He who began a good work

Hammster said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

So you agree that whatever God starts He finishes?

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

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

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

Welcome to Calvinism.

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

So you agree that whatever God starts He finishes?

Click to expand...

truthinapologetics said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

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.

Click to expand...

Arcoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

nobdysfool said:

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...

Click to expand...

nobdysfool said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Ignatius21 said:

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.

Click to expand...

truthinapologetics said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Hammster said:

Non sequitur.

Click to expand...