Featured "passive" in justification; "not passive" in sanctification

Is a baby passive in its birth? …Or is the baby a passive participant?

I agree, it’s not a term I’d use in the process but I can understand its use.
From their statement of faith [LINK]:

As stated in the SOF, I am in full agreement.

Rob

 

Sounds like monergism taken to an extreme. Maybe that's what some will do to try to circumvent any other options.

The language isn't helpful. Passive vs active doesn't seem to work. I'd have to see the curriculum before commenting more. Thanks for bringing this up.

 

That sounds a lot like the stance taken by at least one of the more ardent (hyper)Calvinists on this forum. His statement, though, was that the gospel is permanently hidden to the lost, therefore only the saved can receive the gospel at all. I was finally able to ascertain that he basically held to the notion that people are born saved or born damned and nothing could change that.

If this is indeed a more Calvinist program, in terms of election/predestination, then you are quite correct.

If they are true to their first stated point (that you listed) then they cannot reasonably hold to this position. It is more likely a "feel-good" text. If salvation is required for faith, and only some are saved, and salvation comes only from God (as we know it does, though man must believe in order to be saved, per the scriptures) then God cannot be said to have wanted all men to be saved. In a free will / free grace sense, this statement works. In a system of divine election, this statement is false.

David said of salvation, "restore unto me the joy of thy salvation," meaning it is from God. But God the Son, when He walked as incarnate man, said of faith, "thy faith hath made thee whole," implying faith is of the individual.

 

Jonathan, I think the problem lies with the big picture way you're reading the author.

You are reading 'Salvation' while the author of the material is looking at particular aspects of our salvation, "regeneration, justification, and adoption".

As believers, we don't participate in our birth (regeneration), our justification or our adoption. These are characteristics of our identity that God bestows upon those who believe.

Rob

 

It seems that there is a failure to include positional sanctification and focuses on progressive sanctification only, in which it is true that Christians are not passive, though we also have to include the other aspect of progressive sanctification in which Christians are passive in, that is...the work God does in our lives as we grow.

Only in positional sanctification is the Christian completely passive. Not in progressive sanctification.

Understanding John 1 to refer to the life God gives every man as well as understanding that due to spiritual inability that the natural man can only understand the things of God when they are revealed to them (i.e., Peter's confession of Christ prior to the revelation of the Mystery of Christ) helps us to direct our attention to that enlightenment and what it means in the progressive nature of revelation.

First, we see that Paul teaches in Romans a general principle that God has revealed Himself to every man and woman through three primary means: internal witness, Creation, and direct revelation (the Word of God whether spoken or written).

Secondly, we look at the new ministry performed by God among men in the Ministry of the Comforter, Who came to convict men of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and in particular...in regards to Jesus Christ. In other words, in this Age we know that men understanding the Gospel is an impossibility apart from the Holy Spirit enlightening them to understand. While we know the Spirit of God has enlightened men in Ages past, He did not enlighten them...

...about the Gospel.

The common misconception I think many people make is to think that the Ministry of the Comforter...always yields positive results. That is not the case, as we see several passages that confirm men rejecting Christ with full knowledge. That doesn't mean they heard the Gospel somewhere and rejected it, but that they have been at some point enlightened by the Comforter and rejected Christ within that Ministry.

And their punishment will be, the Writer of Hebrews states, more severe than those that rejected the Covenant of Law.

The bottom line is that all men and women are born natural and separated from God, having no ability to understand the spiritual things of God apart from God enlightening their darkened minds. One can hear the Gospel on the radio, in a sermon, or even from the Bible itself and be completely unaffected...if God is not revealing it as truth to them.

We do not separate the Gospel of Christ from the very Ministry that He taught would begin when He returned to Heaven. In other words, we do not look to the ability a man has to comprehend when we are told he does not have that ability, nor do we neglect that it was for this purpose that the Comforter was sent when Christ Returned to Heaven...and not a day before.


John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


God bless.

 

Interesting topic.

1) If we define biblical language as words and phrases found in scripture (or English translations of scripture) then we needlessly limit our vocabulary in my opinion. Now if the idea is putting forth views that are contradicted in scripture, I would say "unbiblical assertions."

2) Man is passive in regeneration, justification and adoption. This seems true, God regenerates us, causes us to be born anew. God justifies us, we do not justify ourselves by works of righteousness. And God will adopt us, the redemption of our bodies, at Christ's second coming. The issue of course comes is our understanding of what prompted God's monergistic action, did He credit our faith in Christ as righteousness, or did He chose us unconditionally and give us faith via irresistible grace.

3) Christians are not passive in sanctification. First anytime we use that world we must clarify, are we speaking of positional sanctification, being transferred for the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of His Son or progressive sanctification where, after God sets us apart in Christ, we then strive to serve Christ and become more like Christ, earning reward. Obviously progressive sanctification is active, we participate to some degree, entering heaven abundantly, or for those, if our efforts do not pass muster, enter heaven as one escaping from a fire.

4) Yes, you must check every reference cited as supporting the view. Often, these citations do not even address the issue. 2 Corinthians 4:6 may be referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, providing the light of Christ to believers. And thus may have nothing to do with pre-salvation faith which God then credits as righteousness or not, Romans 4:4-5/24.

5) Yes, the assertion that all fallen individuals are unable to respond to the gospel at all times is unbiblical (Matthew 23:13).
The gospel is the power of God for salvation, provided neither God nor our own past actions have hardened our heart so we are as the first soil of Matthew 13.

6) Yes, sticking with what scripture actually says is the only sound way to teach biblical doctrine.

 

Active vs. passive? Not the best terms unless one is talking about Christ's active and passive roles in the Atonement. God is the one who predestines, elects, calls, and justifies, but that does not mean the individual just sits there as a detached party. The sinner has to repent and believe. He is actively involved with that, although he is passive in predestination, election, calling, and regeneration.

 

:thumbs::wavey::thumbs:

 

2 Thess 2:13 explicitly states we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Thus we are not passive in conditional election. If God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, as worthless as it may be, then our action to trust in Christ makes our contribution to God's choice active.

 

Correct.

Conditional election??? How did you get that from "chosen for salvation through faith in the truth"? "Through" (the Greek "en") means "in" or "with" not "because of" or "on the account of" (which is the Greek "dia"). The only way that verse would be talking about conditional election is if it said "chosen for salvation BECAUSE (the Greek "hoti", "anti" or "dia/dioti") of faith in the truth"...which it does not say.

 

Gobbledygook

 

You have got to love them folks! Now a person whose handle is "robust theologian" claims "chosen for salvation through faith in the truth" does not mean chosen for salvation because of faith in the truth!" No one said it did. The inability to remain tethered to reality is a consistent attribute of Calvinist acolytes.

Next, the "robust theologian" claims "en" cannot be translated as "because of." And not one Greek self proclaimed expert posted that was false. Not one!!!!!

The general rule is if a Calvinist is attempting to support his or her view using grammar, the argument is probably specious. Look at Matthew 26:31, 33, and Galatians 1:24. In each verse you will find "en" translated as "because of." The NET footnote at Galatians 1:24 says "The prepositional phrase ἐν εμοί (en emoi) has been translated with a causal force."

And remember not one Greek expert provided this refutation.

Another usage of "en" is instrumentality. This refers to the instrument or means by which something is accomplished. In this usage, "en" is often translated as through. In this case (2 Thess. 2:13) the idea is we were chosen by means of the Spirit setting us apart in Christ. And yet another usage of "en" is "on the basis of" or in reference to something. Here we are chosen on the basis of God crediting our faith as righteousness.

 

Lol..."on the basis of"?!? Wow, you find maybe the only 3 uses of "en" to mean "because" and you're a Greek scholar....that's what took you so long to respond. :laugh:

1. Find one use of "en" meaning "because of" outside of the phrase "en emoi" or "en soi". The translation of "en emoi" and "en soi" translated as "because of me" and "because of you" is a grammatical anomaly (check out "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" by Daniel Wallace...I doubt you will though). Find one more example (you can't).

2. How could "en" in 2 Thess. 2:13 mean "because" when in the same verse Paul uses "hoti" as "because"? (Do a word study on 1 Thess. 5:13 for Pauline use of "en" in relation to pronouns of person...I doubt you will or know how to though)

3. With your same "expert" logic, you are saying God chose us "because" the Spirit sanctified us. So you're saying sanctification comes before election which means you are saying sanctification is prior to justification. How much sense does that make? (someone like you probably doesn't see an issue with that)

You should also do a Greek word study on Daniel 5:27...it accurately describes your predicament.

 

LOL, RT makes a material false statement, and then asks for more proof.

Then, and for the second time, RT presents the idea that en means because of at 2 Thess. 2:13. So yet another material false statement.

How many times is "en" translated as through? RT makes one specious argument after another.

Did I claim to be an expert? Nope, so yet another material false statement. Anyone who pays attention to RT is ill advised.

And finally, RT asks me to do a Greek study in Daniel. ROFLOL

 

Are you delusional? As you can see, it was you that made the ill-educated claim that another usage of "en" is "on the basis of/because"...not me.

 

Good Grief, now RT equates "on the basis of" with "because of."

I did not make material false statements, RT did.

Now he claims I am delusional for wanting to stick to the truth. Go figure.

If we put this avalanche of misdirection aside, and return to the issue, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen conditionally, through faith in the truth. That is why the Calvinist is making smoke and zigzagging. LOL

 

:laugh: Now I know why your exegesis is so off...you lack basic vocabulary, reading and comprehension skills. It all makes sense now. How can I expect you to understand what the Bible says when you've never picked up a dictionary. :laugh:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/on-the-basis-of

I'll let everyone else follow your posts to see how du......un-learned you are.