2 Timothy 2:10

Agreed, but since I do know what the semi-P's believe and Wiki is accurate on that belief, I quoted it.

Your posting of the history of the Semi-P's, though informative does not really change in any form what I stated they believe. Especially since what you copied and pasted really doesn't address the specifics of their beliefs.

That is why I asked if you truly did believe the semi-P's view as is historically known since you stated you used to believe the semi-P's view.

 

If by "did not receive grace until they have faith first", you are stating that these individuals believe that man comes to God FIRST without the aide of grace; as THAT is semi-Pelagainism at it core. Mans seeks God NOT God seeks man. God seeking/calling man for mans good IS grace which produces saving faith.

Grace (Gods unmerited favor) is God FIRST seeking or calling man who does not deserve anything from God but damnation and Semi's don't believe this, though this is the position of the majority of non-Cal's on this board. Though I don't know the ones you are refering to, I will say this. Grace is not salvation but salvation is from grace. In that God in His grace FIRST seeks man, and the man who believes does so unto salvation because of Gods grace. I kept it rather clear cut to aviod (at present) and C/A debate. Now if a person holds that by faith man comes to God and then God in grace gives man salvation- then it is no more grace but works, for you have God giving favor due to man earning something.

 

Allan, you're right. What I posted does not change what you stated, it just expanded it. Wiki's article on semi-p. is very brief which is why I added something a little more detailed.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just showing you what semi-p. believe as opposed to Pelagians and Augustinians.

So as I originally stated, as per what the article states about semi-p., that is what I was taught as a young adult.

 

Synergism which is at the very heart of semi-p.

 

Then you still have NO CLUE as to what the Semi-Pelagainism believes nor the theology of Synergism.
You left off just what that "work together' in Semi-P entails.
... man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then completes the salvation process.
This is the cooperation that is spoken of.

And Synergism:
...Synergists believe that faith itself, not something given by God (like grace or salvation), is something the natural man must give or better yeild (or believe) that man obtains salvation. Unregenerate man, in this scheme, is left to his freewill through the revelation of Gods truths to either believe or reject God.
My wording: But I am not a synergist either. YET the synergist still maintains God must by Grace come to man first, and man can ONLY THEN respond. IF God doesn't come to man then man is lost forever.

The Reformers didn't even understand exactly what they believed because they erroniously assumed and thought Armenianism was almost the same thing and labeled so.

Semi-P does not beleive God seeks after man first, and man responds.

They do not believe man receives grace of any type UNTIL AFTER man seeks God FIRST.
That is the core foundation of Semi-P theology. God does nothing to bring man to God but does reward the man that will seek after God with grace and salvation.

Synergism is the exact OPPOSITE.

 

Okay, Allan, I'm not getting into this with you.

I stand by what I said about Semi-p as the term as been historically used, as being a synergistic system.

You're free to disagree as always.

 

I don't think synergism puts any particular emphasis on the order (God first, man first), but simply emphasizes the cooperative nature between God and man that produces salvation.

the Century Dictionary defines as
"...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."

Allan, what part of this definition do you not agree with so as to make you "not a synergist"?

 

Pelagianism: Man may obtain salvation on his own. Christ merely provides an example to follow.

Perhaps P is neither monergistic nor synergistic, but is humanistic.

Semi-P: Some men seek the help of God for salvation; God cooperates with them.

Synergistic

Arminian: God helps all men to be saved; only those that cooperate are saved.

Synergistic

Calvinism: Only the regenerate can believe unto salvation; God is the sole active agent in regeneration.

Monergism:

"In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."

 

Actaully JD, they do put emphasis on order and it is God seeks man first (the Call and/by revelation of truth of Jesus).

First I think the definition is a little fishy and smells.
There are portions which are not articulated very well and can mean or be viewed in a differing context according to ones theological bent.
However, I have the most issue with this in accordance with their view point:

That part is incorrect according to synergism.
That is actually semi-Pelagainism, and not synergism.
Synergism specifies that it is God who calls men to Himself and reveals truth to man by the Holy Spirit (via coviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come).
These are not ordinary means, unless you define "ordinary means" as preaching the gospel and revelalation of the scriptures vai the Holy Ghost as ordinary in that sense.

 

Allan-Perhaps a new OP is in order for you to delineate synergism from semi-pelagianism. You could even present a historically-accurate description of Arminianism to boot. I know I would appreciate such a post.

BJ

 

Not accurate.
Though synergism is the cooperation of two or more for a desired effect (the paraphrased scientific definition). The synergist maintains there is an order to which synergism is cooperitively worked as opposed to having no particular order or even specifically the converse of God/man order.

Maybe I need to clarify this. When I refer to synergism I am refering to that which is currently understood in the theological view of present day synergists.
There was no group who called themselves synergists, nor was there a theological stance of of people called synergists during the time of Augustine. It was traditionally a reference to those who saw Augustine going to far one way and Pelagus going to far another. Though what the reformers refered to as synergism/semi-Pelagainism being the equivolent of Arminianism was indeed a misnomer and grossly inaccurate, it is still different from those who would not consider themselves synergists today concerning their theological stance.

 

True. We have gone WAY off topic.

However, most people on BB refer back to their particular theological scholars to tell them (most all sides) what another believes and that their particular scholar is the best informed if any oppose them.

I have studied these to see if they were true and held completely with scripture. Searching each one AS IF IT WAS the truth but them all lacking (some more than others) in differing aspects.

So even if I did make a thread (which I am not opposed to) I doubt many (if any) would come away not still conflagating systems which do not have the same understandings though they have many of the same words.

 

Allan

Allan, please give us your definition of synergism in a theological context and give us some references. I haven't found any definition of synergism which specifies an order of initiation.