He who began a good work

[Hammster]

I am sure of this, that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6 HCSB)

Monergists would say that this reflects the position that God is fully responsible for all of salvation from election to predestination to regeneration to justification to sanctification to glorification.

I think Paul is clear that God began the good work. And if God began it, He will bring it to completion.

So there's my position. I'm curious as to how my synergists brothers and sisters would handle this verse.

 

[Arcoe]

I am sure of this, that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6 HCSB)

Monergists would say that this reflects the position that God is fully responsible for all of salvation from election to predestination to regeneration to justification to sanctification to glorification.

I think Paul is clear that God began the good work. And if God began it, He will bring it to completion.

So there's my position. I'm curious as to how my synergists brothers and sisters would handle this verse.

I totally agree. Man could never do it by himself.

 

[Hammster]

I totally agree. Man could never do it by himself.

So you agree that whatever God starts He finishes?

 

[Arcoe]

So you agree that whatever God starts He finishes?

If not, we both would be in a lot of trouble.

 

[pshun2404]

I am sure of this, that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6 HCSB)

Monergists would say that this reflects the position that God is fully responsible for all of salvation from election to predestination to regeneration to justification to sanctification to glorification.

I think Paul is clear that God began the good work. And if God began it, He will bring it to completion.

So there's my position. I'm curious as to how my synergists brothers and sisters would handle this verse.

I believe salvation is totally of God as well.

Paul

 

[Hammster]

If not, we both would be in a lot of trouble.

Welcome to Calvinism.

 

[Hammster]

I believe salvation is totally of God as well.

Paul

Okay. Welcome to Calvinism.

 

[truthinapologetics]

Monergists would say that this reflects the position that God is fully responsible for all of salvation from election to predestination to regeneration to justification to sanctification to glorification.

Well yes, of course they would say this. Philosophical prejudices have a funny way of making every hint of God "acting" seem equivalent to a full-on Scriptural advocacy of the extra-biblical presuppositions of Reformed thinking. I would expect you to interpret it in no other way, given your interpretative bias toward particular ends.

I think Paul is clear that God began the good work. And if God began it, He will bring it to completion.

While that might be clear, those who don't share your interpretive biases would disagree that it in anyway legitimates Reformed theology. In fact, I find the language that the author uses to be a bit strange. If the writer is advocating the kind of rigid strictures of Reformed theology that you propose, why does the writer use words like "I am sure of this" (or "having confidence in this...") when introducing this supposed statement of monergistic "truth"? Why not a more declarative statement about it? Statements about having "confidence" are more an expression of hope and desire, rather than objective declarations of truth. I'm not setting down a full exegesis on this point, but I think the language is stretched to fit the end you wish it to obtain.

 

[Arcoe]

Welcome to Calvinism.

Wow, you mean Calvinists are the only ones who believe this?

 

[Arcoe]

So you agree that whatever God starts He finishes?

Hamm, this is Jimmy again. Thanks for saying this. I was sweating there for a minute when you said I had to believe and repent. But I see you didn't really mean that. Were you trying to scare me into doing those things?

No need for me to worry about anything, God will finish what He started. I am beginning to like this Calvinism thing. Now excuse me, I have a hot date, but please don't tell my wife, she wouldn't understand this Calvinist thing anyway.

 

[nobdysfool]

Well yes, of course they would say this. Philosophical prejudices have a funny way of making every hint of God "acting" seem equivalent to a full-on Scriptural advocacy of the extra-biblical presuppositions of Reformed thinking. I would expect you to interpret it in no other way, given your interpretative bias toward particular ends.

And of course, no presuppositions were used in the making of that statement....

e.g. "extra-biblical presuppositions of Reformed thinking" No, no evidence of presupposition there...

"Philosophical prejudices"...no evidence of bias there, either...

While that might be clear, those who don't share your interpretive biases would disagree that it in anyway legitimates Reformed theology. In fact, I find the language that the author uses to be a bit strange. If the writer is advocating the kind of rigid strictures of Reformed theology that you propose, why does the writer use words like "I am sure of this" (or "having confidence in this...") when introducing this supposed statement of monergistic "truth"? Why not a more declarative statement about it? Statements about having "confidence" are more an expression of hope and desire, rather than objective declarations of truth. I'm not setting down a full exegesis on this point, but I think the language is stretched to fit the end you wish it to obtain.

In your opinion. And that's all it is.

 

[Hammster]

Hamm, this is Jimmy again. Thanks for saying this. I was sweating there for a minute when you said I had to believe and repent. But I see you didn't really mean that. Were you trying to scare me into doing those things?

No need for me to worry about anything, God will finish what He started. I am beginning to like this Calvinism thing. Now excuse me, I have a hot date, but please don't tell my wife, she wouldn't understand this Calvinist thing anyway.

Non sequitur.

 

[Hammster]

Wow, you mean Calvinists are the only ones who believe this?

According to the counter arguments I've seen on here, it appears that way. Take you, for instance. You believe salvation can be lost, correct?

 

[Ignatius21]

I am sure of this, that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6 HCSB)

Monergists would say that this reflects the position that God is fully responsible for all of salvation from election to predestination to regeneration to justification to sanctification to glorification.

I think Paul is clear that God began the good work. And if God began it, He will bring it to completion.

So there's my position. I'm curious as to how my synergists brothers and sisters would handle this verse.

I'm curious as to why it must be presented as either-or. Either God is fully responsible for salvation, or man plays some part in it. The possibility that God is in fact fully responsible for man's salvation, and yet man fully participates in that salvation, is off the table. Which is unfortunate, because it basically undermines the full importance of the Incarnation. Everything Christ did in bringing about man's salvation was a work of both God and man. Humanity and Divinity cooperated in achieving the salvation of the world. The Church, the Body of Christ, is the ongoing presence of the Incarnation here on earth. Christ really is present in and through his people. We are united to God, through Christ, precisely in and because of the Incarnation. It's the hinge on which the whole thing turns.

If Christ's Incarnation was 100% God and 100% man, then the work of salvation in someone who is joined to God through the Incarnation, is also 100% God and 100% man.

Yes, God begins a good work in man and completes it. Yes, God gets all the glory. Yes, God is sovereign. Yes, man cooperates and participates in his own salvation. No, this does not diminish God's glory or sovereignty. It doesn't break it down into a math problem where man does X% and God does (100-X)%.

So how does a synergist handle the verse you quoted? As I just explained above. I take it at face value. It in now way contradicts the role that man plays in cooperating with God. God completes the work of salvation in man, through the cooperation of man. Both-And. Not Either-Or.

 

[Ignatius21]

Hamm, this is Jimmy again. Thanks for saying this. I was sweating there for a minute when you said I had to believe and repent. But I see you didn't really mean that. Were you trying to scare me into doing those things?

No need for me to worry about anything, God will finish what He started. I am beginning to like this Calvinism thing. Now excuse me, I have a hot date, but please don't tell my wife, she wouldn't understand this Calvinist thing anyway.

Surely you know that this isn't what Calvinists actually believe...surely...

 

[truthinapologetics]

And of course, no presuppositions were used in the making of that statement....

e.g. "extra-biblical presuppositions of Reformed thinking" No, no evidence of presupposition there...

I never said there weren't...obviously, one argument is as steeped in presuppositions as another.

"Philosophical prejudices"...no evidence of bias there, either...

In your opinion. And that's all it is.

Agreed. And the same for you.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm curious as to why it must be presented as either-or. Either God is fully responsible for salvation, or man plays some part in it. The possibility that God is in fact fully responsible for man's salvation, and yet man fully participates in that salvation, is off the table. Which is unfortunate, because it basically undermines the full importance of the Incarnation. Everything Christ did in bringing about man's salvation was a work of both God and man. Humanity and Divinity cooperated in achieving the salvation of the world. The Church, the Body of Christ, is the ongoing presence of the Incarnation here on earth. Christ really is present in and through his people. We are united to God, through Christ, precisely in and because of the Incarnation. It's the hinge on which the whole thing turns.

If Christ's Incarnation was 100% God and 100% man, then the work of salvation in someone who is joined to God through the Incarnation, is also 100% God and 100% man.

Yes, God begins a good work in man and completes it. Yes, God gets all the glory. Yes, God is sovereign. Yes, man cooperates and participates in his own salvation. No, this does not diminish God's glory or sovereignty. It doesn't break it down into a math problem where man does X% and God does (100-X)%.

So how does a synergist handle the verse you quoted? As I just explained above. I take it at face value. It in now way contradicts the role that man plays in cooperating with God. God completes the work of salvation in man, through the cooperation of man. Both-And. Not Either-Or.

I believe that there are different parts to salvation (justification, sanctification, glorification) and God does some and we do some. I don't believe that we do any part that begins or ends our salvation. God is the author and finisher of our faith. What we do participate in is sanctification - that's the part where we cooperate with the Holy Spirit to become conformed to the image of Christ. But that doesn't make or ruin our chance to be saved. It might have a bad effect on our relationship with God if we don't cooperate, but it doesn't ruin our chance for salvation.

 

[Hammster]

I'm curious as to why it must be presented as either-or. Either God is fully responsible for salvation, or man plays some part in it. The possibility that God is in fact fully responsible for man's salvation, and yet man fully participates in that salvation, is off the table. Which is unfortunate, because it basically undermines the full importance of the Incarnation. Everything Christ did in bringing about man's salvation was a work of both God and man. Humanity and Divinity cooperated in achieving the salvation of the world. The Church, the Body of Christ, is the ongoing presence of the Incarnation here on earth. Christ really is present in and through his people. We are united to God, through Christ, precisely in and because of the Incarnation. It's the hinge on which the whole thing turns.

If Christ's Incarnation was 100% God and 100% man, then the work of salvation in someone who is joined to God through the Incarnation, is also 100% God and 100% man.

Yes, God begins a good work in man and completes it. Yes, God gets all the glory. Yes, God is sovereign. Yes, man cooperates and participates in his own salvation. No, this does not diminish God's glory or sovereignty. It doesn't break it down into a math problem where man does X% and God does (100-X)%.

So how does a synergist handle the verse you quoted? As I just explained above. I take it at face value. It in now way contradicts the role that man plays in cooperating with God. God completes the work of salvation in man, through the cooperation of man. Both-And. Not Either-Or.

The point is, if God starts it, He finishes it. That's the consistent position of monergists. It's far from the consistent view of synergists.

 

[frumanchu]

Well yes, of course they would say this. Philosophical prejudices have a funny way of making every hint of God "acting" seem equivalent to a full-on Scriptural advocacy of the extra-biblical presuppositions of Reformed thinking. I would expect you to interpret it in no other way, given your interpretative bias toward particular ends.

I think we're all well aware that people tend to bring their presuppositions and interpretive biases to texts. It's human nature to do so, but pointing it out doesn't really bring anything to the discussion until and unless it can be demonstrated that incorrect interpretive bias led to an incorrect understanding of the text.

While that might be clear, those who don't share your interpretive biases would disagree that it in anyway legitimates Reformed theology. In fact, I find the language that the author uses to be a bit strange. If the writer is advocating the kind of rigid strictures of Reformed theology that you propose, why does the writer use words like "I am sure of this" (or "having confidence in this...") when introducing this supposed statement of monergistic "truth"? Why not a more declarative statement about it? Statements about having "confidence" are more an expression of hope and desire, rather than objective declarations of truth. I'm not setting down a full exegesis on this point, but I think the language is stretched to fit the end you wish it to obtain.

Interesting, particularly given the fact that the Biblical concept of "hope" is not the same as the contemporary Western view of something that is strongly desired in the absence of assurance (and often against likelihood) which you seem to be projecting upon the text. The author speaks in the strongest possible terms of confidence throughout the opening of his epistle.

We can argue about the nature of what work it is in view in the verse, but to relegate it to the level of wishful thinking on the part of the apostle I think does injustice to the text.

 

[Arcoe]

Non sequitur.

Thank you for your concern.