|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Protestant grace
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Hello, I've been lurking around the boards here for a while, on and (mostly) off for a while.
I'd like to discuss something but I'm not quite sure how to write it down. So please allow me to offer two sides of a coin:
I've been thinking about the idea that there is a kind of Zeitgeist in contemporary British society perhaps loosely described as a form of the American Dream whereby people think that the universe owes them something. In contrast to the American dream (which, perhaps inaccurately, implies that people who work hard will achieve the 'good life'), the British Dream appears to be a lottery society whereby people are (and want to be) randomly rewarded without having to do anything meaningful to earn it.
On the side of the coin, I am increasingly thinking that we are living lives which we don't deserve* - and that 'our' wealth (from the point of view of a middle class, middle aged Brit) is essentially inherited from bad behaviour in the past.
So I'm wondering whether there is something to be discussed about the Protestant grace ethic - in the sense that we don't get what we deserve and that we do get what we don't deserve..
And about how we seem to have accepted this on the level of a lottery (as opposed to, say, a meritocracy or even an aristocracy - where wealth and power seems at least on the surface to be distributed via some kind of pattern) but not on the level of personal religion.
In the latter it seems to be common language to ascribe all kinds of things to be blessings from God, which seems to be problematic as it implies that those who do not have whatever-it-is are somehow not-blessed. There seems to be little discussion as to a) whether this stuff can be really described as being from God b) if it is whether it is really a blessing and c) if it is a blessing and is from God why he doesn't also bless others with it. In fact, I'd say that the problem of blessing is far more of a problem than the problem of pain.
I apologise for rambling. I'm interested to hear your comments.
* a while ago I read (maybe even here, I can't remember) a discussion that said that 'deserve' was the wrong term. But I'm not sure that it is. does not everyone deserve a functioning safe toilet?
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
pydseybare, welcome out of lurking!
As a long-time lurker I expect you're familiar with the workings of the Ship, but please check out the Ship's Ten Commandments and posting guidelines. You can practice using UBB code on the appropriate thread in the Styx and say hello on the welcome thread in All Saints if you wish.
Enjoy the voyage!
Eutychus
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure the rest of us do express ourselves coherently. I don't ...
Anyway, interesting points.
I'm not sure I agree but I can see what you're getting at.
It's something I'm going to have to ponder before giving more of an answer.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I think the making a distinction between Common Grace, the enjoyment of family, fitness, food, friendship etc and Particular Grace, which is the saving grace of God which is a blessing which is specifically enjoyed through faith in Jesus Christ is helpful. The problems arise when people try to overemphasise and control the blessings of Common Grace.
They do this by ascribing the blessings of common grace to an automatic or mechanistic transaction between them and God. Or they try to gain an advantageous control over common grace through adherence to an impersonal set of spiritual laws or principles. This is particularly the case in the health, wealth, and happiness teachings of the prosperity gospel.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think the teaching of prosperity as a blessing is much wider than most religious people are prepared to accept.
By the same token, there are streams within Christian tradition which fetishise poverty.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Possibly ...
I suspect that in the US at least it can also be linked to a kind of Manifest Destiny idea - that somehow they've got a special role and place in God's affections. Similar views can be found to an extent in Europe ... and there was a strain of this kind of thinking in some Victorian imperialist attitudes and beliefs over here.
Some non-Christian religions have elements of it too - with South Pacific Cargo Cults being an obvious example of mechanistic, cause-and-effect thinking ... we've fulfilled XY and Z criteria so therefore material blessings will follow ...
I'm not sure that a 'the-world-owes-me-a-living' kind of attitude is as prevalent as some claim, though ... although I think the 'celebrity culture' and so on does help foster the view that you don't have to do very much and the rewards will simply follow ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, cross-posted with daronmedway.
There are extremes on both sides with this one. The idea of 'holy poverty' can be fetishised - but on the whole from the contacts I've had with the more Catholic traditions it's not taken to anywhere near as scary an extent as it looks from the outside ...
That said, there are certainly some very extreme ascetic practices in some instances.
Most of us are fat and well fed so a bit of asceticism wouldn't do us any harm.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Welcome pydseybare.
I think that the 'entitlement' culture has been fostered over the last few decades, partly to encourage people to claim benefits they thought of as charity, partly to raise consciousness of poverty with 'human rights' legislation. Both are good things in themselves, but the negative side-effect in some of an attitude of entitlement is unhealthy imv.
An attitude of gratitude is far more healthy, as the focus is on appreciation for what we do have rather than bitterness for what we think we ought to have. I enjoy my meals far more now that I spend a few moments thanking God for them.
We may rail against God for the corruption in the world which has not yet been brought to an end in the second coming, at the same time as thanking God for this wonderful world and the blessings we do enjoy. If everything good comes from God, it's surely right to thank God. It's healthy too.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Raptor Eye, say for the sake of argument you have something on your plate that is not produced in a way that you'd approve of. For example it contains palm oil, which is present in many foods and is directly implicated in deforestation, orang-utan deaths and so forth.
In the most real sense you have paid for your meal using money doing whatever-it-is that you do, and the food has arrived on your plate via an complex economic interaction - very possibly with some very undesirable pathways.
What has God actually done to give you your food, what are you thanking him for - and by doing so are you passing off the responsibility for the bad-things embedded in your meal onto him?
Can you see how this becomes morally very difficult?
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
For me Protestant grace is an oxymoron due to its 'yeah-buts'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Raptor Eye, say for the sake of argument you have something on your plate that is not produced in a way that you'd approve of. For example it contains palm oil, which is present in many foods and is directly implicated in deforestation, orang-utan deaths and so forth.
In the most real sense you have paid for your meal using money doing whatever-it-is that you do, and the food has arrived on your plate via an complex economic interaction - very possibly with some very undesirable pathways.
What has God actually done to give you your food, what are you thanking him for - and by doing so are you passing off the responsibility for the bad-things embedded in your meal onto him?
Can you see how this becomes morally very difficult?
In my simple way of looking at it, God has provided all that is good. People share what is good, and also share what is corrupt. People hold responsibility for what we say and do, individually and collectively.
Therefore God is rightly thanked for what is good, and it is my responsibility not only to look to the way I think and behave, but also to do my best not to collude with what is corrupt, and wherever possible to stand against it.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
What has God actually done to give you your food, what are you thanking him for ...?
Create and sustain the entire universe.
The moral question is the same old one of the problem of pain.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
pydseybare: Raptor Eye, say for the sake of argument you have something on your plate that is not produced in a way that you'd approve of. For example it contains palm oil, which is present in many foods and is directly implicated in deforestation, orang-utan deaths and so forth.
For me, saying Grace before eating means thanking God for enabling things to grow, but also paying respect for the workers who made it possible that this food got to my plate, and an acknowledgement that we're all part of the same natural system. Trying to put this into practice, it means that I try to avoid food that is damaging. This is why I don't eat industrialized food, I eat organically produced food whenever I can, and I don't eat meat.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I wonder why the question is specifically about the Protestant view of grace. There are nuances when it come to the doctrine of grace within Protestantism and the wider church, and I'm not aware that the Çatholic or Orthodox teaching is different from the Protestant one.
And yet it does not sound from the OP that you are making a sectarian point, so I don't accuse you of that. But why not Christian grace?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Orthodox would claim that the RC teaching on grace is different to theirs and effectively makes grace some kind of commodity.
The RCs argue that it doesn't.
Whatever the case, I think you've struck on an interesting point, Anteater. Why the apparent sectarianism in the OP?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually if you want to look at it from a Roman Catholic perspective, please recall that one of the Five Solae/Solas is "sola gratia" and work out how that distorts the doctrine of God's Grace. Now change perspective and you will see you have described a difference between two doctrines of Grace, one Protestant and one Roman Catholic.
Jengie
[ 15. December 2013, 11:03: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Orthodox would claim that the RC teaching on grace is different to theirs and effectively makes grace some kind of commodity.
The RCs argue that it doesn't.
Whatever the case, I think you've struck on an interesting point, Anteater. Why the apparent sectarianism in the OP?
Well, here's one definition of grace that I like: Grace is not a spiritual substance; grace is simply the God-man Jesus being the Christ.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Jennie Jon:
Not really sure what you're driving at. However, I can see that there may be a difference between Calvinism at the RCC, but not Protestantism as such! for example Wesley.
However, I think that even between mainstream reformed, e.g. JimPacker, there would be no denial of the reality of human agency, nor do the RC writers I have read cast any doubt on the primacy of grace.
We could end up arguing about words.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The Five Solas originate within Lutheranism and the Lutherans are stronger on them than the Reformed. This is not a Reformed argument. However, generally they are taken as characterising the difference between Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation.
What I want you to think about is how the concentration on the Grace of God as the sole means of salvation may shape the Protestant understanding of Grace.
Wesley would be as strong on that as any other Reformer.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
I'm sorry, no offence was intended. I was just thinking about grace from my tradition, which is protestant and tends towards the 'did nothing to deserve it, can do nothing to deserve it, avoid getting what you deserve, get things you don't deserve' motif.
I understood that was a different understanding than other faith group positions, and indeed was one of the critical points of the Reformation.
I live in the UK, I am inclined to believe that our cultural identity is primarily influenced by a protestant understanding of grace. Where we are today is a culture with a weak understanding of where the cultural ideals came from, having been filtered through several generations from those who actually believed it.
But y'know, I don't think it is a critical part of the topic I'm discussing. Call it whatever you like, my person fav is to describe it as a lottery culture.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Well I don't think that the Reformed Doctrine of grace leads to a lottery culture. Indeed, CalvinistS are often accused of creating the Protestant work ethic. Even if you don't believe that, they are generally very activist and live more by the principle that you reap what you sow. Protestants also tend to be totally anti gambling.
Of course there is the overarching belief that ones overall life chances are bound by factors outside you're control, as per the parable of the talents.
The only time I suspect a lottery culture is with the sillier end of the charis, where prayer for healing is often based on "you never know it might be you're tern for a miracle".
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I'm puzzled by Protestants tending to be very anti-gambling - some are of course, but I don't think most of them are, at least not anymore.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade Constable
Anti-gambling goes along with the thrifty, careful, financially prudent attitude encouraged by Nonconformist Protestantism in particular. Most people don't win when they gamble, they lose. It's not a big deal if you're rich, but for people from moderate and poorer backgrounds - i.e. the people who initially dominated Nonconformism - gambling could be disastrous.
The decreasing stigma around gambling is probably due to the fact that most churchgoers have more of a disposable income now and don't risk ruining their families with a flutter.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I'm well aware of the anti-gambling stance taken by Nonconformists in the past, but surely in the UK at least, most Protestants are Anglicans with no such history? And even Nonconformists gamble nowadays, and drink etc.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
As I said, I think gambling has lost its dreadful associations for sociological reasons; churchgoers are more affluent now and aren't so worried about the damage gambling might cause. I know some Methodists who are still not keen on raffles, and many would look askance at betting shops, but gambling isn't treated as a religious problem, more of a social one.
Regarding Anglicans who were against gambling in the past, perhaps they caught that tendency from Nonconformists evangelicals in the 19th c. I think this is what happened with teetotalism as well. Nonconformists seem to have had considerable social influence in those days, although it's hard to imagine now.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The so-called 'non-conformist conscience' was a strong influence on UK politics and social attitudes. 'No Rome on the Rates,' was once a rallying call in South Wales.
Effectively, its high-water mark was over by the First World War but ripples can still be felt.
As for Calvinism and a lottery-mentality ... I can tease and tweak the toes of some of the more Calvinistic posters here at times but I think that's going way too far ...
As Anteater says, the closest we see to that kind of mentality comes from the whackier end of the charismatic spectrum and not from the Reformed end of things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If it comes to a mechanistic, cause-and-effect kind of spirituality then I think we can see the spectre of that in populist 'folk-religion' tendencies in all Christian traditions ...
I remember Hatless telling us about parts of Spain he knew of where people would literally whip statues of St Anthony if he failed to find them their lost car keys etc ...
You can find examples of this sort of daftness all ways round and there are equivalents of it across the board ... among Pentecostals and evangelicals, among Catholics and Orthodox ... heck, I suspect we all operate within an iffy paradigm to some extent or other ... I'd argue that these were natural human tendencies and responses and that it's the role of theology and so on to correct or redirect them in a more appropriate direction.
BTW - I like that definition of grace you've given there daronmedway ....
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daron medway
I think the making a distinction between Common Grace, the enjoyment of family, fitness, food, friendship etc and Particular Grace, which is the saving grace of God which is a blessing which is specifically enjoyed through faith in Jesus Christ is helpful. The problems arise when people try to overemphasise and control the blessings of Common Grace.
They do this by ascribing the blessings of common grace to an automatic or mechanistic transaction between them and God. Or they try to gain an advantageous control over common grace through adherence to an impersonal set of spiritual laws or principles. This is particularly the case in the health, wealth, and happiness teachings of the prosperity gospel.
God's grace is not divided, and there is no biblical warrant for creating these artificial categories. God's nature is undivided and gracious. He gives grace to all people with a view to the salvation of every soul. The idea that God gives "common grace" to any person, whom he does not wish to save, is tantamount to turning the grace of God into a form of mockery: "I am going to toy and play with you in this life with transitory blessings, before I send you to hell (which you had no hope of avoiding according to my inscrutable and eternal decree)." It's a bit like a cat playing with a mouse in a seemingly friendly manner before ripping it apart and devouring it.
But let's turn away from artificial distinctions constructed to prop up an incoherent theological system, and let us turn to the Word of God. Here it says... Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (Rom. 2:4).
"Common grace" has a spiritual purpose... it is designed to lead people to repentance. Therefore God desires that any recipient of His 'goodness' should repent. Now why would that be, if God didn't want a good chunk of humanity to repent, because of some inscrutable decree of reprobation?
In other words, so called "common grace" is a subset of "saving grace". It works alongside "prevenient grace" (which is biblical, as this is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit - see John 16:8, for example).
Grace is simply grace. It may be manifested in different ways, but it is essentially the same thing, because it flows from the One whose purpose and character is undivided and non-discriminatory.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But let's turn away from artificial distinctions constructed to prop up an incoherent theological system, and let us turn to the Word of God. Here it says... Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (Rom. 2:4).
That'll be the Words of Paul (or whoever actually wrote Romans) rather than the Word of God.
Personally, I'm rather sick of people trying to bludgeon me with their favourite bible verses. The bible wasn't written like that. Stop trying to take small parts of it out of context, please.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
pydseybare, this thread is not the place to discuss who wrote Romans or whether "the words of Paul" and "the Word of God" are mutually exclusive concepts.
You are free to dislike how other posters quote Scripture, but your disagreement needs to engage with the issue, not the person, and stay on topic - the one you started. Thank you.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Since you're not quite at Shipmate status, I'll post some more explanation here.
There's no problem with responding relevantly to people, but the nature of your response is threatening to start a major tangent on what constitutes the Word of God.
As far as I can see, this has nothing immediately to do with the topic of protestant grace and is venturing close to a discussion of Biblical inerrancy, which belongs in Dead Horses.
The aim of my intervention was to keep this thread on topic and on this board, where it belongs at present (and where you as OPer presumably wish to see it stay).
Complaining about how other people quote Scripture is not the same thing as responding to their argument, either. You can present a different approach and explain what you think is wrong with theirs without taking swipes at them in passing.
That said, for future reference, if you wish to question a hostly ruling, the place to do so is the Styx: and my previous intervention above continues to apply.
/hosting
[ 19. December 2013, 10:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
Personally, I'm rather sick of people trying to bludgeon me with their favourite bible verses. The bible wasn't written like that. Stop trying to take small parts of it out of context, please.
You can be as sick as you like, as far as I am concerned. I am not trying to 'bludgeon' you or anyone, but expressing my point of view. I certainly believe that I am taking Paul's words in context, and that Romans is part of the Word of God.
If you don't like that... tough.
[ 19. December 2013, 10:16: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by daron medway
I think the making a distinction between Common Grace, the enjoyment of family, fitness, food, friendship etc and Particular Grace, which is the saving grace of God which is a blessing which is specifically enjoyed through faith in Jesus Christ is helpful. The problems arise when people try to overemphasise and control the blessings of Common Grace.
They do this by ascribing the blessings of common grace to an automatic or mechanistic transaction between them and God. Or they try to gain an advantageous control over common grace through adherence to an impersonal set of spiritual laws or principles. This is particularly the case in the health, wealth, and happiness teachings of the prosperity gospel.
God's grace is not divided, and there is no biblical warrant for creating these artificial categories. God's nature is undivided and gracious. He gives grace to all people with a view to the salvation of every soul. The idea that God gives "common grace" to any person, whom he does not wish to save, is tantamount to turning the grace of God into a form of mockery: "I am going to toy and play with you in this life with transitory blessings, before I send you to hell (which you had no hope of avoiding according to my inscrutable and eternal decree)." It's a bit like a cat playing with a mouse in a seemingly friendly manner before ripping it apart and devouring it.
But let's turn away from artificial distinctions constructed to prop up an incoherent theological system, and let us turn to the Word of God. Here it says... Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (Rom. 2:4).
"Common grace" has a spiritual purpose... it is designed to lead people to repentance. Therefore God desires that any recipient of His 'goodness' should repent. Now why would that be, if God didn't want a good chunk of humanity to repent, because of some inscrutable decree of reprobation?
In other words, so called "common grace" is a subset of "saving grace". It works alongside "prevenient grace" (which is biblical, as this is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit - see John 16:8, for example).
Grace is simply grace. It may be manifested in different ways, but it is essentially the same thing, because it flows from the One whose purpose and character is undivided and non-discriminatory.
If grace - as I've already said - is simply the God-man Jesus being the Christ, then what you say has some warrant. The term common grace is simply a term to describe the teaching of Jesus recorded in Matthew 5:45, where he says that [The Father] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
So, there are aspects of the grace of God which are "common" to all people, like enjoying rain and sunshine, and there are other aspects of grace which are "particular" to Christians such as salvation, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the charismata. Hence the terms "common" and "particular" grace. I'm really quite surprised that you'd object to this suggestion as unbiblical. Is it at all possible that you're manufacturing an objection because you want to have another pop at Augustinian soteriology?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
Is it at all possible that you're manufacturing an objection because you want to have another pop at Augustinian soteriology?
Let me put it this way...
If the distinction between "common grace" and "particular grace" is understood on the basis of a soteriology in which God desires all people to be saved, and works towards that end, then I would agree that there is no problem with it.
However, if this distinction has been 'manufactured' (to use your word) by those who are trying to prop up a view of God, in which he blesses some people whom he does not wish to save, then it's completely unacceptable.
If you want to interpret that as a case of my having a pop at Augustinian soteriology, then so be it. But I am just concerned to know what the presuppositions are that lie behind the use of this distinction. It really does matter...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
ISTM, that your view grossly underestimates both the gravity of sin and the holiness of God. Unbelieving humanity does what it wants: and it wants sin. It is not in a neutral state. It is under the righteous sentence of death. There's nothing unfair about that. However, anything good that unbelieving humanity experiences and enjoys has come from God by virtue of the fact that all things come from God. The fact that unbelieving humanity refuses to glorify God for this good rightly places them further under his wrath and indignation.
[ 21. December 2013, 10:07: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So, presumably, daronmedway, you would argue that those Christian traditions which are less Augustinian in their approach take a less stringent view of sin and the holiness of God than those from a more Augustinian perspective?
I once suggested as much to an Orthodox priest and he thought it was a preposterous suggestion. As well he might, you could say.
But I don't see how ExclamationMark is necessarily deficient in his understanding of the gravity of sin or the holiness of God because he takes a different view to you on this issue.
How does that follow?
One might as well argue that you have a deficient view of God's love because you hold to an Augustinian position and possibly to a whopping Big L in the middle TULIP one too ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, presumably, daronmedway, you would argue that those Christian traditions which are less Augustinian in their approach take a less stringent view of sin and the holiness of God than those from a more Augustinian perspective?
Yes, I would. I don't think they fully appreciate the enslaving power of sin and the fatal effect that sin has upon the human will with regard to its ability to respond positively to God's love.
quote:
I once suggested as much to an Orthodox priest and he thought it was a preposterous suggestion. As well he might, you could say.
And yet I remain unmoved.
quote:
But I don't see how ExclamationMark is necessarily deficient in his understanding of the gravity of sin or the holiness of God because he takes a different view to you on this issue.
I think the deficiency of EE's view rests on a poor handling of scripture, not simply on it's divergence from mine.
quote:
One might as well argue that you have a deficient view of God's love because you hold to an Augustinian position and possibly to a whopping Big L in the middle TULIP one too ...
Yes, one might.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And yet I remain unmoved.
If EE's handling of scripture is deficient then it's no more deficient than yours, surely. Because ultimately all of us are wearing lenses through which we view the scriptures and you're simply wearing a different set of specs to those that EE or anyone else might happen to be wearing.
I thought you'd say what you did in response to my comments ... and that's fine.
But I don't like the tone. But that's another issue.
We're all entitled to believe that we have the right 'take' on things, that Orthodox priest just as much as you or I.
I wouldn't be as dogmatic as either of you, but that's another issue.
I can see what you're getting at and can understand the thing about the enslavement of the will to sin and so on ... but I'm not sure that other traditions necessarily have a 'lighter' view of sin or the causes and consequences of sin - 'tough on sin, tough on the causes of sin' - but I would suggest that the less Augustinian traditions have a view that might be seen as more compassionate - sin as a sickness that needs to be healed rather than a juridical infringement that needs to be punished.
Both aspects can be justified by recourse to scripture. The weight we put on each depends on what lenses we are wearing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
ISTM, that your view grossly underestimates both the gravity of sin and the holiness of God. Unbelieving humanity does what it wants: and it wants sin. It is not in a neutral state. It is under the righteous sentence of death. There's nothing unfair about that.
Of course it's grotesquely unfair, if you are reasoning on the basis of original sin, in which everyone is forced to have a sin nature by reason of the fall.
Did you choose to have a sin nature? Did you choose to come into a fallen world? No! Not according to Reformed theology, you didn't.
The only way God's judgment could conceivably be fair is if everyone has been given the power to live righteous lives reasonably easily, and they deliberately and wilfully choose not to (as in the vineyard of Isaiah 5), whereas they can choose to do what is right. Any other idea of 'justice' cannot possibly be 'fair' by any stretch of the imagination.
Therefore God only judges people on the basis of what He has already given them by His grace - and by that I mean the kind of grace that enables people to live lives pleasing to Him. He does not judge people for what they cannot help doing (this is an obvious truth that Calvinists - and many Arminians - seem perversely unwilling to accept). I could quote many biblical texts to support this view, but I've got to go out in a minute, so some other time...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whoops, I meant EE and not ExclamationMark.
Incidentally, I'm not defending EE's use of scripture which does tend to far towards the proof-texting approach IMHO ... but I don't want to focus on that as I don't want to fall out with him.
I'm not sure I have a particular dog in this fight. I think that both the Calvinist and Arminian views on these things have strengths and weaknesses and that to take either of them to their logical conclusion involves stretching things to the limit in hermeneutical terms.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Incidentally, I'm not defending EE's use of scripture which does tend to far towards the proof-texting approach IMHO ...
I'm glad you put "IMHO".
I certainly quote Scripture. That is not the same as proof-texting. If it can be shown - by proper argument - that I am taking these references out of context, then this claim has merit.
I must admit - IMHO - that there is quite a lot of the other extreme on the Ship: the moment someone quotes a Bible reference or passage, someone seems to pop to say something to the effect that the Bible is not really relevant, and you can't relate one part of Scripture to another. It seems to me that we cannot have a sensible discussion about hermeneutics and exegesis unless we first establish how we view the Bible. Otherwise we will always be talking at cross purposes.
By the way... to hear a Calvinist, such as our friend on this thread, tell me that my handling of the Bible is 'deficient' really does "take the biscuit". Calvinists are notorious for their hermeneutical acrobatics and contortions, to make the Scripture fit their preconceived system, so it's difficult to take such a criticism seriously.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'd agree with you there, EE and I used to be fairly Calvinist in my views.
I never quite signed up for the Capital L in TULIP, though ... I may have been a tad TU IP or sometimes 'l' - TUlIP ...
So I s'pose 'true' Calvinists would say that I was never properly Calvinist at all.
Which of course makes me into one of those wicked, evil people who doesn't take sin sufficiently seriously nor the holiness of God ...
I'm probably trying to be saved by my own works too ...
It's the binariness of it that I have a problem with. At least, at its more binary end.
But binariness - like proof-texting - can be in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, I did qualify my comments about proof-texting with an 'IMHO' - partly because I don't believe that you always do it and partly because I'm prepared to accept that I might be mistaken on some (if not most) of the occasions I suspect you of it.
What I would say, and again, this is purely subjective, is that I don't always think that your posts are as logically put and argued as you appear to think they are ... but then, that applies equally to me and I'm sure to many other posters too.
Increasingly, though, I do find the standard kind of Calvinist vs Arminian debates a bit of a yawn ... there are scriptures we can cite to support both sides and others which support neither side.
I'm not a relativist ... Truth is Truth is Truth ... but none of these entrenched positions on predestination, free-will and exactly how the whole soteriology thing works out strike me as having water-tight scriptural catch-all support.
For every proof-text that a Calvinist can produce an Arminian can produce one that appears to contradict it. And vice-versa.
Which is one of the reasons why I've lost patience with both sides on that particular debate.
That said, I certainly believe that the Reformed tradition has a lot to offer. I tease the Calvinists here at times but I certainly don't believe that their theology turns them into heartless, callous monsters.
Any firm or inflexible belief can be at once attractive and repulsive. Take IngoB, for instance. In some ways I admire his principled stance. In other ways I abhor his conclusions.
Same on this issue. I admire daronmedway, Zach82 and the other Calvinists here for their holding strongly to their views ... but I find the logical conclusions of some of those views rather unpalatable.
So do they. But they appear to be able to 'switch-off' of disassociate themselves from that ... and this is where the binariness comes in.
As though to back down on any petal of TULIP is to assert salvation by works or in some way insult the God of all grace.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
Did someone say...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"take the biscuit"
How can I be of service?
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
ISTM, that your view grossly underestimates both the gravity of sin and the holiness of God. Unbelieving humanity does what it wants: and it wants sin. It is not in a neutral state. It is under the righteous sentence of death. There's nothing unfair about that.
Of course it's grotesquely unfair, if you are reasoning on the basis of original sin, in which everyone is forced to have a sin nature by reason of the fall.
Did you choose to have a sin nature? Did you choose to come into a fallen world? No! Not according to Reformed theology, you didn't.
The only way God's judgment could conceivably be fair is if everyone has been given the power to live righteous lives reasonably easily, and they deliberately and wilfully choose not to (as in the vineyard of Isaiah 5), whereas they can choose to do what is right. Any other idea of 'justice' cannot possibly be 'fair' by any stretch of the imagination.
Therefore God only judges people on the basis of what He has already given them by His grace - and by that I mean the kind of grace that enables people to live lives pleasing to Him. He does not judge people for what they cannot help doing (this is an obvious truth that Calvinists - and many Arminians - seem perversely unwilling to accept). I could quote many biblical texts to support this view, but I've got to go out in a minute, so some other time...
I thought you were some kind of militant Arminian but I realise now that you are a fully fledged Pelagian. And if that's the case then I'm not convinced that you even understand the gospel in an orthodox sense.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
That's rather medieval, daronmedway (albeit without the burning at the stake) - you raise the spectre of heresy but don't actually engage with what EE said. Crying 'Heresy!' isn't much of an argument...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
