i'm assuming you uphold all of the Vatican's judgments of heresy...?  i didn't know this place was for Catholics only.

seriously, exactly what was your argument?  

I agree with your theology here, but how about some Scripture to back it up, rather than quoting church authorities to defend it or using a video to illustrate it?

I found the video a poor and decrepit illustration of the love relationship Jesus Christ has with His bride, the Church. While we were sinners, Christ died for us. While we were dead in sins and transgressions, powerless and unable to do anything, God reached down and saved us. Let us never cheapen His glorious grace for us.

I'd like to read St. Augustine on Palagianism.  

@PastorDan - Amen...these arminian/semi-pelagian tendancies are rampant in the church today.  But His Word is true.  God Bless

@PastorDan - In regards to the old statement, "Ask Jesus into your heart", it's funny because that's what they teach in Christian and Sunday schools. Especially on the elementary level. I remember my school chapel services used to be like that. It'd be all cute and after some 10-15 minute sermon on some story in the Bible, teachers would say, "Okay everybody, close your eyes! Now, no peeking, but I want you all to go ahead and think about asking Jesus into your heart!"

In a society where we supposedly believe that hardwork should be paid off with adequate compensation, it's no surprise how we hardly ever give that statement any thought. This has been an enlightening post, thanks for sharing!

@PastorDan - Thank you for this thoughtful comment, but I do disagree with much of what you said.

First, the example you gave is not, in fact, rooted in Scripture. What Scripture actually teaches is that, enabled by the Spirit, we do accept Christ. The situation does not really lend itself to the example you're trying to give because the death described is not tantamount to spiritual death.

Ephesians 2 does not speak to the initiation of the salvation experience, but only about how it is possible. In other words, Paul does not write that God compels us to salvation, but only says that it would not be possible without grace. I'm not saying that Ephesians 2 necessarily supports an Arminian viewpoint, but it certainly doesn't validate a Reformed viewpoint.

1 Corinthians 12 - In this passage, Paul is writing specifically about spiritual gifts, and not about salvation. What Paul says is that the Spirit enables us to claim that Jesus is Lord, and also that no one working in the Spirit can curse Him. Again, this does not support such a reformed viewpoint.

John 15 - Jesus DID call the 12 who were assembled individually. Here is a common problem with folks interpreting Scriptures: over-personalizing what is being said. You have to realize that when Jesus was speaking of specific situations with specific individuals, he wasn't necessarily referring to all of us. In other words, Jesus mentioning that He had individually picked each of the 12 does not mean that He has picked each of us individually. Again, not a justification of Arminian theology, but a far cry from a justification of Reformed theology.

@Theophilus166@xanga - Excellent point! Personally, I tend toward an Arminian theology with some Open Theistic tendencies (i.e. that salvation is open to all, through the work of the Spirit, but only some will accept).

@rednick261@xanga - 

You wrote:

Thank you for this thoughtful comment, but I do disagree with much of what you said.

First, the example you gave is not, in fact, rooted in Scripture. What Scripture actually teaches is that, enabled by the Spirit, we do accept Christ. The situation does not really lend itself to the example you're trying to give because the death described is not tantamount to spiritual death.
---------------------
Two things here.  First of all, the Bible doesn't mention anything about the Holy Spirit "enabling" people to accept Christ.  One thing that the Spirit "enabled" people to do was during the Pentecost account as recorded in Acts 2:4: "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."  This enabling happened to people who were already believers, and has nothing to do with conversion or coming to faith in Christ.

Secondly, I disagree with the statement that the death described in Ephesians 2 is not tantamount to spiritual death.  If a person is an unbeliever, they are considered dead in their transgressions and sins.  If a person remains that way, they will indeed experience complete and total spiritual death in the end.  A person who is dead in sin has not even one shred of power to do anything to save themselves, hence the illustration.    
-------------------
Ephesians 2 does not speak to the initiation of the salvation experience, but only about how it is possible. In other words, Paul does not write that God compels us to salvation, but only says that it would not be possible without grace. I'm not saying that Ephesians 2 necessarily supports an Arminian viewpoint, but it certainly doesn't validate a Reformed viewpoint.
------------------
Well, I'm neither Reformed nor Arminian, but verses 1-5 of Ephesians 2 definitely speak about both the initiation and the continuing nature of the salvation experience.  Paul makes no bones about their sinful nature, their salvation in Christ Jesus, and how it came about; viz. by grace through faith.  It seems like a pretty complete account to me. 
---------------------
1 Corinthians 12 - In this passage, Paul is writing specifically about spiritual gifts, and not about salvation. What Paul says is that the Spirit enables us to claim that Jesus is Lord, and also that no one working in the Spirit can curse Him. Again, this does not support such a reformed viewpoint.
---------------------
Yes, he definitely is talking about Spiritual gifts, there's no mistaking that.  However if you look at verses 1-3 of 1 Corinthians 12, Paul is prefacing all this by talking about their former life as sinners, and how they came to faith in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.  It is now this same spirit that provides them with the various spiritual gifts he mentions.
---------------------
John 15 - Jesus DID call the 12 who were assembled individually. Here is a common problem with folks interpreting Scriptures: over-personalizing what is being said. You have to realize that when Jesus was speaking of specific situations with specific individuals, he wasn't necessarily referring to all of us. In other words, Jesus mentioning that He had individually picked each of the 12 does not mean that He has picked each of us individually. Again, not a justification of Arminian theology, but a far cry from a justification of Reformed theology.
---------------------
We cannot make a wholesale dismissal of John 15 because Jesus is speaking to his disciples.  If God didn't want us to be edified through these words, he wouldn't have included them in the Bible.  For example, the "vine and branches" illustration is very appropriate for ANY disciple of Christ.  Besides, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the "I chose you" words can't be applied to others besides the original Apostles.  I realize full well that the context always needs to be considered, but not everything needs to be matched at every point.

The bottom line to all this, is that there is absolutely nothing we can contribute to our own salvation.  The minute we think we can supply even a shred of something, be it a self-generated faith or something else, we have added something to the Gospel. If we are somehow responsible for generating a saving faith on our own, then we have added a "works" element to what is supposed to be attained by grace through faith. There's an old saying that goes "Sinful humanity cannot make a decision on behalf of a Holy God." 

This being said, we can't think that God has made us like a bunch of robots either in this process.  We always have the power to reject our salvation and run away from him, but that's the only thing we have the power in and of ourselves to do.

When interpreting Scripture, by far the best hermeneutical principle to use, is to allow Scripture to interpret itself, and read the words as they stand.  When we add our own personal bias, we will always fall short.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  If you have any Biblical references you want me to consider in support of what you are saying, I'll be happy to study them.

Shalom!

@PastorDan - Using anything of the root verb "to enable" is not the only qualifier for the concept. An overriding theme of evangelism (both modern and biblical) is that we are sharing the message of Christ that some may choose to accept Christ - not that we are saving anyone, or that they are the author of their own salvation. In other words, where 2 Peter 3:9 says that it is God's will that none should perish (authoritatively stating that God would enable all to accept, but not all will), in context, it is stating that God's own constraints will condemn some because of their own rejection of salvation, though God wills (and presumably enables) all to come to salvation. Now, if God would choose not to accept the individual on whatever grounds (which I'm not sure is clear in Scripture, and causes plenty of debate), the effort of the individual is useless, as God would not have enabled them to receive salvation, but that would appear to be contrary to His stated will in 2 Peter 3:9.

Second, the reason that I say that the death to which you refer in your example is not tantamount to spiritual death is because, as with the woman in Mark 5, Jesus states that her faith had made her well. In other words, Christ didn't compel her to touch his robe, but it was only by His power that she was made well. So, while she was spiritually dead and theoretically incapable of making herself well, she WAS capable of identifying who it is that COULD make her well, and taking action to seek out that healing.

Ephesians 2, I should have clarified, does not speak of the process by which salvation comes to fruition. It does speak of the fact that it is only possible through grace (i.e. no action of our own could, standing alone, save us), and speaks to the perfection of our faith, but it does not speak of the actual mechanism. Grace is passive, meaning that grace is a response to an action (Romans 10:10). That action, obviously, was the sacrifice of Christ (propitiation), which tore the veil in two, allowing us access to God. In so doing, Christ made us able to seek God, and the Spirit beckons all (as I mentioned, 2 Peter 3:9 seems to speak to this), but only some will respond. So, in reconciling Ephesians 2 and 2 Peter 3, I think the best explanation is that God beckons, we either accept or reject, and salvation is offered to us when we respond. So, salvation is certainly not initiated by the potential believer (for no one is deserving or able to save themselves), but initiated by the Cross of Christ. Christ's calling is for all (2 Pet 3:9), but not all will believe or accept this call (Romans 10, et al).

In 1 Cor 12, Paul is not writing a thesis on the salvation of the people, but only a reminder that we were all once among the ranks of the unsaved, and that only by the Spirit can someone speak truth ("Jesus is Lord"). So, it mentions that we were once without salvation ("you were pagans... enticed and led astray by idols"), but does not speak at all to the method or mechanism of salvation.

In John 15, it is true that we cannot dismiss this wholesale, but we must look at the context of each situation. In John 15:16, Jesus is no longer teaching in a parable, but speaking directly to the disciples. Where Jesus teaches in parables, He is most often talking to a large group of people in general terms. However, by verse 7, He is finished with the parable and simply begins explaining it. By verse 16, He is entirely done with the parable and is speaking directly to the disciples whom He had picked individually, not to a larger group of believers, and certainly not to us. To say that something would not have made it into Scripture if it were not applicable directly to us is an improper hermeneutic - that is, to say that the entirety of Scripture must somehow relate directly to us simply because it is accepted as canon. While everything in Scripture is useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16), it is not all directly applicable to our individual lives in a literal sense. We can learn from the fact that disciples were each chosen directly by Jesus insofar as He chose them and equipped them directly to continue His ministry after His sacrifice. However, it may be stretching the meaning of the words to say that all who the disciples ministered to were chosen directly by Christ, because that's not necessarily what He's saying in that verse (and there isn't another situation where Christ claims that all who come to salvation are chosen directly by Him).

"The bottom line to all this, is that there is absolutely nothing we can contribute to our own salvation. "

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. The concept of Total Depravity is one of Calvin's points that I do not reject at all. By our nature, we are sinful and unable to even recognize Christ. It is only by the Spirit that we can even begin to understand who Christ is, and especially what it is that He did for us, and continues to do for us. Without that Spirit, the wisdom of God is as foolishness (1 Cor 1). For me to claim that any self-initiated act somehow earns my salvation is absolute heresy, and I do not claim to do so. However, I do claim that, enabled by the Spirit to see the wisdom of God, I accept (humbly) the salvation for which Christ died - and am only granted such because Christ chose to sacrifice Himself for the salvation of all. In other words, my salvation isn't earned, but only accepted.

I do appreciate that you mention that we can "lose" our salvation. I find it interesting how some can claim that the Perseverance of the Saints is somehow Biblical. While 1 John 5 states that he "writes this that [we] may know that [we] have eternal life", there is nothing in Scripture (that I've found) that says that someone who strays will come back, or that there is any variation of a "once saved, always saved" situation in our salvation. In fact, by the example of Judas (chosen directly by the God-man, yet led astray) and in Scripture (2 Peter 3:17, where we're warned not to be led astray and lose our "stability").

"When interpreting Scripture, by far the best hermeneutical principle to use, is to allow Scripture to interpret itself, and read the words as they stand.  When we add our own personal bias, we will always fall short."

I agree, again, with this statement. In allowing Scripture to interpret itself, it is important to consider the speaker, the audience and the situation. For instance, it is important to interpret a parable as a parable, a direct statement as such, and to consider all of the context surrounding any verse/excerpt. Proper exegesis will more often than not lead to an understanding of Scripture that is congruent with itself, where eisegetical interpretation will most often lead to conflicting viewpoints (withone one's own interpretation or throughout Scripture). In other words, if we consider some of the Levitical commandments without interpreting them through Christ's satisfaction (or fulfillment) of the law, we quickly become legalistic. If we interpret Jesus' statements directly to His disciples as unequivocally applicable to ourselves, we risk misunderstanding what Jesus was actually saying and having a false understanding of what is being said. This is my problem with Proof Texting - that is, taking a verse or selection out of context and applying it broadly, and inaccurately. It is most often used to prove a fallacious point without considering context, and causes broad incongruence with the rest of Scripture, but also causes unnecessary theological discord in the Body.

even with the cross, we are still free2 become "slaves" (and I do put that in quotations) to God. You're either a slave 2 God or the Devil...