Semi Pelagianism

[JamesL]

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

it's the same as verse 13
When we confess Jesus with our mouth, it's the same as making ourselves known by His Name. Or calling His Name upon ourselves. This is post-conversion, and is to the end. It's the same thing as Jesus wrote in Matthew 10: "if you confess Me before men....whoever endures to the end will be saved"

Not saved from hell, but saved from shame before the Father - at Christ's coming. That's why Rom 10:11 says "whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame"

When will some be put to shame? At His coming (see 1John 2:28)

Check all the OT references Paul used in and around this chapter. It's eschatological

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.

Acts 16:31 is one of those places where it's not 100% evident within the text which aspect of salvation is in view. So everyone is going to bring a preconceived notion to the text, and I'm no exception.

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)

don't subscribe to Election in either a Calvinist nor Arminian fashion. Both sides sorely misunderstand the context of Election, thereby misunderstanding how it works. It's as though tge two sides are arguing whether a bicycle has three wheels or four. The answer is neither

 

[Yeshua1]

a. I do not like the co-enabling part. All of the ability in salvation comes from God.

b. The sinner cannot accept apart from preceding grace, so the answer to the second part is no. This is because it leaves too much in the sinners hand. It is up to the sinner to accept or reject BASED UPON THE GRACE OF GOD that is working and drawing them.

a. I do not like the co-enabling part. All of the ability in salvation comes from God.

b. The sinner cannot accept apart from preceding grace, so the answer to the second part is no. This is because it leaves too much in the sinners hand. It is up to the sinner to accept or reject BASED UPON THE GRACE OF GOD that is working and drawing them.

The sinner must still exercise his free will, as you would understand it, and make the final decision to receive Jesus , so that by definition is co operating with grace of God...

And since youy would seem to agree that it takes the power of God to allow sinners to get saved, why would the God of Arminianism, who is seen as desiring and willing that none should perish, and had jesus die for all, not just send saving grace towards all then?

 

[glad4mercy]

The sinner must still exercise his free will, as you would understand it, and make the final decision to receive Jesus , so that by definition is co operating with grace of God...

And since youy would seem to agree that it takes the power of God to allow sinners to get saved, why would the God of Arminianism, who is seen as desiring and willing that none should perish, and had jesus die for all, not just send saving grace towards all then?

My position is that the will is not free until GOD FREES IT. I believe in moral inability. But Irresistable grace does not necessarily follow from moral inability. That is the great non-sequitur of Calvinism

...and God does send grace towards all. But that Grace can be resisted. God's grace is seen resisted throughout the bible. Christians sometimes resist God's sanctifying graces, which is why you have Paul saying "some of you should be teachers by now, but you are still babes". But Calvinists say man being able to resist God is an affront to His Sovereignty. If that is true, man should not be able to resist God IN ANY WAY.

So does the fact that some Christians resist God's sanctifying grace for whatever reason mean that God is not Sovereign? Or do you hold that every Christian is exactly where God would have them to be in their spiritual development?

If resisting God's saving grace negates God's Sovereignty, I would think that resisting him in any area would do the same. So if a Christian is still a babe in Christ when they should be teachers by now, does that mean that was God's intention for him or her.

There are serious problems throughout Calvinism.

 

[glad4mercy]

it's the same as verse 13
When we confess Jesus with our mouth, it's the same as making ourselves known by His Name. Or calling His Name upon ourselves. This is post-conversion, and is to the end. It's the same thing as Jesus wrote in Matthew 10: "if you confess Me before men....whoever endures to the end will be saved"

Not saved from hell, but saved from shame before the Father - at Christ's coming. That's why Rom 10:11 says "whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame"

When will some be put to shame? At His coming (see 1John 2:28)

Check all the OT references Paul used in and around this chapter. It's eschatological



Acts 16:31 is one of those places where it's not 100% evident within the text which aspect of salvation is in view. So everyone is going to bring a preconceived notion to the text, and I'm no exception.



don't subscribe to Election in either a Calvinist nor Arminian fashion. Both sides sorely misunderstand the context of Election, thereby misunderstanding how it works. It's as though tge two sides are arguing whether a bicycle has three wheels or four. The answer is neither

But the context of Romans 10 is actually SOTERIOLOGICAL. This is evident by the texts that say "how shall they believe on whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, etc"

Fully agree on your paragraph on election. I pretty much feel the same way.

 

[JamesL]

But the context of Romans 10 is actually SOTERIOLOGICAL.

that depends on what you consider soteriology to be. Salvation is much more than being saved from hell and going to heaven. If you study the Old Testament concept, it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of peace and righteousness. So eschatology is one aspect of salvation. The death of Christ is one aspect. Our bodily resurrection is another aspect.

This is evident by the texts that say "how shall they believe on whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, etc"

just because there's mention of believing doesn't mean it's in the context of what's called "saving faith", or a conversion experience, etc.

Paul asked very pointedly, and used very specific words - how can someone confess (not profess) the Lord Jesus, and be known by His Name unless they believe in Him?

In other words, this confession is not done by an unbeliever to become a believer, that person has already believed unto righteousness.

Fully agree on your paragraph on election. I pretty much feel the same way.

Romsns 10 is a follow-through from chapter 8, where Paul taught about election

 

[percho]

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.

Can we, "do," without having been given, or having received, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth?
this only do I wish to learn from you -- by works of law the Spirit did ye receive, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:2

Do we believe, the verb, because we change our minds or because God removes from unbelief unto belief, the noun?

For by grace are ye saved through (the) faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Eph 2:8-10

Why do we do what we do and through whose faith do we do it?

 

[glad4mercy]

that depends on what you consider soteriology to be. Salvation is much more than being saved from hell and going to heaven. If you study the Old Testament concept, it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of peace and righteousness. So eschatology is one aspect of salvation. The death of Christ is one aspect. Our bodily resurrection is another aspect.


just because there's mention of believing doesn't mean it's in the context of what's called "saving faith", or a conversion experience, etc.

Paul asked very pointedly, and used very specific words - how can someone confess (not profess) the Lord Jesus, and be known by His Name unless they believe in Him?

In other words, this confession is not done by an unbeliever to become a believer, that person has already believed unto righteousness.


Romsns 10 is a follow-through from chapter 8, where Paul taught about election

I realize salvation is more than going to heaven and escaping hell. You're not talking to a baby here. But Paul is talking about all aspects of salvation, INCLUDING regeneration. How shall they believe on whom they have not heard.

 

[TCassidy]

Do we believe, the verb, because we change our minds or because God removes from unbelief unto belief, the noun?

We believe because we have been regenerated.

Why do we do what we do and through whose faith do we do it?

We do what we do by the faith of Christ.

 

[glad4mercy]

We believe because we have been regenerated.

We do what we do by the faith of Christ.

So that would mean that God gives His Spirit to people BEFORE they believe. Because you cannot be believe until you have been regenerated, and you cannot be regenerated without receiving the Holy Spirit. OH yeah, but you say it's similtaneous...but still you cannot believe until you are regenerated, so yes, GOD does give the Holy Spirit to people before they believe or at least they only believe WHEN they are given the Holy Spirit.

So you have the Holy Spirit given to those who did not believe, ie non believers. SO apparently, the disciples were unbelievers when they received the Holy Spirit too?

 

[glad4mercy]

So Mr. Cassidy, when was Paul regenerated? On the Damascus road or on the when Annanias appeared to Him? Let me know, because I have a follow up question for you

 

[glad4mercy]

Here's another thing...if Calvininsts accept the secondary means of preaching of the Gospel and hearing the gospel in regeneration, why don't they accept the secondary means of believing. It is saved by Grace though faith, so it is Grace that saves us anyways.

And if someone says that a person receives faith by hearing, we have another type of synergism if you define the word according to the way SOME people define it YOU have the preacher of the Gospel working together with God in God's vineyard of salvation. But the power of regneration lies with God alone, not with the preacher, who is the vessel used by God. Likewise, the power of regeneration is not in a persons belief, it is in the power of God. There is an action by a second agent in both instances. Yet STILL NEITHER IS SYNERGISM, because the power is not in the preacher or the one who believes, the power is in God alone

The definition given to synergism by theologians is silly, and it is a very messy piece of imprecise language

 

[glad4mercy]

Regarding for whom Christ died, I find myself very much in agreement with you here on many points.

I agree that Christ died that all may be saved. But in terms of election, I do believe it unconditional and therefore what ultimately determines the difference between belief and disbelief resides with the Father electing rather than the Son dying. I will also point out that historical Calvinism has existed on both sides of this issue. Some have viewed the crux as those for whom the Son died while others have concentrated on the election of the Father (holding that Christ died literally for all men). I believe the former to be error while ascribing to the latter.

I agree with your assessment that Christ died for those who will reject Him. In fact, I find this not only biblically but also experientially true. The Bible says that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Before I was “in Christ” I was found outside and in a state of rejecting Him.

I suppose the greatest difference between you and I here would be that while I agree that Christ died so that all may be saved, I do not believe that Christ died to save all. All can be saved on the basis of Christ as the propitiation for their sins (Christ died as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world). Jesus is Savior, period. But none are saved on provision. Salvation is a Trinitarian and supernatural work of God in the lives of men who exist in a state of condemnation for rejecting Christ already.

I can agree with this. And even though it may not be what was intended by the parable, I think the parable of the hidden treasure can be used as an analogy for the way I see it. Jesus died for the world (purchased the field) in order to save the elect (the treasure hidden in the field)

I think this is in basic agreement with what you said, although you may not put that meaning on the parable itself.

 

[percho]

So that would mean that God gives His Spirit to people BEFORE they believe. Because you cannot be believe until you have been regenerated, and you cannot be regenerated without receiving the Holy Spirit. OH yeah, but you say it's similtaneous...but still you cannot believe until you are regenerated, so yes, GOD does give the Holy Spirit to people before they believe or at least they only believe WHEN they are given the Holy Spirit.

So you have the Holy Spirit given to those who did not believe, ie non believers. SO apparently, the disciples were unbelievers when they received the Holy Spirit too?

Do you think Paul being made physically blind had anything to do with showing him he was also spiritually blind? Why was none other than Paul made blind? When was his blindness removed? Physical? What did he begin to preach almost immediately after being made to see?

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Acts 9:15,16

I do not believe Paul choose a thing concerning God, I believe God choose Paul, gave Paul the Spirit of Adoption, the Spirit of Truth and Paul was moved from unbelief unto belief.

 

[glad4mercy]

Do you think Paul being made physically blind had anything to do with showing him he was also spiritually blind? Why was none other than Paul made blind? When was his blindness removed? Physical? What did he begin to preach almost immediately after being made to see?

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Acts 9:15,16

I do not believe Paul choose a thing concerning God, I believe God choose Paul, gave Paul the Spirit of Adoption, the Spirit of Truth and Paul was moved from unbelief unto belief.[/QUOTE

 

[glad4mercy]

Do you think Paul being made physically blind had anything to do with showing him he was also spiritually blind? Why was none other than Paul made blind? When was his blindness removed? Physical? What did he begin to preach almost immediately after being made to see?

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Acts 9:15,16

I do not believe Paul choose a thing concerning God, I believe God choose Paul, gave Paul the Spirit of Adoption, the Spirit of Truth and Paul was moved from unbelief unto belief.

answers to questions in first paragraph...

yes,
because God was drawing Paul at that moment
the scales fell out on the street called straight.
His spiritual blindness was removed at the same time.
He started preaching after these events.

SO it sounds like you believe Paul was converted on the street called straight. But he submitted to God and repented before that. Now his submitting and repenting is not what saved him or even, it did not provide any merit or effectual power for him, but the point is if he was regenerated on the street called straight, he began to repent and seek God BEFORE regeneration, being drawn of God (which is not precisely the same as being regenrate by God)

Drawn, repent, regenerated

 

[JonC]

I can agree with this. And even though it may not be what was intended by the parable, I think the parable of the hidden treasure can be used as an analogy for the way I see it. Jesus died for the world (purchased the field) in order to save the elect (the treasure hidden in the field)

I think this is in basic agreement with what you said, although you may not put that meaning on the parable itself.

I believe we are more in agreement than we are not. Perhaps the two camps here (Arminianism and Calvinism) have over time grown more and more apart as each side took harder stances on, and based their identity more upon, their differences. I’ve found Yeats to have hit on a bit of truth when he wrote of the widening gyre, ever increasing, until something new comes about. This is why there exists things like “Classic” Calvinism and “Reformation” Arminianism that sometimes stands in contrast to their contemporary offspring.

I like your application of the parable of the field (although you are right that this is not its intended meaning, but it’s a good illustration nonetheless). I do believe that Christ died to “purchase”, in a general sense, humanity itself. Christ died to reconcile man (the state of man, the human condition) to God. Mankind has a Savior. This idea weighs so heavily in the writings of the early church that I do not know how it is often missed today. But in a more specific and individual way, I believe that Christ was sent by the Father and given for His “sheep”, His “flock”, those who will be separated as “sheep” from the rest at Judgment (Mt. 25).

I am not confident, however, that one can arrive at this idea without looking at salvation and the Cross as the work of a Triune God. Arminianism and Calvinism move more and more apart when salvation is reduced to Christ’s death alone (the separated work of Christ rather than the faithful obedience of the Son within the work of the Trinity), and I believe this is what colors many discussions here. Ideas have been stretched out, drawn in, and simplified to little clips of “truth” which appear and probably are worlds apart. And each side misrepresents and misunderstands the other as they place the opposing clips of “truth” within their own framework only to find they don’t quite fit.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here's another thing...if Calvininsts accept the secondary means of preaching of the Gospel and hearing the gospel in regeneration, why don't they accept the secondary means of believing. It is saved by Grace though faith, so it is Grace that saves us anyways.

And if someone says that a person receives faith by hearing, we have another type of synergism if you define the word according to the way SOME people define it YOU have the preacher of the Gospel working together with God in God's vineyard of salvation. But the power of regneration lies with God alone, not with the preacher, who is the vessel used by God. Likewise, the power of regeneration is not in a persons belief, it is in the power of God. There is an action by a second agent in both instances. Yet STILL NEITHER IS SYNERGISM, because the power is not in the preacher or the one who believes, the power is in God alone

The definition given to synergism by theologians is silly, and it is a very messy piece of imprecise language

The Holy Spirit grants unto the elect the means to receive Jesus thru faith, as it is pretty much to us at same time...

At the time of God, I heard the message, the Spirit enabled me to understand it, and I could then believe Jesus is my Messiah...

The Spirit Himself regenerates, grants new mind/heart to those whom then will receive jesus, as it is NOT that He does that to all people, and then up to you to reject/accept!

 

[glad4mercy]

The Holy Spirit grants unto the elect the means to receive Jesus thru faith, as it is pretty much to us at same time...

At the time of God, I heard the message, the Spirit enabled me to understand it, and I could then believe Jesus is my Messiah...

The Spirit Himself regenerates, grants new mind/heart to those whom then will receive jesus, as it is NOT that He does that to all people, and then up to you to reject/accept!

You cannot and should not base your soteriology on personal experience alone (should we at all?). Please provide scripture for your assertions.

 

[Yeshua1]

You cannot and should not base your soteriology on personal experience alone (should we at all?). Please provide scripture for your assertions.

There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Asv john 1:9-14

We are born from above, due to the will of God that saved us!

 

[glad4mercy]

Where does it say regeneration before faith?

I see people who receive Him being given power/authority to become sons of God. But if they were regenerate, they would already be sons of God, wouldn't they?