Calvinism doesn't exist in early christian writers till Augustine

[Cormack]

“Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? No wonder you think the Bible teaches semi-Pelageanism.”
​

I think it’s for the best that you removed this message, @atpollard. Still it’s a good iron sharpening iron opportunity to discuss your “semi pelagianism“ idea too, because it’s another one of those not so sincere Calvinistic culture talking points that people get drawn into using.

It’s a combination of bad ideas, but the most persuasive reply I’ve heard against your point is to explain that to prefix “semi” onto something you believe is bad could be used against anyone for any belief.

For example you could be accused of being a semi Catholic because you believe in the importance of baptism, or a semi Islamist because you believe in a form of theistic determinism.

It’s an attempt at linking you onto Islam or Catholicism (ideas you don’t subscribe to) by writing you’re semi this thing or that.

It’s a dishonest rhetorical device my friend. I hope Calvinists outgrow using it.

 

[John Mullally]

I claim that "God does not requires help from the sinner to save them".

In Acts 2, Peter promises remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (essentially salvation) to those who repent and are baptised. If salvation occurs prior to repentance then Peter would not have included the phrases “for the remission of sins” and “shall receive”. The call to repentance is not reserved for a select few - it is universal per Acts 17:30 and Mark 1:15.

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them​

If man’s will is not involved, Peter would not have made the promise as it is misleading, but rather substituted it with something like you said: "God does not require help from the sinner to save them" in response to "what shall we do?".

 

[All Glory To God]

Jesus and Paul did not say anything like "God doesn't need your help or your permission, He is God".

. ....

But it's implied in many ways.

Does God have perfect knowledge? I give a firm yes to that question. Does God make mistakes? I deny. So if God partners with his creatures that have finite knowledge and are prone to errors this implies God has moved from his state of perfection to a state of fallibility. And this is not the God of the Bible as God does not change (Malachi 3:6) because of his eternal aseity.

Unless you can give a sufficient answer to these objections about the immutablity of God then I would have to say your statement is false.

 

[John Mullally]

But it's implied in many ways.

Does God have perfect knowledge? I give a firm yes to that question. Does God make mistakes? I deny. So if God partners with his creatures that have finite knowledge and are prone to errors this implies God has moved from his state of perfection to a state of fallibility. And this is not the God of the Bible as God does not change (Malachi 3:6) because of his eternal aseity.

Unless you can give a sufficient answer to these objections about the immutablity of God then I would have to say your statement is false.

Although philosophic discussions are interesting and I really like the immutability reference, I prefer the Occams Razor approach. I accept doctrine from direct NT statements and I don't see any direct NT scriptures that say anything close to the vague "God doesn't need your help or permission, He is God". God is God - but per the NT he is not unknowable and He has given us His word on a number of subjects - so no need to philosophize when there are concrete directives. The book of Job which occurred before the Old & New Covenant does support that statement - but remember Job had little revelation.

 

[All Glory To God]

Although philosophic discussions are interesting and I really like the immutability reference, I prefer the Occams Razor approach.

This philosophical principle does not seem to undo anything in my statement.

William of Ockham | English philosopher

I accept doctrine from direct NT statements

What about the Old Testament? Is that a different God?

and I don't see any direct NT scriptures that say anything close to the vague "God doesn't need your help or permission, He is God".

And it does not say ''God does not need anything. But He has chosen to partner with His Church'' either. Will you be consistent and remove your own assertion?

God is God - but per the NT he is not unknowable and He has given us His word on a number of subjects - so no need to philosophize when there are concrete directives.

That (Malachi 3:6) is scripture. God does not change.

The Trinity, which is God is a mystery. Although some aspects can be comprehended by the human mind there are still aspects beyond our understanding. The same goes for the hypostatic union, which is the form and operations of Jesus Christ. We know some things about God but God is so infinitely higher then man it's impossible to know God unless he condescends himself to his creation.

The book of Job which occurred before the Old & New Covenant does support that statement - but remember Job had little revelation.

Job had a lot of revelation and insight. The first chapter we get to see that Satan is bound by Gods Sovereignty and can do nothing to Job unless he is given formal permission from the creator.

 

[atpollard]

Semi-Pelagianism (definition)

Semi-Pelagianism was promulgated in the fifth century AD by John Cassian and some other church leaders in France. It took a middle-of-the-road approach to depravity; we are depraved, but not totally so. Semi-Pelagianism allows that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God’s grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. We are sinful, but we can still recognize the truth, cooperate with God’s grace, and choose to seek Christ. We need God’s grace to be saved, but we can take the first step toward Christ on our own, apart from grace.​

If the theological shoe fits …

 

[Cormack]

We need God’s grace to be saved, but we can take the first step toward Christ on our own, apart from grace.

That’s not something that most non Calvinists believe though. There’s no step “on our own” because God’s always initiated and given humanity something to respond to (i.e. apostles, prophets, scripture, His Spirit and the impression of His presence in nature.)

All of the above are Gods gracious means, meaning no choice that’s made by mankind happens “apart from grace,” rather mans choice is always in response to Gods gracious appeal.

What you don’t have on non Calvinist views however is the “grace” being deterministic and effectual. A grace like that isn’t something that Christians recognise.

 

[atpollard]

What you don’t have on non Calvinist views however is the “grace” being deterministic and effectual. A grace like that isn’t something that Christians recognise.

Sigh, you are tedious.

God’s Grace can either be resisted by men or it cannot be resisted. Those are the only two possibilities and they are mutually exclusive.

If men cannot resist God’s Grace, then there are only two option: God’s Grace draws some (and not others) or God’s Grace draws all. The first is Calvinism/Monergism. The second is Universalism (God saves everyone). There is a third “logical” possibility, but nobody argues for universal damnation (God draws none).

If men can resist God’s Grace, then there is a choice or action by men that separate the saved from the damned. That choice/action is the “first step” in the definition by “Got Questions”. After that “choice/action/step” by man, we have scripture describing baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit as our helper and guide. This view is semi-Pelegian and synergism (man and God cooperating in salvation).

You object to the terms, while embodying all they define.
Stop telling me what you DON’T BELIEVE and tell people what you do believe. (Unless, of course you are claiming to be a Calvinist and believe that God monergisticly does it all, then you need to be clearer in your posts because they sure sound like you think men choose to believe in God).

 

[John Mullally]

What about the Old Testament? Is that a different God?

Jesus introduced the New Covenant in the Last Supper and we see it in operation in the book of Acts - and you should be able to recognize its operation is far different than anything in the Old Testament. Jesus is our superior High Priest (Hebrews 8:6). The church is not under the ceremonial rules and regulations of the Old Testament (Acts 15).

And it does not say ''God does not need anything. But He has chosen to partner with His Church'' either. Will you be consistent and remove your own assertion?

Here you repeat what I wrote but then added quotes - it wasn't like I lifted that from the NT. But I do assert it is true. Jesus built His Church (Matt 16:18-19) and commissioned it to preach the Gospel (Matt 28:16-20 and Mark 16:15-18). Paul terms the Church as being the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). How can the Church be built by Jesus, Commissioned by Jesus, and referenced as being the body of Christ without her partnering with God?

We know some things about God but God is so infinitely higher then man it's impossible to know God unless he condescends himself to his creation.

The Bible was given so that we can better know God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God is not disposed to keep those who seek Him in the dark (Matt 7:7-12 and James 1:5).

Job had a lot of revelation and insight. The first chapter we get to see that Satan is bound by Gods Sovereignty and can do nothing to Job unless he is given formal permission from the creator.

Job did not have the benefit of having any scripture.

 

[All Glory To God]

Jesus introduced the New Covenant in the Last Supper and we see it in operation in the book of Acts - and you should be able to recognize its operation is far different than anything in the Old Testament. Jesus is our superior High Priest (Hebrews 8:6). The church is not under the ceremonial rules and regulations of the Old Testament (Acts 15).

The only way to be saved is by faith regardless of the priesthood. Yes, Jesus is a superior model and the new covenant is better than the former but the creator is still the same God. His Grace is still the same. Human nature is still the same. So why make a distinction in the personality of God between the Old testament and the new testament?

Here you repeat what I wrote but then added quotes - it wasn't like I lifted that from the NT. But I do assert it is true. Jesus built His Church (Matt 16:18-19) and commissioned it to preach the Gospel (Matt 28:16-20 and Mark 16:15-18). Paul terms the Church as being the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). How can the Church be built by Jesus, Commissioned by Jesus, and referenced as being the body of Christ without her partnering with God?

I quoted you verbatim. Please do not accuse me of things which I have not done.

This theory of yours about humanity being partners with God simply becuase he left a church doesn't really make sense. I would agree there are certain roles and offices for Christians like Pastor and Evangelist but how do you go from being in an delegated office to partners?

The Bible was given so that we can better know God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God is not disposed to keep those who seek Him in the dark (Matt 7:7-12 and James 1:5).

I agree we can know some things about God that he has graciously revealed. Like the incarnation and revelation copied to scripture.

I do not believe any person seeks to worship or befriend God unless God first makes changes to the person making it possible for that to happen.

Job did not have the benefit of having any scripture.

True. He had divine revelation. What of it though?

 

[John Mullally]

The only way to be saved is by faith regardless of the priesthood. Yes, Jesus is a superior model and the new covenant is better than the former but the creator is still the same God. His Grace is still the same. Human nature is still the same. So why make a distinction in the personality of God between the Old testament and the new testament?

The NT is quite different than the OT. The OT is primarily written to Israel. The NT is primarily written to the Church. I am part of the Church. I don't know where you get that I said God's personality changed.

I quoted you verbatim. Please do not accuse me of things which I have not done.

I did not falsely accuse you. I was pointing out that in my writing I did not put quotes around the following: God does not need anything. But He has chosen to partner with His Church - as you show them. Not trying to nit-pick - I stated that because I did not want anyone to imply that I was quoting directly from scripture. We all have things we believe that are not direct scripture quotes, nevertheless we believe those things are supported by scripture.

This theory of yours about humanity being partners with God simply becuase he left a church doesn't really make sense. I would agree there are certain roles and offices for Christians like Pastor and Evangelist but how do you go from being in an delegated office to partners?

Paul says "we are God's fellow workers" in 1 Cor 3:9. Romans 8:17 says "we are co-heirs with Christ". Christ is the head.

I do not believe any person seeks to worship or befriend God unless God first makes changes to the person making it possible for that to happen.

If its totally up to God changing us from the inside without our consent, there would be no need for God to use very strong persuasion as we see being used on Paul and Jonah.

 

[All Glory To God]

The NT is quite different than the OT. The OT is primarily written to Israel. The NT is primarily written to the Church. I am part of the Church. I don't know where you get that I said God's personality changed.

You didn't use those words but when you made the statement about ''I accept doctrine from direct NT statements and I don't see any direct NT scriptures that say. . .'' to me it implied a distinction.

Paul says "we are God's fellow workers" in 1 Cor 3:9. Romans 8:17 says "we are co-heirs with Christ". Christ is the head.

So do you have equal power with God? Partners are usually equal in status and authority.

If its totally up to God changing us from the inside without our consent, there would be no need for God to use very strong persuasion as we see being used on Paul and Jonah.

If you mean Paul was ''persuaded'' to be an Apostle during his trip toward Damascus, I simply say that was his conversion and call into the ministry.

As for Jonah, that was no ''persuasion'' that was mans will being thwarted by the creator: God wanted Jonah to go the Nineveh, Jonah did not want to go and who's will won? Gods will. No choices, just a command issued and then the rebellion defeated by almighty God.

Praise the Lord!

 

[John Mullally]

Start a new topic and ask me and I will bury you in scriptures that you will ignore

I understand you don't want to pollute the topic, but you made false assertions (Post 20) that I addressed and you defended by calling it a joke. Start your own new thread! Not afraid!

 

[atpollard]

I understand you don't want to pollute the topic, but you made false assertions (Post 20) that I addressed and you defended by calling it a joke.

1. They were true.
2. It was a joke (it was responding to a lament about "not letting poor Calvin rest in peace" ... which was itself humor).

Start your own new thread!

I did.