Featured Terms speaking of God and Man's role in Salvation

Here is how monergistic I am.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:27
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7

At that moment that man would need to be born again to enter/inherit the kingdom of God. I believe at that very moment the following applied.
for to vanity was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope, Rom 8:20 YLT

What part could man possibility play in birthing himself from above?

Rom 8:19,21 YLT for the earnest looking out of the creation doth expect the revelation of the sons of God; that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God;

Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did bless us in every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love, having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, Eph 1:3-5 YLT

Que sera sera

 

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Does anyone see man doing anything in those verses?

 

No their not. They are in fact incorrect and pejoratives as much as anything else.

 

And that conversation is built by Calvies to fit their presupposition. I will not give room for it. It is a complete misrepresentation.

 

That is not the definition by my experience. The way it has been used by those who created these terms (calvies) they say that man takes part in the credit for his salvation because he responded.

Others believe that God is the cause of salvation for those who are saved, [/QUOTE]

Everyone believes that not just "others".

 

Well you are the first and only person I have seen say this. Everyone else I have debated on these issues, and I mean everyone, says otherwise.

However, such terms are just not necessary.

 

Mark,
Are you offended by people using terms that you find pejorative?
Like, "Arminian", "Semi-Pelagian", "synergist", etc?

I'm not so much, but I know that you seem to be...at least that is what I have gotten out of our interactions.
If this is the case, then I encourage you to do unto others as you would have them do to you.

I agree.
To me, it is also a complete misrepresentation to say that everyone who agrees with TULIP got their understanding of it from John Calvin, and label them as "Calvies".

What concerns me more, though, is that you seem to think you can call someone whatever you want, but take exception when it happens to you.
If I'm wrong, I will of course ask Jon to edit this post, and offer my apologies and to ask your forgiveness.
But if I'm correct, would you please consider this the next time you type the word, "Calvies"?

Thank you, sir.

 

I agree.

I tend to stick strictly to terms I see used in the Bible, although I sometimes borrow an occasional one from the "Reformed" side, and also to unconsciously fall back on terms I learned while I was an Independent Baptist....terms like " go to church ", " take communion", and others I'm not able to recollect at the moment.

For example, I don't like to use the term "get saved", because I don't see God's word saying that a person becomes saved and has their name written in the Book of Life the moment they believe, yet I still occasionally slip and say it.
Rather, I use the term, "born again" or "regenerated", "come to Christ" or even " be converted" to describe that miraculous happening.

I also am firm about staying away from terms like "sublapsarianism", "infralapsarianism", "desiretive vs. decretive" and so forth, because I see them as products of a theological system created by the Reformers to describe things that I believe Biblical language should be enough for.

I believe so.
I see them closely related, and so closely as to be almost married to one another.

However, I do not see "Semi-Pelagianism" describing the fullness of what "Arminianism" has become.
A different way of explaining this would be to state that I see everyone who teaches that the will of man is what determines someone's salvation, as being a "Semi-Pelagian", but not necessarily an "Arminian".

Not all that long ago, I interchanged the words freely.

Good question, and I think that most here on the BB don't know the difference.

 

Are you offended by it? Have I ever called you that? Its not a pejorative. However, for those who insist on using those other terms at least in reference to me do not get to complain about it.

 

Until the past 17 years or so, I wasn't in my Bible much.
I think that very thing is why I took so long to get educated on it.

1 Peter 2:2.

 

I suppose it depends on who you ask, but I would argue that classical Arminianism is monergistic in regard to actual salvation.

Even if you believe that man has a choice to believe (and I tend to believe that) that doesn't mean that man's belief causes salvation. Rather, it's God's choice to reckon faith that causes salvation.

Paul speaks of God reckoning the faith of ungodly men (Romans 4:5). Paul also speaks of faith having no merit with which to obligate God (Romans 4:2-4).

If you view faith as a meritorious act that obligates God to save you, yes, you must say salvation is synergistic. But if faith is not meritorious, and does not obligate God, then salvation is wholly of god. It is monergistic.

 

Agreed.

Pelagianism fully relies on man to determine his own destiny.
He can be righteous and can approach God on his own merits and needs no assistance from God to do so.

That is why it is not Biblical.

I can see that you appear to enjoy the use of the term "Calvie" as well.

I wish it were not so, but you are, of course, free to assign whatever term helps you to identify with people that you disagree with.
In the process, if you enjoy applying that label just because someone objects to it, I would encourage you to read Romans 12 as well as many other passages that have to do with our conduct towards each other as believers.

To address your point, "synergism" is defined as "co-operation".
Therefore, "Synergism" as used to describe a cooperation with man and God to achieve salvation, is accurate.

If you can demonstrate that the term does not mean "co-operation", then I will concede that it is not applicable.

Perhaps I misunderstand your statement here, but, respectfully, that has been answered, sir.

Election, by its very nature, strips the rug of works out from under us as men.
No one is worthy of salvation by God's grace.


As I see it, if anyone deep down thinks that they are worthy of election, then they do not understand it.