God's Foreknowledge & our salvation/calling/election/predest

Human action is NOT the question. Explicit statement about human action of the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate that is causal to his salvation is the question. Not a single one of those verses you've just proof-texted explicitly state nothing about volitional agency causal to their salvation. Instead, every single one of those verses occurs within an already existing covenant relationship monergistically imposed upon them by God that is being ignored. Both of theose New Testament pasages are about the already-regenerate, NOT the unregenerate. 

You're doing the exact thing I asked NOT be done and not doing what was requested. I asked that you meet your own standard and provide an explicit statement about the unregenerate's volitional agency. I asked that scripture not be treated inferentially. 
Yes, there are but NOT once does scripture assign agency to ANY of them!!! The scripture always assigns that agency to God, not man. Synergism, the doctrine, extra-biblical assigns agency to humanity and the doctrine does so absent any scripture to that effect. You said you were persuaded by scripture. Look at it. Monergism does NOT deny human involvement. It simply states God alone is the causal agent of one's conversion.

I was aked for scripture EXPLICITLY  evidencing monergism and I provided severa examples of both content and example. I return, I asked for the provision of a scripture EXPLICITLY stating human volitional agency in a causal manner AND my request for parity explicitly asked that inferential readings of scripture not be asserted. Don't quote scripture that doesn't explicitly state agency and infer it does. 

This James 2 passage is not an explicite stating the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate sinner's will was causal to Rahab's salvation. James' larger commentary is the view faith begets works, not works begets faith, and faith is a gift from God. God-gifted faith begets godly faithfulness. Fleshly faith begets fleshly faithfulness, or faithfulness to the flesh, not God. The mind of flesh does not and CANNOT please God and even the righteous act is soiled rags to God. These are all explicite statements of God, not an inferential reading of God's words. Rahab was a pagan, a Gentile, a member of the people God was eradicating - His cleaning out the Promised Land. Not that James explicitly states Rahab was justified in the same way as Abraham. Nowhere in the entire Bible does the Bible ever explicitly state we justify ourselves. We are justified first by Christ and only then justified by faith. So go back to what I have already posted and repeated about Abraham because Abraham was brought into God's covenant by God, not Abraham. God chose Abraham without asking him. God called Abraham without asking him if he wanted to be chosen. God commanded Abraham and did not allow for Abraham's refusal of the covenant. It was only after God initiated the covenant monergistically, based solely on His will and His purpose that Abraham had any options within the covenant. Nothing in the James 2 passage states Rahab Just up and decided all on her own to help God's people. That would be a completely inconsistent reading of the passage, especially after James tells us it happened in the same way as Abraham. 

Joshua 6 says this, 

Joshua 6:17

The city shall be under the ban, it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.


All that was in the city belonged to God. Everything already belonged to God and God was going to destroy it. That had been decided looonng before the Hebrews hid out in Rahab's house. Notice this aspect "all who are within her house," because this is the same thing said to Abraham when God initiated the covenant sign of circumcision and the exact same thing said about Lydia and the jailer: all in their house were saved even though there is absolutely no mention all in those households chose God. We learn in the New Testament not all Israel is Israel that is is the Israel of promise that is the true Israel and Israel the nation was a foreshadow of Christ. "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt," (Hos. 11:1), and "This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called My Son,'" (Mt. 2:15). Turns out it is ALL part of God's providence based solely on His will and His purpose and on this occasion, it bears the force of prophecy, prophetic decision, or God's foreknowledge. These are the connections the scriptures themselves make; I did not randomly splice disparate parts of God's word together to make an eisegetic case. God's own word connects these passages. 

I keep reminding you and everyone else all these verses synergists quote ALL occur in a pre-existing set of contexts that are being ignored. I am NOT trying to be judgmental or adversarial when I point this out.

Nothing in James 2 should in any way be construed to say Rahab's faith was fleshly faith. Why not? It's not only because James is writing to and about regenerate believers in Christ. It's also because James himself argues against that position when he says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." That kind of belief has absolutely no salvific merit. That kind of faith MUST be precluded from Rahab. So not only was the James 2 text quoted with eisegetic intent, the eisegetic reading is completely inconsistent with the whole of scriptures own commentary on Rahab and faith. Rahab's destiny was to be part of the bloodline of Christ!!!!! She, as an adopted member (non-Jewish) of the covenant, foreshadows the Gentile inclusion that God prophesied centuries and centuries before God and James sent Paul, Barnabas, and Silas to the Gentiles. 

You treated the text inferentially, even after I asked that not happen.

I made that request to help you. I want you to find the explicit statement if one exists. Similarly, if none exists then I want that acknowledge in mutually collaborative and mutually edifying agreement with scripture. My request is win-win, potentially for both of us if you truly do rely first and foremost on what is explicitly stated in scripture.  


So, swing and a miss. No worries; it happens. Try it again. Show me the explicit statement in scripture assigning salvific causal agency to the sinfully enslaved and dead unregenerate's will. Meet your own standard, the exact same standard I was asked to meet.





Show me the explicit statement in scripture assigning salvific causal agency to the sinfully enslaved and dead unregenerate's will. Please. 

. Jos 24:15 - And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

biblehub.com/greek/4268.htm#:~:text=progn%C3%B3sis%3A%20foreknowledge%20Original%20Word%3A%20%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BD%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%2C%20%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%82%2C%20%E1%BC%A1%20Part,Spelling%3A%20%28prog%27-no-sis%29%20Definition%3A%20foreknowledge%20Usage%3A%20foreknowledge%2C%20previous%20determination.

www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/f/foreknowledge.html

www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/foreknow-foreknowledge/

theaquilareport.com/foreknowledge-its-new-testament-meaning/

It's been a week since those who disagree with me have responded to my inquiry. From my perspective this means either there isn't any evidence for what I am asking or there is an unwillingness to provide a response (or both). Over the last 20+ years since I moved from being Arminian to being monergist this has been my uniform experience. In all those years what played out here has been the common, unvarying occurrence. In all the years asking this question (in varies wordings) I have never met a synergist who cand or does answer the specific question by providing an explicit statement in the Bible. Every single synergist posts selected verses that are usually removed from their inherent contexts and always read interpretively and not for what is explicitly stated or explicitly not stated.

I completely understand my individual personal experiences are worth anything, logically. However, when it comes to internet forum dicussions it's worth observing we can't have this discussion because the synergist side cannot or will not provide explicitness.

The entire position is built solely on inference. It is never built on anything explicit.

This alone is a reason for giving the monergist position so credence. The monergist can at least point to explicit statements in scripture and explicit examples in scripture of God's will being explicitly reported as causal to salvation in the life of the unregenerate. It's also noteworthy that plenty of opportunity to provide the requested scripture was provide and provided repeatedly. This post now write occurs as a consequence of having asked and having asked over and again without an actual answer. In place of an answer responses red herrings, straw mane, shifting onuses, moving goalposts, inferential readings and other obfuscations were received. The point I made earlier in the thread was just proven:



Statements explicitly reporting God will caused salvation: Plenty!

Statements explicitly reporting the still sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate's will caused salvation in some way: Zero.



And, objectively verifiable is the fact all the verses attempted did not only NOT explicitly state causal volitional agency of the unregenerate and they were overwhelmingly about people already living in a monergistic covenant. So, given the evidence, there is considerable reason not to choose synergism.

Was Abraham circumcised before or after faith? 

Within the context of God's work in humanity, there are primary and secondary causes. Since I don't have to worry about Calvinists banning me here, I'll tell you exact where Calvinists get its wrong. 

The truth is somewhere in the middle between Monergism and Synergism. 

Relevance?

I am happy to have you prove that but you're going about it in a misguided manner. 

First, asking about when Abraham was circumcised completely ignores everything already posted about Abraham that preceded his circumcision. The question gives the appearance of "I don't care what was poste beforehand and I am going to deliberately ignore it all because I want to ask about something completely different (like circumcision)." Second, the matter of "God's work in humanity" is ALWAYS couched in God being the first cause and the independent cause and never solely a subsequent cause or a dependent cause. Lastly, there is no "middle between monergism and synergism," because synergism covers the middle ground. That was just a bad statement that indicates either a lack of thought or a lack of knowledge. Synergism is the middle ground between the monergism of God converting man versus man converting himself. The ONLY correct response to what I just said is, "Yes, my bad. Of course. That is correct." 

Any other response will incline me to believe you don't have much of a clue about any of this and a conversation attempting to correct these errors would be a waste of both our time.


So, start over.