Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | hopalong | 187507 | ||
Hi Mark, "The Nature of Fallen Humanity This chapter explores whether the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace can be supported from the Scriptures. Before examining this question, I want to emphasize that there is a significant area of common ground between Wesleyans and Calvinists. The disagreements that we have in some areas can cause us to overlook the extent to which we agree on major doctrines. In one arena of theology, namely, anthropology, the harmony between Wesleyans and Calvinists is of the utmost importance and our harmony in this area should be celebrated. Both camps acknowledge that fallen human beings are born with a corrupt nature that is in bondage to sin, and that human beings can do no good apart from the grace of God." To read more, go to http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/StillSovereign.htm I hope to read more of this article after Church today. Hoppy John |
||||||
2 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187541 | ||
Hi John, An interesting and well written article! Thanks for bringing it up. Although looking at someone’s critique of their presentation of a view they disagree with isn’t quite the same as real discussion, it can be a good starting point. I agreed wholeheartedly with their description of man’s fallen state, and their description of Prevenient Grace seemed fair enough. But when I got to the for and against arguments, they gave a very weak “pro”, while naturally devoting the lion’s share to the “con”. In my opinion, they completely ignored some of the strongest arguments in favor of prevenient grace. Nor do they address the most commonly held difficulties with their assertions. Their first argument centers on John 1:9, the light that enlightens. I have never actually thought of this myself as rock solid in favor of prevenient grace, and I agree with them that it can be taken in different ways. But they do not include an analysis of John 1:12, which argues most strongly against the argument they present concerning 1:9. They discuss prevenient grace as it relates to Christ’s atonement without any mention of Romans 5. I find the discussion to be thouroughly incomplete without this. They present the Wesleyan argument that since God commands repentance, then repentance must be possible to do. Their argument against this is that it is theoretically possible for all people, just not actually possible for all people. To support the validity of their view, they use obedience to the Law for comparison. Even though God commands perfect obedience to the Law, and perfect obedience if “physically possible”, man is not morally able. It is possible in theory, but not actuality, and they transfer this to the New Covenant as well. But the Scripture doesn’t make this same comparison, and in fact, goes to great length to show the great differences between the Old and New Covenants. At the end of the day, they are simply saying that man cannot believe because he cannot. They have not presented a refutation at all. They have, for instance, quoted “none come unless they are drawn” without indicating who might be and who might not be drawn. Its not an argument that relates to the topic. The writer finalizes the presentation of pro and con arguments with the claim that the Wesleyan view is simply imposing an unBiblical world view upon the Scriptures. This is a common claim, and can be used equally by both sides, but not to the furthering of the discussion. Their response is, as it always is, to say that God can do what He wants. Of course, no one is arguing with that. He can even, if He wants, sovereignly choose to save only those certain people who are the willing recipients of His great and wonderful salvation. The writer warns against the “trap” of thinking that unless God shows mercy to all, then He isn’t just. I could counter with the warning against summarily limiting the love of God just to try to explain to one’s self why Joe doesn’t get saved. “Well, I guess its cuz God didn’t want Joe.” He finishes with the standard, “well, no one can really understand it anyway.” I guess he would include himself? The only thing I would add is that whoever might read this article needs to remember that this writer is stongly biased in favor of unconditional election. Even if he is in fact presenting a fair and complete portrayal of the Wesleyan view of prevenient grace, this “Wesleyan view” may not be the best presentation of this view. In my opinion, there are much stronger arguments in favor of prevenient grace than those presented. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | hopalong | 187558 | ||
Thanks Mark, I do appreciate your willingness to to approch this doctrinal division within the church by actually giving thought to the opinions and conclusions of the opposing side. I was struck by thought that we all are powerfully influenced by our pre-suppositionns. Our proclivity is to read our Bibles in the light of our established doctrines. Oh that the Holy Spirit would give us fresh eyes each time we break open Holy Writ! After all is said and done, we must embrace the fact that we are fallible creatures whose only hope is in the grace of God. I wonder how often we actually pray for those whom with which we disagree. I have to get ready for work, but will lookfoward to continuing our discussion. God Bless, Hoppy |
||||||
4 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187570 | ||
Hi Hoppy, It's very important to me to not only understand my views, but to also understand those opposing views. If I cannot be open to correction, and receiving a greater understanding, then I have set myself as my own foundation, and what sort of foolishness is that? I am constantly learning from others, and sometimes the best lessons come from those with whom I have initial disagreement. You wrote "Oh that the Holy Spirit would give us fresh eyes each time we break open Holy Writ!" I could not agree more than I do! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||