In article , bimms{at}juno.com says...

>"...we do not say that
>the materials built the house together with the craftsman. We say the
>craftsman built the house..."
>
>Matthew, you are in error here.

No, I am not. You are. See below.

> For Theophylact:
>1. "God" is the craftsman
>2. "Human free will" are the materials

So far so good, but...

>3. So the best way to interpret what Theophylact is saying is this:
> "we do not say that (human free will) built the house together
>with (God).

What? How on earth do you get that out of Theophylact?

> We say (God) built the house.(apart from human free will)"

No, that is clearly contrary to his words. For he said quite clearly: "this
_appears_ to contradict free will; but in truth, it does NOT".

How could you MISS this? Or how could you read this, and then go on to DENY free
will?

>4. your interpretation of Theophylact is off, my friend.

No, it is YOUR interpretation that is OFF.

> In fact, your interpretation
>says precisely the opposite of what Theophylact is trying to say.
> Here is your interpretation:
>
>"...Similarly here: although God accepts the free will of the saved
>and uses it in building their salvation, we say that it is He who built
>it..."
>
>Nowhere does Theophylact say that God "accepts the free will of the
>saved."

I am paraphrasing. But unlike you, I am paraphrasing ACCURATELY. For my
paraphrase is strictly implied by Theophylact's "we say the work is his,
although He needs our production".


> Instead,
>Theophylact is saying that God DOES NOT accept asssitance of human free
>will...

So you keep saying, but WHERE are you getting that from? Theophylact said no
such thing.

>  much the
>same as the craftsman does not accept the free will assistance of the
>house materials to build the
>house.

Now you sound like you have missed the point of the analogy. Sure, house
materials do not have free will, but that is QUITE beside the point. For the
analog of the house material IS our free will.

>A craftsman does not need the free will assistance of the housing
>materials to build a house. Housing
>materials do not have a motivational-force "free will" that would
>enable them to assist a craftsman to construct
>a house.

You are still missing the point, and in the same way.

>Thus, Theophylact is saying that humans do not have a
>motivational-force "free will" that enables
>them to assist God to construct our salvation.

No, he is saying no such thing.

>(obviously, it still remains true that humans have free will in
>general. The point at issue is whether human free will is operating
>during SALVATION and SANCTIFICATION.

And of _course_ it is. That is WHY we are commanded to "work our our salvation
in fear and trembling", a command that is so embarassing to Calvinists, they
have to resort to equivocation to explain it away.

> Calvinists claim that during
>Salvation and Sanctification, human free will is NOT operational,

And when you make this claim, you contradict Scripture boldly and sinfully.

> but
>during the remainder of a human life,

WHAT 'remainder'? If salvation were over, Paul would NOT have commanded us to
"work our our salvation". Nor would he have called us "those
being saved (1 Cor
1:18).

Now perhaps you were relying on a misleading translation. So behold the verse
that destroys the popular lying interpretation:

   For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing,
   but to US WHO ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.  (1Co 1:18 RSVA)


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/8/05 10:36:47 AM ---