What happens to non-christians after death?

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

With all due respect, Sam, I think your poll options reflect your confusion.

Yes it does. That's why I started the thread. Some say morality is relevant to salvations, other say the opposite and regardless of whose position I talk about I'm accused of misrepresenting people

and that's why I started the thread.

po0k

Voted: Other

We go back in the pile.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The poll questions aren't very clear.

I and many other Christians I would know of hold the position, that humans can be moral without believing in God (not without God existing, that's a different question altogether particularly when it could be questioned if there would be anything in existence without God existing).

The question of whether or not one can be saved, is different in my understanding of the passage. Salvation isn't earned by us if we look particularly to Ephesians chapter 2, Romans chapter 3, Mark chapter 10.

Indeed, many Scriptures, including Romans chapter 3 which I have already cited, Psalm 14, and 53 back up the view that no human is good on their own merit.

Salvation is based on accepting Christ's salvation, and becoming justified on His behalf, rather than your own because you are in essence guilty before God. The Jewish Scriptures mention that the Messiah would be wounded for the transgressions of humanity in Isaiah 53.

Morality, on the other hand, is doing what is right, from what is wrong. These standards of right and wrong are absolute even if humans have difficulty agreeing with them. Ultimately they are set by God. So from my perspective, moral living, is living as God intended in His creation. Non-believers in many cases can do a better job than Christians can. Indeed the opposite is also true.

You could be the most moral person in the world, but you would still fall short of God's standard. Likewise, the most immoral person in existence, if they accept genuinely the free grace of God through the Crucifixion, can be saved.

If I am mistaken, I hope that others will challenge this opinion and provide their reasoning so I can learn. Or even a fuller understanding.

So your answer one the poll would be option 1, "All non-christians go to hell, all christians go to heaven". Correct?

And could you answer my question about the "free choice"? How can it be said that I have the option to freely accept or reject the gift when I have no way of knowing if the offer is real and no way of ever finding out? It seems to me that I don't have the necessary information to make an informed choice in this matter no? It's as if I'm being given a choice between a thousand black boxes and I won't find out which (if any) is the right one until it's too late. Would you disagree with that and if so why?

philologos

Not as simplex.

There are a number of factors that could impinge on this:
1) Genuine faith is required in Christ's crucifixion.
2) What happens to those who have never heard about Jesus is unclear.
3) It is possible for non-Christians pre-Christ to be saved.

As with all things, I find that things aren't always black and white. So I'd be in the other camp on the poll.

As for not having a free choice, and having no way of determining whether the offer is real. Do you think I think that as a Christian?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

One thing I often hear is that atheists theoretically should behave immorally because we have no ultimate consequences and the fact that we generally behave morally is used to argue for a conscience which some theists for some reason equate with the existence of a god. But since morality is irrelevant to salvation, theists have no consequences for their actions either. Again, very confusing.

Morality is not irrelevant to salvation. It is irrelevant to initially being saved: we are not justified by our works, but by our faith. However, all true faith is thereafter accompanied by good works as we walk in newness of life.

Also, you say that I can freely accept or reject this gift but there is a problem with that. The problem is that there are thousands of groups all claiming to offer me gifts and even if I decide to accept one, until I die I have no way of knowing if the gift I have chosen to accept is real or one of the many false ones on offer. How can it be said that I can freely choose to accept or reject the offer when I have no way of knowing if the offer is real and no way of ever finding out?

But there is! Only a fool would commit himself to a God whom he was not sure was there. How can you be sure? Seek Him in prayer; ask Him to reveal to you whether the gospel is true or not, if He is the true God and if He saves all who come to Christ:
John 7:6 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

If I decide to accept this offer surely I'm running the risk that one of the other offers is the real one?

Don't accept anything until you know its true.

I can say with absolute certainty that if I found out tomorrow that the gift being offered by christianity was real I would accept it in a heartbeat but........

Seek:
Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Both believing God and believing in God are true of demons. They have no doubt about what He says - they just hate it. They have no doubt that He exists - they just hate Him. When Abraham believed God, he also of necessity had to believe in Him - if He didn't exist, how could one believe what He said?

1) I don't agree it's necessary to believe in God in order that a man believe God. If an atheist finds himself appalled at the actions of a paedophile then it is God's 'voice' he is believing in this matter - whilst not at all believing in God. It can only be God he believes in this instance because it is only God who is the source of his knowledge of what's good (and by extension, what's evil).

(Which is not to say this general belief of the atheist equates to believing God unto salvation)


2) I'd agree that the demons can believe God as well as believe in God. So the matter would appear to centre onwhat Abraham believed (or what his believing it modelled in type, perhaps). Not all believing God results in justification we would agree. But we cannot avoid that it was believing God (on some or other issue) that resulted in Abrahams justification.

But the belief that saves is more than accepting the facts; it is gladly embracing them, embracing the God so revealed.

Whilst agreeing (above) that saving belief isn't just any old believing God (such as the demons and atheists do) I'm not sure I'd jump at "gladly embracing" (whatever belief it is you're suggesting should be gladly embraced). For example: suppose that saving belief was described by the phrase "conviction of sin, righteousness, judgement". Such a conviction could be expected to bring about a certain poverty of spirit, a certain mourning, a certain thirsting for righteousness, a certain "Oh wretched man that I am"-ness. That belief isn't one that sinners would gladly embrace - rather, it is something we would only embrace if we had no other option but to embrace it. Which is hardly a glad embrace.

The gladness would, I suggest, come later. After this conviction, this saving conviction ran it's course - resulting in being born again.

The believer has to believe God exists, not just any god. He has to believe all He says. He has to trust Him, and entrust himself to Him. Just as Abraham was prepared to offer up Isaac at God's command.

The believer will believe God exists - per definition. The question is whether he has to believe that God exists in order to cross from lost to found (after which he might be expected to believe in God). From the above argument and what I've previously said, we see that

a) one doesn't have to believe in God to believe God in the general sense

b) it is believing God that results in justification.


Paul utilises the case of Abraham believing God on the issue of the provision of an heir as his modeling of the means whereby a man is saved by faith. I'd like to hold focus on that if we can.

Christ said that Abraham rejoiced to see His (Christ's) day, that he saw it and was glad. The OT saints knew something of the coming Redeemer. Moses and all the prophets spoke of Him. Job looked for Him.

Something of .. through a glass very darkly. I'm not excluding the possibility that our just saved sheepherder up the side of a Tibeten mountain won't know of something of a redeemer through a glass very darkly. Through a glass very darkly permits all sorts.

It might be noted that Abrahams rejoicing can be expected to have occurred post his justification. It wasn't his knowledge of a through a glass darkly redeemer that produced the locus of salvation. It wasn't necessary for his salvation in other words.

Is belief in Christ a consequence or a cause of being saved? Here's a clear word on it:

Acts 16:9 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”


You have no grounds to think that any man who is ignorant of Christ will be saved. When God is going to save any man, He brings the gospel to him. He sends missionaries with the gospel, He puts Christians in the man's way.

The grounds I have are the fact that Paul uses Abrahams example in the context of a swathe of doctrinal framework dealing with salvation and how it is (and isn't) wrought. And that example doesn't say anything about believing in Christ as the means whereby a man is translated from lost to found. That example also happens to indicate to us that God's way of salvation then is as it is now.

The example above, shouldn't, I think, be used as a broad doctrinal brushstroke given that salvation mechanics isn't really the subject to hand. I'd note however, that my own general position is reinforced by this case. This is a man under conviction: for he falls down trembling for some reason. And the fact he seeks salvation means he must be convinced that there is something he needs serious saving from...

All of which would indicate that before this man has ever heard of salvation in Christ, he has believed God (for how else could he be so convinced?). Which, according to Paul, is the point at which a man crosses the threshold from lost to found. That belief, believing God, is the belief that results in justification.

Eternal life is spoken of as the reward for the believer of the gospel:

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Indeed - and our question is whether such believing is the cause of being saved or a consequence of having been otherwise saved. So far we've the situation:

- with Abraham, where his translation from unjustified to justified arises not out of belief in Christ but believing God

- with Acts 16:9, where a prior work (strongly indicating conviction of sin, righteousness and judgement) is carried out on this man whereby we can conclude that he has believed God. It is after this that he is faced with the notion that Christ is his saviour. But he has already been justified..

Later in this John 6 passage we read

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

...which reinforces the notion of something prior-to-belief-in-Jesus being the tipping point into salvation. You, as a Calvinist suppose this too - reckoning God's election of a person to be the prime cause of salvation. I'm not that dissimilar in having a different tipping point than belief in Christ. It's just that my locus is "man believes God".

And his belief, this believing God, is credited to him as righteousness. This is something available to all men I'd hold. Not just a predetermined few.

But the gospel is 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.'

I'm afraid I don't agree that the gospel is confined so. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. Believe what? Well, God.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Not as simplex.

There are a number of factors that could impinge on this:
1) Genuine faith is required in Christ's crucifixion.
2) What happens to those who have never heard about Jesus is unclear.
3) It is possible for non-Christians pre-Christ to be saved.

As with all things, I find that things aren't always black and white. So I'd be in the other camp on the poll.

I possibly should have been more clear in my options but I had limited space. I know there are thought to be a number of exceptions to the rule such as the ones you mentioned. My poll options were meant to refer to people in general living today. Do you believe that general rule that is applied to the vast majority who had the opportunity to accept Christianity but didn't is that they all go to hell and all those who accept this gift go to heaven?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for not having a free choice, and having no way of determining whether the offer is real. Do you think I think that as a Christian?

No I don't think you think that but even if you think there are compelling reasons to pick christianity the fact remains it's not as simple as an offer of a gift that you are free to accept or reject. I have never rejected any gift, I can't because I don't think that there is any gift to reject. If I thought for one moment that this offer was genuine I'd accept it instantly. It's not a question of accepting or rejecting a gift, it's a question of whether you can bring yourself to believe that this particular gift is genuine above all others, at which point you'd have to be insane to reject it.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it does. That's why I started the thread. Some say morality is relevant to salvations, other say the opposite and regardless of whose position I talk about I'm accused of misrepresenting people

and that's why I started the thread.

I realise that, Sam. Indeed, I could have told you you were confused after our last exchange. :pac: Please understand that I'm not chastising you for attempting to gain a little more understanding. Rather I am suggesting that your poll is flawed because it is based on your own misconceptions. The result is muddled options that lead to shoehorned responses. I think both JA and myself have flagged this.

If you don't understand the position of Christians how can you set the options of the poll? I can't imagine any decent survey would be framed under fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. Again, I think you would be far better off looking at the stance of the main denominations. Please consider all of this this constructive criticism.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

Morality is not irrelevant to salvation. It is irrelevant to initially being saved: we are not justified by our works, but by our faith. However, all true faith is thereafter accompanied by good works as we walk in newness of life.

if it's irrelvant to initially being saved then it's irrelevant to salvation. The confusion I have is people often referring to morality as a requirement for salvation but you are talking about it as a consequnece of it. And we've had that conversation so let's not have it again

wolfsbane wrote: »

But there is! Only a fool would commit himself to a God whom he was not sure was there. How can you be sure? Seek Him in prayer; ask Him to reveal to you whether the gospel is true or not, if He is the true God and if He saves all who come to Christ:
John 7:6 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.


Don't accept anything until you know its true.


Seek:
Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!

I have saught and so have many many former believers and we got no answers. But of course the response will be that we didn't truly seek so again, let's not repeat this conversation

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I realise that, Sam. Indeed, I could have told you you were confused after our last exchange. :pac: Please understand that I'm not chastising you for attempting to gain a little more understanding. Rather I am suggesting that your poll is flawed because it is based on your own misconceptions. The result is muddled options that lead to shoehorned responses. I think both JA and myself have flagged this.

If you don't understand the position of Christians how can you set the options of the poll? I can't imagine any decent survey would be framed under fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. Again, I think you would be far better off looking at the stance of the main denominations. Please consider all of this this constructive criticism.

I'm sure I would get a better understanding by looking at the stated position of the denominations but I think the problem is that an awful lot of people who call themselves Christian need to do the same. You say I am incorrectly conflating morality and salvation and I agree but still over 25% of people have picked morality related options.

What is your position on it? Not the few exceptions like people who never heard of Jesus, what rules apply people living today?

tdv123

Voted for other.

There is no heaven or hell so we won't be going anywhere.

starbelgrade

I'm going to Iceland.

(The supermarket, not the country).

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have saught and so have many many former believers and we got no answers. But of course the response will be that we didn't truly seek so again, let's not repeat this conversation

The first 4 beatitudes in Matthew 5 outline the basis whereby one would seek God as a soon-to-be-believing unbeliever. Are you poor in spirit: indicating a recognition of your own core impoverishment, a recognition that there is something deeply amiss at the centre of you?. Do you mourn over yourself: the state you are in, the thoughts that rule you, the harm you do others, the inability to will yourself into being a 'better person'. Has this knowledge about yourself driven you to meekness about yourself: whatever about the front you might put up to the world, inside you no longer think your a fine and dandy chap. The meek are humble - they've been humbled by the knowledge they have about themselves. Do you thirst for righteousness: do you yearn to be free of the shackles of wrongness and rotteness that entangle you?

Impoverishment, mourning, meekness, thirsting ... all words that suggest a deep inner hunger and a deep inner laying bare of the soul - which nothing the world has to offer can fill or cover (try as you doubt will have done to fill and cover it so - if you ever arrive at this point). In the measure that such things are involved in your motivation to search then you are on the right path. All other motivations are but useless pawing around in the dark.



3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first 4 beatitudes in Matthew 5 outline the basis whereby one would seek God as a soon-to-be-believing unbeliever. Are you poor in spirit: indicating a recognition of your own core impoverishment, a recognition that there is something deeply amiss at the centre of you?. Do you mourn over yourself: the state you are in, the thoughts that rule you, the harm you do others, the inability to will yourself into being a 'better person'. Has this knowledge about yourself driven you to meekness about yourself: whatever about the front you might put up to the world, inside you no longer think your a fine and dandy chap. The meek are humble - they've been humbled by the knowledge they have about themselves. Do you thirst for righteousness: do you yearn to be free of the shackles of wrongness and rotteness that entangle you?

Impoverishment, mourning, meekness, thirsting ... all words that suggest a deep inner hunger and a deep inner laying bare of the soul - which nothing the world has to offer can fill or cover (try as you doubt will have done to fill and cover it so - if you ever arrive at this point). If that's the basis by which you seek then you will surely find. Anything other than that is stumbling around in the dark.



3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

Yes antiskeptic, we've already had the conversation where I explained that the state that you are talking about that is supposed to bring you to salvation is known to make people susceptible to believing absolutely anything that anybody tells them as long as they promise to make them stop feeling like that. If I was to bring myself to that state I'd be just as likely to become a scientologist as a christian depending on who got to me first or which country I happened to be raised in

edit: it's the first step in alcoholics anonymous for example: "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable"

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes antiskeptic, we've already had the conversation where I explained that the state that you are talking about that is supposed to bring you to salvation is known to make people susceptible to believing absolutely anything that anybody tells them as long as they promise to make them stop feeling like that. If I was to bring myself to that state I'd be just as likely to become a scientologist as a christian depending on who got to me first or which country I happened to be raised in

edit: it's the first step in alcoholics anonymous for example: "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable"

None of which affects what I say - even if it does mask it.

If the nature of people is that they strive for independence from God then you can expect a continuum. On the one end you'll have people who are about as far away from poverty of spirit as one could hope to be: life is fine, sunny, dandy. The future looks bright .. "and I'm feeling good, about me". Far from mourning about their condition they positively rejoice in it.

As you slide downwards from that point you begin to pick up those whose outlook is less than brilliant. And the further down you go, the more you begin to encounter people wriggling around on the horns which impale them. And the places they look to to relieve that pain become more and more desperate the further down you go: alcohol, workahol, gamblinahol shopping, TV watching til all hours, drugs, sex, violence, hobbies....

Anything can become a god.

That such people further down the continuum seek succour in all kinds of religions or end up in an AA clinics doesn't mean they've reached the other end of the continuum. Because it's only at the very end of the barrel - when there is no place left to turn - that a person will turn to God (because God has made it that that is the place where people will find him). Or, in the case that their will is not prepared to kneel before God, they will turn to suicide for release from the pain*.

Some might reach the bottom of their own barrel during an AA programme (as per my oldest pal). Others might apply the brakes and halt arrival at the bottom of the barrel by exchanging one pain release (alcohol) for another (life without alcohol) through the mechanism of an AA programme. It might be the same AA programme but it's different people in different places on the continuum doing the programme.


*which is not to say that all suicides are the final answer of someone refusing to kneel before God. The desparation that results in someone pulling the trigger might well be admission of arrival at the bottom of the barrel. God can save faster than a speeding bullet can travel.




-


Note that the point isn't to prove that God exists. The point is to demonstrate that the search-pattern employed by you which you deem not to have produced results isn't suggested by Christianity as being the search-pattern that could produce results. Indeed, the fact that you dismiss the search-pattern that is suggested as producing of results underscores the fact you haven't actually searched at all.

Little wonder you haven't found then

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Note that the point isn't to prove that God exists. The point is to demonstrate that the search-pattern employed by you which you deem not to have produced results isn't suggested by Christianity as being the search-pattern that could produce results.

Um, yes it is. The only difference is that you say the people who came to the state where anything can be a god didn't go far enough down that road to get to the state where "there is no place left to turn" other than to christianity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed, the fact that you dismiss the search-pattern that is suggested as producing of results underscores the fact you haven't actually searched at all.

Little wonder you haven't found then

No I can safely say that I have never done that but:

1. You are the only person I have ever heard describe this as a requirement for salvation. Do you think this applies to all people and those who have not gone through this process are not actually saved?
2. Many many people other than me have gone through this process and come out the other end with just as much certainty as you in some other belief system. Yes you can say they didn't get to the end but they would say the same about you. You can't both have got to the end no matter how sure either of you are. At least one of you is absolutely certain about a falsehood and I see no more reason to believe it's the other guy than you

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Um, yes it is. The only difference is that you say the people who came to the state where anything can be a god didn't go far enough down that road to get to the state where "there is no place left to turn" other than to christianity.

Sorry, I thought you were dismissing 'poverty of spirit' inspired searching out of hand.

Not that such a search pattern is sure to result in arrival at God - a person might well content themselves with some bearable pain level part of the way down.

You are the only person I have ever heard describe this as a requirement for salvation. Do you think this applies to all people and those who have not gone through this process are not actually saved?

I know. People tend to focus on the pointy end of things where someone "accepts Jesus as their Lord and Saviour" without looking at how it is that someone comes to be in that state.

Yet the gospels are replete with people who find themselves in desparate need through all manner of means - before finally arriving at Christ. The woman with a bleeding issue - she'd have been rejected and shunned as unclean, the tax collector/publican - reviled by all and carrying the burden of a man who makes his livelihood by treading on the backs of others, the lepers, the thief on a cross, the sick, those demented with the pain of losing a loved one. All tortured, all brought to the end of themselves, all turning to God as their-solution-of-last-resort.

All people need go through this - whether it be a silent agony or a more publically humiliating one. It's just the way it is. And all people are entitled to do what they can to prevent being brought to their knees by this process.

Many many people other than me have gone through this process and come out the other end with just as much certainty as you in some other belief system. Yes you can say they didn't get to the end but they would say the same about you. You can't both have got to the end no matter how sure either of you are. At least one of you is absolutely certain about a falsehood and I see no more reason to believe it's the other guy than you

Which is a perfectly acceptable position to take. You're being exposed to a description of the mechanics of the way of salvation from the Christian perspective - I'm not sure how well the Muslim will be able to provide you with same. If you want to suppose the postions perfectly balanced - so that you can't suppose one more likely true (assuming one true at all) then that's your perogative.

At the end of the day, this process is leading you to make a declaration about Christ. Who will you say he is..

Me? I call him my Lord and my Saviour.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm sure I would get a better understanding by looking at the stated position of the denominations but I think the problem is that an awful lot of people who call themselves Christian need to do the same. You say I am incorrectly conflating morality and salvation and I agree but still over 25% of people have picked morality related options.

What is your position on it? Not the few exceptions like people who never heard of Jesus, what rules apply people living today?

I would imagine that if you put "Jessica Alba" or "Scarlett Johansson" you would have received a few more votes, too. While I agree that there are plenty of people who don't fit denominational doctrines, I still believe that your questions are not framed in a clear and logical manner. But if you don't see this then I guess I'll leave you to it.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

All people need go through this - whether it be a silent agony or a more publically humiliating one. It's just the way it is. And all people are entitled to do what they can to prevent being brought to their knees by this process.

Assuming that this is the case, that all people who want to be saved must bring themselves to the lowest possible point where their only option is to accept christianity, why do you think god would design such a system? It honestly seems very strange to me that an omnipotent being would create an entire universe and billions of people who are rotten to the core and punish them unless they not only realise this but manage to find the correct belief system to from this burden in a world full of thousands of false ones.....

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would imagine that if you put "Jessica Alba" or "Scarlett Johansson" you would have received a few more votes, too. While I agree that there are plenty of people who don't fit denominational doctrines, I still believe that your questions are not framed in a clear and logical manner. But if you don't see this then I guess I'll leave you to it.

No I know they're not framed in a clear and logical manner but that's because the varied and inconsistent responses I have received about the relevance or lack thereof of morality to salvation has not been put forward to me in a clear and logical manner. I started the thread to find out how if at all morality was related to salvation. Some are still telling me it's important, others are telling me they're separate issues, others are telling me it's a free choice, still others are saying I must bring myself to my lowest ebb where accepting christianity is my only option, others are telling me that faith is important and others are telling me that only a fool would accept a god they didn't know for certain was there. It's all very confusing.

I have seen you say that not all non-christians go to hell. Does this refer only to the few exceptions like people before Jesus' time and people who never heard of him or is it possible to know that christianity exists but not find a story about a guy walking on water particularly plausible while still living as good a life as any christian and go to heaven?

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have seen you say that not all non-christians go to hell. Does this refer only to the few exceptions like people before Jesus' time and people who never heard of him or is it possible to know that christianity exists but not find a story about a guy walking on water particularly plausible while still living as good a life as any christian and go to heaven?

To answer your question, I don't know.

But we seem to be having the same discussion again. Remember the one where you used mildly pejorative language about some guy walking on water? I'm not interested in revisiting that discussion because frankly it makes me suspicious of your motives. I find myself asking is "Sam seeking information for informations sake? Or is he just pursuing his stated mission?"

Either way, I'm out of this talk.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Assuming that this is the case, that all people who want to be saved must bring themselves to the lowest possible point where their only option is to accept christianity, why do you think god would design such a system?

I say: all people who have been brought to the bottom of the barrel will want to be saved.

You say: all people who want to be saved must bring themselves to the bottom of the barrel.

Can you see the difference?



The only people who want salvation are people who have been brought to the point of realising that they need it. Anybody who isn't at that point ("the bottom of the barrel") won't realise they need salvation and so won't want it. They might very well want the pain, which results from their sin/their living in a sinful, fallen world, to be removed - and there are any number of ways to alleviate such pain: religion, drugs, sex, success, deny one has done wrong. But that's not them wanting salvation.

Only bottom of the barrel people want that. Bottom of the barrel people are those who didn't evade the pain at all costs. And the weight of that pain brought them to their knees.

As to why it is so? Well, God is utilising the world as it is: fallen. It wasn't so much designed by him to be that way and designed by Adam and God's response involves his dealing with the world as He finds it. Why did God permit Adam to corrupt the world so? Free will...

It honestly seems very strange to me that an omnipotent being would create an entire universe and billions of people who are rotten to the core and punish them unless they not only realise this but manage to find the correct belief system to from this burden in a world full of thousands of false ones.....

God didn't create the universe so, Adam took an action. God is attempting to rectify things. As it happens, the way it is provides a supremely elegant (if painful) means whereby our choice re: God is played out.

God manages to give fallen man a choice re: God, without the problem of God's direct appearance overly influencing the choice.

We're punished for doing a wrong we don't have to do. That seems fair enough.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I know they're not framed in a clear and logical manner but that's because the varied and inconsistent responses I have received about the relevance or lack thereof of morality to salvation has not been put forward to me in a clear and logical manner. I started the thread to find out how if at all morality was related to salvation. Some are still telling me it's important, others are telling me they're separate issues, others are telling me it's a free choice, still others are saying I must bring myself to my lowest ebb where accepting christianity is my only option, others are telling me that faith is important and others are telling me that only a fool would accept a god they didn't know for certain was there. It's all very confusing.

Your misinterpreting what I am saying.

It is a free choice to accept Jesus and be forgiven. This does not mean that your choices will not have consequences. As with everything in life, if you choose one thing over another consequences will most likely follow.

I do personally believe that morality is a separate issue to salvation. However, after one has been forgiven, one should be showing the fruits of their faith. If one has genuine faith in Christianity one should be seeing these fruits. Jesus Himself refers to them in Matthew chapter 7 they are also discussed in James chapter 2.

I've shown you the Scriptural basis for my reasoning anyway.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say I am incorrectly conflating morality and salvation and I agree but still over 25% of people have picked morality related options.

Which, unfortunately proves nothing, since we have no way of knowing whether those 25% are Christians, or simply non-Christians some of who, as we well know in this forum, have a propensity for answerting questions addressed to Christians by presenting an unrecognisable parody of Christian belief.

I am one of the 50% for whom none of the options on poll applied.

I believe that all true Christians (defined as those of all denominations and of none who have repented of their sins, placed their faith in Christ and are now seeking to live for Him) will go to eternal life (heaven being a temporary staging post on the way there).

I believe that those who have understood the Gospel (not just a miserable parody of it where a Crusader said "Kiss this Cross or die, infidel!") and rejected that Gospel will go to hell.

I believe that those who lived in faith before Christ's coming (eg Abraham, Moses, David etc who were looking for the promised Messiah) will share the state of the true Christians.

I have no idea what will happen to those who never heard or understood the Gospel, but I am confident that God will be righteous and just in His treatment of them.

I believe that salvation is received by faith, totally unrelated to any moral works that we have done. It is all based on what Jesus has done, not on anything I could ever do. However, I also believe that good works and an improvement in morality are an inevitable result of salvation. Those who claim to be saved but fail to demonstrate moral improvement are proving that their salvation is not genuine or sincere.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I say: all people who have been brought to the bottom of the barrel will want to be saved.

You say: all people who want to be saved must bring themselves to the bottom of the barrel.

Can you see the difference?


The only people who want salvation are people who have been brought to the point of realising that they need it. Anybody who isn't at that point ("the bottom of the barrel") won't realise they need salvation and so won't want it. They might very well want the pain, which results from their sin/their living in a sinful, fallen world, to be removed - and there are any number of ways to alleviate such pain: religion, drugs, sex, success, deny one has done wrong. But that's not them wanting salvation.

Only bottom of the barrel people want that. Bottom of the barrel people are those who didn't evade the pain at all costs. And the weight of that pain brought them to their knees.

As to why it is so? Well, God is utilising the world as it is: fallen. It wasn't so much designed by him to be that way and designed by Adam and God's response involves his dealing with the world as He finds it. Why did God permit Adam to corrupt the world so? Free will...

God didn't create the universe so, Adam took an action. God is attempting to rectify things. As it happens, the way it is provides a supremely elegant (if painful) means whereby our choice re: God is played out.

God manages to give fallen man a choice re: God, without the problem of God's direct appearance overly influencing the choice.

We're punished for doing a wrong we don't have to do. That seems fair enough.

I'm afraid I don't really see the difference antiskeptic because either way it looks like only those who have particularly horrible lives will ever be saved and those whose lives aren't that bad will never realise they need it. I know I'm not the only person to get the impression that you're very much promoting antiskepticism rather than any denomination of christianity I've ever heard of.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't really see the difference antiskeptic because either way it looks like only those who have particularly horrible lives will ever be saved and those whose lives aren't that bad will never realise they need it.

The ways in which a person might arrive at the bottom of the barrel need not strike you as "horrible". What about the person who climbs the ladder of success to the very highest rung? Some enjoy the view and experience what few would describe as a horrible life. Others are struck by the emptiness that vast wealth can bring - when all your possible needs have been met, but you still have aching need.

Nobody can avoid all the following occurring, their whole lives through: sickness, depression, pain, fear, job loss, worry, bereavement, terror, addiction, hopelessness, sadness, guilt, anguish, approaching death. Any and all of these things can be used to bring a person to their knees.

Life is horrible at some point for everyone - the question is, will the horribleness of life (assisted by it's contrast to the fantastic aspects of life) result in a person dropping to their knees. It's only an act of insistant will that could prevent it.

I know I'm not the only person to get the impression that you're very much promoting antiskepticism rather than any denomination of christianity I've ever heard of.

I think you'll find a range of opinions within the body evangelicalism (to which I'd consider myself belonging).

Your job is to find a problem with the mechanics of salvation posed which lets you off the hook come Judgement day (supposing there is one and you remain lost so as to face judgement). The oft quoted and fair objection: "it is unreasonable to expect me to believe in something for which I have insufficient evidence/a better explanation" clearly won't float here. There is no need for you to believe in God in order to be moved from the lost position to the found one.

looksee

If a person is a Christian he believes he has the possibility of going to heaven or to hell. He also may or may not believe that non-Christians have the possibility of going to heaven or to hell.

Just because he believes it does not make it so from the non-Christian point of view.

Non-Christians do not have the beliefs about heaven and hell, either because they have never heard of them, or have a different faith, or have rejected them, or have never bothered to think about it.

So, who's reality applies? Maybe Christians will go to heaven and find good non-Christians there, but if the N-C's do not believe in heaven then the ones in heaven have to be figments of the Christians' imaginations.

Either that or the Non-Christians by implication have to be grateful to the Christians for creating a place for them to go. And do good Muslims and Jews go to the Christian heaven, they come under the heading of non-Christian, so presumably they should?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Morality is not irrelevant to salvation. It is irrelevant to initially being saved: we are not justified by our works, but by our faith. However, all true faith is thereafter accompanied by good works as we walk in newness of life.
if it's irrelvant to initially being saved then it's irrelevant to salvation.

That's illogical, as well as untrue. Many things have requirements that follow but do not precede. One does not have to answer the draft to become a citizen, but the citizen may well be required to answer the draft.

The confusion I have is people often referring to morality as a requirement for salvation but you are talking about it as a consequnece of it. And we've had that conversation so let's not have it again

OK, but you need to realise pre-conversion morality is NOT a requirement for salvation in the Bible. Those who teach the need of it do so from their own imaginations and have absolutely no Biblical support.

I have saught and so have many many former believers and we got no answers. But of course the response will be that we didn't truly seek so again, let's not repeat this conversation

OK again - and you understand correctly what we would say.
_________________________________________________________________
John 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

experiMental

Some of them get reincarnated, and their souls roam the planet for eternity.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

1) I don't agree it's necessary to believe in God in order that a man believe God. If an atheist finds himself appalled at the actions of a paedophile then it is God's 'voice' he is believing in this matter - whilst not at all believing in God. It can only be God he believes in this instance because it is only God who is the source of his knowledge of what's good (and by extension, what's evil).

(Which is not to say this general belief of the atheist equates to believing God unto salvation)

If you are using 'believe' in that sense, then OK, the man believes God without knowing He exists. It is not the sense I was using, nor is the the sense used in the Bible.

2) I'd agree that the demons can believe God as well as believe in God. So the matter would appear to centre onwhat Abraham believed (or what his believing it modelled in type, perhaps). Not all believing God results in justification we would agree. But we cannot avoid that it was believing God (on some or other issue) that resulted in Abrahams justification.

No, the matter centres not on not just the what to believe, but on the attitude toward God. Abraham believed not just the message, but God. He regarded God as God, the one able to fulfil the mighty promises He made and certain to fulfil them because of His holy character.

Quote:
But the belief that saves is more than accepting the facts; it is gladly embracing them, embracing the God so revealed.
Whilst agreeing (above) that saving belief isn't just any old believing God (such as the demons and atheists do) I'm not sure I'd jump at "gladly embracing" (whatever belief it is you're suggesting should be gladly embraced). For example: suppose that saving belief was described by the phrase "conviction of sin, righteousness, judgement". Such a conviction could be expected to bring about a certain poverty of spirit, a certain mourning, a certain thirsting for righteousness, a certain "Oh wretched man that I am"-ness. That belief isn't one that sinners would gladly embrace - rather, it is something we would only embrace if we had no other option but to embrace it. Which is hardly a glad embrace.

The gladness would, I suggest, come later. After this conviction, this saving conviction ran it's course - resulting in being born again.

Conviction certainly is not pleasant, and it is an essential part of being saved. But one is NOT saved by conviction. One is saved when one repents and trusts in Christ - which is summarised in the phrase 'believe in' or 'believe on'. This belief follows from hearing the gospel and being convicted by the Spirit through it. The Spirit changes the heart of the elect sinner and the sinner repents and believes, comes to Christ.

Quote:
The believer has to believe God exists, not just any god. He has to believe all He says. He has to trust Him, and entrust himself to Him. Just as Abraham was prepared to offer up Isaac at God's command.
The believer will believe God exists - per definition. The question is whether he has to believe that God exists in order to cross from lost to found (after which he might be expected to believe in God).

Yes, our difference is on this point. I say no salvation without belief.

From the above argument and what I've previously said, we see that

a) one doesn't have to believe in God to believe God in the general sense

Agreed.

b) it is believing God that results in justification.

Agreed.

Paul utilises the case of Abraham believing God on the issue of the provision of an heir as his modeling of the means whereby a man is saved by faith. I'd like to hold focus on that if we can.

OK.

Quote:
Christ said that Abraham rejoiced to see His (Christ's) day, that he saw it and was glad. The OT saints knew something of the coming Redeemer. Moses and all the prophets spoke of Him. Job looked for Him.
Something of .. through a glass very darkly. I'm not excluding the possibility that our just saved sheepherder up the side of a Tibeten mountain won't know of something of a redeemer through a glass very darkly. Through a glass very darkly permits all sorts.

But not total ignorance of Christ.

It might be noted that Abrahams rejoicing can be expected to have occurred post his justification. It wasn't his knowledge of a through a glass darkly redeemer that produced the locus of salvation. It wasn't necessary for his salvation in other words.

As I showed above, Abraham had to believe much about God personally for him to believe His promises. And His promises included the blessing on all nations. With the reference to him seeing Christ's day and to him believing the promises, I think it reasonable that Christ in some way was before his pre-converted mind.

Quote:
Is belief in Christ a consequence or a cause of being saved? Here's a clear word on it:

Acts 16:9 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”


You have no grounds to think that any man who is ignorant of Christ will be saved. When God is going to save any man, He brings the gospel to him. He sends missionaries with the gospel, He puts Christians in the man's way.
The grounds I have are the fact that Paul uses Abrahams example in the context of a swathe of doctrinal framework dealing with salvation and how it is (and isn't) wrought. And that example doesn't say anything about believing in Christ as the means whereby a man is translated from lost to found. That example also happens to indicate to us that God's way of salvation then is as it is now.

The example above, shouldn't, I think, be used as a broad doctrinal brushstroke given that salvation mechanics isn't really the subject to hand. I'd note however, that my own general position is reinforced by this case. This is a man under conviction: for he falls down trembling for some reason. And the fact he seeks salvation means he must be convinced that there is something he needs serious saving from...

All of which would indicate that before this man has ever heard of salvation in Christ, he has believed God (for how else could he be so convinced?). Which, according to Paul, is the point at which a man crosses the threshold from lost to found. That belief, believing God, is the belief that results in justification.

Your definition of saving faith/belief is mistaken. While the man had the sort of belief you rightly say, he recognised he was not yet saved,“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul confirmed this when he instructed him to Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved

Later in this John 6 passage we read

Quote:
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
...which reinforces the notion of something prior-to-belief-in-Jesus being the tipping point into salvation. You, as a Calvinist suppose this too - reckoning God's election of a person to be the prime cause of salvation.

Depends what one means by tipping point. God's eternal love for, and election of, the elect is the prime cause of their salvation. But they are not saved until the repent and believe. And before that can happen they have to be drawn by the Father. They are not saved when they were elected; nor when they are drawn. Only when the process is completed by their repentance and faith.

I'm not that dissimilar in having a different tipping point than belief in Christ. It's just that my locus is "man believes God".

The tipping point is in eternity past, when God set His love on the elect. But the tipping point is not the point of their salvation - belief in Christ is.

And his belief, this believing God, is credited to him as righteousness. This is something available to all men I'd hold. Not just a predetermined few.

As we have agreed, mere belief in something God says is some thing the demons also have. Saving belief is quite different. You say one need not believe in Christ to be saved, but the word tells us:
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Quote:
But the gospel is 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.'
I'm afraid I don't agree that the gospel is confined so. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. Believe what? Well, God.

Well, what God says - and that primarily means His word about Christ. One is not saved by believing God when He says all men are sinners. Nor any other truth if it does not include the message of salvation in His Son.
1 John 5:10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
_________________________________________________________________
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

philologos

looksee wrote: »

Just because he believes it does not make it so from the non-Christian point of view.

Sure. But the question was asked here presumably because the OP was looking for Christian viewpoints.

Naturally, Christians don't share non-Christian points of view concerning what happens next.

looksee

I think you need to read the rest of it. While it was written a bit tongue-in-cheek, there is nontheless a reasonably valid argument.

antiskeptic

At the outset, let me point out that both you (as a Calvinist) and I share a base view that strikes at the heart of what we are discussing. In the case of yourself, the Calvinist, you believe that it is God's electing of a person that forms the prime element in that persons subsequent salvation. The person must believe on Christ in order to be saved, but his believing on Christ is mere (if I might use that word) consequence. A consequence of this prior electing act of God. If God elects then the person is sure to arrive at belief. If God doesn't elect then the person surely won't arrive at belief. God's electing, you hold, is the prime cause resulting in salvation - all other elements: conviction, belief in Christ, belief in God's existance, etc., are downstream consequences of that prime move - were that we were to construct a flow chart of the path of salvation.

When I say that we share a 'base view' I mean that I also don't hold that belief in Christ as the prime element in the path to final salvation. I too believe that a flow chart drawn of the path to salvation would include a stage (or stages) prior to the persons belief in Christ (whatever that might look like) that are better said to be the prime cause resulting in salvation. If a person reaches that stage then belief in Christ (whatever that might look like in practice) is sure to follow.

To summarise: belief in Christ isn't the prime cause in the scheme of salvation in either your salvation mechanism or mine. Rather belief in Christ is subsequent to and a consequence of, that prime agency. It's a sematical issue whether we call the prime cause the "cause of salvation" or the "cause which subsequently and certainly results in salvation". From now on, if I say "prime cause of salvation", I mean this key step which sets everything else in motion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you are using 'believe' in that sense, then OK, the man believes God without knowing He exists. It is not the sense I was using, nor is the the sense used in the Bible.

It is sufficient that we agree there is interaction between God and unbelieving man in the area of man's believing of what God says or no. Romans 2 tells us as much:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

We might agree that God has a route to communicate his will to man and man has a means whereby he can respond to God's will positively or negatively. We might agree that it is not the will of man which would drive him to good - rather, it would be the force of conscience upon him - he is urged to do what he "ought to do" and so no credit goes to him when he does good - it was God's will that produced the good. And we might agree that it is the will of man which would drive him to do evil - all he need do is suppress conscience and evil will follow. Suppression means what ought be done isn't done. It follows that all credit for doing evil lies with man - it was his will that brought evil about.

Given a mechanism whereby God can bring utter conviction of sin (one which sees an interplay between God's will and man's will) there is no particular need to invoke election in order that that conviction occur.

No, the matter centres not on not just the what to believe, but on the attitude toward God. Abraham believed not just the message, but God. He regarded God as God, the one able to fulfil the mighty promises He made and certain to fulfil them because of His holy character.

Granted. If I may, I'll leave aside the issue of Abraham for a minute so as to concentrate on the point being made up top: what is this prime cause.

Conviction certainly is not pleasant, and it is an essential part of being saved. But one is NOT saved by conviction. One is saved when one repents and trusts in Christ - which is summarised in the phrase 'believe in' or 'believe on'. This belief follows from hearing the gospel and being convicted by the Spirit through it. The Spirit changes the heart of the elect sinner and the sinner repents and believes, comes to Christ.

Leaving aside whether or not the prime cause stretches as far back as election, can we agree that the prime cause isn't belief in Christ? If agreeing so, then we can move back to this previous step (conviction) and query whether this is sufficient to act as prime cause. You might see where I'm headed with this given what I say above about God having a route to man and man being able to respond to God - all without man believing in God.

The possibility is open that man can be convicted of sin without believing in God. And without having to go further back to election.

Yes, our difference is on this point. I say no salvation without belief.

What do you say now - given that you might agree that the prime cause isn't belief in either God or Christ (and remembering my point on semantics above)?

But not total ignorance of Christ.

Agreed.

I repeat that I'm not suggesting our newly believing Tibetan sheepherder isn't altered by the experience of his conversion. I see no impediment to God revealing something of a redeemer to him - just as he must have done for the OT saints. I mean, that knowledge didn't come to the OT saints via direct exposure to the man Christ nor through a Bible, nor a missionary, nor a God channel. And how clearly must this knowledge be - if once agreeing that it fall short of the more complete exposition of Christ we believers have today.

It seems to me that the convicted heart saved need only know that everything wrong with him will be dealt with in order that he believe God on the issue of their being a redeemer for him.

As I showed above, Abraham had to believe much about God personally for him to believe His promises. And His promises included the blessing on all nations. With the reference to him seeing Christ's day and to him believing the promises, I think it reasonable that Christ in some way was before his pre-converted mind.

Although it doesn't alter the thrust of the central point I'm looking at here (prime cause), I'm having a second look at the centrality of this belief of Abraham - where it lies in the flowchart of salvation. Consider this from later in Romans 4:

.. he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

The sequence given for Abraham here sees Abraham in card-carrying relationship with God at the point of his believing God on this specific issue whereby righteousness is credited. In other words, it appears that because he is a believer, he trusts God. Which appears to mean that this passage isn't detailing how the translation from lost to found comes about. It appears you need to be already found and be in relationship with God in order to trust the promises of God: whether the promise be that you'll have a child in your dotage or that God will provide a means of your salvation.

Your definition of saving faith/belief is mistaken. While the man had the sort of belief you rightly say, he recognised he was not yet saved,“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul confirmed this when he instructed him to Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved

Given your own position of a person surely saved by virtue of being elected you should see no difficulty in applying the same thinking to surely saved by virtue of some other tipping point, eg: conviction.

Depends what one means by tipping point. God's eternal love for, and election of, the elect is the prime cause of their salvation. But they are not saved until the repent and believe. And before that can happen they have to be drawn by the Father. They are not saved when they were elected; nor when they are drawn. Only when the process is completed by their repentance and faith.

As you know, I don't agree that the prime cause is election. But we might agree that the point which makes salvation sure-to-occur renders everything downstream less critical for examination (although I can understand why a Calvinist would think otherwise - given that he has little of substance to say about why God would love this one and not that one).

The tipping point is the prime cause and the vital question becomes "what brings that prime cause about?" In the case of Calvinism there is but silence, like I say, which is of little interest if one is looking at the mechanics of salvation. An alternative view is electionless conviction: which immediately brings into play the will of man

Which is far more interesting - because the final answer as to why this man lost and this man not involves (and perhaps centres around) the will of man. Not in a positive way: man doesn't will his salvation for he cannot. But that doesn't exclude the will being involved.

The tipping point is in eternity past, when God set His love on the elect. But the tipping point is not the point of their salvation - belief in Christ is.

It might not be the point of their salvation but so what? It was sure to occur once the tipping point was ... tipped. The point at which one rejoices over a lotto win (and the point you become a lotto winner) isn't the time when you pick up the cheque, it's when the numbers are called out. It's a semantical issue I know - but it's the tipping point everyone is interested in primarily.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

It might not be the point of their salvation but so what? It was sure to occur once the tipping point was ... tipped. The point at which one rejoices over a lotto win (and the point you become a lotto winner) isn't the time when you pick up the cheque, it's when the numbers are called out. It's a semantical issue I know - but it's the tipping point everyone is interested in primarily.

Thanks for your fuller post - for time's sake I'll deal with the key issue.

Yes, we agree that salvation became certain at a point prior to the sinner believing God. For me that was in eternity past when God chose him/her for salvation. For you it is at conviction.

But that confuses me - surely you can't believe that all who are convicted go on to saving faith? If they don't, conviction is not the tipping point. Nor is hearing the gospel.

Seems to me your free-will position demands belief, saving faith, as the tipping point of salvation. Any thing prior to that could result in a 'No' to the gospel.

Or have I missed something?
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for your fuller post - for time's sake I'll deal with the key issue.

Fair enough

Yes, we agree that salvation became certain at a point prior to the sinner believing God. For me that was in eternity past when God chose him/her for salvation. For you it is at conviction.

Agreed. Although conviction itself is too "believing God" for it would be God who would be the one presenting and enabling the argument which convinces. Comviction = belief

But that confuses me - surely you can't believe that all who are convicted go on to saving faith?

I believe that all who are convinced have believed God and that that is the tipping point. They have passed from death to life. What they go on to believe depends very much on circumstance. It could be the clear(er)-as-a-bell belief in Christ as we know it (although we can agree there is less than absolute clarity on what that means among Christians). Or it could be through a glass rather more darkly (as the OT characters knew it).

if they don't, conviction is not the tipping point. Nor is hearing the gospel.

What the gospel is is, I think, rather more complex than " You're a sinner and Christ is your saviour". Would you agree.

Seems to me your free-will position demands belief, saving faith, as the tipping point of salvation. Any thing prior to that could result in a 'No' to the gospel.

Or have I missed something?

I think you have.

Firstly, I don't believe we have free will. I believe there are two options for sinful man: express will unto sin OR don't express will at all. The second opton doesn't involve an act of will, it involves the will doing nothing.

Secondly, my position demands belief - belief arising out of being convinced of something. I believe it is possible to prevent oneself arriving at the point of conviction (through act of will) but once arriving there its over you go .. into salvation.

_______________________________________________________
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Agreed.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Yes, we agree that salvation became certain at a point prior to the sinner believing God. For me that was in eternity past when God chose him/her for salvation. For you it is at conviction.
Agreed. Although conviction itself is too "believing God" for it would be God who would be the one presenting and enabling the argument which convinces. Comviction = belief

Ah, I see where some of our problem lies. You are using 'belief' in the non-saving sense. Like the demons believing God. Yes, conviction results from conscience's witness to God's law.

But the issue was, What is the tipping point into salvation? Election/predestination for me, but you said conviction. But I know many who were convicted of their adultery, theft, etc. who went on to continue such behaviour, excusing it as their natural weakness. And of those who were convicted of their sin and knew they ought to turn from it and follow Christ for salvation, most have rejected God's call and put it from their minds. Are you saying they are converted?

Quote:
But that confuses me - surely you can't believe that all who are convicted go on to saving faith?
I believe that all who are convinced have believed God and that that is the tipping point. They have passed from death to life. What they go on to believe depends very much on circumstance. It could be the clear(er)-as-a-bell belief in Christ as we know it (although we can agree there is less than absolute clarity on what that means among Christians). Or it could be through a glass rather more darkly (as the OT characters knew it).

So you do believe these adulterers, thieves and rejectors of the gospel are saved!!! I can't believe you do.

Quote:
if they don't, conviction is not the tipping point. Nor is hearing the gospel.
What the gospel is is, I think, rather more complex than " You're a sinner and Christ is your saviour". Would you agree.

Well, it can be stated in its basic terms in several ways. It does not need a training in theology. The apostolic message is summed up in:
Acts 20:21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Quote:
Seems to me your free-will position demands belief, saving faith, as the tipping point of salvation. Any thing prior to that could result in a 'No' to the gospel.

Or have I missed something?
I think you have.

Firstly, I don't believe we have free will. I believe there are two options for sinful man: express will unto sin OR don't express will at all. The second opton doesn't involve an act of will, it involves the will doing nothing.

Doing nothing in face of conscience's rebuke or the call of the gospel is REJECTION of those. An act of the will.

Secondly, my position demands belief - belief arising out of being convinced of something. I believe it is possible to prevent oneself arriving at the point of conviction (through act of will) but once arriving there its over you go .. into salvation.

Maybe we mean different things by conviction? The conviction normally referred to in Biblical discussion is that of the conscience reproving us for our sin and of how we should repent and believe on Christ. Many experience this and go on to reject conscience's demands.

What is the conviction you refer to, that certainly leads to eternal life?

________________________________________________________________
Acts 24:25 Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.”

J C

... here is what will happen to those who believe on Jesus Christ and engage in good works, as a result ...
... and to those who refuse to believe on Him ... and continue to behave selfshly

Mt 25:31 ¶ "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 'for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;
36 'I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?
38 'When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?
39 'Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
40 "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 'for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;
43 'I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?'
45 "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, I see where some of our problem lies. You are using 'belief' in the non-saving sense. Like the demons believing God. Yes, conviction results from conscience's witness to God's law.

There is everyday, non-saving conviction which is, we agree, believing God. And specific saving conviction which is also, we agree, believing God. What I am suggesting indeed is that the tipping point of salvation occurs at saving conviction (and not in some predestination event. I'm also suggesting salvation is open to all men at all times - irrespective of whether they have heard of Christ or not). What remains to be examined is what constitutes saving conviction? And how is it arrived or not arrived at. These would be vital questions.

I suggest saving/tipping point conviction isn't your being convinced that "Christ is my saviour". Rather, saving conviction occurs a little earlier (in sequence) than belief in Christ as saviour and would be something along the lines of the type-conviction assailing the man in Romans 7 or the thief on the cross: conviction of sinfulness, righteousness, judgement.

But the issue was, What is the tipping point into salvation? Election/predestination for me, but you said conviction. But I know many who were convicted of their adultery, theft, etc. who went on to continue such behaviour, excusing it as their natural weakness.

I'm not suggesting that everyday conviction is saving conviction in itself, but I would see everyday conviction as a central componant in the crescendo-conviction that assaults our friend in Romans 7. Whereas men can generally suppress the day-to-day conviction that dogs them, Romans-7-man is being overwhelmed by it. It's as if the calloused skin which would normally hold conviction at bay has been stripped away and the man is being exposed to the full and true extent of his filth. He is tortured by it, driven to his knees by it.

It's the totality of his everyday sin that forms the substance of this mans torment - nothing more. The only thing missing here is a mans usual ability to suppress the truth regarding his sin. Which is an important thing to note: it's the absence or removal of something (suppression) that brings about his state of conviction not the presence or addition of something (eg: a supernatural overwhelming action way of additional convicting power).


The seeds of saving conviction lie within sinful man - for every man has sin aplenty on his account. Suppression is the thing which prevents such conviction blooming. And suppression is an act of will.

And of those who were convicted of their sin and knew they ought to turn from it and follow Christ for salvation, most have rejected God's call and put it from their minds. Are you saying they are converted?

Who had you got in mind? For myself, the first time I truly knew of Christ and his salvation was the day I was born again. Up to that point, Christ was just a claim people (and some ancient, irrelevant book) made.

So you do believe these adulterers, thieves and rejectors of the gospel are saved!!! I can't believe you do.

Rest assured I don't - at least they are not saved yet if ever they will be. Everyday conviction in itself doesn't mean saving conviction. But I do think everyday conviction is the substance of a potential crescendo of conviction: a conviction which cannot be resisted anymore.

We might ask then, what brings about this crescendo? I'd say there are two central componants:

1) the mechanism whereby pressure builds up in a sinner. In order to sin, a person must suppress the truth which is known to him. His doing so doesn't cause the conviction to disappear - it merely buries it down deep out of sight. Consider the truth-resistant will of the person a dam and each work of suppression more water added to the lake the dam is holding back. With each act of suppression, the pressure against the person is increases. And so more effort by way of will is required to sustain position.

2) the will of the sinner collapses in the face of this pressure.

Not that the will of the sinner is sure to collapse. In order to prevent collapse a person simply has to refuse point blank/no-matter-what to love the truth (and I suggest the Lord won't insist a person do otherwise this side of the grave). In that case there is no collapse of the dam, no overwhelming deluge of previously suppressed truth. And no Romans 7 type conviction.


There is something naturally just about that: salvation being the result of the work of God, damnation being the result of a sinners own express will.

Well, it can be stated in its basic terms in several ways. It does not need a training in theology. The apostolic message is summed up in:

Acts 20:21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Whilst accepting that the gospel contains that message, I'm not sure that's all that can be said about it's basic terms. It's a training in a particular theology that would permit one to circumvent the good news of Gods universal mission.

Doing nothing in face of conscience's rebuke or the call of the gospel is REJECTION of those. An act of the will.

Let me give you 2 examples. One pictorial, one practical.

A man is born with his eyes closed and has no muscles enabling his eyelids to open. And so he cannot see. Someone pulls his eyelids open and places two matchsticks there in order to prop them open. The man sees as a result. The man doesn't like what he sees and knocks the matchsticks away. His eyelids shut and he is unseeing.

No act of will involved in seeing. So long as the man's will does nothing he will remain seeing. No act of will is required in order to remain seeing

A mans conscience exerts pressure on a man to do what ought to be done. The man does it. The next day the same mans conscience exerts pressure on the man to do what he ought and he suppresses his consience and doesn't do what he ought.

No act of will is involved in doing what he ought - he was pressed into it by conscience. An act of will is involved in not doing what he ought. He suppressed (wilful act) the force that would have him do what he ought do.


My suggestion in the above illustrations is that we have a mechanism whereby mans will active/mans will inactive results in a response to the general, everyday call of God. And assuming that these general calls of God constitute part of the overall call of God (by which a man is saved or damned) we can see that a mans will is involved in his salvation/damnation.


2 Thess 2:10 seems to make that point: perishing because of an act of will - refusal to love the truth.

Maybe we mean different things by conviction? The conviction normally referred to in Biblical discussion is that of the conscience reproving us for our sin and of how we should repent and believe on Christ. Many experience this and go on to reject conscience's demands.

What is the conviction you refer to, that certainly leads to eternal life?

Hopefully this has been clarified. The everyday conviction isn't saving conviction - but it is the constituent element in saving conviction in the case that the will doesn't maintain suppression to the death.

________________________________________________________________
Acts 24:25 Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.”

It is interesting to note that Felix listened to Paul speaking on faith in Jesus but it's at this point that the very suppression I've been talking of throughout this post comes - during an attempt to convict of sin, righteousness, judgement. It's this particular truth that constitutes the nature of the everyday suppression. Not "Jesus Christ is Lord".

Fascinating..!

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

I am suggesting indeed is that the tipping point of salvation occurs at saving conviction (and not in some predestination event. I'm also suggesting salvation is open to all men at all times - irrespective of whether they have heard of Christ or not). What remains to be examined is what constitutes saving conviction? And how is it arrived or not arrived at. These would be vital questions.

I suggest saving/tipping point conviction isn't your being convinced that "Christ is my saviour". Rather, saving conviction occurs a little earlier (in sequence) than belief in Christ as saviour and would be something along the lines of the type-conviction assailing the man in Romans 7 or the thief on the cross: conviction of sinfulness, righteousness, judgement.

So any who feel the awfulness of their sinful condition must go on to saving faith? They cannot lament their condition and resolve to seek a cure, but at a later date - when conscience is not so burdened - turn back to their old way of living?

I have known some who did, and have read of countless others too. Are you saying they are nevertheless saved?

It's the totality of his everyday sin that forms the substance of this mans torment - nothing more. The only thing missing here is a mans usual ability to suppress the truth regarding his sin.

Again, many who were tormented by guilt, and who cleaned up their act, went on to revert to it again:
2 Peter 2: 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Quote:
And of those who were convicted of their sin and knew they ought to turn from it and follow Christ for salvation, most have rejected God's call and put it from their minds. Are you saying they are converted?
Who had you got in mind? For myself, the first time I truly knew of Christ and his salvation was the day I was born again. Up to that point, Christ was just a claim people (and some ancient, irrelevant book) made.

Many will tell you of their conviction, even of their repentance and of trusting in Christ - for a time. But they eventually think the whole thing a delusion and turn away.

I'm glad for you and all of us who genuinely have embraced Christ, but many who had their consciences laid bare and received the gospel with joy have since rejected it.

2) the will of the sinner collapses in the face of this pressure.

But what of those whose collapsed will later re-asserts itself? Are they still saved if they then reject the gospel they had believed?

My suggestion in the above illustrations is that we have a mechanism whereby mans will active/mans will inactive results in a response to the general, everyday call of God. And assuming that these general calls of God constitute part of the overall call of God (by which a man is saved or damned) we can see that a mans will is involved in his salvation/damnation.

Quite so. Calvinism says that a man's will is involved in his salvation/damnation. It controls his life, not his conscience.

But man's will is naturally opposed to God. It will never bow the knee to Him unreservedly.

Quote:
________________________________________________________________
Acts 24:25 Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.”

It is interesting to note that Felix listened to Paul speaking on faith in Jesus but it's at this point that the very suppression I've been talking of throughout this post comes - during an attempt to convict of sin, righteousness, judgement. It's this particular truth that constitutes the nature of the everyday suppression. Not "Jesus Christ is Lord".

Paul was preaching Christ to Felix, not just some truths about spiritual things. The very terms sin, righteousness, judgement are referenced to Himself by Christ:
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

_________________________________________________________________
John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

So any who feel the awfulness of their sinful condition must go on to saving faith? They cannot lament their condition and resolve to seek a cure, but at a later date - when conscience is not so burdened - turn back to their old way of living?

I have known some who did, and have read of countless others too. Are you saying they are nevertheless saved?

By no means..

There are two ways in which our unsaved man can deal with a troubled conscience, in the everyday, general realm.

a) He can attempt to restrain himself from that which brings about the trouble. He can firmly resolve never to do that shameful thing again - fail as he most likely will.

b) He can suppress the truth about the wrongness of what he is doing - which enables him to carry along doing it.

In practice, men combine both of the above. For example, a man might suppress his conscience in the face of a wrong just done (so as to rid himself of consciences condemnation (guilt)). And he might also resolve never to do the same thing again (so as to prevent a reoccurance of conscience condemnation in the future).

I was thinking of that man in the news, the one just caught for a murder he committed 25 or so years ago. In theory, that man may have being tortured by his conscience for the last 25 years - but in practice that's highly unlikely. My guess is that he suppressed (with whatever measure of success) his wrongdoing so as to 'forget about it'. Perhaps that suppression took the form of justifying what he did with a 'feck it, the bastard deserved it". But I imagine the suppression wasn't completely efficient - that somewhere in there he was marked and scarred by what he had done. Perhaps he's lived as exemplary a life as he can since then - by way of 'buying off' his guilt?



Our man in Romans 7 isn't an everyday-man: under the conviction of and dealing with his sin in the ways available to him. Romans 7 man is a man with no place left to hide. He stands under the full and inescapable spotlight where nothing exists to cast a shadow for him to hide in. There is no resolve he can promise himself that he hasn't already made - and failed in upholding. There is no suppression he can apply and no more self-justification for his sin. There is no good life he can live - because he realises that no matter how hard he has tried in the past, failure has dogged him. The cognitive dissonance practiced by everyday-man is a luxury no longer available to Romans 7 man .


Everyday-man might be greatly troubled in conscience on his hitting of the sides of the barrel in his slide downwards into greater and more easily accomodated depravity. He might even arrest his fall in areas of his life. Romans 7 man however, is a man who has reached the bottom of the barrel. There is no place left to turn for him and to his mind, no further left for him to fall.

Such conviction is saving conviction. It isn't the kind of conviction you're referring to: a conviction that greatly troubles a man on his way down to the bottom.

Again, many who were tormented by guilt, and who cleaned up their act, went on to revert to it again:

2 Peter 2: 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

The above might answer this. Total conviction: that's the deal.

Many will tell you of their conviction, even of their repentance and of trusting in Christ - for a time. But they eventually think the whole thing a delusion and turn away.

I'm glad for you and all of us who genuinely have embraced Christ, but many who had their consciences laid bare and received the gospel with joy have since rejected it.

I would agree that there are people for whom this occurs. It will hopefully be clear that they are not those to whom I am referring to when I speak of this totality of conviction. The gospel might be a soothing salve for some who struggle with the pain of conscience - that is to be expected when it is in the nature of folk to turn to anything that will make the pain go away. The gospel can be mis-used in this way (especially when it is mis-preached): a pain-relief agent.

But Romans 7 man is in a different place: he's far beyond the need for pain relief, he needs a cure. He needs salvation from his very self. And he knows it.

But what of those whose collapsed will later re-asserts itself? Are they still saved if they then reject the gospel they had believed?

I, like you, believe that there is an irrevocable event that occurs in the case of the saved. No matter how long the basketball runs around the ring, it is not a score until it's dropped through the hole. And once through the hole, the score is final.

Once saved always saved. Not yet saved then close is no cigar.

Quite so. Calvinism says that a man's will is involved in his salvation/damnation. It controls his life, not his conscience.

I wasn't aware that Calvinism held that a mans will was involved in his salvation. I thought that a man's will was re-programmed by God against a mans will.

Unfortunately for Calvinism, it is undeniably the case that man is controlled by two forces: his evil-powered will tending him towards sin. And his God-powered conscience tending him towards good. Which immediately introduces an element of choice in mans interaction with God. Now it's not the choice beloved of the Arminian, who supposes mans sin-enslaved will somehow freed to make a freewill choice. Rather, it's a choice that involves an active will element and an inactive one

Will active will reject God (analogous to a gearbox stuck reversing away from God)

Will inactive won't do anything regarding God (analogous to a gearbox stuck in neutral in which case God can pull the person towards him).


My suggestion is that this 'choice' ultimately determines destination. God taking the credit if we are saved (he drew us home) and us taking the credit if we are lost (we drove ourselves away)

But man's will is naturally opposed to God. It will never bow the knee to Him unreservedly.

Romans 7 man would disagree with that latter statement. Romans 7 mans naturally-opposing will has been completely exhausted - there isn't an ounce of resistance left in it. And it's his own sinfulness that has been utilised in bringing him unreservedly to his knees. All that is occurring to him really, is that he can see the full truth about himself.

The full, unadulterated and unsurpressed truth about yourself will inevitably drive you to your knees. Unreservedly.

The queston is: was this final on-his-knees position preventable by Romans 7 man (my view is that it was) or was it one which was sure to occur once God elected this man (your view)?


I don't see any particular reason for supposing other than I do: that man is permitted to maintain suppression if that is what he wills. I would suggest that God brings pressure to bear but that if the will insists on it, then it can find escape in: resolving to do better / self-justification / outright denial of wrongdoing ... and all the others means of suppression it has at it's disposal.

It's really a matter of what the will says.

_______________________________________________________________

The role of the truth is central to all this. We can agree that in the general, everyday sinning sense, suppression of truth (or a refusal to love it) is a wilful act that ties in perfectly with the tendency of a sinful nature. If such a will expresses itself, then suppression of truth must occur: as night follows day. However it is not necessary that the will express itself in the face of truth. In which case, no suppression of truth occurs.

There are, I would suggest, the two basic means whereby a man is ulimately saved or damned.

An individual will gives an ultimate* response to God's exposing of it to truth (and by extension: exposing the person to Himself and His nature). That response is to refuse to love the truth / remain in denial about what the truth is ultimately trying to say to this person / suppress the same message which was received by Romans 7 man.

That active, wilful response of results in damnation. It's a final No! to God.

An individual will gives an ultimate* response to God's exposing of it to truth (and by extension: exposing the person to Himself and His nature). That response is to remain silent/remain inactive in the face of the truth being delivered. And because the exposure isn't suppressed, the person can't but fail to see what that truth is. It's a crushing truth, the one that crushes Romans 7 man.

The inactive, will-less response results in salvation. It's not a wilful 'Yes!' to God, it an inactive-will response to the truth. Doing nothing in the face of truth and the truth itself doing the freeing.

*by ultimate I mean final answer. This doesn't mean that a lost person won't have yielded to his conscience during his life: he will have. Nor does it mean that a saved person won't have suppressed his conscience during his life: he will have.

Paul was preaching Christ to Felix, not just some truths about spiritual things. The very terms sin, righteousness, judgement are referenced to Himself by Christ:

John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

That passage tells us of the motivation/rationale of the Spirit - not that the conviction need arrive at a person wrapped up with the message of Christ. Christ is involved in all this - we have seen how the truth faced by everyman/everyday involves Christ (whether man knows about it or not) because it is connected to him and is leveraged by him (through conscience).

I understand that Paul was preaching Christ. If I was evangelising, I'd be preaching Christ. The reason being is that I've been told to preach him - not that I think that without his being preached a person cannot be saved. We've been down the road that permits through a glass darkly-ism.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

I wasn't aware that Calvinism held that a mans will was involved in his salvation. I thought that a man's will was re-programmed by God against a mans will.

The new heart 'reprograms' his will, if you like. So it is still his will, now moved by a good heart, freely choosing to obey God.

Unfortunately for Calvinism, it is undeniably the case that man is controlled by two forces: his evil-powered will tending him towards sin. And his God-powered conscience tending him towards good. Which immediately introduces an element of choice in mans interaction with God.

Calvinism agrees. Where it disagrees with your system is in the relative strength of each 'tendency'. For the unsaved, the evil tendency will always ultimately triumph. It will never sincerely bow to God.

For the saved, the good tendency will always ultimately triumph. It will always end up sincerely bowing to God.

The difference is accounted for by their natures/hearts. One has an evil/old nature/heart the other a good/new nature/heart.

Now it's not the choice beloved of the Arminian, who supposes mans sin-enslaved will somehow freed to make a freewill choice. Rather, it's a choice that involves an active will element and an inactive one

Will active will reject God (analogous to a gearbox stuck reversing away from God)

Will inactive won't do anything regarding God (analogous to a gearbox stuck in neutral in which case God can pull the person towards him).


My suggestion is that this 'choice' ultimately determines destination. God taking the credit if we are saved (he drew us home) and us taking the credit if we are lost (we drove ourselves away)

But you concede it is still a choice. To do nothing in the face of God's call is not a neutral thing - it is a wilful disobedience to the command to 'Come'.

Who is making the 'choice'? If it is the man, as both Calvinists, Arminians and you appear to say, what is causing him to choose one way or the other? To even choose not to resist, if I allow your idea? His nature.

Are you saying that man in his natural state can choose to allow God to save him, just as he can also choose not to be saved? Or do you hold that God must do something to him first, to free him from his bondage to sin so that he can repent if he wishes - yet may still refuse if he chooses? Pelagians go with the first, Arminians with the latter. Calvinists say he will always reject God, until he is given a new nature - then he will always accept God.

However it is not necessary that the will express itself in the face of truth. In which case, no suppression of truth occurs.

I do not accept that there is such a thing as a no-will position. I do not see it anywhere in the Bible. In the face of God's command to repent and believe there is only one none-sinful response: obedience.

The inactive, will-less response results in salvation. It's not a wilful 'Yes!' to God, it an inactive-will response to the truth. Doing nothing in the face of truth and the truth itself doing the freeing.

We do not see this in the Bible, no instructions to be saved that say ,Obey or alternatively do not respond, and you will be saved.

_________________________________________________________________
Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

The new heart 'reprograms' his will, if you like. So it is still his will, now moved by a good heart, freely choosing to obey God.

The original will would invariably have rejected to offer of such reprogramming (you’d suppose). Which does mean the will has been reprogrammed by force. That it now chooses to obey God (and I’m supposing you agree that at times it won’t choose so) doesn’t alter the fact of force.

Calvinism agrees. Where it disagrees with your system is in the relative strength of each 'tendency'. For the unsaved, the evil tendency will always ultimately triumph. It will never sincerely bow to God.

Where is this established in scripture (bearing in mind that in the system proposed, it isn't so much the evil tendency that bows sincerely to God, but the evil tendency vanquished. A vanquished evil tendency)

The difference is accounted for by their natures/hearts. One has an evil/old nature/heart the other a good/new nature/heart.

Yet the lost man can be stirred up and disturbed by his – so it can’t be that lost man is completely unreponsive to God . It seems to me that we have the fundementals of a system of salvation here. Every lost man:

- has choice to sin or no.
- is disturbed by sin or no.

But you concede it is still a choice. To do nothing in the face of God's call is not a neutral thing - it is a wilful disobedience to the command to 'Come'.

Indeed. It is not neutral because a) a force has been applied (God’s call) and a force will always ensure motion unless b) it is acted upon by at least an equal and opposite force. If “truth” is one biblical word for the force applied by God then “suppression of truth”would be the biblical terms for it’s opposite.

To do nothing in the face of a force applied by God would result in God’s will being done. Consider charitable giving. Truth comes at us through our TVs and so compassion can be caused to arise in us (compassion being an attribute of God). We however suppress that truth with varying justifications for why we can’t give now. And so, we suppress the truth in order that our selfish desire be done. If we didn’t suppress then the only force left is compassion. And that compassion would ensure giving occurs. You can’t sit stirred by unsurpressed compassion and do nothing. Forces just don’t work like that.

Who is making the 'choice'? If it is the man, as both Calvinists, Arminians and you appear to say, what is causing him to choose one way or the other? To even choose not to resist, if I allow your idea? His nature.

Firstly and in order to clarify. There is no choosing not to resist as such - because remaining where you've been placed by another's will doesn't involve you having to choose. If my cat is picked up by me and placed on a table, then there is no need for her to choose to remain on the table - in order that she remain there. A choice on her part is superflous to her remaining there - given that without any act of will at all she'll remain just where I put her. Ockhams Razor and all that..

What causes will to “choose” isn’t a great question because “will” by definition is that which plumps for options (in our case passively and actively) without our being able to examine what goes on inside that black box. Ultimately it's the will of a man as highest seat of self that produces the output. On the one hand he has the influence of sin which works within to entice him to suppress. On the other he has the influence of God, the beauty of which can only be denied by suppressing truth. Two influences: satisfying sin or responding to beauty. Which way he goes is up to him.

Are you saying that man in his natural state can choose to allow God to save him, just as he can also choose not to be saved? Or do you hold that God must do something to him first, to free him from his bondage to sin so that he can repent if he wishes - yet may still refuse if he chooses? Pelagians go with the first, Arminians with the latter. Calvinists say he will always reject God, until he is given a new nature - then he will always accept God.

Hopefully it is clear that I don't hold that man can make any active choice for God.

Consider things pictorially perhaps: God places his hand on every lost mans shoulder and applies force (eg: through conscience, or creation, or existential angst, etc) in the attempt to bring a man to his knees. The force isn't overwhelming however: if the mans will insists he can thwart Gods effort and on his feet he will remain. And condemned he will finally be - the consequence of a wilful refusal to bow to God. Or the will is sufficiently passive in the face of God's effort - in which case the man is finally pressed to his knees. His reaching his knees is God's criterion for applying salvation to the man (because man has in effect chosen for God (albeit passively) and so the man is saved. And is born again/given a new nature.

God applies pressure to all men in the attempt to drive all men to their knees. The only thing that prevents God succeeding in this or that individual's case .. is the will of the individual himself.

I do not accept that there is such a thing as a no-will position. I do not see it anywhere in the Bible. In the face of God's command to repent and believe there is only one none-sinful response: obedience.

You don't have to see it given that we are talking about a will. A will, per definition, is something that has options (even if only expression vs. inactivity). What Calvinism supposes is that mans "will" is on a par with the will of a robot - which is not to speak of a will at all. And so talk of disobedience to one who cannot but disobey becomes a non-sense.

I agree that non-compliance with God's command is sinful. But as stated, non-compliance occurs through an act of wilfulness – not through inactivity of will. Man need not be active in his salvation because it’s Gods kindness that leads a man to repentance - not a mans own wilful choice

We do not see this in the Bible, no instructions to be saved that say ,Obey or alternatively do not respond, and you will be saved.

There is precious little in the Bible that can be taken to even obliquely mean God elects men to be saved. That doesn't stop Calvinism though

It might just be that you're looking for you're salvation instructions in slightly the wrong place. Would you agree that something has happened in this mans life? Something that caused him to suppose he needed saving? Because if so, we're back to the old question: what produces the tipping point: election or conviction. In this case we're seeing a man convinced - not a word said about election.

Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

Fighting Irish

lol @ heaven

edellc

As an atheist i believe the following

1 - If you are buried then you decompose like every other living thing when it passes away and provide nutrient to the soil around you
2 - If cremated and scattered then become bits of the soil, sea or air around you

after all we are carbon like everything you see around you

I dont believe in having a sole as such but i do believe that we should all try and live decent lives while here on our unique planet and treat others how we would like to be treated thus "living forever" in the memories of those we leave behind

wolfsbane

(Just a quickie for tonight)

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The new heart 'reprograms' his will, if you like. So it is still his will, now moved by a good heart, freely choosing to obey God.
The original will would invariably have rejected to offer of such reprogramming (you’d suppose).

Correct.

Which does mean the will has been reprogrammed by force. That it now chooses to obey God (and I’m supposing you agree that at times it won’t choose so) doesn’t alter the fact of force.

Correct. Who says God needs permission to change a sinner to a saint?
Ezekiel 20:32 What you have in your mind shall never be, when you say, ‘We will be like the Gentiles, like the families in other countries, serving wood and stone.’
33 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. 34 I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. 35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face. 36 Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you,” says the Lord GOD.
37 “I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant;

Quote:
Calvinism agrees. Where it disagrees with your system is in the relative strength of each 'tendency'. For the unsaved, the evil tendency will always ultimately triumph. It will never sincerely bow to God.
Where is this established in scripture (bearing in mind that in the system proposed, it isn't so much the evil tendency that bows sincerely to God, but the evil tendency vanquished. A vanquished evil tendency)

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
_________________________________________________________________
John 3:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Fanny Cradock

Fighting Irish wrote: »

lol @ heaven

Your amusement would probably go down better in the A&A forum. Anyway, you get a red for your poor track record on this forum. Next time you get a banning.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

(Just a quickie for tonight)

Quickies are good

Correct.

Okay.

Correct. Who says God needs permission to change a sinner to a saint?

Nobody. God can do precisely as he likes. He can lie, he can cheat, he can steal - despite him saying he can't. The question I suppose, is whether gaining a persons permission would be consistant with God as revealed.

In my view, the pages of scripture drip with the desire of God that people turn to him and be healed - the idea that he would trample over a persons will in this regard doesn't bear scrutiny. Not in scripture, not in the operation of real life. That God should be somehow less than us at our (fallen) noblest strikes me as problematic. A will forced to love God against it's will? Is that the nature of God you see modelled by Jesus?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

"Not willing" = "willed it not". We need also note who it is that is responsible for the attempt to gather (save?) and who is responsible for the refusal to be gathered (saved). Consider:

Ezekiel 20:32 What you have in your mind shall never be, when you say, ‘We will be like the Gentiles, like the families in other countries, serving wood and stone.’

33 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. 34 I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. 35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face. 36 Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you,” says the Lord GOD.

37 “I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant;

The context here indicates Gods intent regarding the fate of a chosen people. The most obvious parallel to be drawn here is with what is sure (predestined) to occur to Christians (chosen people). For example, God finishing what he's started in them by way of santification. Or the fact they are OSAS - whatever sin they may commit. Or being made holy and righteous in his sight. God will ensure these things occur to his people - irrespective of their fickle in-process desires.

There is a world of difference however, between what is sure to occur to a particular class of people and saying that individuals are forced to become one of those class of people. The two concepts, a people for whom God has chosen to achieve certain things and a person chosen by God .. are completely different ideas. I'm not sure scripture at all supports the second, Calvinistic, notion.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Yet you agree the lost man is indeed subject to some degree to the law of God. Which is not surprising - you've only got to witness the world around you to see that. And we are told earlier in Romans also that a mans conscience commends as well as condemns him in his actions. Which supposes a man does at times obey/is subject to.. conscience.

We must suppose then that "not subject to the law of God" in the above verse is intended to mean "not recognising the total sovereignty of God". That a man is in rebellion doesn't mean he forgoes adherance to the law at all points and at all times.

Note that there is no problem here for the mechanism of salvation posed. It is a recognition of the goodness of the Law and a recognition of ones own inability to be subject to the Law which is said to constitute saving conviction. A recognition of one's own rebelliousness and inability to be any different that causes a man to sink to his knees.

That a man is unable to be subject to the Law doesn't mean he can't recognise that fact about himself.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Indeed. I'm not supposing the lost man spiritually alive. The things which can be discerned however is an everyday interaction with the Law of God as it manifests itself (in veiled fashion) to lost men. How beautifully elegant that God, at the very moment of mans falling, installs in him, the means whereby he might be restored. The knowledge of good and evil. A conscience.

_________________________________________________________________
John 3:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

As ever, the discussion is about how one becomes a sheep in the first place. Once a sheep, a person will indeed hear his voice.

There appears to be a conflation going on here between the voice of the Spirit within the Christian and the general call of God issued to lost men. I'm suggesting (with both scripture and the world around us testifying to this) that lost man can hear the latter call.

I'd warrant that it's a reading into than a reading out of scripture which supposes only the elect as hearing the call issued to all men everywhere to repent.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Correct. Who says God needs permission to change a sinner to a saint?
Nobody. God can do precisely as he likes. He can lie, he can cheat, he can steal - despite him saying he can't. The question I suppose, is whether gaining a persons permission would be consistant with God as revealed.

God cannot sin. But He can have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and can harden whom He wills - leaving them in their natural state of rebellion.

In my view, the pages of scripture drip with the desire of God that people turn to him and be healed

But that doesn't mean He will enforce or not enforce His desire. He may choose to do so for some, and not for others. None of them deserve to be saved; all deserve to be damned.

- the idea that he would trample over a persons will in this regard doesn't bear scrutiny. Not in scripture, not in the operation of real life. That God should be somehow less than us at our (fallen) noblest strikes me as problematic.

If one could intervene in the life of a drug-addict on the verge of self-destruction, forcing him against his will to take a medication that would instantly and permanently remove his cravings, would that be a good or bad thing?

God intervenes in the lives of His elect, bringing them into mental anguish over their sinful state. He then, quite unknown to them, gives them a new nature, one that will gladly heed His warnings and His loving call to follow Him. I see nothing contrary to God's character in that.

A will forced to love God against it's will? Is that the nature of God you see modelled by Jesus?

The will is not forced to love. It is forced to face its condition, then the nature is changed so that the will freely and gladly obeys His call.

Quote:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!


"Not willing" = "willed it not". We need also note who it is that is responsible for the attempt to gather (save?) and who is responsible for the refusal to be gathered (saved).

Yes, God wills the repentance of all His creatures, for how could a holy God want them to do anything but righteousness? They refuse. So what does God do? Leave them in their sin and free-will? Yes, for many that is so - His judgement falls. But for others He has ordained that a day will come when they will say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ His will includes leaving some in blindness to perish, but others to have their eyes opened and believe unto the saving of their souls:
Romans 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Quote:

Ezekiel
Quote:
20:32 What you have in your mind shall never be, when you say, ‘We will be like the Gentiles, like the families in other countries, serving wood and stone.’

33 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. 34 I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. 35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face. 36 Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you,” says the Lord GOD.

37 “I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant;

The context here indicates Gods intent regarding the fate of a chosen people. The most obvious parallel to be drawn here is with what is sure (predestined) to occur to Christians (chosen people). For example, God finishing what he's started in them by way of santification. Or the fact they are OSAS - whatever sin they may commit. Or being made holy and righteous in his sight. God will ensure these things occur to his people - irrespective of their fickle in-process desires.

There is a world of difference however, between what is sure to occur to a particular class of people and saying that individuals are forced to become one of those class of people. The two concepts, a people for whom God has chosen to achieve certain things and a person chosen by God .. are completely different ideas. I'm not sure scripture at all supports the second, Calvinistic, notion.

The people are made up of the individuals. The people cannot be saved without the individuals being saved. No point God predestining a people to be saved if He cannot guarantee the individuals - He would be giving a party and no one turn up.

Quote:
Romans
Quote:
8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
Yet you agree the lost man is indeed subject to some degree to the law of God. Which is not surprising - you've only got to witness the world around you to see that. And we are told earlier in Romans also that a mans conscience commends as well as condemns him in his actions. Which supposes a man does at times obey/is subject to.. conscience.

Sometimes man gives in to his conscience - but he is not subject to it. An unjust man might give in to the just demands of a neighbour, but be in no way subject to them. If it suited, he would break all promises to him, or even kill him. So with the sinner and God's law. Temporary obedience is not a mark of subjection to it.

We must suppose then that "not subject to the law of God" in the above verse is intended to mean "not recognising the total sovereignty of God". That a man is in rebellion doesn't mean he forgoes adherance to the law at all points and at all times.

Indeed. It means any compliance is purely outward.

Note that there is no problem here for the mechanism of salvation posed. It is a recognition of the goodness of the Law and a recognition of ones own inability to be subject to the Law which is said to constitute saving conviction. A recognition of one's own rebelliousness and inability to be any different that causes a man to sink to his knees.

That a man is unable to be subject to the Law doesn't mean he can't recognise that fact about himself.

I agree that conviction is part of the process that leads to salvation. But it is not the immediate cause of salvation, for many who are convinced of the goodness of the Law and a recognition of ones own inability to be subject to the Law ultimately reject that knowledge.

Quote:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Indeed. I'm not supposing the lost man spiritually alive. The things which can be discerned however is an everyday interaction with the Law of God as it manifests itself (in veiled fashion) to lost men. How beautifully elegant that God, at the very moment of mans falling, installs in him, the means whereby he might be restored. The knowledge of good and evil. A conscience.

It is only part of the means. Most who experience it still end up lost.

Quote:
_________________________________________________________________
John 3:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
As ever, the discussion is about how one becomes a sheep in the first place. Once a sheep, a person will indeed hear his voice.

There appears to be a conflation going on here between the voice of the Spirit within the Christian and the general call of God issued to lost men. I'm suggesting (with both scripture and the world around us testifying to this) that lost man can hear the latter call.

I'd warrant that it's a reading into than a reading out of scripture which supposes only the elect as hearing the call issued to all men everywhere to repent.

All men can hear the gospel call to repent, but only the elect (the Sheep) recognise the Shepherd's voice and follow Him. Many hear His voice and hate Him, asserting He has no right to rule over them. But His sheep in their lostness hear and know this is their Shepherd. That's why they follow Him.

As you say, the question comes down to how one becomes a sheep in the first place. Does one become a sheep by believing the gospel, or does one believe the gospel because one is a sheep? That is, does election occur at conversion or is one elect from eternity and converted in time?

When Christ says His sheep hear His voice and follow Him, I believe that refers to the elect sinner coming to repentance and faith, not the already converted continuing in the way. Proof:
John 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
Gentiles still in their unbelief are here referred to as His sheep. They were elect long before they were converted. They were His sheep, lost, for whom the Shepherd was going to seek and find.
________________________________________________________________
John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out...

65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

ravima

The good Friday agreement, when Jesus died for all, means that all will get to heaven, by his Grace. He loved us all so much, that he died for us, you and I, that we both can have eternal life with him.

no other god of any other age ever did this for his followers.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Yet the lost man can be stirred up and disturbed by his – so it can’t be that lost man is completely unreponsive to God . It seems to me that we have the fundementals of a system of salvation here. Every lost man:

- has choice to sin or no.
- is disturbed by sin or no.

Has he the ability not to sin? He has the responsibility not to. But he fell in Adam and his sinful nature cannot do other than it desires. And it does not desire to love and obey God. The man who spends the rent money on drink and horses has the responsibility to pay the rent, but not the ability to do so.

Quote:
Who is making the 'choice'? If it is the man, as both Calvinists, Arminians and you appear to say, what is causing him to choose one way or the other? To even choose not to resist, if I allow your idea? His nature.
Firstly and in order to clarify. There is no choosing not to resist as such - because remaining where you've been placed by another's will doesn't involve you having to choose. If my cat is picked up by me and placed on a table, then there is no need for her to choose to remain on the table - in order that she remain there. A choice on her part is superflous to her remaining there - given that without any act of will at all she'll remain just where I put her. Ockhams Razor and all that..

What causes will to “choose” isn’t a great question because “will” by definition is that which plumps for options (in our case passively and actively) without our being able to examine what goes on inside that black box. Ultimately it's the will of a man as highest seat of self that produces the output. On the one hand he has the influence of sin which works within to entice him to suppress. On the other he has the influence of God, the beauty of which can only be denied by suppressing truth. Two influences: satisfying sin or responding to beauty. Which way he goes is up to him.

I have great difficulty understanding how the man does not choose if he decides not to suppress God's pressure. Because, as you say, it is up to him. The cat on the table makes a choice to stay or not.

And so we are back to what makes one decide to suppress and another not. What makes one think 'God is right and I should stop resisting', and the other to think 'I don't care even if He is right, I won't have Him running my life'?

Seems to me in your system one must be less evil than the other. So our salvation is part down to God and part down to a bit of goodness in us.

Calvinism says it is all of God. He takes equally evil sinners and gives one a new heart to exercise repentance and faith, and leaves the other to follow his own evil heart. No room then to boast of our part in saving ourselves.

Quote:
Are you saying that man in his natural state can choose to allow God to save him, just as he can also choose not to be saved? Or do you hold that God must do something to him first, to free him from his bondage to sin so that he can repent if he wishes - yet may still refuse if he chooses? Pelagians go with the first, Arminians with the latter. Calvinists say he will always reject God, until he is given a new nature - then he will always accept God.
Hopefully it is clear that I don't hold that man can make any active choice for God.

Your idea of choice is still active. Deciding to do nothing is as much active as deciding to do something.

Consider things pictorially perhaps: God places his hand on every lost mans shoulder and applies force (eg: through conscience, or creation, or existential angst, etc) in the attempt to bring a man to his knees.

OK.

The force isn't overwhelming however: if the mans will insists he can thwart Gods effort and on his feet he will remain. And condemned he will finally be - the consequence of a wilful refusal to bow to God.

OK.

Or the will is sufficiently passive in the face of God's effort - in which case the man is finally pressed to his knees. His reaching his knees is God's criterion for applying salvation to the man (because man has in effect chosen for God (albeit passively) and so the man is saved.

Yes, and his choice is as active as it would have been had he chosen to resist.

And is born again/given a new nature.

If his old nature caused him to allow God to save him, why does he need a new one? He has already submitted to God.

No, regeneration/new nature was needed to cause him to be willing to be saved. God gives the sinner a new heart and obedience to the gospel follows.

God applies pressure to all men in the attempt to drive all men to their knees. The only thing that prevents God succeeding in this or that individual's case .. is the will of the individual himself.

Yes, and if man's fallen will is sovereign, if it has the final say, then how can God predestine that any will be saved? Maybe no one would believe. Are all the prophecies of Christ saving His people, of a vast number of the redeemed singing His praises in heaven, no more than foreseeing the outcome? Could it have been that just a few souls or even none at all would have believed? Is God captive to fallen man's will?

Surely the New Covenant shows that it is God who ensures His house will be filled? The Old Covenant was 'free-will' to its core - Do this and live. But man was unable to do it. So God brings in the New, I will. God's people will obey because He will cause them to, not the choice of their fallen natures. He will give them a new nature, one that will love and obey.

Quote:
I do not accept that there is such a thing as a no-will position. I do not see it anywhere in the Bible. In the face of God's command to repent and believe there is only one none-sinful response: obedience.
You don't have to see it given that we are talking about a will. A will, per definition, is something that has options (even if only expression vs. inactivity). What Calvinism supposes is that mans "will" is on a par with the will of a robot - which is not to speak of a will at all. And so talk of disobedience to one who cannot but disobey becomes a non-sense.

What is robotic about a will that follows the desire of the heart? I assume you believe the saints in heaven are unable to choose to sin? Are they robots? God is unable to sin, is He a robot?

Fallen man has the responsibility to obey, but his sin has made him unable to do so. He is not a neutral innocent condemned without cause.

I agree that non-compliance with God's command is sinful. But as stated, non-compliance occurs through an act of wilfulness – not through inactivity of will. Man need not be active in his salvation because it’s Gods kindness that leads a man to repentance - not a mans own wilful choice

He still makes a choice. The issue is what causes him to choose God's way as opposed to the other man who chooses not to.

There is precious little in the Bible that can be taken to even obliquely mean God elects men to be saved. That doesn't stop Calvinism though

Just a word search on 'elect' or 'chosen' will refute that. But here's a few examples:
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Quote:
Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
It might just be that you're looking for you're salvation instructions in slightly the wrong place. Would you agree that something has happened in this mans life? Something that caused him to suppose he needed saving? Because if so, we're back to the old question: what produces the tipping point: election or conviction. In this case we're seeing a man convinced - not a word said about election.

Yes, nothing said here about election. One way or the other. Just that the man was not yet saved, though under great conviction.

He was one of the lost sheep that Christ had, that He had to bring home to the fold. Hearing Christ's voice in the gospel, he gladly followed. Because he was Christ's sheep. If he wasn't, he would not have obeyed.
________________________________________________________________
John 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.