Reprobates

I think as long as you are alive there is a chance for repentance, a priest I know once sent me a story of monk who trapped a demon inside his cell with the sign of the cross and refused to let him go unless this demon sang the songs he once sang before the thrown of God, after many torments the demon started singing the song but warned the monk that the song was too powerful and would kill the monk, so the demon sang and at the end of the song the demon was transformed into an angel but the monk died, I found this story very interesting.
 
The whole story would've never happened if God respected Jonah's free will to not be a prophet. Him sending the whale is an example of His irresistible grace.
God doesn't "respect man's free will"? Then He doesn't love. This is truly a bizarre way to think.

One of the most glossed over realities in life is that evil is "allowed" (the material human context) in order that we might show love for one another. And God, incarnate, did just that.
 
God doesn't "respect man's free will"? Then He doesn't love. This is truly a bizarre way to think.
How are you defining love?

If you see someone in the death throes of addiction, is it loving to respect their willingness to sin or is it loving to pull them out of that sin, even as if by snatching them out of the fire?

If you struggle with sexual temptation, is it not loving on God's part that His Spirit is working in you "so that you do not do the things you want to do"?

One of the most glossed over realities in life is that evil is "allowed" (the material human context) in order that we might show love for one another. And God, incarnate, did just that.
Evil is not necessary for love, which is why it will not be allowed, nor present in the Resurrection.
 
This only exists after the trials, persecution and demonstration that you love God.
The problem still stands. If God allows evil so He can find out who really loves Him or not, then the Resurrection is not the purpose of redemptive history.

In other words, if human autonomy was the greatest good then the Garden of Eden would be the eternal state. But the Garden was destroyed because of the insufficiency of human autonomy. So what is coming for those in Christ, in the Resurrection, is greater than the Garden.

And that is not a happy accident or Plan B. It was God's plan from before the foundation of the world.
 
If God allows evil so He can find out who really loves Him or not, then the Resurrection is not the purpose of redemptive history.
That does not follow nor is it a point, since it isn't part of reality or logical. You're very much confused on this topic, but perhaps I can explain it vis a vis your next statement.
In other words, if human autonomy was the greatest good then the Garden of Eden would be the eternal state.
No one said "autonomy is the greatest good". What's more, human autonomy abolished the garden, so again it seems your thesis is confused, or you are trying to say something else that isn't the story of the Old Testament scriptures and Christianity.
So what is coming for those in Christ, in the Resurrection, is greater than the Garden.
Yes it is.
And that is not a happy accident or Plan B. It was God's plan from before the foundation of the world.
I agree.
 
What I'm saying is that your argument makes no sense or it is lacking, due to the fact that your conclusions don't necessarily have anything to do with your preliminary statements. For example, God allowing or using a fallen world to test, purify or show those that are approved or love Him is the way in which he enters creation as a man in order to show what humans are called to be. It is the reason why there had to be, and there is, a redemptive history at all. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that, so the only conclusion is that you are confused about it.

Please tell me what your position is, of what you don't understand about what I'm saying, because what I'm reading in your statements is either incoherent or even contradictory, as just pointed out.
 
For example, God allowing or using a fallen world to test, purify or show those that are approved or love Him is the way in which he enters creation as a man in order to show what humans are called to be. It is the reason why there had to be, and there is, a redemptive history at all.
I'm going to ignore your fluff and only deal with the substance.

No one is denying that the world is fallen. No one is denying that God is using the fallen world to glorify the Elect. No one is denying the incarnation. It almost sounds to me like you're saying the purpose of the incarnation is that God came to be a good role model for us. That's Oprah-level Christianity. Jesus is not just our perfect example, He is the propitiation of our sins, meaning that His death actually took away the sins of the Elect. He's not only our example, He is our Savior.

What's being denied is that God is compelled, by human autonomy, to create the world in the way that he did. What's being asserted instead is that God created the world in this way, not to find out what people were going to do with their free will (because he already knows they will all sin), but according to His own good pleasure, His own will.
 
It almost sounds to me like you're saying the purpose of the incarnation is that God came to be a good role model for us
Of course not.
What's being denied is that God is compelled, by human autonomy, to create the world in the way that he did.
I might have missed this point, but I haven't seen it stated. You are stating this argument, and it is one that doesn't even make sense to me: of course God isn't "compelled by human autonomy". He's the Creator. I would say that He created the world knowing that with free will, He would have to enter into creation, which is why Christ is the eternal Logos.

But we really get back to, I think - and tell me if I am wrong - is that you have this literal hangup with the word "works" and can't be nuanced in your assessment of how important works are.

If we are judged in the Last Day, "according to our works" of course it stands to reason that we are saved by or in our actions, deeds, works, etc. What the Orthodox don't try to parse out is mentioning anything solely, which is why we focus on both/and all the time. And why we have the proper theology.

How this fits into the "reprobates" is interesting. If light is in the world and man loves darkness, and of course that means choosing darkness, then He in a sense judges himself. After all, the judge on the last day is also our defense, since he is the Son of Man. You have to give him the chance to build a case for you, though, isn't that what life is about?
 
But we really get back to, I think - and tell me if I am wrong - is that you have this literal hangup with the word "works" and can't be nuanced in your assessment of how important works are.
If we are judged in the Last Day, "according to our works" of course it stands to reason that we are saved by or in our actions, deeds, works, etc.
Here's the difference between you and me. If I perform a good work, I call it the grace of God granted to me. It is God working in the believer, causing him to will and to work according to His good pleasure. It is not me who was willing to do good, God changed me, contrary to my sinful will. Thus, I can truly say I am saved by the grace of God, and of His grace alone. I work because I'm saved, I'm not working in order to be saved.

Flip all of that around and you have a legal system. It is up to you to keep God's Law in order to be saved. Salvation is not a gift, it is a wage. Ultimately, whether or not you keep the Law depends on your will, your works.

In Grace, God is the one who makes the difference between the Elect and the Reprobate, He either gives saving grace or He withholds it. In Law, Man is the one who makes the difference, he either keeps the Law or he breaks it.

What the Orthodox don't try to parse out is mentioning anything solely, which is why we focus on both/and all the time. And why we have the proper theology.
Ultimately, there is no both/and between the sovereignty of God and human autonomy. In the Biblical model, you have both monergism and synergism, monergistic justification, synergistic sanctification. Orthodoxy leaves no room for monergism and flattens all of salvation out into a synergistic enterprise called Theosis. Not that Orthodoxy is unique in its synergism, plenty of religions are thoroughly synergistic. That's why you have Orthodox here rejecting the Biblical doctrine of reprobation, because it doesn't make sense according to the rest of their theology. It may seem proper in the mind of the Orthodox, but for me, the Bible defines what is proper theology.

How this fits into the "reprobates" is interesting. If light is in the world and man loves darkness, and of course that means choosing darkness, then He in a sense judges himself. After all, the judge on the last day is also our defense, since he is the Son of Man. You have to give him the chance to build a case for you, though, isn't that what life is about?
Of course, man chooses to sin. That's why he is guilty and held accountable. He needs God's grace to change him and save him, otherwise he remains reprobate, without hope.
 
Flip all of that around and you have a legal system. It is up to you to keep God's Law in order to be saved. Salvation is not a gift, it is a wage. Ultimately, whether or not you keep the Law depends on your will, your works.
Except that there is no legal framework in Orthodoxy, so it's bizarre to accuse us of this. I noticed that you conveniently skipped the part of God rendering to each man "according to his works." Yet you talk about the "Bible" as if I don't value it or understand it (of course the Church does).
It may seem proper in the mind of the Orthodox, but for me, the Bible defines what is proper theology.
And thus you should be able to explain, then, why judgment is "according to one's works".

Being obedient is a behavior, a disposition, and in fact, a "work". Cooperation with God is a "work." Looking at salvation as a gift (it can be that, but it can also be something that is given due to attempts to be good, or intent, etc) purely is not helpful, since God doesn't "gift" salvation to those who reject Him. Salvation does in fact depend on a human person's will, since he chooses to live life in a way befitting of faithfulness, which includes repentance, or he doesn't. Your worldview is incomplete, that's all I'm pointing out. God isn't some genie, as I've pointed out on the forum,, and he doesn't force you to do things you don't want to do, regardless of what you say or believe in. That's not part of life as we know it.
 
Except that there is no legal framework in Orthodoxy, so it's bizarre to accuse us of this.
You were criticizing me for not recognizing the importance of good works. What are good works if not lawful?

I noticed that you conveniently skipped the part of God rendering to each man "according to his works."
I didn't. The works of the saints are ultimately the gift of God, they're not their own meritorious works apart from God. The works of the reprobate are his own works.

Looking at salvation as a gift (it can be that, but it can also be something that is given due to attempts to be good, or intent, etc) purely is not helpful, since God doesn't "gift" salvation to those who reject Him.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

since God doesn't "gift" salvation to those who reject Him.
What about Paul? Was Paul not rejecting Christ but God was pleased to save him anyway?

Salvation does in fact depend on a human person's will, since he chooses to live life in a way befitting of faithfulness, which includes repentance, or he doesn't.
Romans 9:16 So then it does not depend on the one who wills or the one who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Your worldview is incomplete, that's all I'm pointing out. God isn't some genie, as I've pointed out on the forum,, and he doesn't force you to do things you don't want to do, regardless of what you say or believe in. That's not part of life as we know it.
Of course He's not a genie, he's God. We are under His dominion, He is not under ours. God is free to change our hearts to love Him, as He promised to do in Ezekiel 36. It's not a question of force, it's a question of being born again.
 
He was asked by God why he was persecuting him. He changed his deeds, his acts, his works after this encounter.
20240703_205901.jpg
He did change his acts, deeds, works, because God is the one who changed him.
But as Paul says later, he was set apart before he was born, meaning his conversion was predestined by God.

The lesson is not about how smart Paul is for choosing God, the lesson is about how powerful God is in raising a spiritually dead person to spiritual life.
 
Last edited:
But as Paul says later, he was set apart before he was born, meaning his conversion was predestined by God.
He talks about how he was born later (the term refers to an abortion) ... can we just stop the semantics stuff though? It's getting old. He has to accept God and comply, submit his will - the Gospel is clear - God does not force anyone against their will.

If he did not cooperate using his own will, he's just a robot. I don't see how anyone can argue with this. There's no need to continue if you keep insisting that God can make us do things we don't want to do. That is not true in the life we now live, and it is not a characteristic of God.
 
He talks about how he was born later (the term refers to an abortion)
What?

He has to accept God and comply, submit his will - the Gospel is clear - God does not force anyone against their will.
You're arguing against a straw man at this point. No one is saying God drags you into heaven kicking and screaming by your hair. All that's being said is that God changes the hearts of those in the New Covenant so that they will believe in Him, and follow the rest of His Law by extension. He does not need our permission to change our hearts, nor does He ever ask for it. That's why the New Testament repeatedly says our salvation does not depend on the will of man, but the will of God.

If he did not cooperate using his own will, he's just a robot.
He wasn't a robot, he just needed to be born again. And having been born again according to God's own will, he then is made able to cooperate with God.

There's no need to continue if you keep insisting that God can make us do things we don't want to do. That is not true in the life we now live, and it is not a characteristic of God.
This is the fundamental problem with unbridled synergy: it is idolatrous at it's very root, because it limits what the Creator can do based on what the creature allows Him to do (even though the Bible says that the creature is not able to do these things himself).
 
This is the fundamental problem with unbridled synergy: it is idolatrous at it's very root, because it limits what the Creator can do based on what the creature allows Him to do (even though the Bible says that the creature is not able to do these things himself).
You go into tangents on topics that I don't totally disagree with, but you stress particular things which are not part of real life or the gospel. We can see that your statement here is also erroneous, as God can't just "do anything He wants" but even that statement suffers from an anthropomorphic classification of God. For example, it's not that he can't lie or deceive, it's that he won't, because that's not what or who He is. Your fundamental problem is considering things in a way that will fit your simplistic, rational mind. That's the root of all of your errors (that's also in the type of thinking that islamic people have regarding the God is "only" one stuff).

I fail to see how the approach I am putting forward is idolatrous. I don't put God in a box and he doesn't put me in one. That's what idolatry actually was in the ancient world. I fight against that thinking on this forum all the time.

Also, there is no such thing as "unbridled" synergy. It is synergy, period.
 
We can see that your statement here is also erroneous, as God can't just "do anything He wants" but even that statement suffers from an anthropomorphic classification of God. For example, it's not that he can't lie or deceive, it's that he won't, because that's not what or who He is.
You're making a category error. God can do whatever he wants in His creation. Not only can He, He does.
Psalm 115:3: Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases.

As for Him changing the hearts of His people and regenerating them by the Spirit, He does that as well. If He says He does it then who are you to say He doesn't?

You don't seem overly concerned if what you are believing matches up with the Bible or not. This is why you repeatedly make statements that assert the opposite of what the New Testament authors wrote. It's because your presuppositions are built on a different, more humanistic foundation. We're not coming from the same place and we're not headed to the same place.

I fail to see how the approach I am putting forward is idolatrous.
You don't see how human will limiting what God can or cannot do is idolatrous?
 
Back
Top