Are "
I heard, then understood, then believed, and then professed," self-accomplishment?
- I heard the gospel with my ears of flesh while still dead in sin absent the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
- I understood the gospel with me brain of flesh while still dead in sin absent the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
- I then believed the gospel with the cognitive faculties of flesh while still dead in sin absent the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
- I then professed the gospel with my mouth of flesh while still dead in sin absent the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
Is the above self-accomplishment? Although I have quoted
@His clay, I'd be interested in
@makesends' and
@Bob Carabbio's answer to that question, too.
For the record: I read Post 72 with some agreement but wondered why it resorted to euphemisms when clarity was warranted (nuke?). I then read Post 73 to be a meaningless rant without much substance other than mere protest or dissent. Using the words @Bob Carabbio used, your comment he quoted would read, "The critical issue is this. One may affirm the need for [religious rhetoric], but then "[religious rhetoric]" is couched in terms of self-accomplishment," and I am guessing that it not what either of you intended.
.
Your question reminds me of the importance of taking my prior post as a whole. So while I think that
@Bob Carabbio adequately summarized one small aspect of my post, the poster failed to adequately deal with the larger context and explaining I provided. The unfortunate ramification is that people get a massively truncated and inadequate view of what I wrote by reading Bob's paraphrase. I will now take the time to quote my own post.
I've read a few responses, and the majority seem to answer with a no.
I'm going to answer with a yes, but then I need to qualify it.
The doctrine of total depravity is a doctrine held by both Calvinists and Classical Arminians. There is an important reason why it is critical, and this takes me back to the controversy between Luther and Erasmus. If memory serves, Luther congratulated Erasmus on locating the critical point of conflict. And it revolves around the self-sufficiency of the will vs the bondage of the will (as Luther put it). The doctrine of total depravity gets to the very heart of the issue, which is this. For true salvation to occur, and for one to have genuine, empty-handed faith, self-sufficiency must be destroyed, and the doctrine of depravity is the nuke.
The critical issue is this. One may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of self-accomplishment. Another may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of utter self ruin, and thusly faith is completely in Christ and His work and merit with no divided allegiance. The eternal danger is that one may use religious language, Christian language, but in the end their "faith" is a self-salvation because of the inherent self-sufficient nature of the will they describe. Equivocation here (over the very meaning and essence of "faith") may be eternally damning. All of this connects to the doctrine of depravity and its connection to the will.
As we can see, my main focus was upon the will, a self-sufficient understanding of the will (i.e. libertarian freedom), and the resulting context this provides toward human action. This self-sufficient context means everything with respect to answering Josheb's question.
I'm not trying to be patronizing to you, but I'll explain the equivocation issue in a bit more detail. As you well know, words can sometimes be used in a way that indicates a significant shift in meaning. For example, often libertarian free will advocates conflate the secret will of God with the prescriptive will of God, and they say that since God ordained sin then it must be God's will (i.e. what He wants us to do prescriptively). This simple slip in meaning causes no end of straw men and misconception regarding real positions. It is this
shift in meaning that can be dangerous and highly problematic, for with
the same two words "God's will" one can communication two very different things.
The same can be said of
faith, or
believing, or
trusting, or
nearly every single humanly required activity for salvation to occur. This applies directly to your question, and the answer to your question falls into the explaining I offered previously. "
One may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of self-accomplishment. Another may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of utter self ruin, and thusly faith is completely in Christ and His work and merit with no divided allegiance." Notice how a different context surrounds the use of the term "faith" resulting in two meanings (hence the equivocation discussion).
The term "nuke" is symbolic for destruction. This is the connection to the opening post. The doctrine of total depravity provides the necessary "nuke" or "destruction" upon human ability and self-sufficiency. And adequately knowing the problem helps one better see the cure. As I stated previously, Classical Arminians and Calvinists are in complete agreement on the importance of the doctrine of depravity. Arminius himself has been quoted many times by Calvinists to point to the bondage of the will.
Getting back to my post, one's understanding of the will causes different meanings (hence the reference back to Luther and Erasmus) to be given to the term "faith." Why? (1) In a more compatibilistic understanding, the will is in bondage, internal wickedness is apparent and clear, and the devastation this nuke leaves the person without hope in himself; thus, "faith" is empty handed and entirely focused upon Christ. By way of contrast, (2) in a more libertarian understanding, the will is not in bondage, it is self-sufficient to accomplish (ability to do otherwise, and ultimate causal source found in the agent). Internal depravity (the corruption of human nature) is minimized or ignored, and the catastrophic effect of this is that self-sufficiency is not destroyed, but rather fostered and nurtured. This leads to a potential equivocation of the very meaning of "faith."
Hence, my response to your question is this.
It entirely depends upon the context applied to the meaning of the terms you use in your question and subsequent statements. The beginning of each statement starts with "I". Is this an "I" that ultimately is the cause of one's faith; an "I" that is ultimately the determiner of salvation; an "I" that self-sufficiently accomplishes these acts? Or is this an "I" that is dependently acting, where faith is focused, not on human ability, but upon God and His sufficiency? These radically different contexts provide different answers to your question because the context radically alters the very meaning of the terms used. A difference in worldview causes different meanings. As one book put it, ideas have consequences. The answer is "yes" and "no" depending on the context couching the terms used.
I have taken what I think are extreme measures to explain. It is not my aim to be patronizing, especially to Josheb, but I'm trying to make things as crystal clear as possible. This is obviously a matter of eternal importance, for whether or not a person is saved is directly impacted by the ramifications of this discussion.
.
josh's head explodes recalling other verses about hope)
! Why you gotta be like that? Now, I gotta go read my Bible again.
.
