WilliamHenry9-Lyncx9: "What is Grace?"

A lyceum for debates that have been pre-arranged with the site admin.

WilliamHenry9-Lyncx9: "What is Grace?"

WilliamHenry9
Banned
Banned
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 22:04

02 Jun 2009, 07:53 #1

moderator note: The first 7 posts in this thread have been split from this thread and moved here at the request of Lyncx9.

-- Presbyterian Deacon 6/2/09



A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

I like Mr. Religion's Idea. Where 2 or more are gathered together in my name...

The church that is in thy house!

My wife and I are surrounded by churches...that teach..."God loves you"...what fellowship hath light with darkness???

just my two cents...

Bill

WilliamHenry9
Banned
Banned
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 22:04

02 Jun 2009, 07:56 #2

And by the way, when someone asks you: "Why don't you go to church?"  You tell them the truth...  We cannot find one that is faithful to the Bible!

If they don't understand...ask them if they have a couple of minutes and you will explain.
That is what my wife and i say...when asked.  We still are witnessing and praying and reading God's word.

Bill

Lyncx9
Posts 0
Lyncx9

02 Jun 2009, 10:28 #3

William Henry:

Your two posts concern me greatly. They speak to what I believer to be the very worst cast that can be given to the doctrines of election and reprobation. They speak against a well meant Gospel offer and, in fact, attest that there is no Gospel for the world.

John 3:16 is still a part of Scripture! It teaches that God loves His world and that includes the people in that world. There is still a part of Scripture, II Peter 3:9, that teaches that God does not will the perishing of any and desires the repentance of all. There is a "Common Grace" that God in His love bestows upon all. Berkof expresses it this way: "[Common grace] curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, p.434.).

The Three Points of Common Grace of the Christian Reformed Church are essentially these:

#1 In addition to the saving grace of God, shown only to those who are elected to eternal life, there is also a certain favor, or grace, of God shown to his creatures in general.

Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23

#2 Since the fall, human life in society remains possible because God, through his Spirit, restrains the power of sin.

Ps. 81:11-12; Gen. 6:3; Acts 7:42; Rom. 1:24; Rom. 1:26, 28; II Thess. 2:6-7

#3 God, without renewing the heart, so influences human beings that, though incapable of doing any saving good, they are able to do civil good.

II Kings 10:29-30; II Kings 12:2;14:3; Luke 6:33; Rom. 2:14

In fairness it should be admitted that some Calvinists, well outside Calvinism's mainstream (such as the Protestant Reformed Church following Herman Hoeksema and the Primitive Baptists, et al.) attempt refutation of Comon Grace, but, in my judgment, they hardly have a Gospel left to preach! Certainly not one that is "well-meant." And remember this is "Common Grace" and not the "Special Grace" that certainly leads on to salvation in Christ.

William, you say, "My wife and I are surrounded by churches...that teach..."God loves you." And then you follow it up with, "what fellowship hath light with darkness?" Are you saying that teaching that God so loves is darkness? It would seem so. And in your second posting it seems you are saying that in fact it would be unfaithfulness to the Bible. In fact you call that perspective "witnessing." Would you rather have Churches proclaim, "God hates you, if you are not elect?" What strange "Gospel" [Good News] that would be!

In Christ

Lyncx

WilliamHenry9
Banned
Banned
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 22:04

02 Jun 2009, 12:45 #4

Grace is ANYTHING EXCEPT "Common" Or else it is NOT GRACE!!!

God is longsuffering to "USWARD" not willing that any of the "US" should perish, but that all of the "US" should come to repentance.

What kind of "Christ" is it that wants to save all BUT CANNOT?

lyncx9: you have no gospel at all if Christ gives grace to all and cannot effect the "OFFER" towards those who 'of their own free-will' reject the "well-meant offer".

It is like offering a cookie, no irresistible grace just "come and get it".

And yes of course God hates the reprobate, NO LOVE EITHER towards them,, no grace, no mercy no anything but wrath.

God is sort of frustrated in your view of him now isn't he???

Lyncx9
Posts 0
Lyncx9

02 Jun 2009, 16:03 #5

William Henry and the Forum:

First of all I am going to ask an Admin to move your posts and mine to a separate thread because it is a real deviation from what Pam "Sola Grazia" initiated this present thread to do.

Now to reply to your last posting. You state:
Grace is ANYTHING EXCEPT "Common" Or else it is NOT GRACE!!!
This shows me that you are unaware of the meanings of words, so I will explain:

#1 "Grace," theologically, is, in general, any freely unmerited favor or good will shown someone by God.

#2 "Special Grace" is the Spirit of God operating in the elect to regenerate them unto full salvation.

#3 "Common Grace" does not only mean what is "common" in the sense of "ordinary" but what is "common" in the sense of being shown by God as belonging equally to all and is shared by all alike in is in antithesis to "special" in the sense of what is shown only to the elect.

So the words of your quote are meaningless -- they are just something that sounds cute but is devoid of pertinence in this discussion.

I do not plan to re-visit my exegesis of II Peter 3:9, but you are welcome to read it in detail and comment upon it:
First addressing the greater context of II Peter 3:9b. After a lengthy tirade against false teachers concluded at the close of II Peter 2, our author redirects address to those beloved friends addressed at the outset whom he there presumed to be believers. However he may have considered them previously, he begins by way of reminder of that spoken by the prophets, the apostles and the Lord and Savior. He knows that they must be established on firm foundation and so he begins exactly there (II Peter 3:1-2). It is only then that he can move forward regarding the Second Coming and Final Judgment. (II Peter 3:3f.) The first part of this movement regarding the Second Coming underscores its promised nature (II Peter 3:3-7). They must know first of all that the first sign of nearness will be the appearance of jeering scoffers who deny the reality of that Coming and basing their position upon the fact that all things seemingly continue on since the dawn of creation and fail to realize that the very continuation these scoffers were relying upon were elements continually kept in check by the Word and power of God, kept stored up for fire on the Day of Judgment.

Why so? And why for so long? First of all, they needs be aware that God is a very different timekeeper than man! He manages His time creation in accord with His own purposes. And he is neither slow nor slack in the process (II Peter 3 9a). Suddenly in II Peter 2:9b the motivational purpose of God's utilization of time in a manner that men seem never able to perceive is stunningly revealed! And it is exacly at this juncture that the crux interpretum (the critical words of interpretation) suddenly appear. No offhand comment such as to say, "Peter was not evangelizing or making any kind of universal appeal, but was addressing believers regarding the 2nd coming of the Lord," will do any kind of justice to an exegesis of II Peter 2:9b! The text is entirely too complex for that sort of dismissal!

II Peter 29b: . . . ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ διὰ/εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.

Literal rendering:

. . . but He [the Lord] is continuingly long suffering on account of/in regard to/toward you, not desiring/purposing/wishing any to perish but all into repentance to advance.

We need to clear away from the outset the false belief that these words are directed to assured believers as J&R suggests, entirely without warrant. (Parenthetically, however, it must first be noted and asserted that the Textus Receptus reading of ἡμᾶς [us-ward], followed by the KJV, is clearly in error, as witnessed only by very secondary textual authorities including K, 049 and various Byzantine lectionaries. The readings διὰ on account of and εἰς toward or in regard to are nearly equally attested, the former supported by Aleph, A, 33, vg, cop et al and the latter by p72, B, C, K, L, P, most misc., and, furthermore, reading either preposition makes little change to the sense.) Crucial is the intended reference of ὑμᾶς (you). Does the use of this pronoun indicate that only elect believers are intended and reprobates are out of consideration at this juncture? Hardly! Though some have so-argued, they do not read the text very closely.

Would elect, true believers, need be warned to have to advance to repentance? Of course not! The text does not by any means restrict this you to true believers! In fact those addressed are viewed as requiring repentance and as being about to perish unless they do! It cannot be argued plausibly that our author would not have allowed for the presence of some reprobate among his readers. Even if one restricts the readership ro professing Christians, one cannot exclude the possibility that some reprobate were also in view. It can hardly be restricted to the elect.

Does not, as a matter of fact the language not desiring/purposing/wishing any to perish but all into repentance to advance. set before us the basic antithesis between a perishing awaiting the unrepentant and, at least by implication, life eternal which may be advanced into through repentance? How can anyone say there is no kind of universal appeal here? That only believers are addressed? And that only the Second Coming is in view?

Clearly it is stated that God is not desiring or purposing or wishing any to perish. Clearly His desiring or purposing or wishing that all should enter in advancement upon eternal life by repentance. Certainly our author is not saying that God doesnt want any believers to perish. Of course no true believers will perish. If they are believers they will have already entered through repentance. That even though the struggle against sin is indeed continual. (For the impossibility of a second repentance consult carefully Hebrews 6:4-6.) Here in this II Peter 3:9b text people are not being viewed as either elect or reprobate a totality including both is intended.

So in context what do we have? Our author is telling us that delay in the coming Final Judgment is a manifestation of Gods patient long-suffering with guilty sinners. It is on his readers account that He does this. The Final judgment had not come it still has not. It is a sign of Gods favor. He continuingly wills repentance for all. Continuing is not willing perishing for any. Calvins words at this juncture are apropos: But it may be asked, if God wishes none to perish, why is it so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is made here of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches out his hand without difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to Himself whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. (So Quoted by Murray and Stonehouse and so followed in much of my exegesis.)
It shows, among other things, the textual error in the quotation of the verse in your previous posting. Perhaps you may note I stand here with John Calvin. Would you oppose John Murray, Ned Stonehouse and John Calvin in this exegesis? If so, then please present for us your own exegesis of the text.

You write:
What kind of "Christ" is it that wants to save all BUT CANNOT?
Are you denying the presence of antimony in Scripture? Or are you denying the exegesis of II Peter 3:9b?

You also write:
lyncx9: you have no gospel at all if Christ gives grace to all and cannot effect the "OFFER" towards those who 'of their own free-will' reject the "well-meant offer".

It is like offering a cookie, no irresistible grace just "come and get it".
This simply tells me that you did not comprehend the theological difference and utter distinction between "Special Grace" and "Common Grace." I hope from that which I posted at the beginning of this posting you discern that difference and theological distinction.

In Christ

Lyncx

PS. To Admins: This posting and the other postings in this topic need to be moved to the appropriate thread.

Lyncx

WilliamHenry9
Banned
Banned
Joined: 19 Aug 2008, 22:04

02 Jun 2009, 16:29 #6

Now, Lyncx9, I have read your long quote.  Fair? Context is king!  Who are the beloved?

CLEARLY NOT the reprobate.

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:


""The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.""

Now we come to the text itself.  Now GRAMMATICALLY it is clear in ENGLISH anyway. (which I see you have attacked the validity of the KJV Text...that aside)  Grammatically  the antecedent of "any" and "all" is "USWARD", 'the beloved' to whom he is addressing who are definitely the elect!!!  This is English grammar 101.

This goes back to a faulty interpretation on the part of ANYONE who does not know that the CONTEXT is KING!  Eisigesis : isolating verses out of context.  I personally don't care about man (John Calvin , ect. ect....)  What does the Bible teach???
That should be our question, now shouldn't it?

Lyncx9
Posts 0
Lyncx9

02 Jun 2009, 18:43 #7

William Henry and the Forum:

My so-called "attack" on the KJV is simply a statement of the fact that it is in clear and definite error in its translation as "us-ward" since the original is the proper personal pronoun, the plural "you."  Furthermore, the antecedent for the impersonal pronoun "any"  is neither '"usward" or "you," however the text be read, but is the accusative masculine plural adjective (literally "all men") which is the subject of the infinitive "to come."  Your mythical English Grammar 101 is, therefore, definitely and equally in error!

What I have given you is what the Bible explicitly states.  And of course we agree that is what is the case in point.  But I guess you are more competent to your reading than are John Calvin along with others I have cited (I could have cited many more!) such as John Murray, Ned Stonehouse et.al.  And certainly you are of much greater competence than I am myself!

In Christ

Lyncx

Presbyterian Deacon
Co-Admin
Co-Admin
Joined: 03 Jan 2009, 13:43

02 Jun 2009, 20:15 #8

WilliamHenry9 wrote:Now GRAMMATICALLY it is clear in ENGLISH anyway. (which I see you have attacked the validity of the KJV Text...that aside) Grammatically the antecedent of "any" and "all" is "USWARD", 'the beloved' to whom he is addressing who are definitely the elect!!! This is English grammar 101.

This goes back to a faulty interpretation on the part of ANYONE who does not know that the CONTEXT is KING! Eisigesis : isolating verses out of context. I personally don't care about man (John Calvin , ect. ect....) What does the Bible teach???
That should be our question, now shouldn't it?
WilliamHenry9:

Proper biblical exegesis is NEVER determined according to the english text. What the Bible teaches is found in the greek texts as cited by Lyncx9. By trying to establish your doctrine on the bare reading of the english text without reference to the original you have actually become guilty of the eisegetical approach which you attempt to assign to Lyncx.
Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Follow me on Twitter: @sterling_harmon

" 'Always uplifting...never discouraging.' -- Bah Humbug! It's not easy being a Puritan in a K-LOVE world!" -- Me

Presbyterian Deacon
Co-Admin
Co-Admin
Joined: 03 Jan 2009, 13:43

03 Jun 2009, 01:18 #9

Lyncx9 wrote:Precious though the Reformed Faith surely is as a form of doctrine, it is by no means an essential for salvation. Belief upon the Person Jesus the Christ is the one salvation essential. It is a trust commitment to Him as the elect Person of God! Adding anything else makes of it no Gospel; to add else is to become the object of the curse of God.
We are saved by faith in Christ. The church by definition is a body of believers in Jesus Christ who have been saved by grace, called out from the world, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and who meet together for the purposes of worship, fellowship, and evangelism.

Our doctrinal positions, not withstanding--we should never break fellowship with other Christians just because they have not pronounced our particular "shibboleth."

Psalm 133:1
Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Follow me on Twitter: @sterling_harmon

" 'Always uplifting...never discouraging.' -- Bah Humbug! It's not easy being a Puritan in a K-LOVE world!" -- Me