-
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!
Wesley & Imputed Sin
- Thread starter Pastor_Bob
- Start date
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: What you are unique (not really as so many follow your position) in doing is equating the abilities God grants to all man as grace, when Scripture never once refers to them as grace, to my knowledge. If God is going to require obedience out of man upon pain of blame and subsequent eternal punishment, justice, not grace, demands that God grant to man the requisite abilities necessary to form intents iHis requirements and to perform obedience. To do otherwise would be beyond injustice.
Quote:
HP: You obviously have that which justice demands and God's grace confused. If God is going to hold man personally accountable for obedience, and will not only blame them for failure to act in love, but punish them eternally for that failure, it is justice, NOT grace, that demands God grant to them the necessary requisite abilities to understand and comply with His demands. To even consider that God holds man responsible yet man is denied the abilities to act in any contrary fashion other than to disobey and that continually, makes a mockery out of any semblance of justice and places a blight on the character of God.
Quote:
HP: We can fool ourselves as theologians if we so desire, but there is not a reasonable man alive that cannot see that to blame one for something they had no part in and punish one for eternity for a fate they were not responsible for, is as unjust and wicked as it is absurd. .
HP: Although here again I believe you are calling something grace that in reality is not, I indeed have a heartfelt appreciation for the end of the argument as Wesleyan/Armininians see it! Salute!
HP: Take a lesson from Wesley. He knew instinctively that his theology was far too close to Calvinism. You have a friend that Wesley did not have, to show you the reason why Wesleyan thought was to Calvinism. I repeat, a friend.
HP: Amen!
HP: With this I heartily concur. Our God is indeed Just!
Personally, I would not equate this with 'Convicting Grace' but 'Prevening Grace'. Here they are again...webdog said:
1.) Prevenient Grace. The saving work of God begins not by our being attentive to prevening grace, but by grace that attends us and awakens our attentiveness. The focus is not first of all upon our cooperation initiative by which we imagine ourselves coming early to God, pleading to cooperate. Rather, the initiative comes from grace prevening prior to our first awakening to the mercy and holiness of God.
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." Grace works ahead of us to draw us toward faith, to begin its work in us. Even the first fragile intuition of conviction of sin, the first intimation of our need for God, is the work of preparing, prevening grace, which draws us gradually toward wishing to please God. Grace is working quietly at the point of our desiring, bringing us in time to despair over own righteousness, challenging our perverse dispositions, so that our distorted wills cease gradually to resist the gifts of God.
Grace works antecedently to conversion to convict freedom of its falleness, and its need for a radical reversal, repentance, a reversal that is only possible in view of God's justifying grace, which meets us on the cross, of which we in time may become aware. At each stage we are called to receive and respond to the grace being incrementally given. Prevenient grace does not justify, but readies for justification, giving us the desire for faith, which is the one condition of justification.
The chief function of prevenient grace is to bring the person to a state of grace. Prevenient grace is that grace that goes before us to prepare us for more grace, the grace that makes it possible for persons to take the frist steps toward saving grace.
2.) Convicting Grace. Prevening grace leads toward convicting grace, which begins not with our self-initiated determination to repent but by the grace that elicits a determination to repent. Prevenient grace brings one to the point of attentiveness to one's own sinfulness, asking for works meet for repentance. that does not mean that works evidencing repentance are justifying works, since no work justifies, but that the threshold of grace is being entered by penitence.
Do you see the difference?
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished us according to our iniquities. ~ Ps. 103:10
"If God is going to require obedience out of man upon pain of blame and subsequent eternal punishment?"
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence. ~ 2 Peter 3:9
You speak as if God is a tyrant who is unfair in his dealings with men. The Scriptures are clear that it is 'we have squandered His Grace and Mercy in unrepentance'.
As always I rejoice is agreement. Praise God!
HP: Take a lesson from Wesley. He knew instinctively that his theology was far too close to Calvinism. You have a friend that Wesley did not have, to show you the reason why Wesleyan thought was to Calvinism. I repeat, a friend.
Well, God Bless you! I do appreciate your kind words here. I, of course, disagree that John Wesley was 'far too close to Calvinism' as I believe that 'Calvinism is actually that far off the mark'.
You see the emphasis on the prevenience and preeminence of grace forms common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. It is what makes Arminianism synergism "Evangelical". Arminians take with utmost seriousness the New Testament's emphasis on salvation as a gift of grace that cannot be earned (Eph. 2:8). However, Arminian and Calvinist theologies... like all syngerisms and monergisms... diverge over the role humans play in salvation. As Wiley notes, prevenient grace does not interfere with the freedom of the will. It does not bend the will or render the will's response certain. It only enables the will to make the free choice to either cooperate with or resist grace. Cooperation does not contribute to salvation, as if God does part and humans do part; rather cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply nonresistance to grace. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification, and admitting that only Christ saves. Nevertheless, God does not make this decision for the individual; it is a decision individuals, under the pressure of prevenient grace, must make for themselves.
This position does not frustrate nor do it struggle with those passages which suggest Predestination of the Elect. The whole of the Scriptures is taken in proper measure to inform us as to a holistic understanding of revelation.
Okay... enough for tonight. :sleeping_2:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Then your disagreement was with Wesley, not I, for that is what Wesley clearly stated himself. Volume 8 pp278 question 17
Again on pp285 of volume 8 Question 23 he states ”Wherin may we come to the VERY EDGE of Calvinism?” (EM) I will let you read his answer.
“Wherin do we come to the very edge of Antinomianism?” read his answer on the same page.
Again I tell you as my friend and brother, it is due to the Augustinian notion of original sin he held to. Therein lies the cause of his closeness to Calvinism and antinomianism.
More later. I am pressed for time today so I may not get to the meat of your posts until later. Have a blessed day in the Lord!!
I see where you are dividing them, but I don't see that division in Scripture. Where you say pervenient grace to all leads towards convicting grace, I see the two overlapping. I see phrases like "you have almost persuaded me to be a Christian" as a sign of convicting grace even to the reprobate.bound said:
I just finished reading Paul's Areopagus address in Acts 17:22-34, where Paul was speaking about their "unknown god". Verse 26: "From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live, so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us."
Verse 30: "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has set a day on which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead." When they heard tabout resurrection of the dead, some began to ridicule him. But others said, "We will hear you about this again." (The context of "everyone" is the preceding "all people everywhere".)
Also, look at the parable of the seed being sown. Some seed fell on every part of soil there is...there was no surface that seed (Truth) did not reach. That sure looks like convicting grace to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
webdog said:
Sure, I don't believe we have to necessarily create a 'hard' distinction except to say that Prevenient Grace is 'always' extended out from God to 'all' men 'regardless'. Arminianism posits 'Universal' Atonement as apposed to 'Limited' Atonement and our understand on Prevenient Grace is an artifact of that Doctrine. I would suggest that Convicting Grace is a 'later' stage but one that might be just beginning to make one 'aware' of the Call on a cognitive level. One in the throws of Convicting Grace might exhibit noticable (i.e. measurable) signs of it's effort to 'quicken' one to a life of the Spirit. This need not be defined as a 'hard' distinction but I believe it helps us to understand the experiences one might encounter in the mission field. We encounter individuals at differing stages on the journey to a 'fuller' life in the Spirit.
Yes, I believe this is a wonderful example of the Scriptures articulating Prevening Grace and perhaps Convicting and may even the beginnings of Sanctifying Grace. I believe that the categories illuminate the diverse levels of cooperation one might encounter, in oneself or in others but it might be artificial for us to suggest that their is actually a 'hard' distinction but on the hand maybe such distinctions are justified. I'm just not sure I, personally, have a real issue with your assertion.
With verse 30 I would agree that God calls all to repentance, I'm just not sure how much or to what degree individuals respond to that call.
Yes, I would suggest that you look at the different soils as differing levels of individual participation with and in the call to life in the Spirit. 'All' are given 'the seed'... to what degree that seed matures and establishes a 'new' sanctifying life in the Spirit is determined by our response and cooperation with the Grace given to us (i.e. the seed).
Great questions, very provoking and challenging. I can tell you've given this topic much thought. I'm very open to your argument. I, honestly, don't have a firm issue with it at all. If I come up with anything more I'd be glad to share it with you but I believe you've make a strong case that should be considered.
Thank you.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: What does this verse have to do with whether or not God does and or will judge man according to their iniquities or their obedience? The Psalmist was speaking from a reference of being one of the redeemed, in that God had provided for them forgiveness as opposed to punishing them with eternal separation from God that they deserved, by fulfilling the conditions of salvation God commanded them to fulfill.
HP: I do no such thing. If God creates man in such a state that he by necessity can sin and that alone, as original sin implies, and God still holds man accountable for failure to do that which man by necessity could not do, i.e., righteousness, THEN and only then is God seen to be unfair with His dealings with man. This is the absurdity that original sin implies, not me.
You seem to be implying that God gives everyone an opportunity of salvation. There is no Scripture that states or implies any such thing. God has chosen the finite methods of utilizing men to spread the good news, and if anything is clear it should be that all have not, (and most likely not all will have,) had the opportunity to hear the gospel message. God desires for all to come to repentance, but he has not provides any necessitated way that I have found in Scripture to see that all do hear the gospel message. He desires, but has chosen the finite and often inadequate means of man being used to disseminate the message for reasons known only by Himself.
HP: Yes, just like Pelagius and myself. :wavey:
HP: Wiley tries to have it both ways but fails. If God grants to man the abilities to obey by grace, and man has not free will apart from these specially granted abilities, God is indeed interfering with free will. God is seen by being the sole grantor of the capability of freedom of the will, and that only subsequent to receiving grace. Even then free will still is not free by any stretch of the imagination, for man is still a sinner by necessity, with the possibility of a free will only granted to those that happen to hear the gospel. Sorry, but Wiley is far off base on this one.
HP: As I have tried to show, for this reason did Wesley leaned far too close to Calvinism , determinism, and antinomianism. As I stated elsewhere, the grounds of salvation is Gods mercy, but salvation will not be accomplished apart from mans cooperation in repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are works God calls upon man to perform, without which grace will not have its affect upon the heart of man. If mans will is not involved, it is all of God. If it is all of God, salvation is the arbitrary choice of God to save some. If that is true, predestination of the damned is inescapable. I know Arminian’s fight against such notions such as predestination of the damned, but if they desire to be consistent, they are going to have to allow man’s will a part in the salvation process. To deny mans involvement is necessitate determinism, antinomianism and fatalism. Here again, original sin is the fatal flaw in the Arminians thinking.
HP: Wesley was again right. He indeed was too close to Calvinism and determination. I can see little if any difference between what you here call ‘pressure’ and what is plain ole force or coercion of the Calvinist.
HP: I agree, that it does not struggle against the texts in the manner it should. Truth struggles against the texts of predestination as that Calvinist interprets them, and by Wesleyan failure to struggle against the texts being falsely interpreted by the Calvinsist, it leans far too close to the Calvinism it claims to be at odds with.
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
"I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion". So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. ~ Romans 9:15-16
We should be cautious in believing we know the ways of God. How He will forgive or how He will judge. Yes, let us all seek to please Him but let us not fool ourselves in thinking that we can know who will ascend or who will descend. We cannot know the hearts of men as He does. We judge by exterior things and He interior.
This, my friend, is your error. You only see what is 'yours' and what is 'His'. You will always come up lacking in such comparisons. Learn be to be less so that He will be more. Then in our weakness, there is strength.
Every Arminian claims these two verses as the starting point of our theology. These are the foundation stones for our claim of 'Univeral' Atonement...
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. ~ 2 Peter 3:9
[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ~ 1 Timothy 2:4
You are missing the forest for the trees HP... it isn't Wiley who tries to have it both ways... it is the Scriptures.
I am always open to agreement with the Scriptures. When I believe Calvinists hold a convincing argument for their assertions I yield to the evidience. It is not wise for us to assume a particular opinion which is contrary to the evidience of the Scriptures.
Where I find agreement with them, I rejoice. Where I find disagreement with them, I question.
Speaking for Wesley is unjust. Offer us with quotes that affirm your opinion so that the evidience aids us in establishing your assertion.
Harmony with the Scriptures is the proper course. We should all seek it. There is no share in seeking it.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Please read post #85 once again, I quoted Wesley.
With this post I will bow out of this particular thread. I believe I have presented my case well enough and will leave any and all conclusions to the reader.