On 1) it is a matter of salvation, not mere perception of goodness in something or someone. Salvation is a free gift from God so to add the requirement that our will must perceive this goodness to make it stick so-to-speak in my view makes a contribution, however passive on our part and that's what makes it semi-pelagian. I know this doesn't violate even the Catholic view since our passive cooperation is part and parcel of the process. But here's what I still question, why is it that some have the ability to passively cooperate with the gift and some don't?
Ability, passive or not, would actually be a Calvinism objection. The elect have the ability, and the reprobate don't. Why?
I think the question you mean to ask is why do some affirm and some deny? And we could ask that with a number of truth issues. You can raise children in the same home, and one may make a wise choice and the other foolish. And you then ask, 'why?' That is an issue of the will. When two people are presented with the same information they can and do make different decisions. I have a friend who is an identical twin. One is a believer, the other not.
Okay so some exercise their act of the will to affirm God's gift and some to deny it. It boils down to an act of will of the person, independent of anything else, therefore at a minimum semi-pelagian.
jlay wrote:The Pelagianism thing, semi or otherwise is really an issue of who is the first mover. Jac, I thought, had explained this earlier, but it seems to have been dismissed.
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
Because love can't be forced.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
Because love can't be forced.
I.e. it's man's choice, right?
Yes, but it's not semi-pelagianism, because:
Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.[1]
The beginning of faith is not an act of free will, IMO. Grace has to supervene before we make a free will choice. It's just not the same grace as Calvinism needs(a saving grace). In other words, I need God's grace in order for me to be able to choose to accept Christ. But I don't need to be saved first, before I can choose to accept Christ.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
Because love can't be forced.
I.e. it's man's choice, right?
Yes, but it's not semi-pelagianism, because:
Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.[1]
The beginning of faith is not an act of free will, IMO. Grace has to supervene before we make a free will choice. It's just not the same grace as Calvinism needs(a saving grace). In other words, I need God's grace in order for me to be able to choose to accept Christ. But I don't need to be saved first, before I can choose to accept Christ.
So then I will ask you the same (basic) question, why is it that God's grace is able to supervene in some and not in others?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Byblos wrote:Okay so some exercise their act of the will to affirm God's gift and some to deny it. It boils down to an act of will of the person, independent of anything else, therefore at a minimum semi-pelagian.
Exercise their will towards what? I think this is a very important question. The finished work of Christ? The hearing of the Gospel? The working of the conscience, which is the work of the law written on the heart of man?
If this is SP, then Byb, you by way of the church are a semi-pelagian, and are in denial with the rest of the RCC, sine, the church affirms synergism and the cooperative will of man.
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
So then I will ask you the same (basic) question, why is it that God's grace is able to supervene in some and not in others?
Byblos, all I can do is give you the same basic answer as before, because you are asking the same question:
Oh God! Not this again! Is Danny back?
No secret power, Byblos. Just man's God-given free will, in unison with God's grace. Some choose to accept the gospel, others don't. Not in any power of themselves. Unless you want to call the ability to choose, given from God, as a "secret Power". I don't know any other way to explain this, other than the way I explained it the other 50,000 times I've been asked this exact question. Each person is unique. Each person has a different way that they open up to the Holy Spirit's calling.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Byblos wrote:Okay so some exercise their act of the will to affirm God's gift and some to deny it. It boils down to an act of will of the person, independent of anything else, therefore at a minimum semi-pelagian.
Exercise their will towards what? I think this is a very important question. The finished work of Christ? The hearing of the Gospel? The working of the conscience, which is the work of the law written on the heart of man?
If this is SP, then Byb, you by way of the church are a semi-pelagian, and are in denial with the rest of the RCC, sine, the church affirms synergism and the cooperative will of man.
You evidently missed the part where I said this issue raises a conundrum for me since I am basically disagreeing with the Church. You may also have missed the more important part where I said in such matters where I have a disagreement I defer to the wisdom of the church rather than my own. Thankfully I am still free to discuss my disagreement nonetheless.
jlay wrote:
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.
I may agree with this, but I still struggle with it and will not entirely dismiss TD because of it. That is all I wanted to convey out of this whole discussion.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.
So you think its accurate to say that man goes to hell with his sins paid for?
I think we need to ask ourselves if the gospel has the power to save. If an unbeliever hears someone preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that enough for one to then be able to make a "free-will" choice to accept Christ. The power is in the gospel, correct? And, since the primary way that God saves us, is by the preaching of the gospel, then, there must be a power to save in the gospel itself?
1Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.
So you think its accurate to say that man goes to hell with his sins paid for?
Narnia, you are speaking from a 5pt Calvinist perspective here. You are saying that all the people whose sins are paid for (the elect), go to heaven. And those that go to hell, haven't had their sins paid for, because they're not elect.(Limited atonement).
I see it as Christ paid for all the sins(past, present, future) of everyone whoever sinned. All one has to do to receive Christ's gift of eternal life, is believe on Christ(accept the free gift). The way I see Limited Atonement, is God chooses who the elect are, and Christ doesn't offer his free gift of salvation to them, but he forces the gift upon them. And, they have no choice, but to willingly or unwillingly accept the gift.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.
So you think its accurate to say that man goes to hell with his sins paid for?
Narnia, you are speaking from a 5pt Calvinist perspective here. You are saying that all the people whose sins are paid for (the elect), go to heaven. And those that go to hell, haven't had their sins paid for, because they're not elect.(Limited atonement).
I see it as Christ paid for all the sins(past, present, future) of everyone whoever sinned. All one has to do to receive Christ's gift of eternal life, is believe on Christ(accept the free gift). The way I see Limited Atonement, is God chooses who the elect are, and Christ doesn't offer his free gift of salvation to them, but he forces the gift upon them. And, they have no choice, but to willingly or unwillingly accept the gift.
I know what position I'm saying but that wasn't my question. My question was whether man goes to hell with his sins paid for, and I'd guess the answer to that question would be yes.
Its just as well that I'm leaving, I find that my interest in this subject peaks quickly so that I feel like I have to discuss it, but then I burn myself out thinking about it and considering different things. I'm at the burn out point now.
I don't have time to respond to all the conversation that has gone on, but let me just offer two quick thoughts on the back and forth over semi-pelagianism:
1. A large part of the problem is the nature of faith. If you define faith as a commodity that God gives (in the Augustinian tradition) and then insist that anything that denies that definition is in some way Pelagian, then you've created what I think is a false dichotomy. Again, one can be anti-Augustinian and deny that faith is a commodity (put positively, one can assert that faith is a natural capacity of man) and keep the issues of semi-pelagianism separate (namely, the role of grace in the attainment of salvation).
2. The discussion on the nature of grace in salvation would end up with me pointing out that I don't think we will our salvation. As such, it's useless to say with the semi-pelagians (and for that matter, with Catholics generally, as I understand the theology--though, of course, my understanding could be deficient) that we cooperate with God in our salvation. Salvation is completely and totally the work of God. We do not will it. We will to believe, to trust. Put negatively, we will to stop doing anything to attain salvation and to let God "pick up the slack." That we have knowledge that our trust is accounted as righteousness is an epistemological issue; that doesn't affect the ontological nature of faith itself. That is, just because we know that God saves those who believe, it does not follow that in believing we therefore will our salvation. Rather, we will faith and are assured that because we did, we have eternal life.
So says I . . .
edit: narnia, jlay's position is, I believe, the same as my own. We don't go to Hell for our sin. All kinds of people will be in Hell even though their sins are paid for. NO ONE will be in Hell because of their sin, as if they are there paying for their sins. They go to Hell for not being in the Book of Life. Note 1 John 2:2. Jesus' sacrifice covered not only our sins, but the sins of the entire world. Jesus' work was not ineffectual by any means. He intended to atone for all sin. That is exactly what He did.
Last edited by Jac3510 on Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?
That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.
So you think its accurate to say that man goes to hell with his sins paid for?
Narnia, you are speaking from a 5pt Calvinist perspective here. You are saying that all the people whose sins are paid for (the elect), go to heaven. And those that go to hell, haven't had their sins paid for, because they're not elect.(Limited atonement).
I see it as Christ paid for all the sins(past, present, future) of everyone whoever sinned. All one has to do to receive Christ's gift of eternal life, is believe on Christ(accept the free gift). The way I see Limited Atonement, is God chooses who the elect are, and Christ doesn't offer his free gift of salvation to them, but he forces the gift upon them. And, they have no choice, but to willingly or unwillingly accept the gift.
I know what position I'm saying but that wasn't my question. My question was whether man goes to hell with his sins paid for, and I'd guess the answer to that question would be yes.
Its just as well that I'm leaving, I find that my interest in this subject peaks quickly so that I feel like I have to discuss it, but then I burn myself out thinking about it and considering different things. I'm at the burn out point now.
I know what you mean. I was burnt out from the last Calvinism thread. It got to the point that I was actually physically drained. Take a break, and if you feel like getting back into it, fine. I was reluctant to start up in this thread, because I thought it would end up the same way the other thread did.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
1. A large part of the problem is the nature of faith. If you define faith as a commodity that God gives (in the Augustinian tradition) and then insist that anything that denies that definition is in some way Pelagian, then you've created what I think is a false dichotomy. Again, one can be anti-Augustinian and deny that faith is a commodity (put positively, one can assert that faith is a natural capacity of man) and keep the issues of semi-pelagianism separate (namely, the role of grace in the attainment of salvation).
Jac, I see what you're saying here, but I think while faith is a natural capacity of man, God created man, and God gave man faith.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
