Posted on 02/08/2003 7:43:01 AM PST by Matchett-PI
Where?
As I read Wesley, he defined prevenient grace as that spiritual blessing which God gives everyone under the sound of the gospel. The old Calvinistic meaning of prevenient grace was simply that of spiritual blessings bestowed on God's elect before they become Christians for real. (For example, preventing the elect sinner's death in a terrible accident ten years before he becomes a Christian would be a Calvinist's example of prevenient grace. This is not what Wesley was talking about.)
Keaggy has a good career as a solo Christian artist. He has even won a Dove Award or two. CD's that come to mind of his work include "the Master and the Musician", "Crimson and Blue", "220", "the Wind in the Wheat", and others. A search on Google should produce a lot of links to websites about him. If you like Clapton's music, you'll like Keaggy's, as Eric was a big influence for him, along with Michael Bloomfield, Julian Bream, and several acoustic artists. He also incorporates Celtic music influences into his music.
As for Eric Clapton, I've been a fan of his music for years, and while I know he's not always been too good in his personal life, I have heard that he does confess Christ, so I pray for him, that God would draw Eric closer to Him, and that Eric would manifest God's love and Word in his music and life. I also pray for Paul McCartney in the same way. I know Paul has heard the Gospel, and I've heard reports that he has, in fact, given his heart to the Lord. Paul is also a fan of Keaggy's music, and the two have met. Phil played for Linda (McCartney's) sister's wedding, as Linda's sister is a Christian.
Back to the article...yes, it does do a good job showing the difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism vis-a-vis Biblical Chrisitanity. Actually cleared up some hazy spots for me.
The assembly is where two or three or more are gathered in His name, and yes, error does reside in the same building as truth these days, (and probably always did). i can remember Cal Thomas (the syndicated columnist, a Ruling Elder in my Presbytery) coming to speak at the dedication of our new building. The phrase that most came to mind was something like..."Theology isn't important, just believe in Jesus"...i wanted to jump up in his face (he's 6'7", so i would have had to jump, literally) and say "Which Jesus Elder Thomas?"..."so theology does matter, doesn't it?" Funny thing about it is that his pastor is one of the best Calvinist thinkers in this nation, you'd think Thomas would know better.
Now we have to be so careful about what we allow in our pulpits and Sunday school clasrooms, that it is almost a full time job in itself. So, yes, let's define our terms before we start throwing them around!!!
You're close but not quite right. It's more "that spiritual blessing which God gives everyone at which time he prepares them and convicts them in the understanding of the gospel."
One of Wesley's very common exhortations to his preachers was to seek the "prepared" and not to waste time on those who were not.
That exhortation points directly at what Wesley meant by prevenient grace.
The distinction with Calvinism is minute. Both have the Holy Spirit making up the necessary difference. Calvin has the difference made up all the way to regeneration. Wesley has it made up all the way to enlightenment that makes the believing possible.
With Calvin, rejection is not possible. With Wesley rejection is possible.
Since absolute foreknowledge OR absolute predestination have the SAME NUMBER of people coming out saved on the far side of salvation, it is almost irrelevant to argue over the process that got them that way.
I'm more and more inclined toward DrSteveJ's statement that the believing, the regenerating, the saving, the justifying are not separated by time, but are instantaneous and at the same moment. He sees a "logical" order but not a temporal order. Bottom line....instantaneous.
We are trying to separate an instant and it cannot be separated.
This is an excellent exposition of the doctrine of salvation. What a great work God has done in the salvation of sinners. Truly, it is all of grace.
Pardon me for glossing over this. I should have said that Wesley's position is that prevenient grace is extended to elect and non-elect sinners, but not to all non-elect sinners under the sound of the gospel.
But that's where the Calvinists and the Wesleyans part company anyway.
I speak from personal experience. When you and I first met here, I believed in Prevenient grace, though I didn't know the phrase till later. I consider it a "semi-calvinist" position (remember I accepted the title "three-point Calvinist" with reservations? That I would have accepted T,U, and P, if I was careful in my definitions?), and one which was an important waystation in my gradual evolution to believing (and accepting) the full Calvinist position.
IMHO, "prevenient grace" is that where the Calvinist and the Wesleyan can agree -- that we both believe that the Holy Spirit has to open the hearts of unbelievers for salvation to occur. That' undeniably Biblical -- there's not even a prima facie case against it, unless you want to say it doesn't go far enough.
In case you're wondering, I am not abandoning my beliefs in Calvinism. I am just trying to find better ways to communicate it to people than using the old TULIP model. Prevenient grace is a good starting place. It's part of what brought me back to the Calvinist system.
I don't think very many Calvinists believe that there is much, if any, separation of time between those.
Here's how I understand it. The_doc will likely correct me if my analogy is faulty, but here goes: It's like a chemical reaction. A lot of fast reactions are actually series of reactions. They might even seem instantaneous, but it's only because because the energies are right and they zip right along from one intermediate stage to another to the products. But one intermediate stage had to happen for the next to happen. Before your digestive system can break apart a complex biological molecule (say, a protein), it must first form the protein-enzyme complex.
Similarly, Calvinists, when they say regeneration precedes salvation, are usually splitting hairs. It's not that theres this long period where you're regenerate but not saved, but rather that in order to have faith, you had to be made alive first. In order to be saved you had to have faith. And so the "reaction" goes in a definate order. The "chain reaction" would not work otherwise.
I hope I did more to clear things up than muddy the water, though I fear that I didn't. Oh well. It's an idea I was shooting from the hip on.
DrJ's logical order is "regeneration, faith, justification, salvation, sanctification....If I remember correctly."
Wesley's logical order would flip "faith and regeneration."
But there is no regeneration to be had without and accompanying faith, and there is no real faith to be had without an accompanying regeneration.
What we must remember in this is that neither of them come to the Lord with God's grace moving them to that point.
In this life, there is no one that God's prevenient grace moves to the edge of regeneration that God's absolute foreknowledge doesn't know whether they'll be coming out the other side a new Christian.
A believer gets to a divine moment where all these things come together....bang, bang, bang.
And it's that instantaneous moment of rebirth, faith, justification, etc., that separates sincere folks who all dearly desire to see others brought to Christ.
Does this speak to an elect and limited atonment?..It almost sounds hyper calvinist...
"We would probably all save ourselves a lot of time and grief if we remembered that in our discussions here. " -Corin Stormhands
Corin, you must realize that Wesley and Arminius redefine "grace" and "election".
This is the common "trick" of Theistic Evolutionists. The Theistic evolutionist (and I've been taught by one of the "best") uses all the same language the creationist uses. He claims to believe in "creation", but he has completely redefined the word. The Theistic Evolutionist tells us he believes that God "created" man. But when one understands how he defines "creation" we see he defines "creation" as "evolution". We then understand that even though he "sounds" very close to the Creationist position, he is actually turning creation on its head!
Likewise, the Arminian redefines "grace" and "election" and "predestination". In doing so, the Arminian might "sound" very close to the Calvinist, but he actually turns the gospel on its head.
Jean
"Next, we notice exactly what God did. We see here demonstrated what God must do before Lydia can be saved.(1) He provided a salvation of "by grace through faith" that could be preached. Obviously "the things spoken" by Paul were the gospel facts concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and surely this Lamb is God's gracious provision.
(2) God also brought the message of His provision to Lydia. He sent a preacher to tell her about this great plan of salvation.
God went to a lot of trouble to provide such a gospel-He gave His only begotten Son up to death.
He went to great ends to provide such a preacher as Paul-read about it in Paul's testimony in Acts 22.
It is at this point that Arminianism departs from the Bible and proceeds to apply human logic to the above truths.
They tragically fail to look at the rest of the Biblical text and see that God must do something else.
(3) God must open Lydia's heart (or give her spiritual life) so she will be able to believe.
-John Reisinger
Allow me to play devil's advocate here:
Notice that in Acts 16:14 the Scriptures record that Lydia was already a worshipper of God.
What is to prevent the Arminian from utilizing this text as proof for their contention that Lydia had "made the decision" to "believe" and only as a result of that did the God open Lydia's heart?
I think I know why this is not possible if we are honest with the text, however, understanding the desire the Arminians have frequently demonstrated to twist Scirpture (i.e. Romans 8:29 is twisted from God "foreknowing" people to God "foreknowing" that people would "choose" him), I think we need to make certain that they are not allowed to twist the Scriptures to suit their purposes in this text!
Jean
Nowhere does scripture tell us that God's election is based on the condition that God "foreknew" that some would make the decision to believe him.
Jean
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.