reformedbeliever
New Member
JDale said:Hmmm...From the way some talk, to be an Arminian AND a Dispensationalist is to be a double heretic.
I'll take a double please.... :-D
JDale
If you say so.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
JDale said:Hmmm...From the way some talk, to be an Arminian AND a Dispensationalist is to be a double heretic.
I'll take a double please.... :-D
JDale
JDale said:Certainly they are added to the Lamb's book of life -- else, they could not have "Their part taken out of the book of life" in Revelation 22:19.
JDale
reformedbeliever said:Not the way I read it.
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
So David's prayer and Rev 22:19 and Ex 32:33 ("And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.") mean nothing?? More likely, they just don't suit your theology, right? IOW, I am trying to stay consistent with scripture and you are --- what?reformedbeliever said:So God changed His mind? I don't think so. If you want to try to build a theology out of David's imprecatory prayer, maybe you can come to that.
JDale said:We are clearly separated by denominational differences!![]()
Seriously though, I think we are using differnet Bible versions!
JDale
skypair said:So David's prayer and Rev 22:19 and Ex 32:33 ("And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.") mean nothing?? Or they just don't suit your theology, right? IOW, I am trying to stay consistent with scripture and you are --- what?
skypair
????????????????????????reformedbeliever said:using proper exegesis.
reformedbeliever said:Is there one inspired correct version? Is it the JDale professor of theology bible?I thought you were going to share with us what prevenient grace is? Thanks in advance.
JDale said:Oh come on RB! I've shared -- as have several others -- what prevenient grace is. Scriptural evidence has been cited by those who hold to the view. You, and others, have summarily dismissed or ignored any such evidence or views that do not support or affirm your particular theology.
Sometimes, there comes a point where people are "talking past" one another. I think this thread has passed that point.
And incidentally, no, there are no "inspired correct" versions named the JDale professor of Theology Bible. I used the KJV in this instance because it was handy -- what version were you reading from? It would be interesting to compare the methods of interpretation and different manuscripts used to render these verses so differently.
JDale
JDale said:Oh come on RB! I've shared -- as have several others -- what prevenient grace is. Scriptural evidence has been cited by those who hold to the view. You, and others, have summarily dismissed or ignored any such evidence or views that do not support or affirm your particular theology.
Sometimes, there comes a point where people are "talking past" one another. I think this thread has passed that point.
And incidentally, no, there are no "inspired correct" versions named the JDale professor of Theology Bible. I used the KJV in this instance because it was handy -- what version were you reading from? It would be interesting to compare the methods of interpretation and different manuscripts used to render these verses so differently.
JDale
reformedbeliever said:I used the ESV. I use several different versions and translations as i'm sure you do. Do you think God actually changes His mind? Is God a god who changes? I don't think so. I can just see him now.......... oops, I made a mistake... lets remove that one.)
JDale said:"Prevenient grace" is not an "event," so much as a process. One is held accountable for the amount of light they receive. The fact that they never hear the Gospel does not absolve them of their responsibility to "seek God" from the revealed light that they DO see through common grace, general revelation and conscience. Even those who have not heard the gospel are enabled to respond to what they HAVE heard. It won't save them, but it can "draw them" closer. This is in keeping with what we read in Romans 2, and is another prime evidence of God's sovereignty.
"There is NO other name [than Jesus] given under heaveny by which men MUST be saved" (Acts 4:12). No one is saved by "prevenient grace." No one is saved via common grace, general revelation, or conscience. Those are all means God uses to draw people to Him. Their failure to respond to Him in this process is THEIRS.
And, incidentally, that they haven't heard the Gospel is not (at least directly or explicitly) their fault -- it is the fault of the Church for failing in their mandate to preach the gospel to "the whole world."
JDale
JDale said:For your attention, RB:
I will additionally mention several other things that I or others have posted before -- either here, or on the total depravity thread...
Prevenient grace is… a Christian theological concept rooted in Augustinian theology and embraced primarily by Arminian Christians… John Wesley typically referred to it in 18th century language as preventing grace. In modern English, the phrase preceding grace would have a similar meaning.
Prevenient grace is… the divine love that surrounds all humanity and precedes any and all of our conscious impulses toward God. 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…
Prevenient grace is…divine grace, which precedes human decision. 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.
Thomas Oden of Drew University defines prevenient grace as, "...the grace that begins to enable one to choose further to cooperate with saving grace. By offering the will the restored capacity to respond to grace, the person then may freely and increasingly become an active, willing participant in receiving the conditions for justification."
Scriptures often cited in affirming and supporting this doctrine include:
Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you..."
Ezekiel 34:11, 16: "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out...I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak..."
Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."
John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him..."
John 16:7-11 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."![]()
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."
How about that RB...? Have at it -- rip it to shreds, tear it apart...
Or try to understand someone elses position, even though you may not go along with every aspect of it.
JDale
Already has been refuted, as this can not be proven. This is pure assumption that cannot be backed either logically (first hand knowledge of a third pary's knowledge), or scripturally. If this is it, I would say that all opposition has been met.Such as .......... Not all have heard of Jesus or the Gospel. I thought that prevenient grace gave everyone a chance to respond to the Gospel? No?
webdog said:Already has been refuted, as this can not be proven. This is pure assumption that cannot be backed either logically (first hand knowledge of a third pary's knowledge), or scripturally. If this is it, I would say that all opposition has been met.![]()
No, it has not been "refuted" as you have not proven the contrary. As I mentioned a few days ago, if you are looking for scientific proof then neither one of us can prove our position. However, the preponderence of evidence we do have leans heavily in favor of the position that at least some people never hear the Gospel before they die. And though it cannot be cited as definitive proof of our position, I wonder why Paul in Rom. 1:20 would indicate that people are without excuse - not because they have heard anything in particular, but merely because they see the evidence of God in creation?webdog said:Already has been refuted, as this can not be proven. This is pure assumption that cannot be backed either logically (first hand knowledge of a third pary's knowledge), or scripturally. If this is it, I would say that all opposition has been met.![]()
The indication you mention is from second hand sources...heresay. As Andy pointed out, that argument cannot be factual, so in essence an unfactual argument cannot disprove preveniant grace.reformedbeliever said:No web, your argument is not a valid argument... as has been pointed out to you more than once. Of course we do not know what has been revealed to those who have died.... but we can have a very good indication as to whether they had heard the Gospel, by the very people of their society.
I would love to think that my native american ancestors had the Gospel brought to them in a supernatural way before they died. I hold a glimmer of that hope...... however slight it may be.
...and I'll counter that the preponderence of evidence shows they have.Andy T. said:No, it has not been "refuted" as you have not proven the contrary. As I mentioned a few days ago, if you are looking for scientific proof then neither one of us can prove our position. However, the preponderence of evidence we do have leans heavily in favor of the position that at least some people never hear the Gospel before they die. And though it cannot be cited as definitive proof of our position, I wonder why Paul in Rom. 1:20 would indicate that people are without excuse - not because they have heard anything in particular, but merely because they see the evidence of God in creation?