I believe the scriptures reveal a better way than this idea of Total inability.
You don't see any strong objections to this OP ?Who is attacking this?
PREVENIENT GRACE: AN ARMINIAN ERROR
- Thread starter throughfaith
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I hear you. But in thread after thread, posting after posting, you do not ever lay down precise argument carried to its logical end. You either ignore your opponent's argument, and/or post verse that do not contain wording commensurate with your claims. Each scripture is designed and put in place by a Mastermind to make a point that can be used to explain other points. All this though remains true to the immediate context and the broader context. It is a masterpeice of puzzle-building and puzzle solving. Man can only do one thing. Read it carefully through, with prayer, and stick to the rules of that language in which it was written. The rest must light from the Writer.
And my experience is that if you are true to what is said, you receive more light. The minute you formulate your own theory you get a warning. This warning is that if you follow the argument to its logical end you get into a mire of contradiction and absurdities. If you do not back off and retrace your steps, and you still force something clearly wrong, God starts to shut off the light. This is what happened to Israel at His First Coming. Our Lord Jesus hurt no one, spoke graciously, healed and enlivened, and fulfilled a multitude of prophecies. Yet the Jews still called Him into question. So our Lord taught only in Parables. He turned off the light for those who ignored the truth of the matter.
Each of us starts on journey in God's Word. It is unavoidable that the average human mind will hold certain concepts. But just as the learning process is as a child, for a profession, and in life, we must adapt our thinking to what is reality - NOT make our own reality. I admit that the level of teaching in the average Local Assembly is low. In Hebrews 5 going into Chapter 6, six things are mentioned as BASICS of our Christian Faith, and that we should leave them behind and move onto maturity. But if you test all the posters on this Forum, you will find 80% unsure of these six things. What does that tell us? It tells us that the level of teaching is very low in general. And this inadequate level of teaching leaves the average Christian mind in vacuum which, because nature abhors a vacuum, will fill itself with other things.
The correct way to deal with an argument that differs from yours, is to analyze it and decide, (i) does it have merit, (ii) did it make a mistake as to God's exact Word, (iii) where it is wrong, and (iv) what is the correct understanding. If it has merit it must be considered. It it went wrong this must able to be pointed out. And, after all, the correct thing must be shown. Just because it is new, or you haven't heard it before, does not make it automatically wrong. It must be investigated.
It's tough to hold a belief for a decade or more, and then have to change it, especially for the male species. But I am optimistic. I think TF is mulling the new views. He is not on this Forum because he isn't interested in God's Word. And while I'm saying this, a still small voice is telling me to watch out because the Bible is a big and complex record of a mysterious God, and I, by far, do not know everything. These exchanges are very profitable for all, IF we can get past our own concepts.
its good to get to heart of the matter . How we read and understand the bible is key .
You are mixing two things. We are discussing the inward revelation that a man comes to the knowledge of Who Christ is. This is very different from Paul being "taught". Consider Paul's words as he is struck off his horse in Acts 9:4-5. In verse 4, "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" But in verse 5 Paul says a strange thing; "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? ... ." Is this not at best an anomaly, and at worst a contradiction? Paul calls Him "LORD" but asks Him "WHO ARE YOU?" If he knew it was the Lord, why ask? And if he didn't know, why call Him "Lord". I believe the answer is in the last part of the sentence
"... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."
Now, a "prick" is another name for a "cattle goad". It is used to get a stubborn cow to plunge into a anti-parasite bath. This all means that Paul was persecuting, interring and consenting to the killing of Christian while something was "pricking" him like a cattle goad. What was pricking Paul? It was the revelation that Christ was the Messiah. That's is why he straightaway called Him "Lord". The grammar of, "... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks", indicates Paul had been resisting the "pricks" for some time. A stubborn bull standing on the threshold of cattle dip, will, at first, do everything in his power not to jump into the stinking ant-pest water, including trying to backward kick the cow-boy with the goad.
It would seem that Paul, Pharisee who knew all the prophecies that Jesus had fulfilled, student of Gamaliel who taught to reason things out, already knew who Jesus was, but was RESISTING IT. This is a totally different revelation the what was REVEALED in the 14 years he was taught by Jesus and not men (2nd Cor.12:1, 7; Gal.1:12, 2:2).
The short of it is that Paul knew that Jesus was Who He was while still persecuting Christians! How? By the same revelation that Peter had in Matthew 16. Not a dream, not a vision, but something that dawns on your inner understanding.
hey were all learning. I don't claim to be the best person at explaining things . Thats often the hardest part. Explaining what you mean .
What happens is we've been sermonised to death . It starts with a verse or a theme and we glean ethereal ' wisdom' on what we can ' learn ' from this one verse and how it apply s in a general Liberal sense, because the man at the front had it placed on his heart after breakfast that morning. Yet when we actually read the text it says nothing of the sort .
This ' inner ' revelation? Which verses ? call me pedantic if you must but we have a great deal of Jargon that slips under the Radar that needs clarifying.
There are 2 callings: Gospel and vocational, not inward or outward or effectual or ineffectual, etc… (2 Thess. 2:14; Eph. 4:1; Rom. 8:28; 2 Cor. 5:20)
B
Blackpowderduelist
Guest
Prevevient Grace is a better concept than irresistible Grace although not altogether accurate.
I really haven't put together my thoughts on this completely yet, but I will try to explain what I mean.
Upon hearing the Gospel of truth the Holy Spirit begins a work of conviction that weighs against the will of the human. (The human will only serves to resist the gospel and God) some will muster up resistance and reinforce their resistance, but others their will breaks and they submit, and grace enters in by the word of the gospel (thus some plant, some water, and some harvest) and convinces of Jesus and this human who has under the weight of conviction is broken and now convinced, repents and believes. Now this person is regenerate and becomes joined to Christ in baptism sealing them in Christ's death burial and resurrection by the Holy Ghost.
But the man who rejects hardens his heart and becomes bitter in his conviction, reinforcing his rejection and unless his will be broken he will die in it and be damned.
This is how I see it from the Bible.
I don't see irresistible Grace at all, I do see many reject grace, and many broken under the weight of conviction, or as scripture describes as cut through the heart.
I really haven't put together my thoughts on this completely yet, but I will try to explain what I mean.
Upon hearing the Gospel of truth the Holy Spirit begins a work of conviction that weighs against the will of the human. (The human will only serves to resist the gospel and God) some will muster up resistance and reinforce their resistance, but others their will breaks and they submit, and grace enters in by the word of the gospel (thus some plant, some water, and some harvest) and convinces of Jesus and this human who has under the weight of conviction is broken and now convinced, repents and believes. Now this person is regenerate and becomes joined to Christ in baptism sealing them in Christ's death burial and resurrection by the Holy Ghost.
But the man who rejects hardens his heart and becomes bitter in his conviction, reinforcing his rejection and unless his will be broken he will die in it and be damned.
This is how I see it from the Bible.
I don't see irresistible Grace at all, I do see many reject grace, and many broken under the weight of conviction, or as scripture describes as cut through the heart.
B
Blackpowderduelist
Guest
Accurate assessment of many sermons.
Even worse they contort the passage to make the message they want to pontificate upon.
Our faith is indeed activated by the hearing of the Word of God, but not all that hear believe. Why?
Are those of us who believe smarter, wiser, better people than those who do not believe?
That sounds like boasting to me!
Activated ?
Conviction of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, but occurs to sinners alike, regardless of consequent faith or unbelief. It is not irresistible or unconditionally selective. (Jn. 16:7-11)
B
Blackpowderduelist
Guest
This is really a discussion about the ordo salutis. I tend to lean toward the confessional orthodox formula.
Absolutely! You won a big one there. I assumed something - that to fall to the ground presumes that you are not on the ground, but elevated. But there was no evidence of a horse. Hopefully it is not only a lesson for me, but for all, that we can so easily insert understanding into scripture that is not warranted.
My bad.
Was my appreciation of verse 5 unreasonable? If so, say why, and give yours.
This happens a lot on this Forum I'll agree. But if we are true to language and its rules, we can sometimes glean something from what is not said. When the thief next to our Lord Jesus said; "Remember me when you come into your Kingdom", our Lord answered NOT A WORD about a KINGDOM. It changes the face of the conversation drastically. When Jehovah Elohim said, in Genesis 3:22, that, "in case Adam ALSO ate from the Tree of Life ... ", it is implied, but not said, that he had, until then, not eaten from this Tree.
This little bit of unsaid information changes the whole picture of Adam's fall. It puts Adam's rebellion further back that his actual eating from the Tree of Knowledge of God and Evil. He was "commanded" to eat from the Tree of Life, but did not. There is the root of the problem. In the end it becomes obvious that it was something that Adam DIDN'T DO that caused the whole mess.
But, of course, no-one forces you to accept this aid to understanding language.