Prevenient Grace

[webdog]

Ok, I'll play the game...how can you possibly know that everyone that has ever lived has heard the Gospel? Do you have evidential proof to support the claim that everyone gets a chance to reject the Gospel?

Difference is I never claimed that...

The burden of proof is now on you, we know of millions of people that lived before the Gospel reached their lands, are you suggesting they heard the Gospel?

The burden of proof is on me?!? YOU made the definitive statement...the burden of proof is on YOU.

You're being ridiculous with your disordered, constant use of superlatives and pejoratives. All doctrine including soteriology must be viewed in a theological manner, not anthropological, we start with God, not man. Soteriology needs to be built upon a solid epistemological grounding in God which is distinct from a humanistic ontological base we keep seeing from our post- Enlightenment culture. Individualistic theology results in atomistic theology.

Now you are trying to win the debate using your entire inventory of gigantic words?
My soteriology is God centered. Salvation starts and ends with God.

 

[npetreley]

My soteriology is God centered. Salvation starts and ends with God.

With your personal decision in the middle. :laugh::laugh:

 

[webdog]

I don't think you ever answered this, Npet. Do you thank those who give you gifts, and why? If you believe the acceptance of a gift is the main act, and hinges the entire gift giving process, shouldn't you just thank yourself for accepting it?

 

[npetreley]

I don't think you ever answered this, Npet. Do you thank those who give you gifts, and why? If you believe the acceptance of a gift is the main act, and hinges the entire gift giving process, shouldn't you just thank yourself for accepting it?

I really didn't want to volley on this anymore, but that was almost a good question.

1. I never said the acceptance of a gift is the main act. I said that, according to YOUR soteriology, the personal decision to accept or reject is the hinge and turning point of their salvation. It is what makes the difference between the saved and the unsaved. You conveniently ignore that with every post. Edit: You finally addressed it properly in the second version of your post. However, it does not follow that I'd ONLY thank myself for accepting it. Non sequitur.

2. Of course I would thank the gift giver IF I accepted it.

3. If this were a consistent analogy, I would NOT thank the gift giver if I rejected it. I'd spit on him and toss the gift in his face, tell him to get lost and never bother me again. Or perhaps do even worse if he tried to give it to me in person. I would thank myself for doing that no more or less because I would think I was making the "right" decision in rejecting it.

 

[webdog]

I really didn't want to volley on this anymore, but that was almost a good question.

Thank you for gracing your servant with a reply...

.I never said the acceptance of a gift is the main act. I said that, according to YOUR soteriology, the personal decision to accept or reject is the hinge and turning point of their salvation.

Why according to MY soteriology is it the main act? How is it not the main act in YOUR soteriology too? We both accept gifts in each of our soteriology, do we not? Whether God gave specific people this "saving faith" to use, or everyone, WE are the ones held responsible for OUR faith, or lack thereof, are we not? How can you pinpoint it to MY soteriology that makes man the hinge? I believe God created every man with the ability to respond (faith). You believe only certain men are given this ability. There's no way you can tell me that my view makes man the hinge in salvation! Your view does the same thing, if you would be honest!

2. Of course I would thank the gift giver IF I accepted it.

3. If this were a consistent analogy, I would NOT thank the gift giver if I rejected it. I'd spit on him and toss the gift in his face, tell him to get lost and never bother me again. Or perhaps do even worse if he tried to give it to me in person. I would thank myself for doing that no more or less because I would think I was making the "right" decision in rejecting it.

Have you ever turned down a gift, Npet? I have. There has been times someone tried giving me money, and I just could not accept it. You? Did you spit on him and toss it back, Npet? Did you tell him to get lost, Npet? I didn't.

 

[npetreley]

Thank you for gracing your servant with a reply...

I'm glad you enjoyed that one.

Why according to MY soteriology is it the main act? How is it not the main act in YOUR soteriology too? We both accept gifts in each of our soteriology, do we not?

Go back and re-read Spurgeon. It's all there.

Whether God gave specific people this "saving faith" to use, or everyone, WE are the ones held responsible for OUR faith, or lack thereof, are we not?

No, the Bible says it is granted to us (Phil) and a gift (Eph).

How can you pinpoint it to MY soteriology that makes man the hinge? I believe God created every man with the ability to respond (faith).

Right. That's what we're talking about.

You believe only certain men are given this ability.

Right again.

There's no way you can tell me that my view makes man the hinge in salvation! Your view does the same thing, if you would be honest!

Watch me. 100% honest. Your view makes man the hinge in salvation, since it's man's decision that determines whether your saved or lost. Election/grace/Calvinism is monergistic. It's all God. See? There's a way.

Have you ever turned down a gift, Npet? I have. There has been times someone tried giving me money, and I just could not accept it. You? Did you spit on him and toss it back, Npet? Did you tell him to get lost, Npet? I didn't.

That's because you're talking about an analogy, not reality when it comes to man's relationship with God. Speaking only for myself, I'm know I did a lot worse than spit in God's face before He changed my heart. Yet there was His gift, available to me the whole time IF I wanted it. Being totally depraved, I didn't want it. The change did not come as a result of my own decision to want the gift. It was not of blood, nor of will the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[skypair]

Well the problem with that, among others, is that He does not give prevenient grace to all. There are many who never hear the Gospel. Now you might say that they know God by His general revelation or special revelation of Himself, but that would be to say that there is another way other than Jesus Himself. There is no other name in heaven in which a person must be saved. Not all hear about Jesus.

The problem with that is OT saints and infants, for example, never "heard" of Christ.

So if they are redeemed as saved or innocent, they were JUSTIFIED (phase #1 of salvation) by God Himself awaiting the resurrection of the just wherein they WILL receive Christ!

skypair

 

[skypair]

So after getting revelation from God and asking to know Him you think God would lie to them?

Benjamin, rb is hypothesizing -- he doesn't know how God saves these. As I responded to him, OT saints and infants fall into the case of those who have never heard of Jesus. They did as you said -- they inquired after Him. God assured them by their faith that they would one day see Christ/Messiah and that day is in the resurrection of the just to the earth (MK) postrib. There they will receive Him as Savior fulfilling the requirement that ALL come ONLY through Him! :jesus:

skypair

 

[skypair]

"Prevenient grace" is not an "event," so much as a process. One is held accountable for the amount of light they receive.

I hold the belief that God has sent His "7 spirits" out into all the world (Rev 5:6) and that those "spirits" are 7 horns (authorities) and 7 eyes (whereby we know that God sees us and we "see" Him!

Basically, these spirits work through innocence, conscience, human gov't, family,... -- the dispensations of the revelation of God. These all show us that there is a higher authority (I love C.S. Lewis description of this in "Mere Christianity") and that we are fallen/inadequate to save ourselves. This is "prevenient grace" to those who don't/haven't heard the gospel per se.

EVERYONE -- this is the "middle ground AND the ANSWER to your inquiries and arguments!
skypair

 

[skypair]

I appreciate your claim, but it is not consistent with your theology. If your decision is the hinge and turning point of your own salvation, then you have the right to claim at least some portion of the credit (or glory, as you have put it) for being saved.

Pls, npeterely -- that is NOT in good taste nor tone. Can't you respond without slandering another's motivations?

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

The problem with that is OT saints and infants, for example, never "heard" of Christ.

So if they are redeemed as saved or innocent, they were JUSTIFIED (phase #1 of salvation) by God Himself awaiting the resurrection of the just wherein they WILL receive Christ!

skypair

You do not see the Gospel in the OT sky?

 

[webdog]

Go back and re-read Spurgeon. It's all there.

I didn't ask for Spurgeon...I asked you.

No, the Bible says it is granted to us (Phil) and a gift (Eph).

So are you telling me that when you receive a gift (faith), the gift is not yours to use? That's ridiculous...

Watch me. 100% honest. Your view makes man the hinge in salvation, since it's man's decision that determines whether your saved or lost. Election/grace/Calvinism is monergistic. It's all God. See? There's a way.

Even though you will not admit it, your view does the exact same thing. Whether all men are created with the ability to have faith, or if it's given to some, it's still OUR faith. When you receive a gift to use, it is YOURS to use at that point. If our faith isn't really our faith, then there is no personal accountabilty.

That's because you're talking about an analogy, not reality when it comes to man's relationship with God.

I'm not talking about an analogy. God uses the term "gift". We know what gifts are, and how they are given and received. This IS reality. Your are creating a quasi-reality with your flawed interpretation of how a gift is given, received, and who gets the credit for giving the gift.

 

[johnp.]

skypair.

As I responded to him, OT saints and infants fall into the case of those who have never heard of Jesus.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

This verse is 'buy one get one free' as the baby John was an OT saint. Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

CS Lewis isn't the answer to any question.

john.

 

[skypair]

You do not see the Gospel in the OT sky?

Different gospel, rb -- "gospel of the kingdom." That is, that gospel said that one day God would come, resurrect the dead believers, "bestow" forgiveness on them (they knew not how), and set up His kingdom (which is why they call it the "gospel of the kingdom").

And if you think about this, you've heard this from scripture. John the Baptist, Jesus, 12 disciples, then 70 disciples preached it when the declared "the kingdom is at hand." Only when it was rejected and Christ become the Sacrifice was another gospel begun to be preached -- the "gospel of grace."

There was an "interim" period when either was salvific (seen in Acts 19:1-8). This ended, I believe, abruptly when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed (God taking away the very center of the old covenant).

The gospel of grace will be preached to these at the resurrection of the just to earth postrib. Do you what I am talking about?

skypair

 

[skypair]

skypair.



John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

This verse is 'buy one get one free' as the baby John was an OT saint. Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

CS Lewis isn't the answer to any question.

john.

Your bristles are showing johnpORCUPINE! :laugh:

"See My day" ---- NOT "see Me." Truly you are just trying to be silly, right?

skypair

 

[npetreley]

CS Lewis isn't the answer to any question.

Winner.

 

[johnp.]

Hello skypair.

"See My day" ---- NOT "see Me." Truly you are just trying to be silly, right?

Who was it then that spoke to Abraham or is that just being silly?

This verse is 'buy one get one free' as the baby John was an OT saint. Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

That must be cool then? OT prophet recognising his Master before both births? The Christ.
John came preaching a baptism of repentance and we don't hear from his lips his purpose on Earth. We do hear it from his dad though, LK 1:76 And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, 77 to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins
My salvation has come through the forgiveness of my sins, John's dad says so. A prophetic priest.

john.

 

[JDale]

JDALE , to insist that it is the church's fault for failing to preach the gospel as pervasively as it should have through the ages is not biblical . Not one of His sheep will perish . The Lord will secure the salvation of each and every person for whom He died . In Isaiah 53:10 it says : "When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish , he will be satisfied ... " . ( NLTse) There will be no lost person for whom He was not able to bring to a saving union with Himself .

In this case, universalism is a foregone conclusion. Forget evangelism -- not your problem.

JDale

 

[JDale]

Here, I think, is where the primary difference between Calvninists and Arminians resides theologically. And, my observances of the arguments on this thread bear it out...

SOME (not all!) Calvinists insist on a theology that has ALL the answers. If it cannot be explained, if there is some question, some mystery, something that doesn't seem to "fit," wel, then, the answer MUST be God's sovereignty and God is in control and God handles it...

Arminians tend to understand that OUR theology recognizes the questions, our theology figures in that WE CAN'T explain every detail -- some things will appear unfathomable or even paradoxical -- to us HUMANS. That's because GOD is sovereign, not us.

Again, not ALL on either side uniformly feel this way, but generally these are the tendencies. And, I'm okay not having ALL the answers -- I'm not God, I'm finite, fallen, a mere man. I'll happily leave the ability to answer every single unknown to those OR's among Calvinists who think they got it all figured out.

JDale

 

[Rippon]

JDALE , I fail to understand your protestations . I had said in my post that it is the duty of all believers to proclaim , teach , preach the G.C. So for you to somehow infer that I don't believe in evangelism is mysterious . And how in the world did you come to the conclusion that I believe in universalism ? Adjust your reading glasses please .