Which of the two statements below presents a more powerful demonstration of the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of men?
A. God sent His own Son to earth to live a sinless life and die to save those who would make an all on their own, “fee will” decision to receive Christ.
B. God sent His own Son to earth to live a sinless life, to die and suffer the punishment due those He would have for His own people, give life to the spiritually dead, supernaturally draw to Christ those He would make His own, and in such a manner that their decision for Christ is indeed their own, but from a “freed” will.
Consider the above a hypothetical question, based on the words on the page, not on preconceived notions.
The Battle Cry 
Ether works.. Calvin -vs- Armenian is not a matter of salvation. Each one leads to the belief in Christ. Only belief in Christ who saves from sin is what matters.
Peace.
LikeLike
Hi CK,
Actually, this wasn’t a Calvin v. Arminius question, although there are significant differences between them concerning HOW men are saved. I prefer the terms monergism v. synergism, since that is the bottom line. And you can’t really have both.
I was really interested in which of the above statements gives God more glory in the process of salvation, exclusive of Calvin or Arminius.
You are correct in that only belief in Christ is what, in the end, matters. There will be in Heaven both of the above ‘pursuasions’, as there will not be in Heaven members of both who merely think they are saved and are not.
I wo8uld add only this – that if I think that my decision ‘contributed’ to some sort of “Shake ‘n’ Bake’ salvation, I will have robbed God of some of the glory due His name.
I hope that makes sense.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
I plead Jonah 2:9
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the best answer is “none of the above.” There is no Christian (or Christian leaning) group that I am aware of that believes anyone can get to Heaven on their own. We all need a Savior. So A is fundementally wrong.
B starts great, then takes a wrong turn at “those He would make His own.” God calls all men to salvation. Not some. Then you seem to imply that after this call, man cannot refuse. And, of course, the Bible is full of stories of people in God’s grace who turned away. Even the angel Lucifer.
Since your question was which one “presents a more powerful demonstration of the Sovereignty of God” it certainly is not the one that leaves us no choice. Any insecure being – even a human – can assert power to force someone to do something. An all powerful God, would use the greatest power – LOVE. And love is always a choice. A secure, all powerful God, would honor his creature’s choice to not accept an offer to be with him.
So the correct answer is that because we need a savior, he sent is perfect, sinless son, to bare our sin, and die for us so that we may have new life. “May” as in if we accept it. As in, he – by his own choice, not because he has to – allows us to cooperate in his work.
When you go off on cooperation – because I know you will – make sure your answer includes a reconciliation with the fact that God is also the author of life, but gives man an opportunity to cooperate by chooing to NOT reproduce. Do we not have the power to end humanity in one generation if every person on Earth chose to?
LikeLike
W,
You either missed the hypothetical nature of the question, or you are baiting me (you KNOW I will go off on something?) One thing I do know, you lurk…..:)
I did stray from the central question for a moment in my comment to CK, however mainly to emphasize that this is not a Calvin v. Arminius thing, but a Sovereignty of God thing.
this isn’t the first time that I have posted a hypothetical question in an attempt to encourage folks to think well, hypothetically. In this case it’s a hypothetical question that proposes two thoughts, one of which might ascribe more glory to God than the other.
The answer to the question might cause someone to examine and consider currently held beliefs, or it might not.
So if you come back, which statement, whether or not you think either is right or wrong, might give more glory to God?
LikeLike
Well, really more “swooping” than “lurking”, but I do still exist.
I know you want readers to pick “based [only] on the words on the page”, and its obvious that you wrote the two choices to make B more attractive. Then problem is that I have no idea what “God” the two ideas describe. In choice A, you describe a God that makes big dramatic guestures that are completely unnecessary. In choice B, you describe a God that uses his power to dominate his creatures. Choice A refers to a “free will” decision, but that language is missing from choice B so I assume that “decision” is not “free” – and therefore cannot be “freed”.
Since neither of these describes the God of Abraham and Jacob (Joshua 24:15 “choose this day whom you will serve”), who also happens to be Jesus(Rev 22:17 Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water”), then it cannot be said that either one of these false descriptions would bring him glory. That’s not being difficult – it’s just that your hypothetical is broken.
Imagine a hypothetical where I propose “Which gives a human more glory, saying they are like a snake or like a mouse?” The answer is “neither”. Both are beneath us.
The God of Abraham, which is also Jesus, is a God who draws me to him, who created me so that I would have a chance to know love and serve him, who sent his son to die for my sins so that I could be forgiven, but who also loves me enough to allow me to decide whether I will accept his gift.
LikeLike
W,
Allow me to rephrase the question,
Which gives God more Glory, monergism or synergism. That’s what this is about, what Calvin v. Arminius was about (Perhaps you missd my comment to CK.
One is a correct view of God and the other in error, or they both are incorrect. One or the other or neither is taught in the Bible.
Back to the original question, a hypothetical that I submit is not broken. There are two statements that ascribe honor and glory to the God they speak of.
Which one gives God all the glory for man’s salvation, and which one shares the glory of salvation with man?
P.S. The concepts of ‘free’ will and ‘freed’ will mentioned in the original post might be what is tripping you up. Those are perhaps for a later post. As for this one, it might be more of a ‘test’ of the ability address a hypothetical question.
LikeLike
Pingback: Did God save me, or did I save myself? « The Battle Cry