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

@rootcausesleuth the one who endures to the end will be saved

What is saving faith? So Jesus was saying to those Jews who HAD BELIEVED Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Jn 8:31-2

You OP lacked the section to back up your claim re: "modern" Arminians. Don't complain if you were asked to provide receipts But "an optimistic anthropology that denies total depravity and the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation" is not Arminianism Olson rightly notes that a view that "is optimistic about the ability of autonomous human beings to exercise a good will toward God and their fellow creatures without supernatural prevenient (enabling, assisting) grace; that is, it is Pelagian or at least semi-Pelagian" Olson is wrong to call that "modern" Arminianism though it probably is more a reflection of the modern, binary thinking of most that if I'm not Calvinist I must be an Arminian If someone rejects a need for prevenient enabling resistiblr grace they are not Arminians modern or otherwise Not sure why you are promoting bad labels

Again, you are quibbling over terms. Olson says this in the section before. “When Arminianism is used, it will connote that form of Protestant theology that rejects unconditional election (and especially unconditional reprobation), limited atonement, and irresistible grace because it affirms the character of God as compassionate, having universal love for the whole world and everyone in it, and extending grace-restored free will to accept or resist the grace of God, which leads to either eternal life or spiritual destruction. The Arminianism under consideration is an Arminianism of the heart as opposed to Arminianism of the head—a distinction introduced by Reformed theologian Alan Sell in The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Salvation. Arminianism of the head is an Enlightenment-based emphasis on free will that it is most often found in liberal Protestant circles (even among liberalized Reformed people). Its hallmark is an optimistic anthropology that denies total depravity and the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation. It is optimistic about the ability of autonomous human beings to exercise a good will toward God and their fellow creatures without supernatural prevenient (enabling, assisting) grace; that is, it is Pelagian or at least semi-Pelagian Arminianism of the heart—the subject of this book—is the original Arminianism of Arminius, Wesley and their evangelical heirs. Arminians of the heart emphatically do not deny total depravity (even if they prefer another term to denote human spiritual helplessness) or the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for even the first exercise of a good will toward God. Arminians of the heart are the true Arminians because they are faithful to the basic impulses of Arminius and his first followers as opposed to the later Remonstrants (who wandered away from Arminius’s teachings into early liberal theology) and modern Arminians of the head who glorify reason and freedom over divine revelation and supernatural grace.” He goes on to say that the terms monergism and synergism are broader terms that go beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, and that's where the quote in the OP comes in. Here he makes a differentiation between Arminianism as promoted in the classical/historic sense (what he calls Arminianism of the heart) and one that focuses more on glorifying "reason and freedom" (what he calls "modern Arminians of the head"). It's pretty clear that he is drawing a line between the historic view as held by Arminius and Wesley and the view held by a lot of modern Arminians. You are tilting at windmills here. Take your complaints ups with Olson's work.

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

I do not believe in an atonement which fails to account for God's explicitly stated desire that none perish and that He sincerely desires all men to be saved

@ReformedCaio Wild 😜 You need to draw a distinction between synergists not Arminians

If you're going to quibble about the term "modern," then that's fine. I'm restricting it to a more modern time, but he seems to be speaking of forms of Arminianism that can be categorized as Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. The point is that Olson differentiates between the classical/historic view of Arminianism as held by Arminius, Wesley, and himself from others that place a heavier emphasis on man's abilities. He calls these other forms heretical since they can be seen as Pelagian and semi-Pelagian.

@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.

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.