This is the link to the post:
Bible and Culture
This is what I wrote as a comment on Ben's post:
Hi Ben,
But even on your view of pre-venient grace, it still means that God chooses some and not others: those to whom He extends pre-venient grace to make it possible for them to make a choice. And once you allow God the right to decide who gets to make a choice, then you are vulnerable to exactly the same criticisms that you make against those of us who believe in predestination!
Thank you for your blog. It is always interesting and stimulating!
Ross
This is Ben's reply:
Hi Ross.
Wrong. God extends prevenient grace to everyone.
(Ben)
I did follow up with another comment, but that has not appeared in the Comments!
I did follow up with another comment, but that has not appeared in the Comments!
I was, I must confess, much surprised by Ben's response, not so much because he said I was wrong. Being wrong, after all, is always a possibility in this life! But rather by his assertion that God extends prevenient grace to everyone. This means, on Ben's view, that everyone is being offered the grace they need to enable them to respond to the good news of Jesus Christ. As Ben points out in his post, without it no-one can respond.
Thanks to God's generous pre-venient grace, then, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whoever they may be, is being offered the chance to respond to the good news. However, because in many cases no-one is telling them what the good news is, although they are now able to respond, there is nothing for them to respond to. It also means that the grace of God has been offered them in vain, and it hardly seems to be their fault that it is!
This illustrates, I think, the problem faced by those who want to hold to free-will and a Biblical understanding of the human condition. They need God to enable the will to be free to respond, but they cannot limit those whom God enables in this way for you then end up with a form of predestination because God is choosing whom to enable. The problem occurs because it means that God is enabling people without also telling them what it is he is enabling them to do, which seems more than a trifle bizarre.
The only way round this that I can see for those wanting to hold this position is to argue that God extends pre-venient grace when the Gospel is preached to all those hearing it preached. This inevitably means that God does not extend his pre-venient grace to all. It also raises the question of who decides who gets to hear? If it is us who decides, then that makes it all a bit of a lottery when it comes to salvation and gives us the power to decide not only who gets to hear, but also who gets to receive pre-venient grace.
Alternatively, you have to say God chooses whom we are sent to preach the good news to, which means, however generously, that God is still choosing some and not others, which brings us back to where we started.
What I am arguing is that you have the following choices:
1. that the grace of God is offered to all to enable the to respond, even though all will never get chance to respond simply because all will never get to hear, and so God's grace is, in the majority of cases, in vain
2. that who receives the grace of God is made into a lottery dependent on whom we decide to offer it to
3. you have a form of predestination in which God chooses, in some way, those who get to respond to his grace
For those taking the Bible seriously, I see no alternative to 3. Surely, it is only because we are so against the idea of God choosing some and not others and so addicted to the idea of human freedom that we resist it!
In the series I have planned, I want to think about what such a belief in predestination should look like. I hope to start after the weekend!
5 comments:
Another interesting comment in respect of predestination and free will.
Your comment that option 3 must be the one for those taking the Bible seriously in your view is revealing about what you think 'taking the Bible seriously' means. By saying this, you are elevating the 'Scripture' leg of the proverbial three (or four) legged Anglican stool over the other legs of 'Reason' and 'Tradition'. As many Anglicans do, of course, so no problem there, just an observation.
For myself, I plump for option 1, in the sense that grace is offered to all, but reject your sense that grace is sometimes in vain. Grace is never offered in vain in my view.
How can that be a claim ? I suspect that it comes down to differing understandings of what salvation is, or might be.
Hiya Ross....just looking at this thing online here:
http://conciliaranglican.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/sweet-pleasant-and-unspeakable-comfort-the-anglican-view-of-predestination-part-ii/
This is in line with your views - right ?
Cheers, KC
Hi Struans
Thank you for staying the course. I think it is more than I deserve!
I don't think grace is ever in vain either. (Those with Calvinist tendencies never do!) My problem is that I don't see how it can be anything else if it is given to people without any chance for them to be able to respond to it.
Yes, I think that is fair. I wouldn't downplay the role of tradition, reason and experience: I think they are important, but I would give the Bible a greater authority.
As you might expect, I would argue that this is being very Anglican:
Article VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Hi KC Thank you for this link. Where I would certainly agree is that getting into the double predestination thing is going further than the Bible, tradition and reason allow.
For good or ill, I have, as of yet, no conclusive experience of the matter!
Thanks for the reply.
Re-reading my initial comment, perhaps I could have made myself clearer.
Saying that option 3 is for those who are taking the Bible seriously implies that you don't think that those such as me who would go for option 1 (in a modified form) take the Bible seriously, which I think is objectionable.
Yes, Article VI is interesting. However, I don't think that even if one takes a literal interpretation of this article then that means option 3 and option 3 alone.
I'm not arguing this for the sake of arguing, but because I find it insightful to learn from someone such as yourself who clearly has viewpoints that, to me, I haven't heard before from an Anglican priest. Fascinating.
This comment from you is the one that's now got me thinking:
"My problem is that I don't see how it can be anything else if it is given to people without any chance for them to be able to respond to it."
I quite agree with this comment you make as regards your option 1. However, you say 'if'. I think that all people do have a chance to respond (outside of exceptional cases that are in some was truely exceptional).
I think, as mentioned before, that it's down to a difference in understanding of what salvation is.
Differing views on salvation usually rest on differing views on what eternal life might be.
Which comes back to one of the cores issues that Christian truth seeks to address, that of how to understand and express the nature between time and eternity.
I must confess to being a bit of a Platonist myself, which is arguably anyway the way that the early church developed.
Thanks for engaging.
Take care. S.
Post a Comment