Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | mark d seyler | 187489 | ||
Hi Hopalong, I think, if I may be so bold, that you are endeavoring to answer a different question than what Searcher is actually asking you. While we know that all Scripture will be in harmony if we have a correct understanding of its teaching, we also know that any correct doctrine will do no harm to the exact teaching of a passage in its context. Personally, I think that many stretch to reach a doctrine before correctly understanding a verse. I think that if we focus on simply understanding a verse, that then a doctrine will present itself when we have understood All of it's foundation stones individually. There is the underlying presupposition that if the human heart is incurably corrupt, that salvation can come only if God first acts upon it, and in this I believe that you and I would agree. But there is another underlying presupposition which says that were God to act upon the human heart, the only possible action that He would perform would be to effect a complete and full regeneration. Is it not possible that God could act upon the human heart in such a manner as to permit the understanding of the Gospel, while still allowing that each individual would make their own choice of whether or not they were willing to yield to God? Of course it's possible. This is a valid alternative, and serves to address many of the objections within this debate. I believe that this subject is often arbitrarily limited to two alternates when more exist. Next the argument is made, well, look at all these people who say its not so. This is another fallacy, as we do not determine truth by head count, but rather by the exact teaching of Scripture. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I have a great deal of respect for those who have gone before me, and who teach the Scripture, but I must compare what they say with what the Bible says, and be willing to hold to Scripture when it disagrees, no matter how greatly I may respect a given commentator. Then there is another error often introduced, that of mis-characterizing one's opponent's argument, then arguing against that mis-characterization. This is often manifested as claiming that the one who believes that God allows man the choice to receive salvation or not believes that man somehow "saves himself". This is akin to saying that the one who cashed the million dollar check from Bill Gates has enriched themself by their own works, or that the one who went willingly under the surgeon's knife gave themself a heart transplant. "Well, you only have yourself to thank, so the praise goes to you!" Right. Tell me that my choice to have a heart translant has any significance without the ability and willingness of the surgeon. Semi-Pelagianism, I think, will be the label against this notion, claiming that salvation is somehow a joint effort between God and man, that somehow God's work of salvation is inadequate without my help. That God can't save man unless man permits it. But this again is a mis-direction, as there is no disagreement that salvation is entirely a work of God. What we are talking about here is the criteria He uses in choosing who it is that He alone saves. In all the passages that address personal salvation, including such matters of election and predestination, the only ones that speak specifically of the criteria God uses speak of those that receive Him, those that are willing, "as many as received Him, to them. . ." These issues must be addressed and answered if we are to have a real and meaningful discussion on this topic. They need to be answered without mis-direction, mis-characterization, and without skirting difficult passages. All alternatives need to be considered, and and above all, we have to accept the plain teaching of Scripture, even it is seems strange, and even if it means we have to change our views. Ok, obviously I'm answering more than just your short post. I will allow this to be my reply to some others I have recently read as well. Thank you for bearing with me! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187513 | ||
Hi John, I'll take a look at this article. Do you think you could distill the essence of its argurment into a paragraph or three? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||