Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234406 | ||
Doc, I was purposefully trying not to delve into infra/supra lapsarian discussions in my post. I do not deny that is is a valid discussion. But I was not wanting to add to the question the layer of what God "Purposed" first. As an supralapsarian would state, the order of how it played out, is exactly in reverse to how it was purposed in the creator's mind. They would suggest this happens in the same way that a builder would first purpose a completed house and then would purpose an adiquate foundation; so then he would build in reverse. First would come the foundation and then the house. So also they view salvation. That being said, even should one adopt the supralapsarian view, it is valid to set the purposing aside and speak purely from the "building" side of the equation. Surely it remains valid in some sense to speak of the foundation coming first despite the final building coming first in the architect's mind, no? On the actualizing side sin and wrath preceded redemption, though in purposing redemption preceded and wrath was then purposed for the reason of setting the stage for redemption. Love in God is of the first order I concede. However, we ought not to let such structures forbid us to speak as scripture speaks. And scripture speaks plentifully about God's compassionate response to our plight in the face of his wrath. So in responding to DPMartin, I could try to explain all that, or for the post limit myself to the "building" part of the discussion rather than the "planning." His question, after all, was which "came" first. Not which was "purposed" first. All that being said, for your curiosity sake I will tell you that I am a mildly committed infra-lapsarian. Scripture just too frequently speaks in that order for me to allow the theory of supralapsarian, despite the sense it makes, to pursuade me. Despite what some would say regarding my inconsistency, I still affirm that the cross was God's "plan A." I grant I can't explain exactly how that is consistent. But I view as submissiveness to something that is quite beyond me as it is revealed to me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | DocTrinsograce | 234410 | ||
Dear Pastor Beja, The problem that arises is that thinking of the chronology of the implementation can put a heterodox spin on the purpose. The same thing can happen relative to the means that God uses. The plan, the chronology, and the means must be thought of simultaneously to maintain a doctrinally sound hermeneutic. I am persuaded that the Teleological Supralapsarian Scheme is in the best keeping with what and how the Scriptures reveal God's eternal purpose, progressive revelation, and its final consummation. This puts me at odds with Michael Horton, J. I. Packer and others. I'll live with that for now until I am persuaded otherwise. Relative the decrees themselves I deem them to be eternal (Ephesians 1:4), wise (Psalm 104:24; Romans 11:13), free (Isaiah 40:13-14), and absolute/unconditional (2 Thessalonians 2:13; Isaiah 46:10). In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234411 | ||
Doc, I agree that there is always a danger of things being said that are an incomplete picture. This is why such discussions are to primarilly be done in the context of the church community, an environment in which any statement is restrained by the fact that you know what that person has consistently said ongoingly. I'll just share a few thoughts though. 1.) We can't always restate all of our theological frameworks. At some point we have to leave something either unstated or assumed. 2.) I think we follow scriptural patterns when we do this. When scripture speaks of God having a strong arm. It never makes an effort to simultaneously make sure we understand that such language is metaphorical and that God in fact does not have a body like us. Rather we find such teaching elsewhere. Scripture never restrains itself in this fashion. But more to the point of what the current thread was about. We quite continually see scripture speak of God responding to our plight with love, compassion, and redemption. And usually it is in other passages that we find out that God eternally purposed to be a redeeming God and elected individuals unto salvation, the fall serving his eternal purposes to be a redeeming God. Because scripture speaks freely in these ways without theologically qualifying these statements, I do not thing we should be concerned with avoiding speaking in the same ways. Our examples could be multiplied. Do we need to make sure to verbally affirm Christ's humanity in every instance that we cry out, "My God!" Or at somepoint is it alright to assume that issue is either understood or will be covered in its own place? Is it not biblical to say that the LORD is the God of Israel without at that moment taking the time to teach the union of believing gentiles and jews into one people per ephesians four. Every wonderful statement we could cry out or truth we could proclaim at some point must be qualified by other truth. But surely there are times to just say the truth. 3.) What we should be concerned about, is that our teaching is well rounded enough that anytime somebody takes our statements to unbiblical conclusions, it is not very long before they hear the flip side of it which ought to restrain them to the correct theological framework. But as I said, this most naturally happens in the context of the church, in which God's word is being discussed continually, and with concern to the entirety of its witness being taught. In short, I think we are being too restrictive with either the implications of our theology or the guarding over our theology when we can no longer permit ourselves to speak as scripture speaks. I say this of course with all love, as I happily know that you and I agree on an overwhelmingly vast majority of doctrinal issues. And I take no offense but rather delight in your care for theological accuracy. I know that you are aware of our many agreements, but I state it for the sake of other readers knowing that they are reading a dialogue between two brothers in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | DPMartin | 234412 | ||
Beja If you noticed, theology is a house of cards maintained by the intelligent, therefore they are more righteous then others who are not as intelligent.(Rom:10 the whole chapter)You can’t control scripture, but you can create theology and manipulate how people see and read scripture. The trouble is, theology makes people ignorant of the Lord God’s Presence. The religious leaders back in the day when Jesus walked with Israel had many different theologies some more influential in the culture then others by virtue of who many have had power and influence and what theology they were associated with. For example Pharisees Sadducees. But it was the fishermen and tax collectors and thieves that understood who Jesus is. Hence the intelligent was so smart they never recognized the true Presence of God. To what good is the gainsaying of one follower of one theology and the gainsaying of another in response, when it is Jesus the Christ that is the agreement? There is no theology in Heaven, and there is no disagreement with the Lord our God in Heaven. This statement that is presumed to be by King David isn’t theology, it is his experience with the Lord his God in the Lord God’s Presence with him. Ps:18:2: The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. |
||||||
5 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234413 | ||
DPMartin, I disagree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||