37818
Well-Known Member
Unless one is trusting in solely in what God did to save us we are not trusting in God's saving grace. ". . . not of yourselves . . . ." -- Ephesians 2:8. Matthew 7:21-23.
It is our will versus God's will.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Terms speaking of God and Man's role in Salvation
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
It is our will versus God's will.
The question is still is that faith in Jesus inherit in us or needs to be given to us by God?
37818
Well-Known Member
Faith/belief is essential to knowing anything, natural law Romans 10:18, Psalms 19:4. God enables one to believe His truth, 2 Timothy 2:25, 1 Corinthians 2:14.
I do see @Revmitchell 's objection.
The problem is a lot of people would put others into the synergism camp who do not believe that man "comes along side" God in salvation. Some do believe this. But Reformation Arminianism and many free-will theologies do not. Many believe that man must repent and believe but at the same time link this to God's drawing of all men to Himself. The difference is not man but God and man resisting this work.
In other words, man cannot lay claim to salvation at all because it is completely a work of God. Man can lay claim to rejecting God because that is a work of man.
So to consider Arminianism to be synergism is not correct. It relies on a logical fallacy (that men not resisting is a work of man to accept God). Arminianism is just as much monergism as is Calvinism (Calvinists do not deny one must repent and believe, both sides agree that this is the work of God in man).
My comments earlier were wrong. (More wrong than simply calling Pelagianism synergistic). Some free-will theology is synergistic, but as I consider different positions I tend to think that they are a minority of free-will theologies.
The problem is a lot of people would put others into the synergism camp who do not believe that man "comes along side" God in salvation. Some do believe this. But Reformation Arminianism and many free-will theologies do not. Many believe that man must repent and believe but at the same time link this to God's drawing of all men to Himself. The difference is not man but God and man resisting this work.
In other words, man cannot lay claim to salvation at all because it is completely a work of God. Man can lay claim to rejecting God because that is a work of man.
So to consider Arminianism to be synergism is not correct. It relies on a logical fallacy (that men not resisting is a work of man to accept God). Arminianism is just as much monergism as is Calvinism (Calvinists do not deny one must repent and believe, both sides agree that this is the work of God in man).
My comments earlier were wrong. (More wrong than simply calling Pelagianism synergistic). Some free-will theology is synergistic, but as I consider different positions I tend to think that they are a minority of free-will theologies.
Here is my position. Man's response to God's offer of free grace is irrelevant to who gets the credit for salvation. When you give a gift to someone they must in turn reach out and take possession of that gift. Yet we do not give any portion of the credit to the receiver of the gift because they took an action to receive the gift. WE have always and only recognized that the credit for the giving of the gift begins and ends with the person who thought to, purchased the, and delivered the gift. What happens after that is not relevant to the giving.
How about making it really simple here? If you hold to regeneration before faith, are momergestic, , if faith before regeneration occurs, are a synergest?
You would think so. A non-pejorative description would be most welcome.
It is interesting to note that Augustine, though disagreeing with the semi Pelagians of his day (which were not called by that name) considered them still to be orthodox.
"In refuting their errors, Augustine treats his opponents as erring friends, not as heretics, and humbly adds that, before his episcopal consecration (about 396), he himself had been caught in a "similar error", until a passage in the writings of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 4:7) had opened his eyes, "thinking that the faith, by which we believe in God, is not the gift of God, but is in us of ourselves, and that through it we obtain the gifts whereby we may live temperately, justly, and piously in this world" (De prædest. sanct., iii, 7)." (Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.)
I think a similar charity should be offered among us.
It is interesting to note that Augustine, though disagreeing with the semi Pelagians of his day (which were not called by that name) considered them still to be orthodox.
"In refuting their errors, Augustine treats his opponents as erring friends, not as heretics, and humbly adds that, before his episcopal consecration (about 396), he himself had been caught in a "similar error", until a passage in the writings of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 4:7) had opened his eyes, "thinking that the faith, by which we believe in God, is not the gift of God, but is in us of ourselves, and that through it we obtain the gifts whereby we may live temperately, justly, and piously in this world" (De prædest. sanct., iii, 7)." (Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.)
I think a similar charity should be offered among us.
Like calling Calvininism semi-fatalism
.Semipelagian is not pejorative. It no more means semi-heretic than Partial Preterism means partial heretic. Full Preterism is heresy, but Partial Preterist embrace their name, and I believe Semipelagians do also.
I consider Semipelagians brothers. The truth is, so-called Arminianism today is actually not classical Arminianism, but rather Semipelagianism. I realize some don't consider Semipelagians brothers, but they usually also don't consider Arminians brothers either.
Semipelagians affirm the Fall, in that it changed Adam and his descendants forever. They still believe man can exercise faith without being specifically changed by God, but with great difficulty. Aminians and Calvinists believe a forerunning grace and transformation is necessary before man can exercise faith (Calvinists believe this is actual regeneration).
Don't get me wrong, the view is problematic and wrong, but I don't believe it, in and of itself, will keep someone out of heaven. It should be rejected, however.
Hopefully we're not going to apply political correctness to historical terms like Semipelagianism. I, for one, will not comply. That said, some prefer Cassianism, based on its originator John Cassian.
Some articles to take in:
What is semi-Pelagianism? - Got Questions
Semi-Pelagianism - CARM
I consider Semipelagians brothers. The truth is, so-called Arminianism today is actually not classical Arminianism, but rather Semipelagianism. I realize some don't consider Semipelagians brothers, but they usually also don't consider Arminians brothers either.
Semipelagians affirm the Fall, in that it changed Adam and his descendants forever. They still believe man can exercise faith without being specifically changed by God, but with great difficulty. Aminians and Calvinists believe a forerunning grace and transformation is necessary before man can exercise faith (Calvinists believe this is actual regeneration).
Don't get me wrong, the view is problematic and wrong, but I don't believe it, in and of itself, will keep someone out of heaven. It should be rejected, however.
Hopefully we're not going to apply political correctness to historical terms like Semipelagianism. I, for one, will not comply. That said, some prefer Cassianism, based on its originator John Cassian.
Some articles to take in:
What is semi-Pelagianism? - Got Questions
Semi-Pelagianism - CARM
Last edited:
I would say that far more fall under that camp in American Christianity then under Arminian camp, as least as how that theology has beed defined and understood!
I agree, though I only have anecdotal evidence from many internet conversations. The biggest issue I see with this is a subtle diminishing of the effects of the Curse and a minimizing of the sin nature.
That seems to be common , as many seem to want to get away from actual sin natures, and bondage to the flesh, in order to get to "free will"