Once Saved, Always Saved

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[MidnightRider]

This started on the Hello page where "saved" was writing an intro.
http://gcmwarning.com:8080/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=675
But since it moved to a theological topic, I thought it best to move the discussion elsewhere.

You probably mean "Arminian," after Jacob Arminius.  While most in GCAC may reject some of the tenets of Calvinism (i.e., Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, Limited Atonement) they would still hold to "Once Saved Always Saved" or "Perseverance of the Saints."  Many Arminians do not hold to this tenet and believe that one's faith can be shipwrecked through apostasy.

Right.
Arminian = follower of Arminius.
Armenian = somebody from Armenia.

Yes, GCx was against Calvinism, yet taught "Once Saved Always Saved". But that is not necessarily a point of agreement. Consider this footnote from David Engelsma's book, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel. He is critiquing some writings of John R. Rice against Calvinism:

Rice claims to believe the fifth point of Calvinism, the perseverance of the saints, which he calls "eternal security". This is an insignificant oddity of some in the Arminian camp. Someone has wittingly characterized this position of some Arminians as teaching that "you can get in by yourself (i.e., into salvation), but you can't get out." In reality, there is a basic difference between Rice's teaching of eternal security and the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. For Rice and his ilk, eternal security is the certainty that everyone who makes a cheap decision for Christ will go to heaven, no matter how he lives his life after he has made the decision. The Reformed doctrine of perseverance is the truth that God preserves the regenerated elect through sanctification of life.

Ouch.

Well, J. I. Packer put it more diplomatically, though not as briefly, in his introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ - if one rejects any of the 5 points, he changes the meaning of the other points he claims to accept.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html
This essay is well worth the time and effort it takes to read it.

[lone gone]

GC is a mosh pit of teaching.

McCotter was a Plymouth Brethren follower. He preached, "Once saved, always saved." I never heard him preach or teach anything for or against  Calvinism or Arminius. He taught unity.

I'll add this to the discussion. There is a third way apart from Arminius and Calvin. Luther and the reformers in Germany had a different take on things. Here is a comparison chart for the three ways  and their differences.

http://dawningrealm.org/reign/

[theresearchpersona]

GC is a mosh pit of teaching.

[...]Here is a comparison chart for the three ways  and their differences.

http://dawningrealm.org/reign/

Excellent way of putting it. : )

As for that link you posted, it links to this one: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/shiver-me-timbers.html

I like the commentary there.

[Postpre]

If it is our goal to get back to the "faith once delivered to the saints" shouldn't we disavow not only "once saved always saved" but also the Calvinistic tenet of "perseverance of the saints?"  The unanimous agreement among the early church fathers was that God gave man free will and that continuing to believe (not works) is necessary for the ultimate salvation of our souls.  This is not Wesleyanism where one could potentially be estranged from Christ due to particular sins, but the true doctrine of free-will (which does not become invalid simply because we professed faith at one time in our life).

NKJ Hebrews 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,

NKJ Romans 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

[theresearchpersona]

If it is our goal to get back to the "faith once delivered to the saints" shouldn't we disavow not only "once saved always saved" but also the Calvinistic tenet of "perseverance of the saints?"  The unanimous agreement among the early church fathers was that God gave man free will and that continuing to believe (not works) is necessary for the ultimate salvation of our souls.  This is not Wesleyanism where one could potentially be estranged from Christ due to particular sins, but the true doctrine of free-will (which does not become invalid simply because we professed faith at one time in our life).

NKJ Hebrews 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,

NKJ Romans 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Now PostP, don't try to oversimplify; first off, context context context; second off, there are many passages which contradict these ones if these are just pulled as proofs. The crux that people will have to decide is, does the word of God contradict itself, or not? If we assume that God is not contradictory, then one might, in reading all these texts (in context) that the saints who are the Lord's will definitely heed these warnings, and be kept by His Spirit; it is, after all, the word that says the Spirit is given to us a deposit of surety.

Now you actually made a henious mistake here, the whole passage (from the point you quoted on):

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is [still] called "Today", so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, whilt it is said,
             "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
             DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS
                   [1]WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME"
For who provoked [Him] when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt [led] by Moses? And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? [So] we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.
  Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word [2]they heard did not profit them, because [3]it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
              "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
               THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,"
although..."

Keep reading it. This is about true and false believers. It is as today there are many who claim to believe, but demonstrate otherwise: yet in this passage it warns those who think such, while distinguishing between them and those who truly believe, "For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said". The "who have" is an active aorist, by the way, (something that's alive but the time it takes place doesn't matter).

You just pulled a proof text out of one of the most Calvinistic passages of Scripture to argue against the security of saints in Christ whereas reading the whole in context defies what you used it for. Your use of Romans has similar problems. Let that be a lesson.

An appropriate things to note here:, neoevangelicals formulate "eternal security" to teach that people can fall into unbelief, sin, rebellion, etc.  and still go to heaven; "Perseverance of the Saints" has to do with Christ's own continual sanctifying work of those who are truly is, keeping them and making them Holy for himself: a big difference. Note this very passage, when read in whole, distinguishes between those who are in that trest, and those that are not. It even implies the rest (from our own works at that!) is for some, and not others (4v.6), and yet though it's a rest from our own works (4v.10), it is not from obedience (4v.11).

Just note regarding the differences between "eternal security" and "perseverance of the saints" that not many people know the differences of terminology and may erroneously use them interchangeably, so you have to ask them to define it before assuming anything, and then when you know better, give them the warning of the differences and correct them.

[1]Lit. in the rebellion
[2]Lit. of hearing
[3]Two early mss read "they were...faith with those who heard"

[Postpre]

Sure, if one reads these passages through the lens that you are suggesting, then one may walk away with a Calvinistic understanding of the warning passages.  But, nowhere in the text itself nor in the book of Hebrews does is state categorically that "the saints who are the Lord's will definitely heed these warnings."  In fact, it states just the opposite IF you take the warnings at face value.  

The whole context of the book is about persevering in our faith:

Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. (Heb 2:1)

how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, (Heb 2:3)

See also Hebrews 6 and 10.

You quoted Hebrews 4:3:

3 For we who have believed (aorist active participle) do enter that rest...

I'm not sure why you made much of the aorist tense here.  The aorist is simply a snapshot of the event (without commenting on its duration or frequency).  There's no argument from my end that the writer is speaking about Christians who had believed in the past.  But, notice what is said later on:

6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,

11 ¶ Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

Are we to say that it's not really possible for SOME of the Hebrew Christians to follow the disobedient example of the Israelites?  And if it's not really possible for Christians to follow in this example why are these warnings then directed to them?

My position on this matter is consistent with what the church held for nearly 1500 years.  Even Luther and Augustine did not hold to the view today known as "perseverance of the saints (POS)."  Further, why do you suppose that the earliest witnesses to the apostolic doctrine (i.e., Iraneaus, Justin Martyr, etc.) did not teach something akin to POS? Did the apostles doctrine become corrupted so quickly, only for us to later reclaim it through the ingenious of Calvin?

In POS, you prove your election BY your perseverance.  If this is the case how can you know RIGHT NOW that you are saved?  It's a bit difficult, because its only by continuing in the faith (perservering) that you prove that you are one of the elect.  And since others have fallen away (who APPEARED to have genuine faith at one point in time) it's easy to doubt your salvation too.  Why am I dfferent than them?  What if my faith is like theirs too (which has ultimately proven to be counterfeit)?

I realize this forum may not be the place for such a discussion.  But, given your response I felt it was necessary to offer further clarification.

[theresearchpersona]

In POS, you prove your election BY your perseverance.

"Perseverence of the Saints" isn't about assurance, mind you; it is a statement that those who are Christ's will persevere in faith and holiness, being made manifest by Christ who lives in them, by God who is sanctifying them. It is the NT that says "they went out from among us because they were never of us", right?

It is Jesus who prays for the Father to keep those the Father has given Him, and those who believe through their words; the only one of those men who perished was Judas, and he was not an exception among those given to Jesus for salvation, but destined to perish (NASB on "son of perdition" note, "Heb. idiom for one destined to perish").

Those who "persevere" do so not because of anything in themselves, but because of Christ who lives in them.

"Assurance" in Scripture is spoken of as something from the Holy Spirit; also, in John's letters, it gives other qualifications: such as because one actually loves ones brethren, thereby they know they are God's. Is one in continuous sin, which is not obeying the command to walk before one another as examples, a lover of his brethren? Are those who do not correct such an one lovers of that brother? On "love", here's the old Christian definition, qualifying it as it was seen used by Scripture (I took this from http://www.bible-researcher.com/neb-wrenn.html):

"the Catholic conception of Caritas, which involves much more than ordinary human "love." J.F. Sollier in the Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1910) defines it as "a divinely infused habit, inclining the human will to cherish God for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of God." That it originates by Divine infusion is proven by St. Paul's statement in Romans 5:5, "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost," and it is "distinct from, and superior to, the inborn inclination or the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order." It is also to be distinguished from mere emotional love: "Although charity is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will." (cf. the article "Love" in vol. 9.) —M.D.M."

(I understand people here might think it's weird that I'm quoting a Catholic source...but I'm also not unaware of the points of contact with that system; nor unaware that scholars therein can define things, well, well!)

If this is the case how can you know RIGHT NOW that you are saved?  It's a bit difficult, because its only by continuing in the faith (perservering) that you prove that you are one of the elect.  And since others have fallen away (who APPEARED to have genuine faith at one point in time) it's easy to doubt your salvation too.  Why am I dfferent than them?  What if my faith is like theirs too (which has ultimately proven to be counterfeit)?

I realize this forum may not be the place for such a discussion.  But, given your response I felt it was necessary to offer further clarification.

Well, are you trusting you're saved by your works (perseverance), or because of Christ's work? Again, Perseverance isn't about assurance; on the contrary, however, lack of perseverance in holiness is a good indicator that one is not a Christian; if perseverance were a good indicator of salvation as true, then the ministers of Satan who appear as light, and all those in Scripture spoken of as deceiving and being themselves deceived...would be being comforted by their works.

You ought not confuse what people taught and teach; I'm sure there are others who misqualify and mix-up the concepts, but for being upright we ought not do this: and don't think I'm being mister righteous as I'm sure I've done this (and do this) myself, but I'm working on it.

If your protest is with POS because since others who were persevering but fell away can then shake someone's faith...well then you ought think "in what am I trusting?" It's as those who believe because of some preacher or teacher who's upright and/or a great orator...but when the guy falls, they become unbelievers, or shaken, themselves: their faith was in men, not God. If they realize this, or are reminded of this, perhaps it's God's grace towards them so they might actually believe.

Our faith cannot be in our works, but Christ's; but if there is no evidence of His love and work in us...we ought be terrified, and repent.

And speaking of that fear: at least from what I've heard of teachers, it was thought that those who love Christ obey Him, just as He says; and the Word it is that equates loving God with fearing Him (and it's not the fear used with the mere sense of "awe", but actual terror: I think there are good illustrations that correspond in human relations too, though of course on a totally different magnitude and degree---God's ought be much greater and absolute!). So why wouldn't we, then, see in Scripture, God commanding out of His grace, those who might think to return to sin and their vomit, to instead fear Him, assuming that they're His, is this not Him keeping them? While those who disobey, showing themselves to be false believers, or believers who need to actually believe?

As for "Calvinistic lenses", I've never read the his Institutes (I have read the part on Spiritual gifts where he makes distinctions between foundational gifts vs. continuing ones);  I've had exposure to "Reformed" teachers/ings, yet haven't merely accepted those things...wrestled with them, rather, especially with the GC experience behind me: it's a bad idea to just accept things without being examining (something else I'm working on); I don't accept Calvin, for instance, at face value...he was imperfect: he was magisterial and state-church in understanding (which passed onto the Westminster Confession) to which I am, on Scriptural grounds, opposed; Luther was great on Justification, but horrid with consubstantiation (Christ is in presence with believers period); the "fathers" had a lot of great stuff to say...yet we can't accept them at face value: Origen wrote triumphantly on the Trinity, yet fell as a heretic; like him, Justin Martyr tried foolishly to syncretize Christianity with pagan philosophy; Tertullian was a masterful writer yet was given to be hard, and like the other "fathers", overly tended to allegorize or manipulate Scripture too frequently (abuse), perhaps because they were just too unfamiliar with Scriptural patterns and thought: yet with Greek thought, they were masters at fending-off Greek-esque heresies. As to them being the closest: who cares? Not meaning that as forcefully as those words demand unqualified, but really they are also simply the most notable so that their writings survived; Paul warned that after his departure savage wolves would arise within and without the Churches. We needn't given mere men the force of Scripture, but applaud what is good, reprove ill-use of that good, expose what is evil, and subject all to Scripture.

As to terms, (Calvinist, Reformed, POS, etc.), I use them because people are familiar with them, at least to some extent, so that it's for their sake I use them, not mine: even if the definitions aren't as precisely known anymore, it is a point of starting, from whence we can move closer in understanding, as well as subjecting them, their nuances, concepts, etc., to Scripture itself; and if they're attacking others' teachings without understanding them, and I know better, then I seek to clarify those points as best I can.

As for the reason I became "Calvinistic" in understanding...I read the gospels. Two years ago I was a mosh-pit neoevangelical semi-pelagian (ahem, "arminian") humanist myself; but I did want to take Scripture seriously (at least in idea), and as poorly as I knew Him, I wanted Christ, and to obey God, and love Him wholeheartedly, and hear and follow Him, and be washed in His word as Christ prayed for us (John 17), and so on; knowing this even of myself I therefore try not to assume too much about a person's salvation unless they exhibit something about which Scripture makes something explicitly clear: for I was shown soooo much grace myself: still am being so, and don't deserve it a bit.

But along the line of a "Calvinistic" way of speaking, perhaps better put "Reformed", or even "Pauline", if it's God who chooses us, (and not vice versa), then it's God who keeps us. Show me in Scripture where it says otherwise...for I see that throughout, and also the commands to fear and not fall away; the former is explicit, the latter subject to interpretation...ought we use the vague to interpret the explicit?

Grace. I look forward to your next post.

[Postpre]

But along the line of a "Calvinistic" way of speaking, perhaps better put "Reformed", or even "Pauline", if it's God who chooses us, (and not vice versa), then it's God who keeps us. Show me in Scripture where it says otherwise...for I see that throughout, and also the commands to fear and not fall away; the former is explicit, the latter subject to interpretation...ought we use the vague to interpret the explicit?

I would submit that the concept of unconditional election of individual persons for salvation is not taught in Scripture.  It's an idea that originated with Augustine, and later trumpeted by Luther and Calvin.  It was unheard of in the early church.  An underlying issue in this discussion is if it should be normative for our understanding of doctrine to become more enlightened over time.  I would suggest that it shouldn't.  Iraneaus and Tertullian witnessed, early on, that the independent local congregations throughout the Roman province each (independently) held to the apostles doctrine and the faith once delivered to the saints.  That is, doctrinal and teaching matters were settled and fixed early on by the apostles and it was the job of each congregation to uphold and defend the whole counsel of God, not alter or amend as Christians became more enlightened over time.

Why should we put any stock in the early church?  They were not infallible, for sure.  But, they were very close to the apostles.  They spoke Greek, they had access to Greek manuscripts that predate even the oldest manuscripts that we have today, they were familiar with the culture, they would have been more privy to the oral teachings of the apostles, and many of them contended for sound doctrine (and opposed heresies) in their writings.  Read the following link at www.pfrs.org which elaborates on these points:

http://www.pfrs.org/foundation/index.html

For this conversation to be fruitful we need to break it down into little parts.  First, could you show me which Scriptures you are referring to where it says explicitly that God chooses only certain individuals for salvation. 

You probably have Ephesians 1 on your list.  Let me pose some questions regarding this text.

Ephesians 1:3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 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 has made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him. 11 ¶ In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Calvinists typically cite this passage as evidence that God chooses individual Christians for salvation.  Is this what Paul is saying?  Notice from verse 3 to vere 12, Paul repeatedly uses the plural pronouns "us" and "we."  He doesn't address the Ephesian reader until verse 13 ("In Him you also trusted").  Could it be when Paul states that "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world" he is speaking of Israel?  They were the ones, in the Gospels, "who first trusted in Christ (the Jew first and then the Greek)."  I would argue that Paul, in verses 3-12, is praising God for what he had done for the Jewish nation and the Messianic Jews who had first believed in Jesus.  This does not exlude the Gentiles of being partakers of these blessings (Eph 2), it simply puts the Gospel and God's dealings with Israel in it proper context.  Instead of proof-texting, as many Reformed theologians seem to employ, this illustrates how context should determine how we read the text. 

As to the idea that monergism is so crystal clear, Jude sounds awfully synergistic in his understanding of salvation (not works, but simply abiding in Christ):

Jude 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

[JustCurious]

For this conversation to be fruitful we need to break it down into little parts.  First, could you show me which Scriptures you are referring to where it says explicitly that God chooses only certain individuals for salvation. 

Boy, the old predestined debate arises its head again. I'm not going to spend much time after this post with the argument but I would like to point out that the Bible is full of God choosing those individuals/groups to fulfill his purpose. Some people like Moses were chosen for a purpose but he argued against it but God won and the Lord's will prevailed. Those who weren't chosen questioned God's judgment and were punished because of it--that should be fair warning. Even then, there were those who thought that they themselves conquered something when it was God who did it. These people did not acknowledge that it was God and were likewise punished. I would be very careful to say that my salvation was of my own will and not God's.

God's Choosings:

• God chose Abraham/Isaac's seed to become the chosen people.
• God chose the smallest of people, Israelites, as his people.
• God chose Moses to lead his chosen people to the promised Land. Moses protested and lost.
• God hardened Pharaoh's heart
• God chose Aaron to be high priest.
• God chose that the land of Canaan would be the promised land.
• God smites those who object to his choosing Moses and Aaron as their leaders. Numbers 16
• God chooses Assyria to attack Israel as punishment to Israel. The Assyrian King does not acknowledge God's involvement, in fact, the king declares the work as his own doing and is punished for it. Isaiah 10:5-19
• God predestined Jesus to be the savior: 1 Peter 1:20.

I would have to say that the above list were predestined choices as many of the above examples were prophecies in the Old Testament-God's Plan. If God chose who would lead, who he loved, etc, why wouldn't he choose who he saves? Anyway, you're looking for something more specific (I'm not purposely attempting to take things out of context in the next list but trying to keep the list short):

• God saved Paul and chose him as his instrument. Acts 9:3-19 - This is as specific of an answer as it gets.
• 1 Peter 1:2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
• 1 Thessalonians 2:12 encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
• John 6 I think is another good one but I don't have my notes right now
• Romans 9:15-33 - 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
• Romans 8:29-30 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
• John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you - Arminiists like to point out that this message was spoken only to the disciples meaning the original apostles. However, aren't we all disciples?
• Jeremiah 1:4-5 - The call to Jeremiah - If God predestines and sets apart Jeremiah for a specific task, why not others for salvation given all of the predestination passages in the Bible?

This list is short but that's o.k. it's time for bed. I believe that God has given man some freedom in his will based on many Biblical passages; however, most examples of man dabbling in his own will has not fared very well and he absolutely needs God's help. How many times did Israel turn to idolatry even after seeing God rescue them through the Red Sea for example?

In my opinion the doctrine of Free Will was created by the very sinful nature that sets Satan apart from God. Satan wants freedom from God and of God and wants to make choices on his own. Free Will is in denial of who we are and why we need God. We do have a will but it is never truly free because God's Will will prevail (Isaiah 46:11) first and foremost. Secondly, we are either slaves to sin or to obedience (Rom 6:16) and we know slaves aren't free which just leaves us with a will. Because of our sinful nature (1 Cor. 2:14) we would never be able to accept Jesus (Romans 8:7-8) without God first opening our eyes and and drawing us near (John 6:44). We are born of Satan (John 8:41-47) and as I stated earlier in this paragraph our natural desire is to be set apart from God. It is by God's grace and love that he opens our eyes and ears (Isaiah 50:5) to salvation.

You could possibly argue that after he opens our eyes and ears we have the freedom to choose. This really isn't the freedom of will but the freedom of choice. That being said, is it really a choice or an ultimatum?     

[lone gone]

On the topic of free will:  a distinction needs to be made between a willful choice that can be made and a choice that cannot be made.

I can choose to brush my teeth or not.
I can choose not to break the speed limit.

These are examples of choices some of which are mundane and self serving, some of which are moral and self sacrificing.

But just because someone can make a moral choice does not mean that they are God's child or saved. Unregenerate persons can make moral choices.

One choice that we CANNOT make is to choose God. It may SEEM like we can choose Him, but in fact we only become aware of Him and acknowledge His work in our life. 

It can be likened to a dead man being re-animated. Dead people make no choices. If re-animated, they can acknowledge their condition but they had no participation in it.

This topic of choices and Free Will was thoroughly dealt with during the Reformation. Martin Luther wrote his treatise "The Bondage of the Will" to explain this. The Treatise was in reaction to Erasmus'  "Discussion concerning Free Will".  Although Erasmus was in the good graces of the Roman Church, his treatment of free will was consistent with the Swiss Reformers stance, ( who had been humanist scholars before they became reformers.)

The same with Pre-destination.... We don't  choose, we are chosen. It only appears that we choose. The doctrine of Free Will was IMHO a product of Human pride and futility.  We think so highly of ourselves that sometimes we think we can be perfect and make the right choice. It ain't necessarily so.

One last thing, Luther determined that there was missing information in Scripture.... IE, God didn't reveal everything to us. What look like contradictions are in reality only pieces of a puzzle that have not been revealed to us.  Additionally, once recognized, we can rest in God's assurance that we don't need to know everything that has not been revealed. We don't need to try to force order onto something because the order we force onto it may or may not be correct. We may find ourselves in opposition to God by our efforts. All this because of Mankind's overwhelming pride to "KNOW"... which goes straight back to the Garden of Eden and we know how that turned out.

[Postpre]

Below is a good quote from the book "Total Depravity and Free Will," by Ira Benjamin Hezekiah (a pen name), 2003.  I do not necessarily endorse all of his conclusions neither in these paragraphs or in the book, but he attempts to clarify Paul's use of the metaphor "dead" in his epistles (He is commenting on Eph 2:1 and Col. 2:13-14):

Paul is not trying to imply in either passage that we are literally in a zombie state of spiritual death in which we cannot respond to God, but rather that our sins and transgressions have cut us off from a right relationship with God.

"But it says dead," exlaimed a friend of mine who believes in total depravity, "and dead means dead."  Any examination of Paul's use of the work "dead" will shed light on the error of this fragile method of argumentation that "dead means dead" in every sense of the word.  Paul also says that we as Christians have "died to sin" (Rom. 6:12) and are to consider ourselves "dead" to sin, but then instructs us not to submit to sin (Rom 6:12-13, also cf. 1 Pet. 2:24).  He says that Christians are "dead" to the elementary principles of this world and then rebukes some for submitting to those same elementary principles (Col. 2:20-21).  How is it possible that they could submit to sin or these elementary principles if dead means dead in the full sense of the word?

The bottom line is that a metaphorical use of a word, including "dead," does not demand the utitlization of every aspect of the original term in the metaphor.  The intent of Paul is not that we are unable to respond to the gospel, but rather that we are cut off from God and doomed because of our sins. (p. 77)

[MidnightRider]

This topic of choices and Free Will was thoroughly dealt with during the Reformation. Martin Luther wrote his treatise "The Bondage of the Will" to explain this. The Treatise was in reaction to Erasmus'  "Discussion concerning Free Will".  Although Erasmus was in the good graces of the Roman Church, his treatment of free will was consistent with the Swiss Reformers stance, ( who had been humanist scholars before they became reformers.)

ObGCx: I did a book report on Erasmus' Freedom of the Will and Luther's Bondage of the Will in a philosophy class when I was in college. It was a high point of my spiritual life.      After I left the class and was walking across campus, the thought crossed my head that my GCx pastor would have disagreed with me completely. It is hard to remember exactly, since it was so long ago, but I think that was a beginning-of-the-end moment for my connection to GCx.

[lone gone]

A person can die to sin and still sin again because he still has a body of flesh. There is still an old man and yet a new man. The old man can still sin, and we must mortify it daily. The new man is alive in Christ.

Before there is a new man, there is only the old man... and he is spiritually dead and unable to respond unless God wills it.

As long as anyone claims to participate in their salvation via decision,commitment, prayer,or anything else, you are taking away God's glory and raising yourself to God's level. Claiming to have power over your spiritual birth is like telling God how you want to be born, who you want your parents to be, where and when you want to be born, and what you want to look like. Since you have no power over your birth, why do you think you'd have any say about your re-birth?

That is why Ephesians is true. "By Grace you have been saved, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God and not of works that none may boast."

[theresearchpersona]

I like that PostPre decided to quote the passage he did in Ephesians, though for some reason Post, you don't quote verse 14!

Anyway, I hope to respond to you more completely at a later time (some other important spiritual matters to attend to). I printed-off some of the resources you gave and I hope to read through a bunch of Scripture to ensure I'm being careful in handling the Scriptures; as for seeking/not God, that's Paul's explicit teaching (Romans); the use of "dead" was a convenient metaphor to teach this, to make it very vivid for people, but to reduce the use of the term to one nuance as your quoted man seems to do is, perhaps, overly simplistic with handling the language employed: it might be worth my time to examine the use of the term in each context to respond fully to that too, but that, obviously, could take a while.

Anyway, just as lone said, if you keep reading the passage it denies our participation in our own salvation, even saying "you are God's workmanship..."; not our works, His.