Semi Pelagianism

[JonShaff]

Uh, you are aware that the Gospel is the good news of being "born again" or "regenerated?" Right?

Look brother, I pointed out the illogical flaw of Calvinism. Take it or leave it.

You guys have had hundreds if not thousands of posts over this issue. No one is changing your mind.

 

[TCassidy]

I believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that does not make it true.

Is the bible right or wrong when it say the natural man (the man still in the flesh) CAN'T receive Spiritual thing?

 

[TCassidy]

Look brother, I pointed out the illogical flaw of Calvinism. Take it or leave it.

Actually you didn't. You may think you did, but if so you think wrong.

You guys have had hundreds if not thousands of posts over this issue. No one is changing your mind.

You're right. I will not change my mind about the truth of God's word.

Let me ask you a question.

Two lost men are invited to church by a friend. They both hear the same message. One gets saved and the other doesn't. What is the difference?

Was the man who got saved smarter than his friend?

Was the man who got saved more emotionally sensitive than his friend?

Was the man who got saved more spiritual than his friend?

What was it about the man who got saved that was better than the man who didn't?

 

[JonC]

Unwilling but able can eventually turn into willing and able.

Unwilling and unable will never have a person's circumstance change.

I don't believe regeneration is what enables faith.

I believe faith precedes regeneration.

I don't know about a person's circumstances. I guess there could different circumstance for each individual person. And I agree that being unwilling and unable won't change their situation (I'm not sure where you are going with this).

There is no such thing as “unwilling but able”. As we have established – unwilling makes one unable. But yes, “unwilling and unable” can turn into “willing and able”. God simply does not save people while they are still unwilling.

I agree that faith does not come after regeneration. We’ve had long discussions on this board about this before, and the difference is how we define “regeneration”.

If I believe regeneration is that work of God within a person to change them from being unwilling to willing, then I understand the “logical order” of regeneration and then faith. But that’s not what I call regeneration. That’s what I call “the work of God within a person to change them from being unwilling to willing”…..or “drawing” for short. The reason is because Scripture speaks of the cleansing of regeneration, and I believe the “parts” of salvation are interdependent. But this is a discussion for another thread….one we already had.

Bottom line is that no one is unwilling and able because to be able one has to be willing. It is impossible to be unwillingly saved.

 

[JonC]

Look brother, I pointed out the illogical flaw of Calvinism. Take it or leave it.

You guys have had hundreds if not thousands of posts over this issue. No one is changing your mind.

Let me tell you what happened to me, and perhaps this will explain why I hold a such a view of salvation But first, I will point out that for most of my life I didn't see it this way (I understand your objections because they were once mine...in fact, if it helps keep us on civil terms I'll offer this - I still reject Calvinism as you define it).

But here's my story -

I was lost. When I wanted salvation I wanted it on my terms. I was unwilling to repent of my ways and turn to God for deliverance. But God worked in me through several people I met. Through this, God changed my will. The reason I believe that man is unable to be saved while he is unwilling is that this was my experience. God did not save me while I was still turned against Him in my will. He did not drag me across the threshold while I was kicking and screaming for Hell. What God did was make me willing. He changed me, and saved a willing who looked to Him for salvation and called out to be saved.

When I look back at my life before I was saved (I was saved at a young age, but I can still recall the change) I have absolutely no doubt that because I was unwilling to repent, I was unable to be saved. I had to turn to God, but this had to be of my will. And it wasn’t of my will until God changed it completely.

It was not that God brought me to the point of decision, but that God brought me to that point after He had already worked to change my will, to make me face Him, and then I made the only choice that there was to make. I followed my will.

 

[TCassidy]

I was saved an Arminian/Semi-Pelagian. I believed God cast a vote, the Devil cast a vote, and I cast a vote. As God always voted "Heaven" and the Devil always voted "Hell" I had the deciding vote.

But I had a lot of doubts. I constantly wondered if I believed enough, or repented enough, or prayed the right prayer, or was sincere enough, or striving against sin enough."

My pastor preached "Calvinism bad." "Calvinism awful." "Calvinism terrible." But he recommended I read "Lectures to My Students" by Charles Spurgeon who, I discovered, was a Particular Baptist believing all 5 points of TULIP.

Then I went to Seminary. One of my professors was a Particular Baptist, believing in Particular Redemption (the Doctrines of Grace).

I listened to what he had to say and reluctantly came to understand that 3 of the 5 points of TULIP were correct, but I just couldn't accept Unconditional Election or Limited Atonement.

I believed Election was based on God's foreknowledge. He looked down the corridor of time and saw that one day I would believe so He elected me on that basis.

Then I learned to read Greek and came to realize the word translated "foreknew" was the word "foreordained." After more study I came to understand that election was not based on me, but on the "good pleasure of His will."

I also noticed if God had to look down the corridor of time to see that one day I would believe, He learned something. And if He learned something he was not Omniscient before, so He changed, even though He said "I change not." So, if He did that He was not really God as He lacked at least two of the attributes of God, Omniscience and Truthfulness.

So I reluctantly accepted an additional point.

But I still wasn't a (dirty word) 5 pointer.

Then a dear and godly friend asked me if I thought everybody, including the devil and his demons, would be saved. I said "No way!" He then said, "So you do believe in limited atonement! You limit it to humans, you exclude the devil and his demons." "Well, yes, but that's all," I said.

Then he said, "So you believe every person who ever lived and ever will live will be saved?" "No! No! Only those who believe and accept Christ as Savior!" Then he said "So you limit the atonement to believers only." "Uh, well, yes!"

Then he asked me the question I asked above. Two friends, etc.

I could not honestly answer that question. The difference was not that I was better than him in any way. The difference was in God's hands.

And I found myself to be a dreaded "5 Pointer."

And all my doubts vanished away. I told my friend so and he said, "Well of course! It was never about you and what you did. It was about God and what He did for you? Your problem was you just needed glasses. You had "I" trouble!"

 

[percho]

I was saved an Arminian/Semi-Pelagian. I believed God cast a vote, the Devil cast a vote, and I cast a vote. As God always voted "Heaven" and the Devil always voted "Hell" I had the deciding vote.

But I had a lot of doubts. I constantly wondered if I believed enough, or repented enough, or prayed the right prayer, or was sincere enough, or striving against sin enough."

My pastor preached "Calvinism bad." "Calvinism awful." "Calvinism terrible." But he recommended I read "Lectures to My Students" by Charles Spurgeon who, I discovered, was a Particular Baptist believing all 5 points of TULIP.

Then I went to Seminary. One of my professors was a Particular Baptist, believing in Particular Redemption (the Doctrines of Grace).

I listened to what he had to say and reluctantly came to understand that 3 of the 5 points of TULIP were correct, but I just couldn't accept Unconditional Election or Limited Atonement.

I believed Election was based on God's foreknowledge. He looked down the corridor of time and saw that one day I would believe so He elected me on that basis.

Then I learned to read Greek and came to realize the word translated "foreknew" was the word "foreordained." After more study I came to understand that election was not based on me, but on the "good pleasure of His will."

I also noticed if God had to look down the corridor of time to see that one day I would believe, He learned something. And if He learned something he was not Omniscient before, so He changed, even though He said "I change not." So, if He did that He was not really God as He lacked at least two of the attributes of God, Omniscience and Truthfulness.

So I reluctantly accepted an additional point.

But I still wasn't a (dirty word) 5 pointer.

Then a dear and godly friend asked me if I thought everybody, including the devil and his demons, would be saved. I said "No way!" He then said, "So you do believe in limited atonement! You limit it to humans, you exclude the devil and his demons." "Well, yes, but that's all," I said.

Then he said, "So you believe every person who ever lived and ever will live will be saved?" "No! No! Only those who believe and accept Christ as Savior!" Then he said "So you limit the atonement to believers only." "Uh, well, yes!"

Then he asked me the question I asked above. Two friends, etc.

I could not honestly answer that question. The difference was not that I was better than him in any way. The difference was in God's hands.

And I found myself to be a dreaded "5 Pointer."

And all my doubts vanished away. I told my friend so and he said, "Well of course! It was never about you and what you did. It was about God and what He did for you? Your problem was you just needed glasses. You had "I" trouble!"

This post is relative to the 5th point.


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Being saved, what were you saved from?

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is the death. ὁ θάνατος

Is being saved, relative to each of us, the same as having, the death destroyed, relative to each of us?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through (the) death he might destroy him that had the power of (the) death, that is, the devil;

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Can this be limited and also fulfilled?

Or is to be saved something else?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know about a person's circumstances. I guess there could different circumstance for each individual person. And I agree that being unwilling and unable won't change their situation (I'm not sure where you are going with this).

There is no such thing as “unwilling but able”. As we have established – unwilling makes one unable. But yes, “unwilling and unable” can turn into “willing and able”. God simply does not save people while they are still unwilling.

I agree that faith does not come after regeneration. We’ve had long discussions on this board about this before, and the difference is how we define “regeneration”.

If I believe regeneration is that work of God within a person to change them from being unwilling to willing, then I understand the “logical order” of regeneration and then faith. But that’s not what I call regeneration. That’s what I call “the work of God within a person to change them from being unwilling to willing”…..or “drawing” for short. The reason is because Scripture speaks of the cleansing of regeneration, and I believe the “parts” of salvation are interdependent. But this is a discussion for another thread….one we already had.

Bottom line is that no one is unwilling and able because to be able one has to be willing. It is impossible to be unwillingly saved.

Where does the faith to receive Jesus com from then, within all people, or placed in us thru the work of the Hoy Spiit?

And also think the entire salvation package happens at same time with us, newheart/mind, saving faith, receiving Jesus etc, so that it appears to us as at same time!

 

[Yeshua1]

I was saved an Arminian/Semi-Pelagian. I believed God cast a vote, the Devil cast a vote, and I cast a vote. As God always voted "Heaven" and the Devil always voted "Hell" I had the deciding vote.

But I had a lot of doubts. I constantly wondered if I believed enough, or repented enough, or prayed the right prayer, or was sincere enough, or striving against sin enough."

My pastor preached "Calvinism bad." "Calvinism awful." "Calvinism terrible." But he recommended I read "Lectures to My Students" by Charles Spurgeon who, I discovered, was a Particular Baptist believing all 5 points of TULIP.

Then I went to Seminary. One of my professors was a Particular Baptist, believing in Particular Redemption (the Doctrines of Grace).

I listened to what he had to say and reluctantly came to understand that 3 of the 5 points of TULIP were correct, but I just couldn't accept Unconditional Election or Limited Atonement.

I believed Election was based on God's foreknowledge. He looked down the corridor of time and saw that one day I would believe so He elected me on that basis.

Then I learned to read Greek and came to realize the word translated "foreknew" was the word "foreordained." After more study I came to understand that election was not based on me, but on the "good pleasure of His will."

I also noticed if God had to look down the corridor of time to see that one day I would believe, He learned something. And if He learned something he was not Omniscient before, so He changed, even though He said "I change not." So, if He did that He was not really God as He lacked at least two of the attributes of God, Omniscience and Truthfulness.

So I reluctantly accepted an additional point.

But I still wasn't a (dirty word) 5 pointer.

Then a dear and godly friend asked me if I thought everybody, including the devil and his demons, would be saved. I said "No way!" He then said, "So you do believe in limited atonement! You limit it to humans, you exclude the devil and his demons." "Well, yes, but that's all," I said.

Then he said, "So you believe every person who ever lived and ever will live will be saved?" "No! No! Only those who believe and accept Christ as Savior!" Then he said "So you limit the atonement to believers only." "Uh, well, yes!"

Then he asked me the question I asked above. Two friends, etc.

I could not honestly answer that question. The difference was not that I was better than him in any way. The difference was in God's hands.

And I found myself to be a dreaded "5 Pointer."

And all my doubts vanished away. I told my friend so and he said, "Well of course! It was never about you and what you did. It was about God and what He did for you? Your problem was you just needed glasses. You had "I" trouble!"

Think that is big problem with those against calvinism salvation, as why and how does a sinner get saved, whn many heat the preacher, but only certain ones believe? Smrter, native language or what?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. I understand that response to be the result or work of God in the wills of those being saved, so it is a work of God. No one is saved without responding or against their will.

God does not "rape" people into getting saved, nor puppet master them in, He enales them to will now to even getting saved!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'd change "I can't" to "I won't" and I think you'd have it (it seems to me Scripture indicated we can't because we are unwilling, and God draws some as an expression of grace ).

Main difference is that unless God changes hearts/minds of sinners, they canot coopeate with saving grae!

 

[MB]

I believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that does not make it true.

Is the bible right or wrong when it say the natural man (the man still in the flesh) CAN'T receive Spiritual thing?

The answer to this is to read on in to chapter three.of 1st Cor.
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
Seems to me we all start off as carnal sipping milk because of what Paul says further on. Seems you want us to believe men cannot understand enough to start the process of Salvation. You want to claim we have to be regenerated first. You are wrong on this one. Just like everything we study we have to start at the beginning and work towards understanding... No one has spiritual understanding at first not even babes in Christ.
MB

 

[Rippon]

Seems to me we all start off as carnal sipping milk because of what Paul says further on.

It seems to you. You are resting on a faulty premise.

You need to submit to the authority of God's Word. I will quote from the NIrV. It breaks it down rather well:
"The person without the Spirit doesn't accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. These things are foolish to them. They can't understand them. In fact, such things can't be understood without the Spirit's help." (1 Cor. 2:14)

Paul's words make it very clear that no milk sipping is going on with these folks who do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within.

The message of the cross is foolish to those who are lost and dying, as 1 Cor. 1:18 says.

Seems you want us to believe men cannot understand enough to start the process of Salvation.

People do not "start the process of salvation" MB. It starts and concludes by Christ alone. People dead in sin hating God do not inch toward God in any way. That notion of yours is semi-Pelagian.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed some time after 6am Pacific.

 

[Yeshua1]

The answer to this is to read on in to chapter three.of 1st Cor.
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
Seems to me we all start off as carnal sipping milk because of what Paul says further on. Seems you want us to believe men cannot understand enough to start the process of Salvation. You want to claim we have to be regenerated first. You are wrong on this one. Just like everything we study we have to start at the beginning and work towards understanding... No one has spiritual understanding at first not even babes in Christ.
MB

They were saved prsons, who refusedto grow in thir walk wih Christ, stuck as merebabes, not unsaved!
Unsaved cannot discern spirtual things!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed some time after 6am Pacific.