Rom 10:9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved:
Rom 10:10 for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (confess and believe is not passive but pro-active and synergistic)

Acts 16:30 Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved (You personally must synergistically believe in order to become saved)

Acts 17:30 Though God has overlooked those times of ignorance, he now commands everyone everywhere to repent. (The command to repent. when obeyed is not monergistic but rather an imperative command which requires a synergistic act on the part of those obeying.

Conclusion – Synergism kicks in once the monergistic act of regeneration has occured to a person.

At least the Calvinist can pray that God change a heart and save someone.

Bryan said: It seems to me that if the choice of salvation is 100% God’s choice, and, if I am not mistaken, this election occurred prior to the foundation of the world, then what would be the point of praying for anyone’s salvation?

Well, why did Jesus pray that the cup (of the cross) be passed from Him when He knew that God had for-ordained the cross (Acts 4:27-28)? I would humbly say that your view of prayer is flawed. Prayer doesn’t change God; prayer changes us. Nevertheless, instead of answering this question fully, I would pose to you why anyone, including the apostle Paul, would pray for the conversion of unbelievers if the final decision rests with man. That is, why not pray to your lost friends to make the decision instead of wasting your time with a God who is left to react to man’s decision? Seems to me that praying to God for something that is within the power of the will of man is utterly pointless.

Bryan said: since these things are certainly not clearly defined in Scripture (as compared to something like John 3:16, which is very clear and easy to understand, or at least start to understand).

I would propose that these things are clearly defined in scripture (start with John 6, move to Ephesians 1 and 2, and then conclude with Romans 9). On the other hand, John 3:16 is clear, in that ‘all the ones who believe’ will have eternal life. But who will believe? Of course, those for whom it is given and prepared. Faith is a gift from God; it cannot be generated by the will of sinful man.

Bryan said: If that is so, then why should I even try to do good? It seems if God wants me to do this or that, then there is nothing I could ever do to stop that, and if God is not with me in this endeavor then there is nothing I could do to make it good.

Again, I would point you to Romans 9 to see how Paul answers this question (particularly verse 14), as a starting point; once we submit to scripture at this point, the rest of the question can be examined. Or, to take it a step further, we should first examine just who God is, what is His nature (omniscient; omnipresence; etc.), which will give us the starting point in understanding the creature – Creator relation.

I hope that gives you a good starting place. Again, go to scripture, for it certainly has a lot to say in this area, and build the foundation upon the rock and move from there.

-Nathan

On what basis do you call Him “good” then? What does “good” even mean? Do you just worship Him because He has all the power? It seems to me that you’re implying that man’s definition of “good” has no meaning in relation to God and that our expectations of what goodness means are irrelevant.

If I told you that God was “afqeruioa”, would you worship Him for that reason? You may as well, since “afqeruioa” has as much objective meaning to us as “good” does.

We would rightly condemn the actions of a man who mercilessly beat his child for not mowing the lawn when the child had no arms or legs.

This look awfully familiar…like something that has been answered at least once before either on this blog, Strange Baptist Fire or Triablogue. Why is it being repeated? This overlooks the distinction between physical and moral inability. They are not the same. The analogy fails at the critical point of comparison.

It is probably this same appreciation for justice (whether you call it misplaced or not) that would lead Paul’s objectors to question how it is “just” for a supremely powerful God to condemn man for being exactly what God created him to be and to whom God refused any spiritual aid in overcoming evil.

No, he did not say that “an explanation” is unmerited you stated before, and he is not saying the question is invalid. Rather, he is pointing out that the objection arises from a misunderstanding of “justice,” very like the same misunderstanding that arises from Job’s interlocutors. Job’s “advisors” thought Job had committed sins and was suffering for them. The answer of the whole book is to defeat that notion, because God is free to do as He wishes without disclosing His criterion or immediate reasons to us, even if that includes a bet with the devil.

Here, the question is similar. If God hardens men in their sins, then they are willing participants. How then can God punish them for doing His will? The answer isn’t “That’s an invalid question.”

He’s pointing out that “You, ‘O Man,’ have no right to complain to God for you have no just claim on the mercy of God.” To say that he’s merely deflecting the objection and not answering it is a gross misunderstanding of what Paul is saying. The reason you don’t have a right to complain is that (a) you’re a willing and agreeable participant in what God does, and you do so out of hatred for God, not love for God, and (b) you, because of your sin and the fact that you’d do no better than Adam given the same conditions, have no just claim on God’s mercy. Ergo, (c) God is free to mercy whom He will mercy, etc.

I’m not sure what Paul opposed. Did he oppose the asking of questions, or just this one? I’m uncertain what is particularly blasphemous or irreverent about the question in the first place.

Paul acknowledges that man has a conscience and the Law is written in his heart (Romans 2:15). It is therefore reasonable to assume that it is this very conscience that leads man to seek to understand what is just, fair and true (for where else do good impulses originate from but from God?). We would rightly condemn the actions of a man who mercilessly beat his child for not mowing the lawn when the child had no arms or legs. It is probably this same appreciation for justice (whether you call it misplaced or not) that would lead Paul’s objectors to question how it is “just” for a supremely powerful God to condemn man for being exactly what God created him to be and to whom God refused any spiritual aid in overcoming evil.

I can see why this question would make Paul uncomfortable, but it doesn’t make the question any less valid.

The other thing have problems with is this concept that anything we do that is good, comes from God and anything we do bad is our own will. If that is so, then why should I even try to do good? It seems if God wants me to do this or that, then there is nothing I could ever do to stop that, and if God is not with me in this endeavor then there is nothing I could do to make it good. At least for me, this type of concept makes me want to give up in a sense, since it seems like my efforts cannot help at all.

For me, I have generally left this type of issue alone, and figured when the time is right God will reveal what is correct to me. To me, it is not as important as some other things, but it seems that others feel this is a very important part of the puzzle, and thus I raise the questions when I come across a post like this.

I would appreciate any help in these things from the educated group here. Thanks and blessings,

Bryan

So, from your first paragraph, I take it you agree that yours is the view that Paul is anticipating in Romans 9? If so, does that effect you at all, knowing that you advocate a view that Paul opposed?

My point was that while one may hold a valid objection to the idea of man playing a role in his own salvation on a Scriptural basis, I don’t see it must necessarily be so on philosophical grounds and, in fact, would most likely be considered a non sequitur in that sense.

Such a philosophy quickly becomes nonsensical. It seems the Calvinist is saying “Omnipotence necessarily renders man’s very ability to choose anything at all ‘null and void’, but it also allows man the ability to choose evil.”

I like the following quote from Lewis (who basically followed Aquinas in this regard):

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can.’… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.