Eph 2:1-6 (regeneration preceding faith?)

[Guest]

Wow bshow! Am I getting under your skin, or is the Whitic (Mr. White) methodology rubbing off on you? I mean, you practically talked smack through a good portion off your response, which makes me wonder if your even worth the time necessary to discuss the topic.

Now, when I said that "what God means to teach us in Eph 2 cannot be understood apart from everything else he teaches us on this subject," I do realize that you never openly claimed this. I am not saying you did. What I am doing is laying some basic ground rules for interpreting the bible, so that you don't think that just because the text says "4 And God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), that love is equated to chosen (in the calvinist sense) and hence those that are loved are made alive irrespective of faith or being forgiven/declared righteous. After all, nothing is said here of faith or being forgiven/declared righteous. I can hear the calvinist protest (mindlessly) "Where is faith at here?" when coming to this text. And that is why we are not to make single-verse arguments, as they are notorious for being unstable. So, that's why I went to Colossians 2:11-14. Let's look again.

Col. 2:11-14
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us

Now you can call me skippy (Troy is to be preferred) and tell me hold on all day, but at the end of the day, we have verse 13 saying God made us alive having forgiven us all trespasses. We are told elsewhere (Acts 10:43, among several) "to Him[Christ] all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." From this, the logical order is:

Faith--Justification/forgiveness of sins--Regeneration...

If you do not see it, it is because of a die hard, previous committment to other beliefs that will not allow you to see it. Just make sure you don't bring up this Colossians 2:13-14 when discussing the "I" petal of the tulip.

Moving on, you ask:
In your system, isn't faith something you bring to the table? Here we see the working of God. God is the active force in each verse. I don't see man's contribution, so you gotta explain this some more.

Now to be honest, a part of me wants to respond in kind, and just tell you to "do a little homework," and move on, but I don't think I will go that route. Here is my answer:

The biblical picture of faith is something that is made possible to have from God but enacted by man, yet in such a way that does not detract from God's glory or become a meritorious accomplishment by man. This faith is not something that originates in man, nor is it something cooked/worked up from within man, but comes from the Lord. In the system of both Open Theists and Arminians, "faith cannot arise unless God graciously clears the way for it by illuminating blind eyes, by enabling the will to yield to God's wooing and by instilling yearnings for God's love. Every believer is rightly grateful to God for his blazing a trail for faith through an impossible jungle of confusion and rebellion. Were God not to soften hearts and bring truth into focus, no one could or would believe at all. Whenever humans begin yielding themselves in faith to God's saving work, their response in no way detracts from God, whose grace and power alone bring salvation" [Why I am not a Calvinist by Walls & Dongell, pg. 78].

This is how non-calvinists view faith, so any attribution put on them by calvinists are stooping the the tactics of strawmen. Let the Arminians and Open Theists say what they believe and do not try to tell them what they believe. You should read the link I've placed below called "Does Arminianism Diminish God's Glory?", and you should read chapters 4 and 6 in the book "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger Olsen."

Now, if you would not say forgiveness is equivalent of justification, then please explain the differences. Are they two separate things, or two things that are joined together like the head and tails of a coin, or the same thing, or do you have another option to offer? If forgiveness of sins is equivalent to justification, then Colossians 2:13 very clearly says that forgiveness/justification comes before regeneration, which necessarily puts faith logically prior to being made alive/regenerated.

Instead having me exegete the passage at hand, how about you demonstrate just how these texts prove your position. After all, you made the claim that these texts prove regeneration preceding faith, so the onus is on you to show us how this is so. Forgive me for telling you that I would comment on them, and instead just qualifying the text. Once you give your presentation to prove your case, I can then tell you have Acts 2:47 would bring us to the conclusion. Let’s just see if what we would make of the verses in Acts 2:47 and the account of the prodigal son would be the same method of interpretation for Eph. 2. Present how Ephesians 2 proves your point and I will show you what on earth I am talking about.

You wrote …”just like Acts 13:48 and Eph 1:4, we can't deal with the passage given to us, but need to pack our tradition in around it. I would be more impressed if you would actually exegete the passage you promised to".

Well that’s interesting, because I believe I am waiting for you to answer some questions on each of those verses. You have yet to demonstrate that I have packed my “tradition” in and around those verses. If by tradition you mean scripture, then I have just interpreted Scripture with Scripture. We can discuss these passages more if you like. I'm waiting on you though, it's your move.

Like I said, at the end of the day, we have many Scriptures that teach that upon believing, we experience eternal life. (see John 3:16, 18, 36; 4:42, 53; 6:40, 47 20:21 to mention a few) If this “eternal life” is the same “life” that makes us alive, then the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith is hilariously unstable. I never claimed regeneration is the whole of salvation, so I have no idea why you would say "Regeneration is not the whole of salvation. Dude, that's Calvinism 101. Do a little homework before launching your missiles at strawmen". You’ve falsely accused me of “launching missiles at straw-men, implied I was in need of doing homework, and have totally lost me on this one, as I have no idea what your talking about. If this is the best defense you can come up with in response to the question “Isn't this the same life that makes us alive” then maybe defending Calvinism just isn’t for you. After all, why would anyone want to come to a side where the cardinal doctrines makes God to be morally ambiguous?

P.S. The onus is on you to show where I have created straw-man arguments.

[Guest]

darin-houston wrote:

I think He often calls someone over their whole lifetime and the moment they have faith and repent and rely upon and decide to follow Christ, He regenerates them and gives them a clean heart and enabling power of the Spirit.


Indeed. You are a committed synergist. We've already established that.

I've not been able to understand how man is able to repent and rely upon and decide to follow Christ without a clean heart and enabling power of the Spirit?

Though I am a synergist (but not the way Calvinists understand that term), I don't see how the quote above necessarily establishes synergism -- you could have a view that held to tractor beam monergism even in the situation above, I think. Nonetheless, your failure to understand would further suggest you don't see the non-calvinist point of view as to prevenient grace.

We don't have to have a perfectly clean heart to respond to the Gospel anymore than failure to do so would require a totally depraved heart.

For starters, I believe we have a remaining spark of the image of God even after the Fall, so yet a sinner I'm not 100% sinner pre-regeneration. So, God's grace that He extends to all mankind is sufficient to enable me to respond to the gospel and receive the even greater amount of grace that he bestows through the indwelling of the Spirit upon regeneration.

[Guest]

Bob,

Among other things, I challenged both Calvinists and Arminians (or non-Calvinists) to show --- from the Bible --- where "ordo salutis" (the order of events that happen during initial salvation) was even an issue to the people who wrote the Bible.

I maintain it was not!

You replied:
Rick, I think that can be taken in two ways:

a) It was "not an issue" in the sense that the New Testament was not written in response to the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Sure, I agree with that.

b) It was "not an issue" in the sense that the New Testament doesn't contain sufficient material to allow us to understand this doctrine. I don't agree with that at all.

a) Agreed. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism---with their ordo salutis debates---were known to the Bible authors (first Christians)!

b) I strongly disagree! If the "Cal/Arm" issues were unknown back then (as they were not): Therefore, Cal/Arm debates are post-apostolic and about stuff the first Christians never heard of: i.e., (man-made) "religion".

It (ordo salutis) wasn't an issue in the Bible days...imo!!!

To which you replied:
If you're trying to say both sides are somehow "right", I don't think you're going to get many takers...

I say the Apostles and first Christians were right.
Thus, post-apostolic and extra-biblical doctrines don't really matter to me!

Calvinists and Nons will debate, "Is regeneration before or after faith?" till the cows come home....

You replied:
Yes, perhaps. But I guess each new generation needs to struggle through these issues on its own.

Personally, having known these issues since the late 70s...I'm done with them. I've come to see them in their actual historical sense; that of post-apostolic religion, with all of its (or their) doctrines and controversies.

I'm "relieved" to have gone through a phase of understanding these beliefs for what they really are: (In the last year or so I've re-examined them again and found them to be what I originally thought they were: Post-apostolic religious stuff, which I don't have any need of. I did see a need to "work through it" however. Prime reason being was: one of my cousins is a Calvinist preacher: I needed to reassess things)....

Btw, I deleted my post as you copied it: It was slightly off-topic and N.T. Wright's thought can be seen as compatible with both Calvinistic and Arminian thought!

At any rate, I thus drop out of any debating on this thread: MOOOOOO!

[Guest]

Wow bshow! Am I getting under your skin, or is the Whitic (Mr. White) methodology rubbing off on you? I mean, you practically talked smack through a good portion off your response, which makes me wonder if your even worth the time necessary to discuss the topic.

Now, when I said that "what God means to teach us in Eph 2 cannot be understood apart from everything else he teaches us on this subject," I do realize that you never openly claimed this. I am not saying you did. What I am doing is laying some basic ground rules for interpreting the bible, so that you don't think that just because the text says "4 And God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), that love is equated to chosen (in the calvinist sense) and hence those that are loved are made alive irrespective of faith or being forgiven/declared righteous. After all, nothing is said here of faith or being forgiven/declared righteous. I can hear the calvinist protest (mindlessly) "Where is faith at here?" when coming to this text. And that is why we are not to make single-verse arguments, as they are notorious for being unstable. So, that's why I went to Colossians 2:11-14.

Hi Troy,

I'm not making single verse arguments, but I'm also not comfortable with leaving the text itself to go find another that somehow needs to be read back into the first text in order to interpret it. You want to disabuse me of my supposed conclusions about the passage (in the nasty, Calvinist sense), without actually exegeting the passage itself.

Eph 2:1-6 (and continuing, which is where faith is found, so I don't understand the so-called protest about "where is faith?") certainly has something to say, doesn't it. Did the church at Ephesus have to wait until somebody got hold of a copy of the letter to the Colossians before they could properly understand the passage?

I think both passages are supportive of and consistent with my position. Is only one supportive of yours?

Let's look again.

Col. 2:11-14
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us

Now you can call me skippy (Troy is to be preferred) and tell me hold on all day, but at the end of the day, we have verse 13 saying God made us alive having forgiven us all trespasses. We are told elsewhere (Acts 10:43, among several) "to Him[Christ] all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." From this, the logical order is:

Faith--Justification/forgiveness of sins--Regeneration...

If you do not see it, it is because of a die hard, previous committment to other beliefs that will not allow you to see it.

Okay, perhaps. I do have strong commitments and biases, as do you. But both here and back in Eph 2:5, we have those who are dead in trespasses and sins somehow exercising faith, right? Is that your position, that those dead in sins exercise faith? That's where I have trouble, in light of e.g. Rom 8:7-9, Jn 3:3-8.

Just make sure you don't bring up this Colossians 2:13-14 when discussing the "I" petal of the tulip.

How does Col. 2:13-14 mitigate against the effectiveness of the calling?

Moving on, you ask:
In your system, isn't faith something you bring to the table? Here we see the working of God. God is the active force in each verse. I don't see man's contribution, so you gotta explain this some more.

Now to be honest, a part of me wants to respond in kind, and just tell you to "do a little homework," and move on, but I don't think I will go that route. Here is my answer:

The biblical picture of faith is something that is made possible to have from God but enacted by man, yet in such a way that does not detract from God's glory or become a meritorious accomplishment by man. This faith is not something that originates in man, nor is it something cooked/worked up from within man, but comes from the Lord. In the system of both Open Theists and Arminians, "faith cannot arise unless God graciously clears the way for it by illuminating blind eyes, by enabling the will to yield to God's wooing and by instilling yearnings for God's love. Every believer is rightly grateful to God for his blazing a trail for faith through an impossible jungle of confusion and rebellion. Were God not to soften hearts and bring truth into focus, no one could or would believe at all. Whenever humans begin yielding themselves in faith to God's saving work, their response in no way detracts from God, whose grace and power alone bring salvation" [Why I am not a Calvinist by Walls & Dongell, pg. 78].

This is how non-calvinists view faith, so any attribution put on them by calvinists are stooping the the tactics of strawmen. Let the Arminians and Open Theists say what they believe and do not try to tell them what they believe. You should read the link I've placed below called "Does Arminianism Diminish God's Glory?", and you should read chapters 4 and 6 in the book "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger Olsen."

That's fine, I don't want to attack a straw man. But at the end of the day, isn't the contribution of man's faith what ultimately separates the saved from the lost? It's ultimately man's contribution, response, however you want to phrase it that makes salvation happen, right?

I see that Walls and Dongell say otherwise above ("God, whose grace and power alone bring salvation"), but that's a somewhat ambiguous statement. Given two individuals, A and B, where A is saved and B is lost, is the explanation found by something A does, has, or is, that B doesn't, hasn't, or isn't? Or is the explanation to be found solely in God?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

darin-houston wrote:

I think He often calls someone over their whole lifetime and the moment they have faith and repent and rely upon and decide to follow Christ, He regenerates them and gives them a clean heart and enabling power of the Spirit.


Indeed. You are a committed synergist. We've already established that.

I've not been able to understand how man is able to repent and rely upon and decide to follow Christ without a clean heart and enabling power of the Spirit?

Though I am a synergist (but not the way Calvinists understand that term), I don't see how the quote above necessarily establishes synergism -- you could have a view that held to tractor beam monergism even in the situation above, I think. Nonetheless, your failure to understand would further suggest you don't see the non-calvinist point of view as to prevenient grace.

That may be true, I may not understand prevenient grace. My understanding is that is it grace that is given to all, and that somehow overcomes original sin and brings man to a position where he is able to respond to the gospel call and exercise faith. Am I way off base there?

Your quote establishes synergism in the following way:

1) God gives prevenient grace so that man is able to respond to the gospel. He calls and woos man to Himself.

2) Man makes a decision to respond in faith and repentance or to reject the gospel and perish.

3) Those who respond appropriately are regenerated and become born again and saved.

So we have God's energy working together with (syn-) man's energy in order to accomplish final salvation. That's what is normally meant by synergism: Apart from some action, contribution, response, etc. of man, God's grace in and of itself is insufficient (although necessary) to accomplish its purpose in saving men.

I don't see how your statement is consistent with "tractor beam monergism", whatever that is.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

[quote=""bshow"]I don't see how your statement is consistent with "tractor beam monergism", whatever that is.
[/quote]

I think you must....

***

The third kind of election is salvational, the kind of which Paul is speaking in our present text. “No one can come to Me,” Jesus said, “unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). Helkuō (draws) carries the idea of an irresistible force and was used in ancient Greek literature of a desperately hungry man being drawn to food and of demonic forces being drawn to animals when they were not able to possess men. Salvage yards use giant electromagnets to lift and partially sort scrap metal. When the magnet is turned on, a tremendous magnetic force draws all the ferrous metals that are near it, but has no effect on other metals such as aluminum and brass. In a similar way, God’s elective will irresistibly draws to Himself those whom He has predetermined to love and forgive, while having no effect on those whom He has not.

To which I say....

This does not speak to whether the converse is true -- i.e., whether there are those who are "called" or "drawn" who do not come to Christ. That must be found elsewhere. His definition of "drawn" to connote "irresistibility" seems flawed or overly relied upon and, most importantly, doesn't appear to be derived from Scripture or the context of the surrounding text. Basically, I think there's too much emphasis being put on this definition of drawn. From a quick word study of actual Scriptural usage of the term, it is clear that the term is used most commonly in its general sense. Actually letting Scripture inform Scripture, the same word "Helkuo" is used in John 12:32, for example, in this very context is used with respect to all men:

Jn 12:32 "And I 2504, if 1437 I be lifted up 5312 from 1537 the earth 1093, will draw 1670 all 3956 [men] unto 4314 me 1683."

He clearly was lifted up. He does draw all men to Himself -- not all respond because "draw" doesn't mean the irresistible force he suggests it does.

[Guest]

Bob wrote:

That's fine, I don't want to attack a straw man. But at the end of the day, So we have God's energy working together with (syn-) man's energy in order to accomplish final salvation. That's what is normally meant by synergism: Apart from some action, contribution, response, etc. of man, God's grace in and of itself is insufficient (although necessary) to accomplish its purpose in saving men.

I see that Walls and Dongell say otherwise above ("God, whose grace and power alone bring salvation"), but that's a somewhat ambiguous statement. Given two individuals, A and B, where A is saved and B is lost, is the explanation found by something A does, has, or is, that B doesn't, hasn't, or isn't? Or is the explanation to be found solely in God?

And also:

So we have God's energy working together with (syn-) man's energy in order to accomplish final salvation. That's what is normally meant by synergism: Apart from some action, contribution, response, etc. of man, God's grace in and of itself is insufficient (although necessary) to accomplish its purpose in saving men.

Let's try an analogy. A benevolent surgeon determines to go to the remote jungle to provide help to an impoverished tribe. He is a wealthy man, and he hires assistants, gathers all necessary supplies, and at length arrives in the area where the tribe lives. He hires an interpreter to go with him as the tribe can not understand any language but their own.

When the surgeon and his party arrive, they find that the tribe knows nothing at all of modern medicine and surgery. In their experience, people who are cut open always die.

The surgeon soon discovers that the tribal chief is very ill with a fatal condition which can be cured with major surgery. The chief thinks his condition is normal. All men in his tribe usually die by his age. Through the interpreter, the surgeon carefully explains as simply as he can to the chief the nature of the man's condition and how he can save him. The man initially does not believe.

The surgeon has an idea. There is another tribe not far away where on a previous mission the surgeon had saved many lives. The surgeon arranges to have ten men come from the other tribe, whose lives have been saved by surgery for the same condition that afflicts the chief. When these men arrive, through the interpreter they testify of how they have been healed and restored to health. They all show their large scars from surgery and demonstate their vigor. The chief is impressed by their testimony of what the surgeon has done for them. He has never seen men who have survived wounds such as their scars indicate.

The surgeon, through the interpreter, offers again to heal the chief if he will only agree to the surgery. The chief says yes, he will trust the surgeon. The surgery is done and the chief restored to health.

Questions:

Was the chief's healing a result of monergism, synergism, or something else? Or was the chief's "energy" working along with that of the surgeon?

By trusting in the surgeon and yielding to the offer of healing, did the chief glorify himself and diminish the "glory" of his benefactor?

Did the chief somehow "earn" his healing, or was it completely a free gift from his benefactor?

"Apart from some action, contribution, response, etc. " of the chief, could the surgeon have saved him?

Given two sick chiefs, A and B, where A is healed by surgery and B dies without it, is the explanation found by something A does, has, or is, that B doesn't, hasn't, or isn't? Or is the explanation to be found solely in the surgeon?

Looking with interest to your response, brother Bob.

Blessings, Homer

[Guest]

Bob wrote:

That's fine, I don't want to attack a straw man. But at the end of the day, So we have God's energy working together with (syn-) man's energy in order to accomplish final salvation. That's what is normally meant by synergism: Apart from some action, contribution, response, etc. of man, God's grace in and of itself is insufficient (although necessary) to accomplish its purpose in saving men.

I see that Walls and Dongell say otherwise above ("God, whose grace and power alone bring salvation"), but that's a somewhat ambiguous statement. Given two individuals, A and B, where A is saved and B is lost, is the explanation found by something A does, has, or is, that B doesn't, hasn't, or isn't? Or is the explanation to be found solely in God?

And also:

So we have God's energy working together with (syn-) man's energy in order to accomplish final salvation. That's what is normally meant by synergism: Apart from some action, contribution, response, etc. of man, God's grace in and of itself is insufficient (although necessary) to accomplish its purpose in saving men.

Let's try an analogy. A benevolent surgeon determines to go to the remote jungle to provide help to an impoverished tribe. He is a wealthy man, and he hires assistants, gathers all necessary supplies, and at length arrives in the area where the tribe lives. He hires an interpreter to go with him as the tribe can not understand any language but their own.

When the surgeon and his party arrive, they find that the tribe knows nothing at all of modern medicine and surgery. In their experience, people who are cut open always die.

The surgeon soon discovers that the tribal chief is very ill with a fatal condition which can be cured with major surgery. The chief thinks his condition is normal. All men in his tribe usually die by his age. Through the interpreter, the surgeon carefully explains as simply as he can to the chief the nature of the man's condition and how he can save him. The man initially does not believe.

The surgeon has an idea. There is another tribe not far away where on a previous mission the surgeon had saved many lives. The surgeon arranges to have ten men come from the other tribe, whose lives have been saved by surgery for the same condition that afflicts the chief. When these men arrive, through the interpreter they testify of how they have been healed and restored to health. They all show their large scars from surgery and demonstate their vigor. The chief is impressed by their testimony of what the surgeon has done for them. He has never seen men who have survived wounds such as their scars indicate.

The surgeon, through the interpreter, offers again to heal the chief if he will only agree to the surgery. The chief says yes, he will trust the surgeon. The surgery is done and the chief restored to health.

Questions:

Was the chief's healing a result of monergism, synergism, or something else? Or was the chief's "energy" working along with that of the surgeon?

There were two inputs: The surgeon's actions and the chief's consent. These two combined to make the healing. Remove either one, and no healing. So this is synergistic.

But I don't feel the analogy is apt, because I don't see the sinner as "ill", but as "dead in trespasses and sins". So showing him others who have been likewise healed would have no affect on dead men.

By trusting in the surgeon and yielding to the offer of healing, did the chief glorify himself and diminish the "glory" of his benefactor?

Yes, to the extent that the healing was not solely due to the surgeon, but required the cooperation of the patient.

Did the chief somehow "earn" his healing, or was it completely a free gift from his benefactor?

He "activiated" his healing, by consenting to the operation.

"Apart from some action, contribution, response, etc. " of the chief, could the surgeon have saved him?

No, it appears he could not have.

Given two sick chiefs, A and B, where A is healed by surgery and B dies without it, is the explanation found by something A does, has, or is, that B doesn't, hasn't, or isn't? Or is the explanation to be found solely in the surgeon?

Assuming the surgeon tried with both chiefs in exactly the same way, then yes, the explanation is found by something A does (consent) that B doesn't do. It's certainly not found in the surgeon, is it?

Looking with interest to your response, brother Bob.

I don't know whether we've advanced the discussion very far with this exercise, but there you go...

Maybe an analogy from the scripture would be more apt: say John 11:1-46?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Homer wrote:

By trusting in the surgeon and yielding to the offer of healing, did the chief glorify himself and diminish the "glory" of his benefactor?


Yes, to the extent that the healing was not solely due to the surgeon, but required the cooperation of the patient.

The battle of analogies just isn't helpful since we have such different presuppositions. We must get to the first premise upon which we disagree or we are, indeed, wasting time and energies (synergistically ).

Both analogies are great speaking to the choir, so to speak. I though Homer's analogy was excellent if you share my view of "glorification" and "work." Likewise, I thought the John 11 analogy is perfect if you equate spiritual deadness to physical death. To respond briefly to that point, I don't think John 11 is meant to be an analogy of the mechanism of salvation, but to illustrate and glorify God in His power over death. The sickness and death of Lazarus glorified God because His power over death was illustrated, and not because Lazarus was "chosen" by Christ.

Nonetheless, with regard to the premise, I have really tried to understand the Calvinist view of "glory." I was once a Calvinist, and I have to admit I didn't have a very robust intellectualization of these things -- it was largely emotional reaction to God's power and glory through such notions. Maybe Bob does have such a view that he can illuminate us here, as this is the very premise with which we disagree. We all agree (I think) that the "correct" view is the one that glorifies God the most. Therefore, the first premise is "what does glorify God more" -- what does the bible say would be an equal premise but the fact that the bible is somewhat ambiguous makes it almost a secondary premise (sorry, let's not debate that here -- it has to be somewhate ambiguous or bible believing Christians wouldn't have disagreed for so long and with so much strength).

The issue as I see it is thus -- I fail to see how it somehow glorifies God more for Him to unilaterally choose specific people for His kingdom. Have you ever played a childhood game where the kids choose their team-mates? In that simple way, who is "glorified" more? The chooser or the choosee? Does not the one who is chosen receive the honor ? If you disagree, I suggest you either didn't play such a game or never went un-chosen.

I believe God rejoices over our choosing Him (and all Heaven rejoices) when we come to Him not because He has demonstrated mere power, but because His goodness was seen and felt in the universe. The prodigal's father was overwhelmed with joy over his son's willful return in a way that he surely couldn't have experienced if he had exerted his power and sent servants to bring his son back to him. The fact that the boy turned to his dad in his time of need reflected on his dad's goodness and mercy more than if his dad had never let his son go.

[Guest]

We all agree (I think) that the "correct" view is the one that glorifies God the most. Therefore, the first premise is "what does glorify God more" -- what does the bible say would be an equal premise but the fact that the bible is somewhat ambiguous makes it almost a secondary premise (sorry, let's not debate that here -- it has to be somewhate ambiguous or bible believing Christians wouldn't have disagreed for so long and with so much strength).

My argument has never been based on which approach glorifies God more. I can't accept that that must be the "tie breaker" between our positions.

But I am willing to discuss what it means for God to receive glory.

The issue as I see it is thus -- I fail to see how it somehow glorifies God more for Him to unilaterally choose specific people for His kingdom. Have you ever played a childhood game where the kids choose their team-mates? In that simple way, who is "glorified" more? The chooser or the choosee? Does not the one who is chosen receive the honor ? If you disagree, I suggest you either didn't play such a game or never went un-chosen.

Erm, don't try to psychoanalyze me, thanks.

It seems the question you're asking is whether God needs anything from us or whether we can contribute anything to Him.

Cheers,
Bob