Preceding Grace & Divine Providence - the Truth, “within a hairs breadth of Calvinism

[Mexdeaf]

Perhaps we should ask Dr. R.C. Sproul to answer Benjamin since he appears to be so much more philosophically-minded than us commoners. I will readily admit that knowing all of the fine points of logic isn't my strong suit, but I also know that you cannot twist the Scripture every which way so as to indicate that (a) every man is born with a little light within himself that just needs to be fanned into flame with a little help from God, or (b) when the Bible says we were dead in sins it doesn't really mean that.

Perhaps my case was different and I was in a "deader" and "darker" state than others, but I don't think so.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin

Why on earth would you post that in this thread and in total disrespect and disregard of staying on the topic of this thread?!

Do you not have any principles of debate etiquette at all?!

you posted the link in post 13...thats why

You guys really want to claim that you are interested in logical debate

we are interested in scripture.....you know....the truth.

while you pull these types of smokescreens in threads likes this?! Another fine demonstration that the Calvinist here have the understanding and/or goals to engage in an ethical type of debate !!

looks like someone is disturbed

Icon, I know you're anxious to "argue" for your system, but I'll pursue that debate there, okay?

I answered in the other thread, then reading in this thread I clicked on the link YOU SUPPLIED in post 13.....this is where it lead to, so I put it here also.

You seem confused.....about many things:thumbs:

P.S. you didn't even post your flippin premises that are up for debate! Nor have posted where it belongs...

What do you mean by this unwholesome speech???

 

[Benjamin]

I answered in the other thread, then reading in this thread I clicked on the link YOU SUPPLIED in post 13.....this is where it lead to, so I put it here also.

You seem confused.....about many things:thumbs:

Icon, anyone with half a brain can click on the link in post 13 and see that you have not posted there! They can also see how obnoxious you are in pursuing to argue here about that.

 

[Benjamin]

Perhaps we should ask Dr. R.C. Sproul to answer Benjamin since he appears to be so much more philosophically-minded than us commoners. I will readily admit that knowing all of the fine points of logic isn't my strong suit, but I also know that you cannot twist the Scripture every which way so as to indicate that (a) every man is born with a little light within himself that just needs to be fanned into flame with a little help from God, or (b) when the Bible says we were dead in sins it doesn't really mean that.

You know what, it isn’t so much about understand all the logical principles with me as it is about having some simple ethics geared to draw out the truth in debate. I would be glad to explain as best I could how I come to logical conclusions if one didn’t see it, but in reality it isn’t that difficult to see and people here merely avoid it for the sake of meaningless argument or avoid altogether working toward coming to any conclusions which may go against them through childish tactics and that is a very poor goal to have on a debate board.

As per Dr. R.C. Sproul, he’d probably try to pull out his Elitist card with me right off the bat and I’d call him out on that fallacy in a heartbeat~! After that he’d have a lot of explaining to do about how his views logically add up and I’d inescapably take him the mat on every issue that came up or call him on his avoidance of them. If he could demonstrate logically true conclusions that proved his Determinist System to be true while at the same time not violating the true attributes of God, His righteous judgment, and His loving plan of salvation for all His creatures who He designed with a mind to reason and held accountable thereby I would honestly be willing to reconsider my position. But, I can tell you that I have thought these things through and I wouldn’t be holding my breath for any such result
.
(a) every man is born with a little light within himself that just needs to be fanned into flame with a little help from God, (Strawman, I’d say everyman that is born into the world will have sufficient light shined upon them by which they will be held accountable through God’s righteous judgment for their response to that light - hence Prevenient Grace.) or (b) when the Bible says we were dead in sins it doesn't really mean that. (Mean what??? Question beggar! :smilewinkgrin

 

[preacher4truth]

Perhaps we should ask Dr. R.C. Sproul to answer Benjamin since he appears to be so much more philosophically-minded than us commoners. I will readily admit that knowing all of the fine points of logic isn't my strong suit, but I also know that you cannot twist the Scripture every which way so as to indicate that (a) every man is born with a little light within himself that just needs to be fanned into flame with a little help from God, or (b) when the Bible says we were dead in sins it doesn't really mean that.

Perhaps my case was different and I was in a "deader" and "darker" state than others, but I don't think so.

Therein lies the whole entire faulty premise from which their theology stems -- the wrong view of God and man.

You're 'dead' on. Pun intended! :laugh:

 

[Benjamin]

Therein lies the whole entire faulty premise from which their theology stems -- the wrong view of God and man.

You're 'dead' on. Pun intended! :laugh:

Meaningless rhetoric, once again demonstrating the truth about the typical contributions from Calvinists on this board who claim to argue logically in debate.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, anyone with half a brain can click on the link in post 13 and see that you have not posted there! They can also see how obnoxious you are in pursuing to argue here about that.

providentially that thread has been closed.You can respond here ....if you feel up to it:type::type:

 

[Benjamin]

providentially that thread has been closed.You can respond here ....if you feel up to it:type::type:

Just checked it, still open. You serious needed a second chance anyway to try to address that reasoning of yours and show how in any way it could be concluded as logically true and not false: I’ll give you clue where you need begin your argument - first you need to start by actually using your two premises that the argument is about…good luck…focus man, focus, you can do this!!!
:thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Meaningless rhetoric, once again demonstrating the truth about the typical contributions from Calvinists on this board who claim to argue logically in debate.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Mexdeaf]

As per Dr. R.C. Sproul, he’d probably try to pull out his Elitist card with me right off the bat and I’d call him out on that fallacy in a heartbeat~!

How are you any less elitist than he is?

 

[Benjamin]

double post

 

[Benjamin]

How are you any less elitist than he is?

The one who does, is.

I'd leave my card in my wallet where it belongs.

BTW, you might note, you brought up the appeal to authority issue, I didn't. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Iconoclast]

Just checked it, still open. You serious needed a second chance anyway to try to address that reasoning of yours and show how in any way it could be concluded as logically true and not false: I’ll give you clue where you need begin your argument - first you need to start by actually using your two premises that the argument is about…good luck…focus man, focus, you can do this!!!
:thumbs:

Closed Thread.....means it is closed....it is locked up.That is logical....

now if you could respond to my post....:thumbs:

 

[Van]

Hello Benjamin, thanks for presenting a view of biblical doctrine. Lets go over it, point by point and see how it stands up to the light of scripture.

First, a view of Preceding Grace in contrast to the Determinist’ view which excludes any free action of the creature before salvific Grace is applied, aka – Prevenient Grace, which is not irresistible but does enables and awakens us while maintaining God’s plan of salvation which requires the genuine need for a free volitional response of faith coming from our own hearts:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: “You” is used 4 times in this verse. I think you'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

This verse Romans 10:9 does point to our action of receiving, accepting and welcoming the gospel. It does not support the idea that enabling grace, either irresistible or Prevenient, is needed. It assumes a fallen man, dead in his sins, is unable to seek God and trust in Christ, but no evidence for that belief is offered.

A few notes regarding the view of Prevenient Grace:

“It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.”

Again the unstated assumption is the fall resulted in total spiritual inability that needs to be overridden by “prevenient grace.”

"...the divine love that surrounds all humanity and precedes any and all of our conscious impulses. This grace prompts our first wish to please God, our first glimmer of understanding concerning God's will, and our 'first slight transient conviction' of having sinned against God. God's grace also awakens in us an earnest longing for deliverance from sin and death and moves us toward repentance and faith."

Certainly divine love from before creation surrounds all humanity. But to turn love, an abiding concern for the welfare of humankind, into enabling grace is to redefine the meaning of love.

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing [preceding] us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will

Prevenient grace elicits, "...the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning His will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against Him."
“God has initiated salvation through prevenient grace, and while human beings still maintain God-given free will to respond to that initiative, salvation is still initiated (and ultimately activated), by God, through justifying grace.” "

Simply a restatement of the need for prevenient grace without any scriptural support. God did indeed “initiate salvation through His grace” He revealed our situation, for all have sinned and the wages of sin is death, and provided the opportunity for “justifying grace” via the cross of Christ.

Prevenient Grace:

John 12:32: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself. ”

Romans 2:4: "...the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance..."

Philippians 2:12-13: "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God that worketh in you according to his good pleasure, both to will and to do."

1 John 4:19: "We love him, because he first loved us. "

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Here we see that to “draw” means according to the doctrine, enabling by prevenient grace. Again a redefinition of the meaning of draw. Next, scripture does indeed say God draws us by His loviningkindness, but this describes being persuaded by knowledge that God loves us, so we respond with love for God. Enablement is nowhere in sight. Next Philippians 2:12-13 refers to our conversion (born anew) and the work of the Holy Spirit within us to conform us to the image of Christ. To apply this verse to our fallen condition is a misapplication. Finally, yes we love Him because He first loved us. This does not mention God’s love enables us via prevenient grace, i.e. eisegesis not exegesis.

 

[Van]

Rather than "Total Spiritual Inability" scripture teaches the Fall resulted in our being conceived in a separated from God spiritual state, a sinful state, corrupted and predisposed to sin. In this fallen state, spiritually dead meaning unable to do any works to obtain the righteousness of God, we have only limited spiritual ability. We cannot understand some spiritual things, spiritual meat, because to understand spiritual meat, we need to be indwelt with the Spirit of God. If we look at 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 we see that the natural man (fallen and unregenerate) cannot understand the "things of the Spirit of God." To add "all" so it reads cannot understand "all things of the Spirit of God" would be a reasonable inference looking at this verse in isolation. However if we read the passage, we see in verse 3:1 where Paul had to speak to the babes in Christ as "men of flesh" teaching men of flesh can understand the milk, which refers to the fundamental things of the gospel. So in context, the "things of the Spirit of God" should be understood to refer to spiritual meat only, thus "some things of the Spirit of God is the correct view of the verse.

 

[Benjamin]

Hello Benjamin, thanks for presenting a view of biblical doctrine. Lets go over it, point by point and see how it stands up to the light of scripture.

Hello again Van, thanks for the reply but you'll soon see we have a problem here about you wanting to go over this pint by point from your perspective.

This verse Romans 10:9 does point to our action of receiving, accepting and welcoming the gospel. It does not support the idea that enabling grace, either irresistible or Prevenient, is needed. It assumes a fallen man, dead in his sins, is unable to seek God and trust in Christ, but no evidence for that belief is offered.

Romans 10:9 demonstrates a condition that calls for a response from the person. I assume no such thing that a person is so dead that he is unable to do what the Bible says he must do! If you’re saying can person can seek God as so often commanded I agree with you, but if you’re saying this happens without the influences of God (His Prevenient Grace) in all the world and to all humankind within it by which He initiates (Providentially) the creatures volitional response to seek Him, I would have to disagree with you.

I’m not into Pelagianistic beliefs and have no need to attempt to fit that man can seek God completely apart from His influences in the world. I have my way of dealing with this assumption and you have yours. I differ from the Deterministic view concerning the ability to respond volitionally and hold to libertarian free will in the matter, but other than that, yes, we/I am within a hair’s breadth of agreeing with Calvinism on a view of Divine Sovereignty (control in the world), only I see it and defend it as Providential controlled grace not Deterministic controlled grace (read post #6) – BUT as per your view I differ greatly from any doctrines that would proclaim man looks for salvation completely apart from God’s sufficient influences or from God first enabling him.

Again the unstated assumption is the fall resulted in total spiritual inability that needs to be overridden by “prevenient grace.”

I assume no such thing as total spiritual inability, again, I am a card carrying LFWer. What you’re calling an “unstated assumption” concerns your reasoning that the spirit of man must apparently be “overridden” if he is influenced by “prevenient grace” by any way? –this influence and the following response goes to the glory and credit of God, period. Otherwise a doctrine has serious problems about the creature earning his own way - the Open Theist typical has a view of LFW to be so apart from God concerning the issues of: - IF Divine Foreknowledge, then Determinism - that their view of LFW attempts to completely wrap itself into a view of the creature being so free he can act completely independently from God.


I know where you’re coming from with these questions. I’ve had this discussion with both, you and HT concerning the Molinist view and how I view these things (DF and LFW) work together – you out of hand object my view simply because it disagrees wioth the conclusions OT comes to - I tried to point out the problems of OT thinking – either void DF or Determinism – and I’m fully aware your view is closely associated with a view of free will that goes overboard. My opinion of your evasion of the issues I raised while you refused coming to conclusions which would condemn Open Theism in those debates is not very high – and I’m not going down that circular road again with you here.

NOW LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR, the topic of the thread is Prevenient Grace in contrast to Deterministic Grace and Providential Sovereignty in contrast to Deterministic Sovereignty - NOT – the views associated with Open Theism on these issues!

Certainly divine love from before creation surrounds all humanity. But to turn love, an abiding concern for the welfare of humankind, into enabling grace is to redefine the meaning of love.

I disagree, it may redefine OTs necessary view of creaturely freedoms, including a freedom to love first, which goes beyond orthodoxy in my opinion, but I do not neglect that we love God because he loved us first – hence Prevenient Grace and my view which will hold that we freely return love to God. YOU don't believe this can be done without the OT perspective - I see that it can, whether you are willing to accept my view as an alternative to OT or not!

Simply a restatement of the need for prevenient grace without any scriptural support. God did indeed “initiate salvation through His grace” He revealed our situation, for all have sinned and the wages of sin is death, and provided the opportunity for “justifying grace” via the cross of Christ
.
Here we see that to “draw” means according to the doctrine, enabling by prevenient grace. Again a redefinition of the meaning of draw. Next, scripture does indeed say God draws us by His loviningkindness, but this describes being persuaded by knowledge that God loves us, so we respond with love for God. Enablement is nowhere in sight. Next Philippians 2:12-13 refers to our conversion (born anew) and the work of the Holy Spirit within us to conform us to the image of Christ. To apply this verse to our fallen condition is a misapplication. Finally, yes we love Him because He first loved us. This does not mention God’s love enables us via prevenient grace, i.e. eisegesis not exegesis.

I see you simply and adamantly attempting to object to the creature being enabled in any sense because of your view of overboard absolute freedom of the will which falls backs to Open Theism thoughts for the reasons already mentioned. I really don’t have the time to break down all your inconsistencies, untwist your scriptural interpretations and pin them back to OT thought along with the pitfalls therein to demonstrate to you why your interpretations fail and my line up much better. Once more, my interest here is not to contrast Prevenient Grace to some twisted OT view of Justifying Grace.

Peace

 

[Benjamin]

Closed Thread.....means it is closed....it is locked up.That is logical....

now if you could respond to my post....:thumbs:

Icon, GO - to - the - post - where - the - link - is - and - click - on - it - for - A BIG SURPRISE!!!

:laugh:

 

[Van]

Hi Ben, I did not see much in the way of a response, other than to say you disagree with Open Theism. I did not address exhaustive determinism in my post, only prevenient grace.

1) I agreed God acts first and provides the grace of revealing Himself. So to say my position disregards the need for God's action is a mischaracterization.

2) My view is not LFW, but that fallen men have limited spiritual ability which is able to respond, i.e receive, accept and welcome, the milk of the gospel.

3) The point with Romans 10:9 was not that it pointed away from Total Spiritual Inability, the point was it does not support the concept of Prevenient Grace. PG is nowhere to be found in the verse.

4) No I am not saying we respond without the influences of God, including His word, and the examples of believers sharing His ministry. Yes, I am saying Prevenient grace, the supernatural altering of a fallen person to enable them to respond to the gospel, is found nowhere in scripture.

5) I object to Prevenient Grace because I cannot find it in scripture. You cited four verses and in my opinion none mentioned nor suggested Prevenient Grace.

6) All Arminians, those pushing the doctrine of Prevenient Grace, are Open Theists, they say God did not cause us to reject or accept the gospel, He just enable us to respond either way we choose. That is Open Theism, our future is not fixed.

7) I did not suggest we love God before He loves us, I clearly stated the opposite view.

8) I do not object to supernatural enablement because I hold some other doctrine, I object because when I studied the topic, I found no evidence in scripture for the doctrine. It is man-made in my opinion.

9) To restate my view, Revelatory Grace, the milk of the gospel is sufficient when coupled with believers filled with the Spirit as witnesses, those who till the ground, plant the seed, and water, to open the hearts of those who are "of My sheep."

 

[Benjamin]

6) All Arminians, those pushing the doctrine of Prevenient Grace, are Open Theists,..."

Here you make my point, you think no other view exists that "logically" deal with the false doctrines of Determinism other than Open Theism. You are wrong, we been here, and you best just get it into your head that I've wasted enough time trying to deal with this desperate belief of yours.

If I wanted to debate with locked-in OTs I go to another board and try to find some that wanted to discuss it rationally.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, GO - to - the - post - where - the - link - is - and - click - on - it - for - A BIG SURPRISE!!!

:laugh:

Post the link where you responded...I do not see it anywhere....is this hide and seek now? Surely there must be a "debate fallacy for hiding a post:thumbs: