know this also has to go with this thread as you asked about Gods hatred for the reprobate. You believe God loves them. Just curious as to why you believe this when most verses I come across talk of Gods love for His children, for those who obey, for those without sin BECAUSE of Christ's death for them alone.

Christ dieing for all and God loving all is something I was taught before in my old church. Salvation being offered to all I also was taught, was taught that its offered to all but only some choose to accept it. The more I read thru the Bible the more this just didn't sit right with me. If you like I could give you some verses to ponder over?

I'm excitied for you coming to the forum... I know it has and will continue to challenge you. Just like it has and will continue to challenge me.. and also put me in my place. You dont know how many times I have felt like a child here. But it humbles me and makes me grow in the Lord more and more.

Take care,
Mary

[Craig kennedy]

Hi Craig! I was just reading through this thread more and came across your profile as well. I just am hoping you'll continue to think upon things, I know you are still searching.. I remember being in the same shoes. I pray that you'll come to see the Truth, and that the things of the Bible will be revealed to you more and more. Though I was just curious what Bible verses back up these doctrinal beliefs of yours in your profile and the reasoning you have:
1. God loves all men
2. Jesus died for all men
3. Salvation is offered to all men
4. God elected some to Heaven
5. God did not elect some to Hell

I know this also has to go with this thread as you asked about Gods hatred for the reprobate. You believe God loves them. Just curious as to why you believe this when most verses I come across talk of Gods love for His children, for those who obey, for those without sin BECAUSE of Christ's death for them alone.

Christ dieing for all and God loving all is something I was taught before in my old church. Salvation being offered to all I also was taught, was taught that its offered to all but only some choose to accept it. The more I read thru the Bible the more this just didn't sit right with me. If you like I could give you some verses to ponder over?

I'm excitied for you coming to the forum... I know it has and will continue to challenge you. Just like it has and will continue to challenge me.. and also put me in my place. You dont know how many times I have felt like a child here. But it humbles me and makes me grow in the Lord more and more.

Take care,
Mary

Hi Brandan,

It is true that I hold to God's electing grace but I do not believe the scriptures support the notion that God created a damned people.

I must now be honest and declare that I find this interpretation to be a "forced" one and does not resonate with God's character portrayed in the scriptures as holy, wise, just, good, merciful, kind, just, loving and forgiving.

There are many scriptures to support my thesis and these scriptures are the very fountain of life for countless Christians, including myself. I realise that from your side you will rejoin with counter scriptures to assert and defend your position that God created a damned people fitted for destruction. I have decided not to "go there". I consider it is absolutely unprofitable for either of us to continue this debate.

I am smart enough to realise and know that anything further I say will not, for the briefest moment, appeal to any of you; furthermore, I understand that anything further I say will not be anything new to you or will lead you to modify or review your schema.

I do hold to a universal love of God for all, a universal atonement, the free offer of the gospel and common grace, duty faith and duty repentance, free will in the sense I have explained to you in my posts; and, most importantly, the just judgment of God which is based on principles of righteousness and equity.

It is for these reasons, that I have decided to remove myself from this web-site and "move on". I know deeply in my soul that I do not belong here.

I want to thank you for the "hospitality" you have extended to me on this web-site and for the freedom to explore and search. Unfortunately, we see these things very differently. I think the supreme thing I have learned from this web-site is to be - in the words of Milt - free from "labels".

Yes, I am free from all labels, schemes, traditions and opinions of men. I am free to listen to the voice and revelation of God as given in the divine scriptures. That is my only agenda!

Therefore, there will be no further posts from me and I will not be visiting your web-pages again.

May God bless you and keep you,

In Christ

Craig