The Word "Grace"

Comments 18

1. Good Heavens!!! The “Bitter Pastor” is indeed bitter. My head is swimming. I’ve often felt my faith is child-like, which probably means I need to grow more in my faith and mature, but I just don’t question a lot of what is written in the Word. As a result, I believe I’m more at peace with my understanding than those who have a need to examine every comma and period in the Scriptures. Not to say, that I don’t continue to study and strive to know who God is and what His desires are for his creation (especially for me). I just don’t get overwrought when someone else has a different opinion than mine. On the other hand, I think it is good to be passionate about one’s beliefs as long as they can do so without being obnoxious about it. But on the other hand…. I’m beginning to sound like Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof.”

2. Grace in the Septuagint is mainly used to express God’s Favor. Other uses are greatness, steadfast love, goodness, acceptance, and compassion. In German it is Gnade. We are saved through grace, by our faith, told to us by the scriptures. As Ephesians 2:8 says “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,” (ESV)

   Below is a Quote from Jacobus Arminius:

   The Apostle Peter says, “By him we believe in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.” (1 Pet., i, 21.) On this account the faith also which we have in God, was prescribed, not by the law, but by the gospel of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is properly “the word of faith” and “the word of promise.” (Arminius, James (Jacobus) (2010-03-01). The Complete Works of James Arminius (Kindle Locations 344-347). Public Domain. Kindle Edition.)

   So in answer to your is that they want God’s Favor, Love, and Compassion.

3. It seems like the Bitter Pastor set a bitter tone for this whole discussion. You can’t tell someone their intent when they’re telling you that wasn’t their intent. We aren’t psychics, are we then. If you read something into a question, maybe it’s something that’s already in your own mind. Maybe you’re protesting too much. Seems like you lot are all used to having long theological debates about Arminian verus Calvinism, especially if your’e anonymous and have a lot of time on your hands. I read the question and laughed, and it seems like it wasn’t meant to be taken over seriously anyway. I hope whoever is browsing Christian blogs finds this comment section and goes… “Yeah, the body of Christ, huh? I’ll stick with me pubs.” I’m not Calvinist or Wesleyian or whatever. Just my two cents.

   1. I concur with a tone being set that was never the intent of the question. I believe it was Hemingway said that a reader brings about 80% of what they get out of a reading with them before they even sit down to read it. So i think that’s what happened here. people brought past grievances with them when they read the question. but it happens with just about everything anyone writes. also like you i have zero opinion on calvinist or wesleyian or arminians. my favorite calvin has a stuffed tiger friend anyway, so apart from my view on people reading intentions that arent there. i heard once of a theologian that said ‘more offenses enter the world through offenses taken, than offenses given’ – i dont know who said that though honestly. the bit about ‘i believe it was hemingway’ was just false modesty, i actually know that to be true i didnt want to sound like a jerk. but the offense quote i honestly dont know. i dont know why i even posted a comment. i never do. i hate that i fell for it this time. i had no agenda or opinion when i read the question by paarsonax, so sadly i didnt even read it with humor intended about applejacks either. everything went above my head. but i find it silly when people argue about God. and Jesus. and Grace. and tell people to read their bible and pose better questions – it’s all very silly i think. because in my thought process no one knows any of what the bible means. we know what it says, but not what it means. but maybe thats a discussion for another time. all this was to say, yes. i agree with you here.

4. I must break character here to address a few things.

   Firstly, anyone who thinks I was targeting Arminians is completely and utterly mistaken. I wasn’t even thinking of Arminians when I brought up this question. When I was confronted by Theology Mix about the Question of the Week, I originally asked a joke question like “Why do they call it Apple Jacks when it doesn’t taste like real apples?”, but was asked to come up with a theological one instead. This entered my head as something equivalent to the Apple Jacks question. If anything, I was thinking of some Reformed churches which claim to be followers of the Doctrines of Grace but also slip other doctrines into there, or teach something that is basically a form of works salvation. In my personal study, I have also been dealing with evangelical churches that will tell us they believe in God’s grace, but then ultimately act and teach as if it is truly all up to us (ie., Rick Warren’s church).

   Second, anyone who thinks the issue of grace is a strictly Reformed versus Arminian (especially Wesleyan Arminian) is thinking too narrowly. I’m well aware that within Synergism (just as within Monergism) there are different camps. I would *NEVER* imagine a historical Arminian or a Wesleyan Arminian (especially the latter) would assume “it is all up to us”. I know the difference between the theologies of John Wesley, Pelagius, John Cassian, etc., and would never lump them together.

   I must be frank here: had I known people were going to presume my motives without at least asking for clarification (remember: this was asked via Twitter DM, and even that has a character limit), and simply jump to conclusions about how I feel about Arminians, I might have worded it differently; but as it stands, I do not even see how one can assume that I was attempting to stir up a Reformed versus Arminian debate, and I am quite offended people would presume these things.

   1. Just a follow up post to my last one:

      I don’t mind if Reformed and Arminians answer the question from their own presuppositions, or talk to one another based on their own presuppositions, but I didn’t write the question with the intent of “Let’s stick it to the Arminians”, let alone “This is a summary of what Arminians believe.”

   2. Hey!!

      Thanks for the clarification.

      This reminds me of what happens on Facebook. Someone gets a notification for your birthday. They read it and completely misunderstand and get it wrong that it’s just a notification, not your real birthday. So they start wishing you. Pretty soon you have tons of notifications for your birthday and…it becomes a merry mess after that!

      Now back to the real discussion 😉

      Cheers Dovah!

      1. That’s happened to me all too often. I just don’t want to be a stumbling block to anyone. I apologize if anyone misunderstood.

         OK, back in character. *transmogrifies*

5. As far as the “denom names being unbiblical”, the OT Jews went be Pharisees & Saducces, those are pretty much denom names as well. We could all go back to the “Catholic Church” title, that really what we want?

   I have no gripe with that, since the word catholic just means universal…but I sure or at least I hope you don’t want to be associated with the Roman Catholic.
   Basically it’s the name just makes a doctrinal view easier to spot, and error easier to spot.

   Sorry about getting off topic, Dovah

6. Look at the Armenian’s getting all defensive…the dovah made a general statement, not an anti-Armenian statement. Calm down.

   I think it revolves around everybody wants there credit & to promote their effort. They try to focus on works as a result of regeneration, yet it comes of as earning favor, proving salvation, or earning it.

   But overall, I think it’s just good marketing! Sad to say.

   1. His choice of language “grace vs. doing it ourselves” sets the conversation on the Reformed vs. Wesleyan-Arminian theology path. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

7. Hmmm… Seems to me that the question presupposes certain ideas about certain churches (probably Arminian) that aren’t accurate representations of Its Theology of Grace. I am Reformed (Calvinist) but I want to represent The Arminian view fairly. No classical Arminian thinks it is “all up to us”. Arminians believe God has given people “Prevenient Grace”. Prevenient Grace is what enables someone to make a decision for Christ. Therefore, whether Calvinist or Arminian, both believe a person comes to faith through grace. Irresistible Grace or Prevenient Grace. Both graces are given by God. Semi-Pelagians would be different as they reject the inerrant sinfulness of man that’s not Arminianism. It’s true many Arminian churches have embraced semi-Pelagianism but I don’t think those are the ones who have grace in the title of their church. Of course this is just a summary response, more can be said

8. Spending ALL of my life in the Arminian tradition I have never heard any if my pastors (or me when I became a pastor) preach that “it’s all up to us.” Salvation is a gift of God and cannot be purchased or earned by human activity. Reformed Christians shouldn’t paint with such large (and erroneous) brush strokes.

   1. I agree with you. We can’t paint either side with large brush strokes. I see this happening a lot. I’ve been around Arminians too and haven’t heard all of them say its up to us, some have, others not. What they have said is that grace is a gift from God to us, but accepting it is our choice—like a negotiated deal. God offers us the product and we decide if we want to buy. In the final analysis, it essentially says that we’re in charge. I’ve heard others really focus on the grace side too.

9. Why do churches use titles or names, period?

   Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, not the Faith Baptist Church of Corinth, or the Grace Temple of Corinth, or the Pentacostal Holiness Church of Corinth, etc.

   Our names/titles/denominations are stupid. They divide us. They are not Biblical.

   So, what’s it matter? 😉

10. Spending most of my life in Arminian circles, I have never heard even “some” churches state that salvation is up to us. The difference is that Calvinists focus more attention to “saved by grace” and Arminians focus more on “through faith.”

    1. You raise an interesting distinction. But also other questions. By “through faith”, whose faith do you mean? Do you mean the one that precedes from your own will and your own choice, or the one that precedes from God’s will and God’s choice? If it is your own, then, logically, do you not end up denying the essence of grace—God’s sovereignty—and, instead, affirming the efficacy of your own will?

       1. First of all, if we have to walk you through the entire OT and NT on faith, we’re going to be here a while. Go and read some more and then retort with a logical rebuke. Faith is something that every human has a measure of—some more, some less. There is also a “gift of faith” that the Holy Spirit imparts. The one thing that can either please God or displease him, is our level of faith. Faith is something that God expects us to have in his word and in his work.

Comments are closed.