What Side Of The Fence Are You?

[Skandelon]

Archangel started another thread on this subject where I address the doctrine of federal headship. I'm fine with the idea of Adam being representative for all mankind as long as Christ is the also the representative for all mankind. Calvinists insist this leads to universalism, but NOT if the imputation of that representative is CONDITIONAL.

Our being condemned is conditioned upon our sinning. As Paul CLEARLY states in Rom 5:12: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

In the same way, our being justified is conditioned upon our faith...as the verses Winman just quoted above...

But, we are ALL represented by BOTH Federal HEADS, not just one of them.

 

[Winman]

Archangel started another thread on this subject where I address the doctrine of federal headship. I'm fine with the idea of Adam being representative for all mankind as long as Christ is the also the representative for all mankind. Calvinists insist this leads to universalism, but NOT if the imputation of that representative is CONDITIONAL.

Our being condemned is conditioned upon our sinning. As Paul CLEARLY states in Rom 5:12: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

In the same way, our being justified is conditioned upon our faith...as the verses Winman just quoted above...

But, we are ALL represented by BOTH Federal HEADS, not just one of them.

I agree with you here Skan. If both condemnation and righteousness are conditional, then Federal Headship makes sense.

I will check out the other thread.

 

[The Archangel]

Do you believe God forgives a man before the man even confesses his sin?

If one can't confess until he has the faith to believe and he can't believe until his debt has been canceled then your response must be affirmative.

There is a difference of perspective.

Every sin that was ever paid for (whether you believe in limited or universal atonement) was paid for on the cross. In other words, after Jesus died, God will not pay for another sin...ever. So, in once sense our sins are forgiven from God's perspective based on Jesus' substitutionary death.

Does that mean we are born "born again?" No. However, the proverbial die is cast based on God's electing purpose. Once a persons sins are paid for by Christ, that person will come to Christ (in God's timing).

But, as you well know, there must be a response of repentance and faith, which Calvinists whole-heartedly affirm.

So, when the scripture says, "If you confess with your month [probably should be "mouth"] and believe in your heart you will be saved." Or, "If you confess your sins he is faithful to forgive your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness." It has it all backwards, right?

It should say, "If you have been cleanse and your debt has been forgiven you will have faith and confess your sin."

You just flipped the gospel on its head.

Unfortunately you completely ignore context in your quotes.

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved
​

So, the question is this: How does one believe with a heart when "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5) and "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9)?

So your second quote, 1 John 1:9, does not deal with the heart-condition we see in the Romans passage. How does one confess with the mouth? From a believing heart (which is no longer desperately wicked due to God's regenerative work).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Does that mean we are born "born again?" No. However, the proverbial die is cast based on God's electing purpose. Once a persons sins are paid for by Christ, that person will come to Christ (in God's timing).

That is what you believe. The non-Cal believes a person is elected conditioned upon trust in Christ. How could God elect a person before they are born and trust on Christ if this is the case? Foreknowledge. The scriptures clearly say we are elected according to foreknowledge, and the scriptures show several examples of Jesus knowing beforehand who would believe and who would not.

You on the other hand cannot explain why God elected you whatsoever. And there are many problems in believing election is unconditional, such as, if God elects one man over another without a reason, then God is being partial and unfair. And if there is a cause, then it cannot be unconditional.

But you are correct in that Jesus fully paid all our sins before we were ever born. But we receive this free gift of his righteousness imputed to us conditioned on faith which is shown numerous times in the scriptures.

 

[The Archangel]

That is what you believe. The non-Cal believes a person is elected conditioned upon trust in Christ. How could God elect a person before they are born and trust on Christ if this is the case? Foreknowledge. The scriptures clearly say we are elected according to foreknowledge, and the scriptures show several examples of Jesus knowing beforehand who would believe and who would not.

You don't understand what "foreknowledge" actually is. We've been over this many times however. To summarize: Facts are not known, persons are foreknown, which is to say they are chosen. Paul's use in Romans 8 and Romans 11 clearly shows his usage means chose.

You on the other hand cannot explain why God elected you whatsoever. And there are many problems in believing election is unconditional, such as, if God elects one man over another without a reason, then God is being partial and unfair. And if there is a cause, then it cannot be unconditional.

But you are correct in that Jesus fully paid all our sins before we were ever born. But we receive this free gift of his righteousness imputed to us conditioned on faith which is shown numerous times in the scriptures.

I cannot explain why God chose me, that is correct. But, you are showing a hopelessly warped idea of justice, partiality, and fairness. God owes man nothing. God would have been perfectly just and fair to NOT have Christ die for us and leave us to a hopeless life and eternal death. But, by His grace, He did not do this--He provided a substitute: Christ.

As you have demonstrated before, you have no clue about grace. You have stated that grace is "merited favor" which demonstrates your complete and total misunderstanding which has sent your theology off into great error.

Grace is "unmerited favor." That means there is nothing we can do to deserve it or earn it. Whether one is Calvinist or Arminian, the definition of grace as "unmerited favor" is agreed upon.

Your wrong idea of grace has God rewarding us with eternal life because we won a contest, made all the right moves, or found Him like some juvenile in an Easter egg hunt.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

You don't understand what "foreknowledge" actually is. We've been over this many times however. To summarize: Facts are not known, persons are foreknown, which is to say they are chosen. Paul's use in Romans 8 and Romans 11 clearly shows his usage means chose.

That is ludicrous, the scriptures say Jesus knew from the beginning "who believed not, and who should betray him". Yes, he knows persons, but he knows the facts and actions of these persons as well. He knew Judas would not believe (an action on his part), and that he would betray him (an action on his part). So, your argument is utterly false and unscriptural.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

And how can you know someone and not know their actions? Absurd.

I cannot explain why God chose me, that is correct. But, you are showing a hopelessly warped idea of justice, partiality, and fairness. God owes man nothing. God would have been perfectly just and fair to NOT have Christ die for us and leave us to a hopeless life and eternal death. But, by His grace, He did not do this--He provided a substitute: Christ.

You are correct that God does not owe us anything. But that doesn't mean God can do anything he wants with us. God is subject to his own laws. God cannot lie for instance, God cannot tempt any man to sin.

God forbid the Jews from showing partiality to any man. If God selects to elect some men to salvation, and elects others to perish without just cause God would be breaking his own laws and sinning.

God forbid the Jews from putting any man to death for the sins of his father, or any father for the sins of his son.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Everybody hates a hypocrite, but that is exactly what your doctrine makes God to be. He commands us to live by rules, but he does not live by those rules himself.

But we know for a fact this is not the case, because Jesus was under the law.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

The problems with your doctrine are endless. I cannot understand how any honest person cannot easily see how often Calvinsim directly contradicts scripture and not be very alarmed.

 

[The Archangel]

You are correct that God does not owe us anything. But that doesn't mean God can do anything he wants with us. God is subject to his own laws. God cannot lie for instance, God cannot tempt any man to sin.

God forbid the Jews from showing partiality to any man. If God selects to elect some men to salvation, and elects others to perish without just cause God would be breaking his own laws and sinning.

Explain, then, God's choosing of Israel. Explain, then, God's choosing of Abraham.

The Archangel

BTW, I chose to ignore your discussion of foreknowledge, as wrong as it is. I also chose to ignore your quip about "honest" persons and Calvinism. Be very careful: never call me dishonest, implied or explicitly, because I am a Calvinist.

 

[Winman]

Explain, then, God's choosing of Israel. Explain, then, God's choosing of Abraham.

The Archangel

BTW, I chose to ignore your discussion of foreknowledge, as wrong as it is. I also chose to ignore your quip about "honest" persons and Calvinism. Be very careful: never call me dishonest, implied or explicitly, because I am a Calvinist.

I will tell you, but you won't believe it. God chose Abraham because he knew Abraham would believe him. It is really that simple. And when it says God chose Israel, it is speaking of Abraham's descendents who would also believe as Isaac and Jacob did. Esau was not elect because he did not believe the promises of his father Isaac and had no regard for his birthright.

Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

And which Jews was God angry at? Those who did not believe.

Psa 106:21 They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;
22 Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea.
23 Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them.
24 Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:
25 But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD.
26 Therefore he lifted up his hand against them, to overthrow them in the wilderness:
27 To overthrow their seed also among the nations, and to scatter them in the lands.
28 They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.
29 Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them.
30 Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.
31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

If it weren't for a few faithful men as Moses and Phinehas, God would have destroyed the Jews, but he had compassion on them for their sakes.

 

[The Archangel]

I will tell you, but you won't believe it. God chose Abraham because he knew Abraham would believe him. It is really that simple. And when it says God chose Israel, it is speaking of Abraham's descendents who would also believe as Isaac and Jacob did. Esau was not elect because he did not believe the promises of his father Isaac and had no regard for his birthright.

Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

And which Jews was God angry at? Those who did not believe.

Psa 106:21 They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;
22 Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea.
23 Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them.
24 Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:
25 But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD.
26 Therefore he lifted up his hand against them, to overthrow them in the wilderness:
27 To overthrow their seed also among the nations, and to scatter them in the lands.
28 They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.
29 Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them.
30 Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.
31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

If it weren't for a few faithful men as Moses and Phinehas, God would have destroyed the Jews, but he had compassion on them for their sakes.

I really could give a rip about your quoting proof-texts if you refuse to answer the question.

I'll ask about Israel again, but I'll make it simpler this time: Why Israel and not the other nations?

Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be pa people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth (ESV)

God chose Israel and excluded all the other nations of the world. Why didn't he choose the Philistines? Why didn't he choose the Egyptians?

By your own writings, you think God must be "fair" according to your standards. Why, then, did He choose Israel and not other nations? Was there some kind of "Yahweh Idol" TV show that the nations "auditioned" for the title of "chosen nation?"

Is not God being unjust or unfair in His rejection of every other nation of the world?

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

But, as you well know, there must be a response of repentance and faith, which Calvinists whole-heartedly affirm.

And that, whether you admit it or not, is a condition. Now, I understand your view that the condition is effectually caused by God, but non-the-less it IS a condition. A person MUST believe before they are saved, period. Their "election" may be "unconditional" but their salvation is NOT. Thus, the point I made regarding federal headship being conditionally applied stands.

Unfortunately you completely ignore context in your quotes.

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved
​

So, the question is this: How does one believe with a heart when "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5) and "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9)?

Faith cometh by hearing.

Don't you believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation? Or do you think the gospel in and of itself is weak and impotent? Isn't His truth what sets men free? Isn't the message of the cross a double edged sword able to pierce the most wayward heart? Or is it insufficient to accomplish anything?

See, you assume that because the heart is evil it cannot be influenced or appealed to by God, but Paul disagrees:

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

So your second quote, 1 John 1:9, does not deal with the heart-condition we see in the Romans passage. How does one confess with the mouth? From a believing heart (which is no longer desperately wicked due to God's regenerative work).

Again, you have men forgiven and cleansed before ever even confessing...simply absurd.

 

[The Archangel]

And that, whether you admit it or not, is a condition. Now, I understand your view that the condition is effectually caused by God, but non-the-less it IS a condition. A person MUST believe before they are saved, period. Their "election" may be "unconditional" but their salvation is NOT. Thus, the point I made regarding federal headship being conditionally applied stands.

Again, it is a matter of God's perspective vs our own. Salvation is conditional on believing, but the Headship issue relates more to election than salvation for one, biblically, does not choose their head.

Faith cometh by hearing.
Don't you believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation? Or do you think the gospel in and of itself is weak and impotent? Isn't His truth what sets men free? Isn't the message of the cross a double edged sword able to pierce the most wayward heart? Or is it insufficient to accomplish anything?

Of course the Gospel is powerful, but the Gospel is never presented as working effectually where God had not already tilled the soil. The gospel can fall on rocky ground and not take root. Is that the Gospel's fault? No, of course not.

The Gospel is not a living entity unto itself--it is a tool in God's hand to accomplish His purposes.

Two things must be present for the Gospel to take hold: The message (seed) and a receptive heart (properly tilled ground). Like combustion, fuel and spark must be present.

See, you assume that because the heart is evil it cannot be influenced or appealed to by God, but Paul disagrees:

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Again you are "jumping the shark" with the context. In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul is not talking about the bulk of humanity, he is talking about Christians. Christ was indeed reconciling "the world" but that does not and cannot mean every person without exception. In the context of the passage we have "new creations" and v. 21 is inescapably fatal to your assertion. If you want to make v. 19 universal, then you have to make v. 21 universal as well and say that everyone for whom He did will become the righteousness of God. Now, I don't get this accusation from the subjunctive "might become" but from "our" in "our sake" and "we" as in "we might become the righteousness of God."

But, even so, you have not answered the question:
So, the question is this: How does one believe with a heart when "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5) and "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9)?

Again, you have men forgiven and cleansed before ever even confessing...simply absurd.

From God's point of view, yes. From our point of view, no. Not absurd.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Again, it is a matter of God's perspective vs our own. Salvation is conditional on believing, but the Headship issue relates more to election than salvation for one, biblically, does not choose their head.

Where is such a concept supported in the text? I've shown you were it clearly states the conditions for condemnation under Adam and salvation under Christ, so can you show me where that is different from God's perspective in scripture. And where the federal headship relates to election and not salvation? Where are you getting that?

Of course the Gospel is powerful, but the Gospel is never presented as working effectually where God had not already tilled the soil. The gospel can fall on rocky ground and not take root. Is that the Gospel's fault? No, of course not.

But in your view it is really God's fault and not the fault of the man (soil), because God condemned that man from birth because of Adam's sin and he could not have done otherwise. You view impugns God's holiness and make Him ultimately culpable for the rejection of the gospel by mankind.

The Gospel is not a living entity unto itself--it is a tool in God's hand to accomplish His purposes.

I would say that differently. It is living because it is a tool in God's hand...but as Paul says God is making his appeal through us because he has given us the ministry of reconciliation.

Two things must be present for the Gospel to take hold: The message (seed) and a receptive heart (properly tilled ground). Like combustion, fuel and spark must be present.

And who is responsible for the condition of their heart? Doesn't Romans 1 tell us that the people hearts BECAME defiled and hardened after repeated offenses and continual rebellion? Doesn't Hebrews 3 warn people not to allow their hearts to grow hardened?

The illustration of the soils is one of warning to help people avoid allowing their hearts to fall into one of those conditions...it is not an story about the predetermined fate of man's response to the gospel as you seem to imply.

Again you are "jumping the shark" with the context. In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul is not talking about the bulk of humanity, he is talking about Christians. Christ was indeed reconciling "the world" but that does not and cannot mean every person without exception.

Why? Because you assume and presume your own view that if God is indeed desiring to reconciling the world to himself that it must be done effectually and thus would lead to universalism, but again that begs the question because it presumes your premise that God's work of regeneration is irresistibly accomplished and that is the very matter up for debate.

How does that fit with Paul first statement about desiring to "persuade" others and God's making his "appeal" through us? These are not "effectual" words, but instead words of hope and anticipation knowing full well that men must respond by their own will.

But, even so, you have not answered the question:
So, the question is this: How does one believe with a heart when "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5) and "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9)?

Actually, I did answer the question, you just rejected it based upon your view that the gospel is impotent and must be proceeded by a secret inward working of God to have any effect whatsoever, something scripture never teaches.

From God's point of view, yes. From our point of view, no. Not absurd.

The Archangel

What about from scriptures point of view? Anyone can claim they somehow know God's perspective but all we know is what has been revealed. Scripture support my view that Adam represents the same all/many as Christ represents. Just as scripture clearly show us that we must do something in order to be saved. You can speculate all you want about God's perspective but it doesn't change the authority of the revelation we have in scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Where is such a concept supported in the text? I've shown you were it clearly states the conditions for condemnation under Adam and salvation under Christ, so can you show me where that is different from God's perspective in scripture. And where the federal headship relates to election and not salvation? Where are you getting that?

But in your view it is really God's fault and not the fault of the man (soil), because God condemned that man from birth because of Adam's sin and he could not have done otherwise. You view impugns God's holiness and make Him ultimately culpable for the rejection of the gospel by mankind.

I would say that differently. It is living because it is a tool in God's hand...but as Paul says God is making his appeal through us because he has given us the ministry of reconciliation.



And who is responsible for the condition of their heart? Doesn't Romans 1 tell us that the people hearts BECAME defiled and hardened after repeated offenses and continual rebellion? Doesn't Hebrews 3 warn people not to allow their hearts to grow hardened?

The illustration of the soils is one of warning to help people avoid allowing their hearts to fall into one of those conditions...it is not an story about the predetermined fate of man's response to the gospel as you seem to imply.


Why? Because you assume and presume your own view that if God is indeed desiring to reconciling the world to himself that it must be done effectually and thus would lead to universalism, but again that begs the question because it presumes your premise that God's work of regeneration is irresistibly accomplished and that is the very matter up for debate.

How does that fit with Paul first statement about desiring to "persuade" others and God's making his "appeal" through us? These are not "effectual" words, but instead words of hope and anticipation knowing full well that men must respond by their own will.


Actually, I did answer the question, you just rejected it based upon your view that the gospel is impotent and must be proceeded by a secret inward working of God to have any effect whatsoever, something scripture never teaches.

What about from scriptures point of view? Anyone can claim they somehow know God's perspective but all we know is what has been revealed. Scripture support my view that Adam represents the same all/many as Christ represents. Just as scripture clearly show us that we must do something in order to be saved. You can speculate all you want about God's perspective but it doesn't change the authority of the revelation we have in scripture.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. - Rom. 5:19

All represented by Adam were "made sinners" but not all represented by Adam are "made righteous" but all who are represented by Christ "SHALL BE made righteous." Here is the true contrasting comparison between ALL in Adam versus ALL in Christ. Each represent only those who are direct benefits of their actions.

This is also the immediate context before and after Romans 5:12-21. Romans 3:24-5:2 expounds the great doctrine of justification by grace through faith without works. Romans 5:2 declares that the justified have a secure position by grace. So secure that tribulation cannot harm it (Rom. 5:3-5).

Secure because of God's love. If he loved us enough to send His Son to die for us while yet enemies and sinners HOW MUCH MORE now justified (Rom. 5:6-9).

Secure because of Christ's life (Rom. 5:10). We are not only justified by his death (v. 8) but by his life. It is his life not ours that justifies us. We, the justified have received this atonement (v. 11).

Secure because it (secure position/standing in grace) wholly dependent upon the representative action of "one man's obedience" Jesus Christ just as condemnation was secured by just "one man's sin" Adam rather than our life and actions (Rom. 5:12-21).

Romans 6:1 Paul warns that such security in grace does no promote sin proving that Romans 5:10-21 is to demonstrate why our standing in grace is secure because of the actions of "one man" FOR US.

Romans 5:19 proves that the "many" represented by Christ are no more and no less than those who "SHALL BE made righteous" and all represented by Adam shall not be "made righteous" but all represented by Adam are condemned.

None are "in Christ" but those chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world.

None are "in Christ" but those "created in Christ Jesus" by regeneration

None are "in Christ" but those that are justified by faith "in him"

All that are "in Christ" have been "in Adam" but not all that are "in Adam" are "in Christ." Adam represented ALL that were in him and Christ represented ALL that are in him.

Note the effectual conclusion of the "many" represented by Adam and Christ. ALL contained within the "many" represented by Adam were "made sinners" without a single exception. ALL contained within the "many" represented by Christ "SHALL BE made righteous" without a single exception.

 

[Skandelon]

I responded to this passage on the other thread...

 

[Jared Hanley]

Definitely a monergist. God saved me, I didn't save myself.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I responded to this passage on the other thread...

You gave a response but you did not give a credible answer. There is no conditions set forth in Romans 5:12-21 but all consequences are completely and totally attributed to the acts of the representative heads - two men.

 

[Skandelon]

You gave a response but you did not give a credible answer. There is no conditions set forth in Romans 5:12-21 but all consequences are completely and totally attributed to the acts of the representative heads - two men.

Again, let's pick one thread or the other...I responded again on the other thread...

 

[franklinmonroe]

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration. ...

The two above statements are incorrect if taken as definitions. While "synergism" & "monergism" are not exclusively theological terms, and often there are not precisely agreed upon meanings for these two words in theological discussions, kyredneck's statement following "synergism" is particularly incomplete and misleading in the context of the historical Arminian/Calvinist debate. Also, one must understand that "regeneration" is NOT the same thing as Justification (or even Salvation in total).

Classical Arminianism affirms the Total Depravity (or Complete Inability) of the fallen human race. Arminians & Weslyans believe that God has given every person 'Prevenient Grace' (without their individual consent btw) because all humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation on their own. Calvinists call this action of God to resurrect the spiritually dead sinner "Regeneration". For Arminians, this 'preceding grace' puts the person in a somewhat neutral spiritual position to now make a free will choice (by faith which is also a necessary gift) to cooperate or resist God's saving grace through Christ (aka Justification). Calvinists would say that while God has already made that choice sure, He gives the person the gift of faith and then the person partcipates by using that faith for belief unto salvation. This internal work done by God is concurrent with external preaching/witness done by humans through God's Word (so technically, it is not completely independent).

Semi-Pelagianism (which is synergistic) is the position that holds that the humans are not so affected by Original Sin that the beginning of faith can still yet come as an act of human free will. This view (only slightly less disgusting than the Satanic lies of Pelagius) was rightly condemned in 529 by the Second Council of Orange.

Again, true Arminians (not Finney-types) do not believe that humans in their natural sinful state are able to make a decision for God without prior involuntary supernatural assistance. Arminians & Calvinists would both be monergistic in Regeneration.

 

[kyredneck]

The two above statements are incorrect if taken as definitions. While "synergism" & "monergism" are not exclusively theological terms, and often there are not precisely agreed upon meanings for these two words in theological discussions, kyredneck's statement following "synergism" is particularly incomplete and misleading in the context of the historical Arminian/Calvinist debate. Also, one must understand that "regeneration" is NOT the same thing as Justification (or even Salvation in total).

Classical Arminianism affirms the Total Depravity (or Complete Inability) of the fallen human race. Arminians & Weslyans believe that God has given every person 'Prevenient Grace' (without their individual consent btw) because all humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation on their own. Calvinists call this action of God to resurrect the spiritually dead sinner "Regeneration". For Arminians, this 'preceding grace' puts the person in a somewhat neutral spiritual position to now make a free will choice (by faith which is also a necessary gift) to cooperate or resist God's saving grace through Christ (aka Justification). Calvinists would say that while God has already made that choice sure, He gives the person the gift of faith and then the person partcipates by using that faith for belief unto salvation. This internal work done by God is concurrent with external preaching/witness done by humans through God's Word (so technically, it is not completely independent).

Semi-Pelagianism (which is synergistic) is the position that holds that the humans are not so affected by Original Sin that the beginning of faith can still yet come as an act of human free will. This view (only slightly less disgusting than the Satanic lies of Pelagius) was rightly condemned in 529 by the Second Council of Orange.

Again, true Arminians (not Finney-types) do not believe that humans in their natural sinful state are able to make a decision for God without prior involuntary supernatural assistance. Arminians & Calvinists would both be monergistic in Regeneration.

Hello Frank,

Did you vote? Or did you abstain (as I suspect many free willers have)?

For synergism read 'free will'.

For monergism read 'sovereign grace'.

I know that's painting with a broad brush but I believe one of those categories generally applies to each of us.

 

[webdog]

Hello Frank,

Did you vote? Or did you abstain (as I suspect many free willers have)?

For synergism read 'free will'.

For monergism read 'sovereign grace'.

I know that's painting with a broad brush but I believe one of those categories generally applies to each of us.

Again, why is one forced to vote in a flawed poll? Your synergism and monergism defintions are WAY off, so any vote is flawed.