Dead Heroes Don't Save

Though we debate aspects of being in Christ, think we can all agree: if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature [having been] created in Christ Jesus to do good works [which we do with] our liberty which we have in Christ [so we] do not turn [our] freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another

@ReformedCaio Is he defining "modern" Arminianism or are you?

@_DHDS Take it up with Oslon, he is making the distinction. And I agree. I've read Arminius. A lot of what I see in modern discussions from Arminians are extremely far removed from the classical/historic form that Olson/Wesley promoted.

Classic/Historic Arminian, Roger Olson, rightly understood that many forms of modern Arminianism fall into Pelagian and semi-Pelagian categories, and these are seen as heretical views. "Synergism is any theological belief in free human participation in salvation. Its heretical forms in Christian theology are Pelagian and semi-Pelagianism. The former denies original sin and elevates natural and moral human ability to live spiritually fulfilled lives. The latter embraces a modified version of original sin but believes that humans have the ability, even in their natural fallen state, to imitate salvation by exercising a good will toward God. When conservative theologians declare that synergism is a heresy, they are usually referring to these two Pelagian forms of synergism. Classical Arminians agree... Contrary to confused critics, classical Arminianism is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian! But it is synergistic. Arminianism is evangelical synergism as opposed to the heretical, humanistic synergism... I am referring to evangelical synergism, which affirms the provenience of grace to every human exercise of good will toward God, including simply nonresistance to the saving work of Christ." - Olson, Arminian Theology, Introduction

Prevenient grace reveals and enables Faith is trusting what was revealed What more could have been done than I have done? - Isaiah 5:4 Is the answer nothing since I've provided everything necessary or there is more to be done such as providing irresistible, efficacious grace and saving faith that can't be refused?

@_DHDS @just_keep_read Yes, the ability to see Jesus as the Christ, the Lamb of God is indeed a gift all Christians should be thankful for! Matt. 16:15-17

Reformed Retrieval seems to be hanging onto his Reformed status for dear life. He should just dump it. He’s already a hypothetical universalist, and is affirming here that faith is something more than an outward sign of election.

@ReformedCaio Why would you label Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism as modern Arminianism... Getting this right doesn't even require distinctions 🤣

Exactly as Olson does in the quote. "Its heretical forms in Christian theology are Pelagian and semi-Pelagianism. The former denies original sin and elevates natural and moral human ability to live spiritually fulfilled lives. The latter embraces a modified version of original sin but believes that humans have the ability, even in their natural fallen state, to imitate salvation by exercising a good will toward God."

@BaptistBavinck @just_keep_read Yay! A box of faith, trust and conviction I guess I'm elect after all 🤣

@just_keep_read Faith can be both the condition required and gift provided.

@autocorrect2_0 After inviting the rage of PETA, the hero goes all John Wick on those responsible for killing his wife

@autocorrect2_0 Man seeks force ghost among Ewoks

Mark was likely first and used by Matthew and Luke It is hard to imagine Mark intentionally ending at 16:8 and the LE seems even less likely to be original My own favorite speculative theory is that some form of the original ending of Mark was used by Matthew in chapter 28 where Jesus and the disciples meet in Galilee

@_DHDS It was necessary. Luke and Matthew had been circulating for years, then, with an extended ending. He knew, and had nothing extra to add. This explains its abruptive short end

I tried for some years to believe that Mark was really a postmodernist who would deliberately leave his gospel with a dark and puzzling ending [@ 16:8], but I have for some time now given up the attempt. - NT Wright

There is a passage in 1 Corinthians 15 that puzzles many readers. Paul writes that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4). But which Scriptures did Paul have in mind? If you search the Old Testament, you will not find a single prophecy that explicitly says the Messiah would rise on the third day. So what does Paul mean? One helpful way to understand Paul’s words is to look for a pattern in the Old Testament. Again and again, God does something decisive on the third day or after three days. These moments often involve life, deliverance, restoration, or divine revelation. Consider these examples: 1. Creation: On the third day, life springs forth from the earth in the form of plants and trees (Gen. 1:11–13). 2. Abraham and Isaac: On the third day, Abraham arrives at the mountain where Isaac is spared, and Hebrews later says that Abraham received him back “figuratively” from the dead (Gen. 22:4; Heb. 11:19). 3. Mount Sinai: God descends upon Mount Sinai on the third day to reveal himself to Israel (Exod. 19:11, 16). 4. Jonah: Jonah spends three days and three nights in the belly of the fish before being delivered (Jonah 1:17). 5. Hosea’s prophecy: The prophet says, “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up” (Hos. 6:2). When we look at these passages together, a pattern begins to emerge. The third day becomes the day when God brings life from the ground, life out of death, rescue out of danger, and hope out of despair. This is likely what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 15:4. He is not pointing to a single proof-text prediction but to this repeated scriptural pattern or typology. The resurrection of Jesus on the third day is the climactic fulfillment of that pattern. What God had been foreshadowing throughout the Scriptures reaches its fullest expression when Christ rises from the dead. ______ We read 1 Corinthians 15 today in Bible in One Year. To join us, visit 1517.org/oneyear

@TomHicks2LCF Faith is the condition through which we are saved and receive the merits of Christ Your faith has saved you - Jesus Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - Paul If you ...believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved - Paul

Faith is part of the salvation we receive. Faith is itself one of Christ’s merits. This should not be controversial among the Reformed.

3263827

All immortality except God’s is derived - F.F. Bruce

Universalism has always impressed me as the triumph of hope over exegesis, the pressing of theological conclusions from lovely presuppositions (most of which, to be sure, any Christian should hold) to conclusions that simply cannot stand in the light of Scripture’s frequent and stark opposition. - John Stackhouse Jr

@rootcausesleuth @RefRetrieval I am understanding them as "every spiritual blessing"

@RefRetrieval @_DHDS What are “Christ’s merits”?

Faith is the condition to receive salvation and all of Christ’s merits. This should not be controversial.

Starting in 5:1 we read "having been justified by faith ... through Jesus" And in v9 we read "having been justified by His blood" So when we get to the middle of the chapter and read "through one act of righteousness here resulted justification of life to all men" We should remember that His blood makes it possible to justify all men but faith is still required. Both are clearly stated in this chapter And of course the main point in Romans 4 was that Abraham and all of us are justified by faith

@1984_nate When the text says “all are justified.” It just assumes all have because of the act of the one

Where does Romans 5 make it clear that all receive the act of Christ? It doesn't.

@OJarod3315 @Curi_Christian 🤔God would be free to intervene as He wills and in particular would certainly act to insure His promises were fulfilled, as in your example, regarding Israel

@Curi_Christian @_DHDS Thats an interesting spin on the idea, that God gave us a role and expects us to fulfill it My only pushback from there would be it seems God does at times intervene to stop or limit evil and “takes” our role, Genesis 20:6 for example

Christians, whats the best theodicy (why God allows evil/suffering) I’m reading a book on it so I’m curious Does the free will defense hold up? Is the greater good defense better? What about a soul-making (building character) or redemptive theodicy?

changes in italics

But I would probably reword my note above re: Isaiah 5 to be clearer -- In Isaiah 5 God clearly says “What more could I do” in such a way where His infinite wisdom and power and loving kindness are not damaged because everything necessary to get the people to follow Him and produce fruit was provided. But in the text it's clear they could have both willed to and chosen to follow Him, having all the necessary abilities and necessary divine enabling, but were unwilling

A note on (3) and why I find Calvinism’s soteriology highly implausible