ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Cross Reference]

Either by your will or His, only for those who are affected by it, true?

We are just talking about who to blame. We know from scripture and God all those without Christ are responsible for their own lives.

Lon: Since we both know the Jesus said: "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you". John 15:4-7 (KJV)

Question: Who is responsible for your abiding in Him?

 

[Cross Reference]

The bottom line is still the same, and always will be. Man is not uncreated. So there is nothing within man that isn't created, whether in the original creation or in the new creation. So even any apparent and presumed or alleged cooperation by man regarding salvation is, at its core cause and functionality, Monergism; even if it looks like Synergism.

Then man was NOT created in the image of God!!

 

[Cross Reference]

Not my call. It is yours in the sense that you have to go one way or the other. A no is a no. A yes is a yes. You are responsible for that.

So, bottom line is man does have a freewill as part of his being created in the image of God. That's nice to read, Lon, perhaps as first step to mutual understanding other issues. Thank you.

 

[Cross Reference]

No, I am presenting Holy Scripture . . .

Nonsense and you know it. This is what makes you unbearable in discussions, i.e., Your parroting the untoward understanding of someone else as scripture. Why not accept what the scriptures say as written without their input and save yourself? . . or perhaps that isn't God's will for you?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So this presumably applies to man's non-cooperation? Thus:

So even any apparent and presumed or alleged rebellion by man is, at its core cause and functionality, Monergism; even if it looks like Synergism.

Still waiting.

First of all... Why and how could man ever be in a contingent mutual relationship with a Holy and Righteous God based upon Synergism? Man is not Creator, but created.

If you understood Ponerology (Evil-ology) and Hamartiology, you'd know exactly what is Monergistic without having that double standard.

Tov and Ra'a are most often (mis-)translated as "good" and "evil", respectively. More fittingly, tov is more overarchingly translated as "functional", while ra'a is privation or negation OF tov by adding something for subtraction.

Example... An intricate mechanism of gears and levers is designed to be tov (functional). The addition of a foreign object in the intricate mechanism subtracts tov (functionality) as ra'a (dys-/mal-/non-functionality) by whatever degree from slight to great.

The serpent added to God's Word to subtract functionality. Eve did the same. Spiritual death ensued, as did the onset of sin.

What you don't comprehend is that God's Monergism includes every contingent potentiality and plausibile possibility in His eternal and immutable mind.

It's the serpent who interrupted the Syngerism of man by God's Monergism. God is demonstrating His sovereignty and power by redeeming man TO Synergistic functionality FROM the Edenic onset of dysfunctionality.

If you'd ever stop engaging in Modernistic attempts at logic and concepts and study lexicography for a few years, you might have some hope of ever actually understanding all that you challenge in your pretense of understanding.

You're merely a perpetual skeptic lobbying for the sovereignty of man over God and His Word. I'm no longer convinced you are genuine. This is some odd kind of competition for you. And you presume that your foundation of reasoning and your concepts are somehow valid as a fulcrum point to pry at everything.

You're merely here to be a Devil's Advocate for all things. You don't want the truth. You want to leverage your false truth AS the truth by any means. And I don't think it's even intentional, which is even more sad.

Believe or don't. If you have the Synergism for it, you're without excuse. It's available to all.

Just remember... Eve was deceived because of her physical senses and desire for the good of the tree, not the evil. And it was the tree of da-ath... physical senses knowledge. That's where you are right now. I'd stop chowing and start fasting that fruit if I were you.

 

[Cross Reference]

First of all... Why and how could man ever be in a contingent mutual relationship with a Holy and Righteous God based upon Synergism? Man is not Creator, but created.

All "Polywoggle"!

"Or do you suppose that the Scripture is speaking to no purpose that says, The Spirit Whom He has caused to dwell in us yearns over us and He yearns for the Spirit [to be welcome] with a jealous love?" James 4:5 (AMP)

"'What, do you consider this is an idle word of scripture?—'He yearns jealously for the spirit he set within us'.)"James 4:5 (MOFF)

The severity of it all:

". . . I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" Exodus 20:5 (KJV)

 

[Sonnet]

First of all... Why and how could man ever be in a contingent mutual relationship with a Holy and Righteous God based upon Synergism? Man is not Creator, but created.

If you understood Ponerology (Evil-ology) and Hamartiology, you'd know exactly what is Monergistic without having that double standard.

Tov and Ra'a are most often (mis-)translated as "good" and "evil", respectively. More fittingly, tov is more overarchingly translated as "functional", while ra'a is privation or negation OF tov by adding something for subtraction.

Example... An intricate mechanism of gears and levers is designed to be tov (functional). The addition of a foreign object in the intricate mechanism subtracts tov (functionality) as ra'a (dys-/mal-/non-functionality) by whatever degree from slight to great.

The serpent added to God's Word to subtract functionality. Eve did the same. Spiritual death ensued, as did the onset of sin.

What you don't comprehend is that God's Monergism includes every contingent potentiality and plausibile possibility in His eternal and immutable mind.

It's the serpent who interrupted the Syngerism of man by God's Monergism. God is demonstrating His sovereignty and power by redeeming man TO Synergistic functionality FROM the Edenic onset of dysfunctionality.

If you'd ever stop engaging in Modernistic attempts at logic and concepts and study lexicography for a few years, you might have some hope of ever actually understanding all that you challenge in your pretense of understanding.

You're merely a perpetual skeptic lobbying for the sovereignty of man over God and His Word. I'm no longer convinced you are genuine. This is some odd kind of competition for you. And you presume that your foundation of reasoning and your concepts are somehow valid as a fulcrum point to pry at everything.

You're merely here to be a Devil's Advocate for all things. You don't want the truth. You want to leverage your false truth AS the truth by any means. And I don't think it's even intentional, which is even more sad.

Believe or don't. If you have the Synergism for it, you're without excuse. It's available to all.

Just remember... Eve was deceived because of her physical senses and desire for the good of the tree, not the evil. And it was the tree of da-ath... physical senses knowledge. That's where you are right now. I'd stop chowing and start fasting that fruit if I were you.

Before I respond, are you going to reply to this?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Before I respond, are you going to reply to this?

I compiled that list for YOU to spend time studying those passages and usages, along with Greek anarthrous nouns and the Greek article.

I've spent years doing so, and will continue doing so as long as I have the breath of physical life in me. That's how vital it is to understanding the depth, breadth, and height of God's Word.

Unless/until you do that to at least some nominal extent, then there's not much I can help you with beyond what I've done. Nobody has engaged with you more fully and exhaustively.

If you want to contend for Synergism, then go ahead. If some false comprehension of Monergism is standing in the way for you, then by all means set it aside and move ahead.

But you being trapped in endless counterpoint as an apostatized former Believer (or whatever the appropriate label is that you'd prefer) isn't going to matter much in this life or the age to come.

Apart from the Synergism/Monergism conflict... What is your boggle? Why would the presence of Monergists deter you from faith? Why are you on a crusade to exterminate Monergism while refusing to believe according to the Synergism you claim is the only valid answer for a God that you judge in your own pride?

Either God is God or He is not. Wrangling about the age-old chicken-egg of Monergism/Synergism isn't going to help you comprehend the basics OR intricasies of linguistics and exegesis, etc.

Setting all that aside... Why are you here? I'm to the point that I'd restrict my conversations to the Synergistic aspect if it meant getting you past this giant hump in the road.

You seem to be here for no more than the shenanigans of making a puzzle of everything to distract from God and His glory by/in/through the Son.

The paradox of time and timelessness will not go away. So now what? What's your end-game? Must Monergism versus Synergism be resolved between all comers for you to personally deal with the Gospel and face your own sin condition and depravity?

Cut to the quick with it, mate. Calvinists aren't the obstacle for your salvation. So what is?

 

[Cross Reference]

Before I respond, are you going to reply to this?

Sonnet, You do know you have given PPS all the excuse he needs to obfuscate, don't you?

 

[Sonnet]

I compiled that list for YOU to spend time studying those passages and usages, along with Greek anarthrous nouns and the Greek article.

I've spent years doing so, and will continue doing so as long as I have the breath of physical life in me. That's how vital it is to understanding the depth, breadth, and height of God's Word.

Unless/until you do that to at least some nominal extent, then there's not much I can help you with beyond what I've done. Nobody has engaged with you more fully and exhaustively.

I made a specific point regarding 1 Corinthians 15:27 - unless you are willing to respond then there's not much point continuing. You seem to be offended that I even dared to raise a query.

If you want to contend for Synergism, then go ahead. If some false comprehension of Monergism is standing in the way for you, then by all means set it aside and move ahead.

But you being trapped in endless counterpoint as an apostatized former Believer (or whatever the appropriate label is that you'd prefer) isn't going to matter much in this life or the age to come.

Apart from the Synergism/Monergism conflict... What is your boggle? Why would the presence of Monergists deter you from faith? Why are you on a crusade to exterminate Monergism while refusing to believe according to the Synergism you claim is the only valid answer for a God that you judge in your own pride?

Again, you take offence. I'm just asking question and stating what I consider scripture affirms. If you really can't deal with me then I'm not forcing you to continue.

Either God is God or He is not. Wrangling about the age-old chicken-egg of Monergism/Synergism isn't going to help you comprehend the basics OR intricasies of linguistics and exegesis, etc.

Neither you nor I can claim infallibility. I accept that you know a whole lot more than I do about the Greek language, but the translations we have don't appear to reflect the nuances you claim.

Setting all that aside... Why are you here? I'm to the point that I'd restrict my conversations to the Synergistic aspect if it meant getting you past this giant hump in the road.

I'm here to debate and discover truth. Don't assume that the giant hump is on my road.

You seem to be here for no more than the shenanigans of making a puzzle of everything to distract from God and His glory by/in/through the Son.

Not.

The paradox of time and timelessness will not go away. So now what? What's your end-game? Must Monergism versus Synergism be resolved between all comers for you to personally deal with the Gospel and face your own sin condition and depravity?

Let's just stick to debating the issues and forget if I believe or not.

 

[Sonnet]

Sonnet, You do know you have given PPS all the excuse he needs to obfuscate, don't you?

?

 

[Cross Reference]

?

Who are you that he should take his precious time to bother to further explain to you since you have revealed your lack of ability to comprehend the things of God. . your choice to believe for salvation, notwithstanding. His mind is as "Smearcase". [maybe he has a Greek verb/noun for that]

 

[Sonnet]

Who are you that he should take his precious time to bother to further explain to you since you have revealed your lack of ability to comprehend the things of God. . your choice to believe for salvation, notwithstanding. His mind is as "Smearcase". [maybe he has a Greek verb/noun for that]

Ok - but as I said to Eagle Wings - not all who claim belief are true believers.

Please note - I'm not asserting that either PPS or EW are not true believers.

 

[Cross Reference]

Ok - but as I said to Eagle Wings - not all who claim belief are true believers.

Please note - I'm not asserting that either PPS or EW are not true believers.

Nor am I. That is where their differences and mine cross paths insofar as they no doubt believe, I am a heretic, which carries more weight when condemning one as me. [though my opinion of PPS carries a like weight] He needs to be pitied.

 

[Cross Reference]

Nor am I. That is where their differences and mine cross paths insofar as they no doubt believe, I am a heretic, which carries more weight when condemning one as me. [though my opinion of PPS carries a like weight] He needs to be pitied.

This might be helpful you in some way:


"If we are not changed by grace then we are not saved by grace" . . A.W. Tozer

 

[Nang]

So this presumably applies to man's non-cooperation? Thus:

So even any apparent and presumed or alleged rebellion by man is, at its core cause and functionality, Monergism; even if it looks like Synergism.

Still waiting.

One cannot analyze salvation by comparing it to the fall.

Adam was put under commands (Law) immediately, making the creature accountable to the Creator. Adam failed in this regard and was declared a guilty man.

Since the fall, the entire human race has only functioned under this sentence of guilt; meaning none can do good (Romans 3:10-19). However, the Law still stands, all men remain accountable, but no man can meet the moral standards of the Law.

Only one Man could and did fulfill all the Law for a people given to Him to redeem and reconcile to God.

Comparing the first choice of Adam, does not give any of us a choice to do good now or to find favor with God. It is too late. We can only throw ourselves upon the mercy of God and beg for His saving grace. (And when a soul does this, it is evidenced that soul is being drawn by the monergistic powers of God, to faith in Jesus Christ. John 6:37-40)

Anyone who murmurs against the above gives evidence they are none of His. John 6:40-58

Please carefully study these revelations given by the Lord Himself.

 

[Cross Reference]

One cannot analyze salvation by comparing it to the fall.

Why not?

Adam was put under commands (Law) immediately, making the creature accountable to the Creator. Adam failed in this regard and was declared a guilty man.

Law?? Since when does choice and law mean he same thing? And then explain what the choice was Adam was was subjected to that opposed his obedience to God?

Since the fall, the entire human race has only functioned under this sentence of guilt; meaning none can do good (Romans 3:10-19).

Nonsense as you believe it! Quit with that mantra.

However, the Law still stands, all men remain accountable, but no man can meet the moral standards of the Law.

The Law is now a Person. You want His name?

Only one Man could and did fulfill all the Law for a people given to Him to redeem and reconcile to God.

An which "law" was that because Jesus did "work" on the Sabbath numerous times?

Comparing the first choice of Adam, does not give any of us a choice to do good now or to find favor with God. It is too late. We can only throw ourselves upon the mercy of God and beg for His saving grace. (And when a soul does this, it is evidenced that soul is being drawn by the monergistic powers of God, to faith in Jesus Christ. John 6:37-40)

That is terrible! God loves those who love Him, love being the operative word. No gift in that. Everything you say is based upon fear and legalism.

Anyone who murmurs against the above gives evidence they are none of His. John 6:40-58

Baloney!

Please carefully study these revelations given by the Lord Himself.

They are not revelations but simply good acripture twisted by you to mean what they don't say.

 

[Cross Reference]

Nang, Why Jesus if God "decrees" whom He will to be saved and that can't be altered in any way? Did not His "decrees" apply to the saints of the OT unto salvation without anything being altered? Why do have Jesus for anything? I mean, by the sovreignty of God everything is accomplished, is it not?

 

[Nang]

Nang, Why Jesus if God "decrees" whom He will to be saved and that can't be altered in any way?

God decreed to save a people (creatures) through Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:3-7

Did not His "decrees" apply to the saints of the OT unto salvation without anything being altered?

The OT saints were saved through faith in God's promises of the Christ who would come into the world as the seed of Eve and David. Genesis 3:15; John 7:42, Romans 1:3, II Timothy 2:8

Why do have Jesus for anything?

It was the will of the Creator to reconcile creatures to Himself, despite their failings and faults. This required the hypostatic union of man/God as manifested in Jesus Christ.

I mean, by the sovreignty of God everything is accomplished, is it not?

You betcha . . .

I won't even ask why you think that the Incarnation of Jesus Christ might challenge His Sovereignty.

 

[Cross Reference]

God decreed to save a people (creatures) through Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:3-7

Paul is expressing God's mercy and His great love to God to be inclusive of all who confess Christ and are called according to His purposes.

The OT saints were saved through faith in God's promises of the Christ who would come into the world as the seed of Eve and David. Genesis 3:15; John 7:42, Romans 1:3, II Timothy 2:8

Saved by a promise of salvation that they would order up their lives to live in that hope but not redeemed, right? Where did they go when they died?

It was the will of the Creator to reconcile creatures to Himself, despite their failings and faults.

So by that you are now saying the the OT saints really didn't need to be saints. Isn't that correct?

Here is what Paul wrote:

"Therefore being justified by faith, we [now] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by [our] faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Romans 5:1-2 (KJV) [emphasis mine]

So by that, all fallen men have now had peace with God made for him by the blood of Jesus shed on his behalf and he doesn't even realize it. I would have to believe that there are many fallen men who are pretty good men who have no idea Jesus did that for them; no idea they had the penalty of Adam's sin lifted from them and all they needed was a preacher to inform them for them then to make their choice. You can believe that, can't you?

This required the hypostatic union of man/God as manifested in Jesus Christ.

Far as I can tell it only required a sinless man's blood. Why would say it required more than that?

I won't even ask why you think that the Incarnation of Jesus Christ might challenge His Sovereignty.

Challenge? God can do whatever wants except violate Himself.