Misunderstanding Unlimited Atonement.

[TCassidy]

When the Philippian jailer asked what he needed to do to be saved, why didnt Paul rebuke him for his synergistic tendencies.

Again, you have conflated Salvation with Regeneration. The jailer was saved positionally which resulted in his being saved progressively, and ultimately, permanently.

What must he do to be saved progressively and permanently? Simple. He had to believe He was Who He claimed to be, and believe in what He did. That is the cognitive aspect I was talking about in my other post.

 

[glad4mercy]

That might be going a bit too far. As Pelagius denied any grace at all being necessary, and all Arminians I know of accept the concept of prevenient grace, that would, in my mind, remove them not only from the ranks of Pelagians but also semi-pelatians who also did not see a necessity for prevenient grace.

Ma

I am overjoyed that you now accept the Particular Baptist doctrine of Regeneration being solely an act of God and preceding faith.

I never said anything other than God grants faith to believe. But according to your definition of synergism, an act that I did was a secondary cause to my believing. Therefore, AN ACTION was a secondary cause. Therefore, that would fall under your definiton of synergism (God's grace plus anything else)

Why didnt Paul rebuke the philipian jailer for asking "what must I do to be saved"? By your definition of synergism, Paul should have said "absolutely nothing"

 

[glad4mercy]

Again, you have conflated Salvation with Regeneration. The jailer was saved positionally which resulted in his being saved progressively, and ultimately, permanently.

What must he do to be saved progressively and permanently? Simple. He had to believe He was Who He claimed to be, and believe in what He did. That is the cognitive aspect I was talking about in my other post.

So then you believe that a man must do something to be saved then.

 

[TCassidy]

Why didnt Paul rebuke the philipian jailer for asking "what must I do to be saved"?

Asked and answered. See post #61.

 

[glad4mercy]

Asked and answered. See post #61.

That's Ok, you just said that a man has to do something to be progressively and permanently saved.

 

[TCassidy]

Conditional perserverance?

Now you have conflated progressive salvation with perseverance (preservation).

(PS: I might take your postings more seriously if you would proofread before posting. Fairly simple words misspelled don't engender a lot of confidence in your cognition.)

 

[TCassidy]

That's Ok, you just said that a man has to do something to be progressively and permanently saved.

He has to not only do something, he has to believe something, in order to grow in grace and receive rewards at the judgment bar. That, to me, seems patently obvious.

 

[TCassidy]

So then you believe that a man must do something to be saved then.

Okay, you are just displaying your desperation now. If you can't offer something of substance, why not just bow out?

 

[glad4mercy]

Now you have conflated progressive salvation with perseverance (preservation).

(PS: I might take your postings more seriously if you would proofread before posting. Fairly simple words misspelled don't engender a lot of confidence in your cognition.)

Botom line...you just saide a man has to doo somethin to be progressively and permanntlaly saved

 

[glad4mercy]

He has to not only do something, he has to believe something, in order to grow in grace and receive rewards at the judgment bar. That, to me, seems patently obvious.

SO according to post 61, he's not PERMANENTLY saved unless he meets conditions? Because you said that PERMANANT SALVATION IS CONDITIONAL ON HIS BELIEVING. So what is impermanent salvation?

 

[glad4mercy]

Okay, you are just displaying your desperation now. If you can't offer something of substance, why not just bow out?

You said in post 61

"What must he do to be saved progressively and permanently..."

So a man does nothing at all in regeneration, but has to do something afterwards or else his salvation will not be permanent?

 

[TCassidy]

Botom line...you just saide a man has to doo somethin to be progressively and permanntlaly saved

Growing in grace (progressive salvation) is assisted by right doctrine (belief) coupled with right conduct (faith).

And our rewards in heaven are based on our belief and faith while on the earth.

To try to twist that into believing something that is simply not true is more than just a little disingenuous, and additional evidence of utter desperation.

Again, if you can't offer something of substance, you might consider bowing out.

 

[glad4mercy]

Growing in grace (progressive salvation) is assisted by right doctrine (belief) coupled with right conduct (faith).

And our rewards in heaven are based on our belief and faith while on the earth.

To try to twist that into believing something that is simply not true is more than just a little disingenuous, and additional evidence of utter desperation.

Again, if you can't offer something of substance, you might consider bowing out.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID what A MAN MUST DO FOR HIS SALVATION TO BE PERMANENT? (post 61)

You just put a condition on the PERMANENCE OF SALVATION

Please explain yourself

 

[rsr]

To interject: Salvation is more than an ultimate destination. It is also a state of being. Reformed theology (and Arminian theology as well) has in view not only man's final state but also his state upon this earth. Those who choose to disobey the clear commands of Christ in the here and now forfeit not only the joy of their ultimate salvation but also their joy of salvation in this world.

 

[glad4mercy]

To interject: Salvation is more than an ultimate destination. It is also a state of being. Reformed theology (and Arminian theology as well) has in view not only man's final state but also his state upon this earth. Those who choose to disobey the clear commands of Christ in the here and now forfeit not only the joy of their ultimate salvation but also their joy of salvation in this world.

OH, I agree. I just am wondering about what T. Cassidy means by what one must do for His salvation to be PERMANENT. (it's right there in post 61) Do Calvinists believe that regeneration is IMPERMANENT until we add something to it to make it permanent?

Because he did say that something must be done to make SALVATION PERMANENT. To me, permanent means lasting and unchanging. If you have to do something to make your salvation permanent, then that is condition perserverance, and hence conditional election, my friend

 

[glad4mercy]

Again, you have conflated Salvation with Regeneration. The jailer was saved positionally which resulted in his being saved progressively, and ultimately, permanently.

What must he do to be saved progressively and permanently? Simple. He had to believe He was Who He claimed to be, and believe in what He did. That is the cognitive aspect I was talking about in my other post.

Here it is again...last paragraph in the quote

What must he do to be saved progressively and permanently? Simple. He had to believe He was Who He claimed to be, and believe in what He did. That is the cognitive aspect I was talking about in my other post.

So we do absolutely nothing to be regenerated, but we must do something to make our salvation permanent?

This is his argument for why Paul answered the Philippian jailer's question about what he must DO to be saved, instead of rebuking him for being such a synergist.

The golden chain of redemption includes predestination, calling, justification and glorification. T Cassidy defines synergism in such a way that he has made ultimate glorification synergistic (AT LEAST BY HIS DEFINITION of synergism, which I disagree with)

Are some parts of salvation monergistic and others synergistic? (remember, I am asking this question PRESUPPOSING the definition of synergism that T Cassidy himself gave)

 

[TCassidy]

Well, we have found another bible teaching that glad4mercy knows nothing about.

Positional Salvation = saved from the penalty of sin. (By regeneration.)

Progressive Salvation = in the process of being saved from the power of sin. (By growing in grace and a knowledge of His word and His will, and learning to submit to it.)

Permanent Salvation = the future state of being saved from the presence of sin. (By being removed to heaven and thus removed from the presence of sin. Never again being tempted to sin.)

God created us (human kind) able not to sin.

At the fall we became not able not to sin.

By regeneration we are made able not to sin.

And by glorification we will be not able to sin.

 

[glad4mercy]

Well, we have found another bible teaching that glad4mercy knows nothing about.

Positional Salvation = saved from the penalty of sin. (By regeneration.)

Progressive Salvation = in the process of being saved from the power of sin. (By growing in grace and a knowledge of His word and His will, and learning to submit to it.)

Permanent Salvation = the future state of being saved from the presence of sin. (By being removed to heaven and thus removed from the presence of sin. Never again being tempted to sin.)

God created us (human kind) able not to sin.

At the fall we became not able not to sin.

By regeneration we are made able not to sin.

And by glorification we will be not able to sin.

Well, what I do know is that ALL OF THOSE (positional, progressive, and final salvation) are part of the GOLDEN CHAIN of redemption, and I DON"T BELIEVE IN SEPERATING THEM FROM ONE ANOTHER. They are linked together, not seperate links all lying off somewhere by themselves, right?

Positional salvation- Justification

Progressive salvation-Being conformed to the image of His Son

Final salvation- Glorificatioin

The issue is not what I do or do not know. I know everything you're saying The issue is your false definition of "synergism", and your applying it to people who are not synergists. Your position is inconsistent. You define synergism as "man doing something or even not doing something " (not resisting grace is an active verb according to you., so I suppose if I am not attempting to work for my salvation that is an active verb too, and I am a synergist for NOT SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY WORKS OR DEEDS OF THE LAW. OH, and "worketh not" in Romans 4:5 would then be an active verb by your reasoning as well) But then you hold a position of sanctification and glorification that FITS YOUR DEFINITION OF SYNERGISM. SO you seem to be saying that regnereration is monergistic but sanctification and glorification are synergistic.'

But they are part of the same golden chain, and they were ALL UNCONDITIONALLY DETERMINED for the Elect before the foundation of the earth. REMEMBER? So how can some by conditional and others be unconditional while trying to maintain UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, which is the FIRST PART OF THE GOLDEN CHAIN OF WHICH GLORIFICATION IS PART OF.

When you say that man must do something to make his salvation progressive and permanent, you are making those aspects CONDITIONAL.

You are so blinded by your traditions that you don't even see the inconsistency of your arguments.

Spurgeoun, Boetner, Sproul, White, and others I have read and listened to have consistent arguments (even though I do not fully agree with them). But you have inconsistencies in your arguments

So don't resort to false accusations of ignorance when someone points out the flaw in your argument.

So when you say that election is unconditional and then put CONDITIONS on glorification and being conformed to the image of the SON, you are mixing monergism and what you falsely call synergism together

 

[glad4mercy]

T. Cassiday, "not resisting" is an active verb. (see post 53 and 54) By that reasoning "worketh not" in Romans 4"5 would also be an active verb. So if not resisting is a synergistic work SO IS "NOT WORKING"

The condition of not working is not a synergistic act of man, therefore the condition of NOT RESISTING is not a synergistic act either.

Argument refuted.

So I will ask again...where did anyone say that God needed our help to save us (seeing that "Not resisting is not synergism as T. Cassidy falsely asserted)

 

[Revmitchell]

Iconoclast disagrees with a question?

I don't know what that means. I cannot see his posts.