The Biblical Meaning Of Grace

[Guest]

Just bear in mind that no conservative evangelical on the other side of the Atlantic considers NT Wright to be an evangelical!
He is way too liberal for British evangelicals, or whats left of them.

What is it with this board?
Arminianism, Open Theism and now the interest in Tom Wright!

What do you guys know about Mr Wright?
I have been studying his teachings since 1998, and they are not getting any better with age.

Mark

[Guest]

btw, it is no secret on this side of the world and in parts of Europe, that some American evangelicals are gullibly and without discernment, drinking much from the empty well of NT Wright and his New perspectivism, including even American Calvinists!

Mark

[Guest]

A thread on NT Wright:


http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=917

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:
Quote:
Spiritual credit held to be earned by performance of righteous acts and to ensure future benefits.

(As in, one person does what another does not do, therefore the logical diference between the two, is the one who does = receives the benefit, and the one who does not do = does not receive the benefit. Ultimately the diference lies within the "doer" and not the "giver" or the "non-doer".
Arminianism is a "doer" religion. Calvinism is a "grace" religion.
"Doer" is another term for "worker".


But what if the gift is of enormous value and the condition for receiving the gift is trivial?

Irrelevant.

Say there is a crippled beggar on the street and an enormously wealthy man tells the beggar that just down the street there is a miilion dollars for him if the begger will go down to the bank, sign a paper, and pick up the money? Would the beggar "earn" the money or would it be a gift?

The condition becomes a work, for if the beggar doesn't work his way to the bank, the gift profits him nothing. This is the Arminian gospel. A gospel that makes salvation possible. Why can't you Arminians get the point, that the sacrifice of Jesus is an "atoning" sacrifice. It atones. It saves. It is effectual.

What if the offer was made to two beggars and only one went? Would the one who went make a difference that was meritorious and thus cause the gift to become what was owed?

Yes, and if a crowd were witnessess, I am sure they would be urging them both to get up and "work" their way down to the bank. The focus would immediately be their "doing" not the one giving.

Biblical grace is placing the beggar immediately in the vault with the million dollars without him doing anything! and doing so even whilst the beggar is rejecting any such help! That is why grace is not just grace, but Amazing grace.

And:
Quote:
No view that puts any focus on "doing" unless the "doer" Is God alone, is biblical in the matter of salvation by grace alone, which Arminianism inherantly denies.


In my above example, would the focus be on the beggar or the doner of the million dollars?

The beggar obviously, for until he works on down to that bank he is yet poor.

[Guest]

If the story was reported in the newspaper, would credit (glory) be given to the beggar who met the trivial conditions and received the money or to the generous giver? Who would be glorified? Would the beggar be glorified at all or simply regarded as extremely blessed?

Same as last question only worded slightly different, so same answer.
The paper would report the story as the folly of the beggar who did not do what the other beggar did do. Therefore, some glory goes to the smarter beggar.

And:
Quote:
Any act of "doing" that leads to spiritual life, is considered an act of merit, and a huge one at that in light of scripture.


Can you demonstrate this with exegesis "in light of scripture"?

I have been doing nothing but that Homer,( Go back to my first posts here and see for yourself. The first was re- Acts 13:48 and the exegesis provoded by Dr James White, http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... sc&start=0 ) but your tradition will not accept it. Your tradition is your authority, with your reason a close second. The only look in the Bible gets, is when it is twisted to conform to your tradition and reason.

Again, John Chapter 6 is against you and clearly so. There is no ambiguity in the whole chapter, and that is just the beginning of such biblical proof regarding salvation.

[Guest]

tartanarmy wrote:

What is it with this board?
Arminianism, Open Theism and now the interest in Tom Wright!

Hmmm.

It's called having an open mind, Mark, and testing truth claims. (1Thes 5:21, 1Jo 4:1, Col 2:8, Acts 17:11)

It's called loving the truth of God over traditions of men (Mark 7:9).

It's living in the God-given liberty to think for one's self and discover God's truth rather than blindly following jealously guarded religious dogma.

Ps 119:45
45 And I will walk at liberty,
For I seek Your precepts.
NKJV

2 Cor 3:17
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
NKJV


If Wrights' work is faulty, it won't ultimately stand now will it?

1 Cor 3:13-16
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
NKJV

Why should you be alarmed that people examine the teachings of Wright? Won't God judge all that? (1Cor4:3-5).

If you have a criticism against Wright's work, why don't you present it exegetically rather than ad hominem?


you wrote:

Just bear in mind that no conservative evangelical on the other side of the Atlantic considers NT Wright to be an evangelical!
He is way too liberal for British evangelicals, or whats left of them.

and:

btw, it is no secret on this side of the world and in parts of Europe, that some American evangelicals are gullibly and without discernment, drinking much from the empty well of NT Wright and his New perspectivism, including even American Calvinists!

To me, that statement sounds a lot like this one:

John 7:48-51
48 Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? 49 But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed."
NKJV

Nicodemus gave a great answer to this IMO.
51 Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?"

Free your mind.

[Guest]

It seems most of what we know, or think we know, about "grace" comes from the teaching of the Apostle Paul. Curiously, I can find no direct use of the Greek word charis, by the writers of any of the gospels, to inform us of what Jesus taught regarding this central teaching of the Christian faith.

But did the Master teach the idea? And if so, did what He taught conform to popular teaching, as Paul is often understood? I believe Jesus taught grace more clearly than Paul.

Peter gives a warning that Paul can be easily misunderstood:

2 Peter 3:14-18 (New King James Version)

14. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15. and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16. as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18. but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Note that Peter warns them against being "led away by the error of the wicked (athesnos, lawless). And Paul strongly hints of the same misunderstanding of his teaching:

Romans 6:1-2, 15

1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2. Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

15. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Could the Apostle be misundertood about grace, at least in some way?

Jesus had this to say:

Matthew 18:21-35 (New King James Version)

21. Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22. Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23. Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24. And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25. But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26. The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27. Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28. “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29. So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30. And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31. So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32. Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34. And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35. “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Here we see the king, representative of God, forgiving a beggar of a debt impossible to repay, representaive of sins. Yet there is a condition attached. The man must also forgive! Grace can be revoked! How does this fit with the popular understanding of grace as taught by the Calvinist/OSAS teachers? Jesus clearly taught that, at least in some sense, grace is conditional.


I do no believe there is anything more plainly taught in scripture than this: that we must forgive or we will not be forgiven. I have heard it explained away by prominent "grace" teachers in various ways. "Jesus was teaching law, it doesn't apply to us". And "Jesus didn't really mean that". Peter's warning would certainly seem to apply to them!
I recall the warning given by Joachim Jeremias that we must interpret Paul in light of what Jesus said, not the other way around. Good advice.

[Guest]

Homer,

We should remember that Paul had some revelations that others didn't have.

2 Corinthians 12

12:1 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. 6 Though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

It sounds like Jesus revealing these things to Paul.

And the greater context of II Peter 3


3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.[bold and underline emphasis added]

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these

New heavens and new earth.

It seems to me that Peter is warning them against misunderstanding/twisting Pauls sometimes difficult teachings regarding future events (in addition to what has already been explained in verse 9 regarding the Lord's patience in delaying judgement).

Also, I think we can all be confident that Paul learned grace from Christ.

In Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

Haas,

I must respectfully ask what any of your post has to do with answering mine? I see nothing in it that would prove that there are no conditions placed on grace by our Messiah. Do you imagine that Paul must have received a revelation that made void Jesus' plain teaching?

[Guest]

Homer wrote:

Do you imagine that Paul must have received a revelation that made void Jesus' plain teaching?

I do not believe that Jesus and Paul's teaching on grace are in conflict at all. It all flows first from God through the Holy Spirit to the inspired writers.

Other than that, I was pointing out the context of II Peter 3 which I felt gives an understanding to what Peter probably ment by "There are some things in them that are hard to understand" (Pauls teaching on future events that might have been revealed to him in special revelation that Peter did not have).

Other than that, I don't think Peter was confused by what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write about grace.

Hope that is more clear.

Blessings in Christ,

Haas