Semi Pelagianism

[JamesL]

The lost will not be cleansed of sin in the resurrection. They will be made undying, but their state will be of abject lostness and seperation of God.

The resurrection is regeneration, see
Matthew 19:28

It would appear that you're not able to distinguish between the inner man and outer man, spirit and body.

But that wouldn't be surprising (if that's the case). It seems like the whole of Christianity has lost sight of this important biblical distinction.

Paul's great exposition on the resurrection very plainly says that we are planted in the ground corruptible, mortal, dishonorable, and "natural". Every single one of these words in the Greek is related to sin in various scriptures. In short, our body is sin-wrecked.

But in the resurrection, we'll be raised
"not sin-wrecked" - incorruptible, immortal, glorious, and "spiritual".

Sin causes death. We'll be raised with no sin in our body. And this is only because Jesus died. And He was raised as the first fruits of all

And unless you want to deny plain scripture because you're appalled, Paul's great treatise on the resurrection of all men includes unbelievers.

Well, unless all doesn't mean all. That's one of the cries of Arminians, isn't it? That Calvinists keep trying to say all doesn't mean all ?

 

[TCassidy]

responses

IE, something you do. You respond. That is the very definition of "works." Something you do.

 

[glad4mercy]

IE, something you do. You respond. That is the very definition of "works." Something you do.

SO when Paul says whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, he is being a synergist? Is that what you're saying?

Or does monergism only apply to some aspects of salvation and not others?

For what then of the future aspect of salvation in the phrase "whoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED"

Is calling something we do?

 

[JamesL]

You're hung up on thinking faith and repentance are works.

umm, no I'm not. And I'm not sure why or how you came to that conclusion or why it should matter.

Faith is a condition of becoming or being fully assured. And that's not something you can decide to be or become.

God turns on the proverbial light bulb. The truth becomes evident to us and we believe. Now, that's what I mentioned along with my quote of Romans 4:4-5

and I've gotta say I have a hard time appreciating the backhanded, straw man approach. The only reason I engaged in this discussion is because it looked as though you were being reasonably objective...

They are not works, they are responses wrought by a monergistic drawing.

Becoming convinced of truth isn't a response. Jesus said this truth is revealed to us. Paul said it is light being shone in our hearts. It's not us doing anything.

Who said anything about reaching out and taking the gift?

you alluded to it with your "response" doctrine.

The Scripture says “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILLASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THEABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU,IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

..

I don't see any works here.

If you think Romans 9 is in the context of conversion, you must admit that opening your mouth and talking is a work.

Biggest problem is that Romans 9 isn't talking about being saved from hell, it's eschatological in nature....smh

God did all the work by bringing Christ down from heaven, Christ died on the cross, and the Triune God raised Christ from the dead. SO we don't have to reach up into heaven, or reach down into the abyss, all we have to do is receive the FINISHED WORK OF GOD.

That only addresses the merit.

The surgeon/transplant analogy is pretty good there. Receiving the new nature from God is not working at not resisting. It is just a response. Not a work, not some sort of meritorious or efficacious striving, simply humbing yourself under the mighty hand of God.

if it's a response, then it actually is working at not resisting.

 

[JamesL]

Along this thought.

1 Cor 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed (abolished, eliminated, done away) is death.

Will the death of Abel be destroyed?

Cain?

That depends on what you mean. The offense isn't gone,

But the state of death will be abolished

 

[TCassidy]

SO when Paul says whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, he is being a synergist? Is that what you're saying?

No, he was telling the Jews in Rome, who denied that Jesus was God in the flesh, that they must "confess with the mouth that Jesus is Yahwah." They believed in God the Father. They even believed in God the Holy Spirit, but they rejected Jesus as LORD. Paul told them that those who believed that Jesus was LORD would be saved. Saved from all the judgments that were prophesied concerning the Jews.

Or does monergism only apply to some aspects of salvation and not others?

You have conflated Regeneration with Salvation.

For what then of the future aspect of salvation in the phrase "whoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED"

Again, you conflate Regeneration with Salvation. Regeneration is punctiliar. Salvation can be punctiliar, progressive, or permanent, depending on context.

Is calling something we do?

Yes, the regenerate call on the LORD.

 

[JamesL]

SO when Paul says whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, he is being a synergist? Is that what you're saying?

Or does monergism only apply to some aspects of salvation and not others?

For what then of the future aspect of salvation in the phrase "whoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED"

Is calling something we do?

Now this is a good post with plenty of good questions.

Call on - Greek epikaleo (epikalesetai)
I'm firmly convinced that it should be rendered "call upon himself" or "is called by"
Like a woman who gets married and is known by her husband's last name. Mary Jones marries John Smith, she's now Mary Smith.

Same root, and very similar as 2Chron 7:14 - if My people, who are "called by" My Name...

And Acts 15:17 - even all the Gentiles, over whom My Name "has been called"

 

[TCassidy]

I'm firmly convinced that it should be rendered "call upon himself" or "is called by"

It is a middle voice. "Call himself by the Name of the Lord" would be grammatically allowed.

However, 15:17 is passive voice.

 

[JamesL]

It is a middle voice. "Call himself by the Name of the Lord" would be grammatically allowed.

However, 15:17 is passive voice.

Exactly. In Romans 10:13 the man would make himself known as a follower of Christ. Same as "if you confess Me before men..." which Paul mentions in 10:9-10

Acts 15:17 God puts His Name on us. Like 2Chron 7:14

Either way, it's not a prayer recited or a response in the context of conversion.

 

[Rob_BW]

IE, something you do. You respond. That is the very definition of "works." Something you do.

The whole concept of belief being a work confuses me. If my employees came in to work, spent their whole day at their desk, but told me that they believed everything would get done...well, they would be getting fired.

But with my horrible analogy out of tbe way, are there any other verses or available word studies I should be looking at?

 

[TCassidy]

The whole concept of belief being a work confuses me. If my employees came in to work, spent their whole day at their desk, but told me that they believed everything would get done...well, they would be getting fired.

But with my horrible analogy out of tbe way, are there any other verses or available word studies I should be looking at?

I agree with you. Your analogy is horrible!

However, "faith" and "believe" are both translated from a form of the Greek word πιστις/πιστευων.

The one is a noun. Something you have. But the other is a verb. Something you do.

Act 16:31 is a good example of this issue. "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

The word translated "believe" is a verb in the active voice, imperative mood. It is a command to do something.

When "faith" is used as a noun, it relates to what we should believe. Creeds, catechisms, statements and formulations of faith, and so on. Faith understood primarily as a noun stresses the cognitive dimension of our faith. And that is important.

However, when used as a noun we are in danger of over-stressing the cognitive dimensions of faith which can lead to a static faith, one focused on getting your theology right rather than actually doing anything.

I think understanding faith as used as a verb is really important. Faith understood this way is more active than cognitive, as it stresses living our faith in the way we treat others, in how we raise our children, in how we spend our money, vote at elections, care for those in need around us, and much, much more.

Faith understood as a verb is about our daily activities and practices and stresses acting on our faith rather than just thinking about it. This kind of faith invites us to get out of our theological armchairs and get into the game – the game of life, of loving our neighbor, of trying to do the best we can in any given situation.

So, yes, faith, as in "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" is a verb, active voice, and therefore something we do.

 

[JamesL]

The whole concept of belief being a work confuses me....

As TCassidy said, believe/belief is a noun and verb - what it is and the action. But I don't think that's the end of the issue.

There's no consensus on what faith is, and that has to be ironed out before anyone could determine how it works.

And there are several views which equate to works, at least as I see it.

One example is the typical Reformed view. With the root/fruit elements, the inevitability of works following faith, I've asked numerous times, what is faith?

Well, TCassidy has given the most open definition I've ever seen from that perspective - faith is intellectual/mental assent, and inevitably leads to faithfulness. In other words, facts + action.
But I'm curious about that view. I've asked before, on which side do we find trust? The easy answer is on the side of action. We can know things about Christ, but unless it leads to action it's not really faith. Well, which side do we find hope? Is hope an intellectual assent to facts? Hardly
Is hope a faithful action? I don't see that either. But there's also the works element. Faith = facts + action. In other words, knowledge and works. Considering scripture says a man is justified by faith "apart from" works, I absolutely cannot subscribe to the notion that works are an aspect of faith.

Then there's what I've heard from Arminians, how God has given everyone a measure of faith. I'm supposing it's a reference to Romans 12:3 - In this view, faith is an innate aspect of our soul (maybe?), and each person is able to decide whether or not to excercise it. I have likened it to God giving each of us a spiritual water gun, then we make a decision to point it and shoot. It is my opinion that this view does not posit faith itself as a work. Instead, the work is in msking the choice and pulling the trigger. In other words, the response. I cannot subscribe to this view because scripture clearly says that we are not born of God by the will of the flesh, nor the will of man.

 

[Rob_BW]

Thank you both for the responses. I think I had a handle on belief and believing. I was more confused with the classification of believing as work.

When I think of works, I conjure up images of helping the proverbial old lady across the street, or plopping down a fistful of gold coins into the collection plate. Good deeds, if you will.

Belief or the act of believing seems different, to me. If it requires zero horsepower to believe (is that still the standard unit of work?), then how is belief a work?

 

[TCassidy]

then how is belief a work?

Because it is an active voice verb. "Active" means "doing something."

 

[glad4mercy]

Now this is a good post with plenty of good questions.

Call on - Greek epikaleo (epikalesetai)
I'm firmly convinced that it should be rendered "call upon himself" or "is called by"
Like a woman who gets married and is known by her husband's last name. Mary Jones marries John Smith, she's now Mary Smith.

Same root, and very similar as 2Chron 7:14 - if My people, who are "called by" My Name...

And Acts 15:17 - even all the Gentiles, over whom My Name "has been called"

OK, that is viable. But what of Romans 10:9-10?

And why didnt Paul correct the Philippian jailer when he asked "what must I do to be saved"? Someone else told me that was referring to "making salvation progressive and permanent", but then that is making ultimate glorification and permanency of salvation based on something we do.

So that is like making regeneration unconditional and glorification conditional. But would that not undermine the doctrine of Unconditional election if there is a condition to make one's salvation permanent? (see limited atonement thread post 61)

 

[glad4mercy]

Because it is an active voice verb. "Active" means "doing something."

SO Paul was wrong when he answered the phillipian jailer's question "what must I do to be saved" by saying "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". SO doing something equals synergism and believing is doing something, so by your definitions, Paul was preaching synergism.

Of course, I don't believe this, because I disagree with your definition of synergism, and I think that is where your error lies.

Or are you going to stick to you "believe (doing something) to make your salvation PERMANENT, (ie Misunderstanding Limited Atonement post 61)

 

[TCassidy]

SO Paul was wrong when he answered the phillipian jailer's question "what must I do to be saved" by saying "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".

Asked and answered in http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/misunderstanding-unlimited-atonement.101766/page-4#post-2261526 post #61.

 

[glad4mercy]

Asked and answered in http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/misunderstanding-unlimited-atonement.101766/page-4#post-2261526 post #61.

you mean the post where an UNCONDITIONAL ELECTIONIST made TWO LINKS of the golden chain of redemption CONDITIONAL

I thought Regeneration, predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son, and glorification were all UNCONDITIONALLY DETERMINED for the ELECT. But in the post you are referring to, you are making one unconditional and the other two conditional on man BELIEVING.

It's all right there in post 61 of "Misunderstanding Limited Atonement"

So according to you, it is rank heresy to put a condition on being born again (faith) but it is perfectly orthodox to put the same condition on sanctificatoin and glorification.

Regeneration is God's beginning of salvation and glorification is the finishing work of salvation. We all agree that God begins and finishes the work of salvation in us. But you have God beginning salvation unconditionally (prior to faith) and God finishing salvation conditonally (man must believe) And you say believing is a work.

SO according to you, regeneration is God's Grace plus NOTHING, but final salvation is God's Grace plus our faith. It's all right there in post 61 of "misunderstanding Limited Atonement)

 

[TCassidy]

you mean the post where an UNCONDITIONAL ELECTIONIST made TWO LINKS of the golden chain of redemption CONDITIONAL

Okay. Enough is enough. You will stop misrepresenting what I said. I am tired of your childish tantrum.

If you make a false accusation against me and what I believe again I will take whatever action necessary to bring it to a halt.

I have been very patient with you, but there is a limit to even my patience, and you have now exceeded that limit.

 

[glad4mercy]

Okay. Enough is enough. You will stop misrepresenting what I said. I am tired of your childish tantrum.

If you make a false accusation against me and what I believe again I will take whatever action necessary to bring it to a halt.

I have been very patient with you, but there is a limit to even my patience, and you have now exceeded that limit.

Did you say earlier that believing is a work? Yes or no?

AND did you or did you not say that one must believe in order to make his salvation permament in post 61?

And did you or did you not say that "not resisting" is an active verb?

And by the same logic, isnt "not working" (Romans 4:5) an active verb too?

I am not misrepresenting, merely REPEATING what you said.

You are the one who made false accusations by calling me and others "synergist". A synergist BY DEFINITION would be a person that believes in the necessity of providing some type of work that produces energeia towards our regeneration. (how is that different from the defintion you gave. And NNE I KNOW BELIEVES THAT

So what action can I take to put a halt to your false accusations. Or can only administrators and Calvinists do that?