The Chief Metaphors [Archive]

Ramesh Deosarran

17th July 2008, 05:08 PM (17:08)

The Chief Metaphors
The best the Bible can do in describing what it means to be a Christian is to give us images. There are three such metaphors.
1. Justification
2. Regeneration
3. Adoption

These are called Initial Sanctification. Theologically we can separate them but not experientially.

Justification - Justification is legal or forensic word. It is synonymous for acquittal. God has acquitted us from sin. When we are justified, it is to be treated as if we never sinned.

1. It is a relative change between God and man. It says nothing about inner change.
2. Justification is objective.
3. Justification is what God does for us
4. Justification deals with the guilt of sin.
5. Justification is a legal term.
6. Justification describes imputed righteousness.
7. Synonymous with pardon, forgiveness and acquitted.

Regeneration
1. Regeneration is a real change.
2. Regeneration is subjective in the sense that the subject itself is changed.
3. Regeneration is what God does in us.
4. Regeneration deals with the power of sin.
5. Regeneration is a biological word. It is being born.
6. Regeneration describes Imparted Righteousness.
7. Synonymous terms are New Birth and New Creation.
8. Sanctification is a Regeneration word and not a Justification word. It has to do with impartedness. Something that God does for us. Regeneration is a part of the sanctifying process.

Adoption
The Adoption metaphor contradicts the Regeneration metaphor. If I am born into a family then I cannot be adopted. But if I am adopted then I am not born into the family. I cannot be born and adopted at the same time. In a sense Adoption is a legal term like Justification but it has the family connotation and so it partakes of regeneration.

Jamie Wayne

17th July 2008, 05:38 PM (17:38)

Can it be said of every man that God is his Father?

Is the idea that all men are children of God found anywhere in the Bible?

Are men, in their fallen state, naturally a part of God's family?

Galatians 3:26 - 4:7

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

4:1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

I would suppose from this that the sons of God are either: a) Jews, i.e., sons of Abraham, and/or b) adopted.

Exodus 4:22-23 ...'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'"

Moses didn't tell Pharaoh that God would kill His own son, Israel, but that He would kill Pharaoh's son.

I'm not buying your argument:

1. If regeneration is true, adoption can't be.
2. Regeneration is true.
3. Therefore, adoption isn't true.

I would say that justification, regeneration, and adoption are all metaphors, and useful ones, but none of them by themselves is sufficient to see the bigger picture, as if each is a piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and without all of the pieces, the whole can't be discerned clearly.

There are certainly problems with each view if taken alone, but I'm not so sure that we can see the bigger picture if we exclude any one of the pieces.

It seems as if you're trying to mix metaphors and it's not logically working for you - that's fine, but the metaphors are just that, and they weren't meant to fit together logically - they were meant to paint a picture that can't be neatly fit into a logical box.

Ramesh Deosarran

17th July 2008, 07:59 PM (19:59)

I'm not buying your argument:

1. If regeneration is true, adoption can't be.
2. Regeneration is true.
3. Therefore, adoption isn't true.

This is NOT my argument. I did not say that adoption is not true. I pointed out its relation to Justification and Regeneration.

Ramesh Deosarran

17th July 2008, 08:15 PM (20:15)

I would say that justification, regeneration, and adoption are all metaphors, and useful ones, but none of them by themselves is sufficient to see the bigger picture, as if each is a piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and without all of the pieces, the whole can't be discerned clearly.

There are certainly problems with each view if taken alone, but I'm not so sure that we can see the bigger picture if we exclude any one of the pieces.

Chronologically they can stand alone. Thus, we can discuss them. From an experience perspective they are all one piece. A person praying and asking Christ into his/her life has one experience and not three separate experiences. This is one experience that falls under Initial Sanctification/Regeneration. You do not have to buy into this or believe it. It is still true and correct.

What might be some problems if taken alone (for discussion)?

Ramesh Deosarran

17th July 2008, 08:28 PM (20:28)

It seems as if you're trying to mix metaphors and it's not logically working for you - that's fine, but the metaphors are just that, and they weren't meant to fit together logically - they were meant to paint a picture that can't be neatly fit into a logical box.

I greatly disagree with you here. I am NOT trying to mix metaphors. These are the most important metaphors describing salvation. I am not trying to fit anything in a logical box. They are the perfect fit together. You cannot separate them experientially. In one experience we are justified, regenerated, and adopted. This is the first work of grace.

If you disagree, demonstrate your teaching on Initial Sanctification/Regeneration the first work of grace.

Jamie Wayne

17th July 2008, 09:32 PM (21:32)

This is NOT my argument. I did not say that adoption is not true. I pointed out its relation to Justification and Regeneration.

What you said was that "the adoption metaphor contradicts the regeneration metaphor," and then you went on to proceed with an argument:

1. If one is born into a family, then one cannot be adopted.

2. If one is adopted, then one is not born into the family.

3. Therefore, one cannot be both born and adopted simultaneously.

What, then, is the relation? The relation that you posited was one of contradiction and impossibility - at least in the simultaneous sense.

Furthermore, you went on to say that adoption, like justification, is a legal term, but I say unto you, that adoption is a familial term, not a legal one. The state may make it a legal term, and the courts may make it a legal term, but the new parents do not embrace their new child in a legal sense - they embrace the new child in love, apart from the law. The inheritance that comes with adoption is not due to a legal requirement, but out of the love of the parents for the child.

Chronologically they can stand alone. Thus, we can discuss them. From an experience perspective they are all one piece. A person praying and asking Christ into his/her life has one experience and not three separate experiences. This is one experience that falls under Initial Sanctification/Regeneration.

You do not have to buy into this or believe it. It is still true and correct.

What might be some problems if taken alone (for discussion)?

If taken alone, as much of history has shown, we move towards an Anselmian view of atonement which "forgets" that it is but one metaphor. If taken alone, justification, regeneration, or adoption, can have the same tendency, to "forget" the others or to value one more than the other two.

Your verbage tended to, in my mind, anyway, favor regeneration terminology over the "legal" terms of justification and adoption, because those, to you, if I'm understanding you correctly, are more about standing being imputed rather than imparted.

I greatly disagree with you here. I am NOT trying to mix metaphors. These are the most important metaphors describing salvation. I am not trying to fit anything in a logical box. They are the perfect fit together. You cannot separate them experientially. In one experience we are justified, regenerated, and adopted. This is the first work of grace.

Is it not mixing metaphors to compare adoption to regeneration and to say that adoption contradicts regeneration - to say that one metaphor directly contradicts another?

How, then, can you say that they fit perfectly together if one contradicts the other?

How can you say that "in one experience we are justified, regenerated, and adopted," if you also have stated that one cannot be both regenerated and adopted simultaneously?

If you disagree, demonstrate your teaching on Initial Sanctification/Regeneration the first work of grace.

I would say that "initial sanctification" occurs, not "subsequent to regeneration," as Article X states, but prior to regeneration, for it is only by a "holy act" that we may choose God. As to the "first work of grace," I would say that the first work of grace is the work of God, the intium fidei that begins with God and not our own doing, that prevenient grace which allows us, despite our total depravity, to choose God prior to our regeneration, prior to our adoption, and prior to our justification.

In this sense, any "second work" is merely a realization of what already is, in reality, that because of God's grace the Holy Spirit is already at work "in" all of us, and sanctification is not some "new work," but rather the continuing revelation of what God has already done. Not only is there this "second work," but a third and fourth and fifth, etc...until we are led by the Holy Spirit to realize the fullness of the Holy Spirit that always was. It's not like we can get "more" of the Holy Spirit in the sense that the Spirit is mutable!

The initial sanctification is hidden, in a sense, perhaps only to be realized later, but nevertheless, there is a moment, realized or not, where we are changed - our awareness has changed. We are no longer who we used to be, but not because God has changed, for God was always with us. Sanctification is the process of realizing who we really are - Sons and Daughters of the Most High God, adopted into His family, born again to new life, and made right with Him and His.

I think that the problem is that justification is not seen as a process, but a moment, whereas regeneration is often seen as a continual thing. Adoption, too, is often seen as a one time deal, but I don't think that it is at all. What sort of son are we if we "forget" who we really are?

Anyway...

Ramesh Deosarran

17th July 2008, 10:57 PM (22:57)

Furthermore, you went on to say that adoption, like justification, is a legal term, but I say unto you, that adoption is a familial term, not a legal one. The state may make it a legal term, and the courts may make it a legal term, but the new parents do not embrace their new child in a legal sense - they embrace the new child in love, apart from the law. The inheritance that comes with adoption is not due to a legal requirement, but out of the love of the parents for the child.

My initial comment on Adoption is as follows:

Adoption
The Adoption metaphor contradicts the Regeneration metaphor. If I am born into a family then I cannot be adopted. But if I am adopted then I am not born into the family. I cannot be born and adopted at the same time. In a sense Adoption is a legal term like Justification but it has the family connotation and so it partakes of regeneration.

The underlined is simply an explanation or stating a fact. The bold is where are agreeing (at least in part) but you missed it completely.

Ramesh Deosarran

17th July 2008, 11:01 PM (23:01)

Jamie

The more I read your post, the more I am convinced that you need to re-read what I wrote initially. You misunderstood me in too many places.

Tami Martin

18th July 2008, 08:58 AM (08:58)

Ken Pell

18th July 2008, 09:18 AM (09:18)

Why do we use metaphors in the first place? Because we cannot aptly describe the thing/experience we're trying to describe.

Each of these metaphors (justification, regeneration and adoption) has value in describing an aspect of the salvation/sanctification experience. They're just not complete.

Exactly. Every metaphor has a point where it eventually breaks down. It has flat sides. The need for metaphor is illustrative of the limitations of language ... which is itself a symbol ... a vehicle used to convey / communicate thought.

Oliver Phillips

18th July 2008, 09:26 AM (09:26)

Could someone please tell me how to use a particular section of a quote to be used in a response?

Jamie Wayne

18th July 2008, 09:34 AM (09:34)

Jamie

The more I read your post, the more I am convinced that you need to re-read what I wrote initially. You misunderstood me in too many places.

Maybe so; please help me to understand, then.

Perhaps answering some of my questions would help.

Tami Martin

18th July 2008, 09:52 AM (09:52)

Could someone please tell me how to use a particular section of a quote to be used in a response?

I just click the quote button then delete what I don't want to quote :)

Barbara Moulton

18th July 2008, 10:24 AM (10:24)

I just click the quote button then delete what I don't want to quote :)

That's what I do as well.

Ramesh Deosarran

18th July 2008, 11:20 AM (11:20)

Jamie Wayne

18th July 2008, 01:34 PM (13:34)

I tried to do the multiple quote but it did not work. Maybe some can educate me on that - Thanks

Respone to Jamie:

My thought process in saying that each can stand alone is based on the word “chronological.” Thus, we can discuss their perspective. Experientially, they are tied in one experience that theologians call Regeneration. This is the born again experience. In this experience we are justified and adopted into the family of God. This is what the “saving experience” is about.

Theologians also call it justification and adoption. Is there a chronology, whereby there is an order, then, that one is not simultaneously justified, regenerated, and adopted?

Justification describes imputed righteousness. Regeneration describes Imparted Righteousness. This is the change which took place after righteousness is imparted. My verbage is pointing out the distinction in two doctrines in one experience.

So, you're saying that regeneration occurs subsequent to justification? When, then, does adoption occur?

If you review carefully my initial post on Adoption you will see that I said, “Adoption is a legal term like Justification but it has the family connotation and so it partakes of regeneration.” I cannot get much clearer than that. It is a matter of reading and understanding correctly. You are pointing out what I did not say because it is evident that you did not grasp what I said in the first place.

I recall you saying that adoption contradicts regeneration, so how can adoption partake of regeneration? What part of that did I not read correctly nor grasp?

I am not sure what or whose Manual you are reading. Thus, I am unable to affirm what you are saying. However, I will comment on what you said. You said, “I would say that "initial sanctification" occurs, not "subsequent to regeneration," as Article X states, but prior to regeneration…” I do not see that in Article X. It appears to me that you are confusing a few things.

I stand corrected; Article X speaks of entire sanctification, not initial sanctification.

Initial sanctification begins in regeneration. It is not entire sanctification. Let me emphasize – Justification stands alone for discussion but not in the experience. It is vitally related to regeneration. They are two sides of the same coin. They express different ideas but their truths are related. Regeneration is actually the beginning of sanctification. Thus, the word “initial.” Holiness begins in regeneration.

It is true that prevenient grace presents us with the opportunity to accept Christ into our lives. However, sanctification begins in regeneration. Your understanding of initial sanctification and regeneration seems to be blurred.

I don't think that my understanding is blurred at all, actually; I think that the process of sanctification or "being set apart" occurs prior to regeneration. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean that my understanding is blurred. Even before we "accept" Christ, we are being set apart, so that initial sanctification has already begun before regeneration. You are free, of course, to disagree.

Holiness, in my mind, does not begin in regeneration, but in being set apart prior to regeneration. We are made holy, so to speak, and that process begins even before we realize it.

The second work of grace is about entire sanctification. It is an instantaneous work of God.

That doesn't seem to jive with what John Wesley taught

It is distinctive in Wesleyan Theology.

Actually that sounds more like Phoebe Palmer than it does Wesley.

You said, “In this sense, any "second work" is merely a realization of what already is, in reality, that because of God's grace the Holy Spirit is already at work "in" all of us, and sanctification is not some "new work," but rather the continuing revelation of what God has already done. Not only is there this "second work," but a third and fourth and fifth, etc...” I know about progressive sanctification. I do not know what you mean by “third and fourth and fifth, ect…” You may want to clarify what you are talking about here.

What I'm saying is that this "second work" is not everything, there is much, much more. Every day should entail a continuing revelation or understanding of the work that has already been done, and in that there is growth - rather than a perfection that stands without need of growth.

You said, “The initial sanctification is hidden, in a sense, perhaps only to be realized later, but nevertheless, there is a moment, realized or not, where we are changed - our awareness has changed. We are no longer who we used to be, but not because God has changed, for God was always with us. Sanctification is the process of realizing who we really are - Sons and Daughters of the Most High God, adopted into His family, born again to new life, and made right with Him and His.”

Why is initial sanctification hidden? Why do we not know that we are changed in that moment? I agree that we are changed and not because God has changed but because He changed us. Yes, sanctification is a realizing process. But, do you understand what happens in the experience?

If initial sanctification is taken to be directly linked to prevenient grace, then it may be hidden because God's grace is often with us long before we realize it has been there all along.

This post is already too long. I do recommend that you do some reading on this theological perspective.

There is always more reading to be done, but I'm fairly confident that I've studied enough to understand much more than the basic concepts of justification, regeneration, and adoption.

Ramesh Deosarran

18th July 2008, 02:02 PM (14:02)

Hans Deventer

18th July 2008, 02:27 PM (14:27)

Could someone please tell me how to use a particular section of a quote to be used in a response?

Oliver, when you quote someone you get the following:

{QUOTE=Oliver Phillips;206458}quoted text{/quote}

For all clarity, in order to see it on the forum and not be recognized as tags, I replaced the [ and ] with { and }

You can put those tags anywhere in the message, as long as you end each quoted part with {/quote}

So usually when I want to quote several parts, I select and copy {QUOTE=Oliver Phillips;206458} and paste it at the beginning of each quote and type in {/quote} by hand.

Jamie Wayne

18th July 2008, 02:31 PM (14:31)

I will try once more and briefly.

I am simply saying that Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption stand alone for theological discussion. As an experience they stand together.

I am not saying Regeneration is subsequent to Justification. I am saying these three doctrines (justification, regeneration, and adoption) stand together in one experience.

You wrote, "Justification describes imputed righteousness. Regeneration describes Imparted Righteousness. This is the change which took place after righteousness is imparted. My verbage is pointing out the distinction in two doctrines in one experience."

If regeneration describes imparted righteousness, which you're saying occurs subsequent to imputed righteousness, which is described by justification, then how aren't you saying that regeneration doesn't occur subsequent to justification?

1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.
2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.
3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.
4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.
5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

I am not saying adoption contradicts anything. I am saying it is a legal word like justification but has a family connotation and shares in regeneration. Please read the last sentence of my original post.You did, indeed, say that adoption contradicts regeneration.

You wrote, " The Adoption metaphor contradicts the Regeneration metaphor."

How isn't that you not saying that adoption doesn't contradict regeneration? Maybe, technically, you said that the metaphors contradict each other, but what's the difference?

You said, “I think that the process of sanctification or "being set apart" occurs prior to regeneration.”

Please explain this process.God's grace goes before our decision to choose Him by giving us both the ability and encouragement to choose Him; in that process of grace, we are being set apart prior to regeneration.

You said, “Even before we "accept" Christ, we are being set apart, so that initial sanctification has already begun before regeneration.”

Please explain this process.See above.

You said, “Holiness, in my mind, does not begin in regeneration, but in being set apart prior to regeneration. We are made holy, so to speak, and that process begins even before we realize it.”

Please explain this theologically.If holiness is seen as being "set apart," does our set-apartedness depend upon our awareness? I would say not.

If what I am saying does not jive with Wesley, what is his position?Wesley much more saw "entire sanctification" as a process, whereas your statement was about it all happening in a moment.

I agree that sanctification is not all. It is not a goal. Thus, there needs to be growth.
You said, “If initial sanctification is taken to be directly linked to prevenient grace, then it may be hidden because God's grace is often with us long before we realize it has been there all along.”

If you don’t mind, please comment:

What is prevenient grace?
What is initial sanctification?
What is regeneration?
Do think initial sanctification is different from regeneration?Prevenient grace is that grace by which the initial step of faith (initium fidei) begins with God, versus the Pelagian notion that it is of our free will alone. Prevenient grace is that grace which tips the scale regarding our total depravity, i.e., our inability to choose God without His help, and prevenient grace both enables us to choose Him despite our total depravity, but it also is grace that encourages us to do so.

Initial sanctification is a word that I would rather not use at all. However, if by initial we mean "first," then I would say that the first moment of sanctification, by which I mean being set apart, would be the moment that we are enabled to choose God and encouraged to do so by prevenient grace.

Regeneration is the "metaphor" used to describe our being "born again," which first requires our death. In regeneration we die with Christ and are raised with Christ. In regeneration there is both a death and a re-birth. Regeneration is that moment where "not I, but Christ lives in me," per Galatians 2:20. This is the typical Pauline usage of regeneration, which ties into the life of the Spirit being recognized in us.

Do I think that initial sanctification is different than regeneration? Of course, I've been saying that.

Jamie Wayne

18th July 2008, 02:50 PM (14:50)

By the way, I understand that my ordo salutis may not be in line with others, but there are many views.

Chris Patton

18th July 2008, 04:20 PM (16:20)

If we could just get our ordo salutis in order, we'd be so much happier

Ramesh Deosarran

19th July 2008, 09:31 AM (09:31)

By the way, I understand that my ordo salutis may not be in line with others, but there are many views.

Thanks for the clarification. We do have theological differences. I appreciate the discussion.

Jamie Wayne

19th July 2008, 01:24 PM (13:24)

Thanks for the clarification. We do have theological differences. I appreciate the discussion.

Apparently we do have theological differences, then, but I still don't understand how you're making sense of what you've said. I have answered your questions; however, unfortunately, you seem either unable or unwilling to respond to my questions or refute the arguments which I have presented, which is disheartening.

Ramesh Deosarran

22nd July 2008, 08:04 PM (20:04)

Apparently we do have theological differences, then, but I still don't understand how you're making sense of what you've said. I have answered your questions; however, unfortunately, you seem either unable or unwilling to respond to my questions or refute the arguments which I have presented, which is disheartening.

I did not intend to return to this thread but here I am responding. I have given you answers to questions but we have significant differences. Here is an example - You said, "Holiness, in my mind, does not begin in regeneration, but in being set apart prior to regeneration. We are made holy, so to speak, and that process begins even before we realize it."

I believe that holiness begins in regeneration or the new birth experience. There is purification because the guilt of sin is removed. I Cor. 6:11 says, "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God." James 4:8 says, "Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." Titus refers to the "washing of regeneration" in 3:5. John 15:3 says "You are already clean..."

These are some verses supporting my position that holiness begins in regeneration. All these verses point to a cleansing from acquired depravity. Regeneration deals with acquired pollution.

You said, "Holiness, in my mind, does not begin in regeneration, but in being set apart prior to regeneration."

My question: What do you mean by "prior to regeneration?"

You said, "We are made holy, so to speak, and that process begins even before we realize it."

My question: How can we become holy and not realize it? Where do you include confession and repentance in the process? Don't you think that confession and repentance are conscious moments?

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 09:50 AM (09:50)

I did not intend to return to this thread but here I am responding. I have given you answers to questions but we have significant differences.

You most certainly have not given me answers to the most pertinent questions!

As to differences, I have no problem with that; there is room, from my perspective, for differences - even significant ones.

However, I would like for you to address the arguments that I have previously raised against what you've said.

Here is an example - You said, "Holiness, in my mind, does not begin in regeneration, but in being set apart prior to regeneration. We are made holy, so to speak, and that process begins even before we realize it."

I believe that holiness begins in regeneration or the new birth experience. There is purification because the guilt of sin is removed. I Cor. 6:11 says, "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God." James 4:8 says, "Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." Titus refers to the "washing of regeneration" in 3:5. John 15:3 says "You are already clean..."

These are some verses supporting my position that holiness begins in regeneration. All these verses point to a cleansing from acquired depravity. Regeneration deals with acquired pollution.What is this "acquired" stuff? Depravity is TOTAL. Therefore, grace must precede if we are to overcome the weight of depravity. It is God who takes the first steps to help us overcome that weight of depravity, and, in His doing so, He is setting us apart and cleansing us from that burden of filth, enabling us to choose what is good, right, and beautiful. This happens PRIOR to regeneration, since that very grace is necessary, because of depravity, for regeneration to be possible.

You said, "Holiness, in my mind, does not begin in regeneration, but in being set apart prior to regeneration."

My question: What do you mean by "prior to regeneration?"Prior meaning "before," as opposed to subsequent, meaning "after."

You said, "We are made holy, so to speak, and that process begins even before we realize it."

My question: How can we become holy and not realize it? Where do you include confession and repentance in the process? Don't you think that confession and repentance are conscious moments?I believe that many are "saved" without confession and repentance. Regardless, confession and repentance are things that WE do, being made holy is something that He does, and our awareness has absolutely no bearing on His work of setting us apart and cleaning us. In fact, prevenient grace is often, if not usually, unnoticed by us.

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 09:51 AM (09:51)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramesh Deosarran http://www.naznet.com/community/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=206522#post206522)
I will try once more and briefly.

I am simply saying that Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption stand alone for theological discussion. As an experience they stand together.

I am not saying Regeneration is subsequent to Justification. I am saying these three doctrines (justification, regeneration, and adoption) stand together in one experience.You wrote, "Justification describes imputed righteousness. Regeneration describes Imparted Righteousness. This is the change which took place after righteousness is imparted. My verbage is pointing out the distinction in two doctrines in one experience."

If regeneration describes imparted righteousness, which you're saying occurs subsequent to imputed righteousness, which is described by justification, then how aren't you saying that regeneration doesn't occur subsequent to justification?

1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.
2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.
3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.
4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.
5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

Quote:
I am not saying adoption contradicts anything. I am saying it is a legal word like justification but has a family connotation and shares in regeneration. Please read the last sentence of my original post. You did, indeed, say that adoption contradicts regeneration.

You wrote, " The Adoption metaphor contradicts the Regeneration metaphor."

How isn't that you not saying that adoption doesn't contradict regeneration? Maybe, technically, you said that the metaphors contradict each other, but what's the difference?

Tami Martin

23rd July 2008, 09:59 AM (09:59)

Jamie, I've been following this thread with some interest.

Can you help me understand how we can be saved without confession and repentance?

Can you help me understand how this:

Prevenient grace is that grace by which the initial step of faith (initium fidei) begins with God, versus the Pelagian notion that it is of our free will alone. Prevenient grace is that grace which tips the scale regarding our total depravity, i.e., our inability to choose God without His help, and prevenient grace both enables us to choose Him despite our total depravity, but it also is grace that encourages us to do so.

is different from Calvin's predestination?

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 10:24 AM (10:24)

Jamie, I've been following this thread with some interest.

Can you help me understand how we can be saved without confession and repentance?

I'm thinking of "exceptions," perhaps, but I'm sure that you can think of occasions where God saves people without their confession or repentance. Some Baptist fundamentalists have argued to me that mute people can't go to heaven because they haven't confessed with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. That's silly. My point is simply that when it comes to people who are mentally retarded, or situations where Christianity isn't an option, etc..., that it is not a requirement that confession and repentance - as we know it - is necessary. That's all.

In other words, we're saved by grace not confession or repentance. ;)

Can you help me understand how this:

"Prevenient grace is that grace by which the initial step of faith (initium fidei) begins with God, versus the Pelagian notion that it is of our free will alone. Prevenient grace is that grace which tips the scale regarding our total depravity, i.e., our inability to choose God without His help, and prevenient grace both enables us to choose Him despite our total depravity, but it also is grace that encourages us to do so."

is different from Calvin's predestination?Remember that Arminius and Wesley were Calvinistic, and that Wesleyan-Arminians agree with the "T" in TULIP. I'm trying to avoid the Arminian/Calvinism issue by going back to the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, really the root of this issue.

Why my statement is different is because I'm saying that:

Prevenient grace is that grace by which the initial step of faith (initium fidei) begins with God, versus the Pelagian notion that it is of our free will alone.

Calvinism might take out our free will altogether, whereas I have most definitely left our free will in the equation, though agreeing with Augustine that we cannot choose by our free will alone - that we must be assisted by grace in order to be enabled to use that will which was previously a slave to depravity and not free to choose God.

Does that make sense?

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 10:26 AM (10:26)

Tami,

Why the interest in this thread, if you don't mind?

Thanks,

Jamie

Tami Martin

23rd July 2008, 11:41 AM (11:41)

Tami,

Why the interest in this thread, if you don't mind?

Thanks,

Jamie

I don't mind at all. The initial post was interesting. I noticed that the poster didn't ask any questions nor invite any discussion. Just threw his opinion out there as though he were giving an authoritative answer. Or maybe practicing a lecture or sermon.

I confess I've been waiting to see which one of you would step above the minutia and find that metaphors are all we really have to explain the experience of salvation which are less than perfect at conveying meaning.

Tami Martin

23rd July 2008, 11:48 AM (11:48)

I'm thinking of "exceptions," perhaps, but I'm sure that you can think of occasions where God saves people without their confession or repentance. Some Baptist fundamentalists have argued to me that mute people can't go to heaven because they haven't confessed with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. That's silly. My point is simply that when it comes to people who are mentally retarded, or situations where Christianity isn't an option, etc..., that it is not a requirement that confession and repentance - as we know it - is necessary. That's all.

Ah! The exceptions. I agree that there are exceptions, but usually we note that's what we're talking about when we bring them up in general discussion so as not to lead others to think we mean something we don't. Yes. Grace through faith saves us. But God does limit himself to our level of participation.

Remember that Arminius and Wesley were Calvinistic, and that Wesleyan-Arminians agree with the "T" in TULIP. I'm trying to avoid the Arminian/Calvinism issue by going back to the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, really the root of this issue.

Why my statement is different is because I'm saying that:

Prevenient grace is that grace by which the initial step of faith (initium fidei) begins with God, versus the Pelagian notion that it is of our free will alone.

Calvinism might take out our free will altogether, whereas I have most definitely left our free will in the equation, though agreeing with Augustine that we cannot choose by our free will alone - that we must be assisted by grace in order to be enabled to use that will which was previously a slave to depravity and not free to choose God.

Does that make sense?

Some! I think I'm struggling with the "T" as well.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil seems to have been translated into the tree of the knowledge of evil. If we are so totally depraved that we can't even know what good there is and take a step toward it, then we are indeed totally depraved. But if the tree bore fruit of knowledge of good AND evil, maybe we just need grace to accept the gift? No...that makes NO sense! Even to me! But it's my thought process here.

I thank you for some really good meat to chew on!

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 12:35 PM (12:35)

I don't mind at all. The initial post was interesting. I noticed that the poster didn't ask any questions nor invite any discussion. Just threw his opinion out there as though he were giving an authoritative answer. Or maybe practicing a lecture or sermon.

That's the impression that I got, too, and that's why I pointed out my concerns.

I confess I've been waiting to see which one of you would step above the minutia and find that metaphors are all we really have to explain the experience of salvation which are less than perfect at conveying meaning.

I agree; metaphors are all that we have, and the best metaphors fail. I tend to think that each metaphor is a piece of the puzzle, and the more metaphors we look at, the more pieces of the puzzle, and the better we can see the whole.

Hans Deventer

23rd July 2008, 12:47 PM (12:47)

Can you help me understand how we can be saved without confession and repentance?

Perhaps an example will help? Hannie, my wife, was away from God after having been raised in Christian family. During a Youth for Christ vacation camp, she learned about God as the God of love and returned home in the best sense of the word. Much later, she started to realise stuff that was wrong in her life. I truly believed she was saved when she returned home.

Last Sunday, I preached on the prodigal son. His father ran to him and embraced him before he could have uttered a single word, and when he started his confession, his father hardly listened.

In stead, the son who stayed home and always did what his father asked of him, who needed no confession and no repentance, was the one who never really got home at all.

It seems God cares more about relationships than about moral performance. An attitude that has costed Him dearly, but I guess that is what grace does.

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 12:54 PM (12:54)

Ah! The exceptions. I agree that there are exceptions, but usually we note that's what we're talking about when we bring them up in general discussion so as not to lead others to think we mean something we don't. Yes. Grace through faith saves us. But God does limit himself to our level of participation.

Tami, I was responding to this question:

My question: How can we become holy and not realize it? Where do you include confession and repentance in the process? Don't you think that confession and repentance are conscious moments?

His argument is basically this:

1. Holiness requires confession and repentance.
2. Confession and repentance are conscious moments.
3. Therefore, holiness requires conscious moments.

I simply used the exception to reject his first premiss, the premiss upon which his conclusion is built.

Some! I think I'm struggling with the "T" as well.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil seems to have been translated into the tree of the knowledge of evil. If we are so totally depraved that we can't even know what good there is and take a step toward it, then we are indeed totally depraved. But if the tree bore fruit of knowledge of good AND evil, maybe we just need grace to accept the gift? No...that makes NO sense! Even to me! But it's my thought process here.

I thank you for some really good meat to chew on!

Think of it like this, Tami, we know what is good and what is evil, but we choose evil. That fits into your tree theory, doesn't it? In fact, if we didn't know the difference, then we couldn't be held accountable, could we? Further, if it wasn't our free choice to choose evil, then we couldn't be held accountable for it, either.

Look at total depravity like this, for a moment. There are two scales, one is good and one is evil. Were the scales evenly balanced, we could just as easily choose good as we could evil. However, what if the scales weren't balanced? What if the weight of our depravity is such that the scale is tipped so far that we can't choose good without help? In other words, the choice is ours to choose good or evil, but the only choice that we can make, because of the weight of depravity, is to sin. It's an issue of will, really. Our will is weighed down such that we can't will not to sin. It's still our will, not God's, but our will is a slave to sin - our will can't overcome the depravity by itself. We need God to help us tip the balance back to a place where we can choose good.

It's sort of like me having the will to lift an elephant with one hand; I'm free to choose to do that, but I don't have the strength. I'm unable to do that, even though I may want to. Paul talks about that a little, doesn't he, when he says that we don't do what we should and all that. We may want to, but we can no sooner lift an elephant with one hand.

Grace helps tip the scale, because without grace we would be slaves, knowing right and wrong, but being unable to choose not to sin. Our will is not free. It is our will, but it is not free because it is a slave to sin.

Does this help at all?

Here's the bottom line, in a sense, without God's help, we are incapable of choosing Him. The question is whether or not man can choose God without God's help, and the classical answer from St. Augustine is "no." Man cannot choose God without God's help, for man is so deprived without grace.

Think of it this way, too, it's humbling, because we cannot credit our faith unto ourselves! Faith is not our work, but His! We can't be proud because we choose God and others didn't. The Wesleyan perspective, if I understand it correctly, is that God gives us all enough grace, at some point in our lives, to choose Him; at that point the scales, by grace, are such that we are free to choose Him. This is prevenient grace, the grace which helps us to overcome our total depravity, the grace which helps us realize that without God we cannot do any good thing.

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 12:58 PM (12:58)

Hans Deventer

23rd July 2008, 01:28 PM (13:28)

It seems, in your example, Hans, that the prodigal son was set apart before he even knew it...and not because of anything that he had done, but by grace. As far as his father was concerned, he was clean, though he didn't realize that, either.

Yes, indeed. All he had to do is get back home.

I was very impressed by what I read about this parable the other day. Volf wrote that the Father talked in relational terms, while the elder son only talked in moral terms. That was quite enlightening for me.

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 01:37 PM (13:37)

Hans, between an individual and God, how much of holiness do you suppose depends upon the individual and how much depends upon God?

The way that I see it is that God sets us apart, and that our part is to realize what God has already done. How might you fit that into the way that you're thinking about it?

In another sense, using the imagery of cleansing, God does the cleansing, but we don't always realize that we are already clean; our part, then, is to come to recognize what God has already done and to accept ourselves as He sees us.

What do you think, Hans?

Tami Martin

23rd July 2008, 01:52 PM (13:52)

Jamie and Hans,
Thanks to you both for the food for thought! I'll be chewing on this for a while - and that's something I really enjoy :)

Hans Deventer

23rd July 2008, 02:02 PM (14:02)

Hans, between an individual and God, how much of holiness do you suppose depends upon the individual and how much depends upon God?

How do you measure holiness?

The way that I see it is that God sets us apart, and that our part is to realize what God has already done. How might you fit that into the way that you're thinking about it?

In another sense, using the imagery of cleansing, God does the cleansing, but we don't always realize that we are already clean; our part, then, is to come to recognize what God has already done and to accept ourselves as He sees us.

I can follow the first image, but not the second, well not completely, that is. I agree about the accepting ourselves as He sees us. Which is the true us. I don't believe in any theology that would make God see us differently from who we really are.
I would say that cleansing is a process rather than a state, and it depends on our relationship with God (1 John 1:7).

Jamie Wayne

23rd July 2008, 02:10 PM (14:10)

How do you measure holiness?

I don't, really...;)

I can follow the first image, but not the second, well not completely, that is. I agree about the accepting ourselves as He sees us. Which is the true us. I don't believe in any theology that would make God see us differently from who we really are.

I agree; God always see us as we really are - we're the ones who often don't.

I would say that cleansing is a process rather than a state, and it depends on our relationship with God (1 John 1:7).

I agree; seeing cleansing as a state makes cleanliness a legal term, in a sense, rather than a relational one.

In this sense, if regeneration is seen as cleansing, then regeneration takes on legal tones, too, if clean is a status rather than an ontological process.

Mike McVey

23rd July 2008, 09:05 PM (21:05)

How do you measure holiness?

With righteous indignation of course. :p

Ramesh Deosarran

23rd July 2008, 11:00 PM (23:00)

Hans Deventer

24th July 2008, 02:26 AM (02:26)

{QUOTE=Jamie Wayne;207337}

Ramesh, I've exchanged the [ for a { in my example post because otherwise, they don't show! But you should use [ and ], not { and }.

Other than that, the quoting is correct.

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 09:26 AM (09:26)

It seems like you are making the exceptions the norm.

No, but exceptions do need to be accounted for.

Certainly! We are saved by grace. Where does it say that we do not have to confess and repent?Where does it account for exceptions?

Are you sure about Arminus and Wesley being Calvinistic? At you sure there is no difference in the T? What is the Arminian/Calvinism issue? What is the Augustine and Pelagius debate?Maybe YOU should go back and read up on this stuff as YOU suggested I should earlier in this thread.

Yes, I am sure about Arminius and Wesley being Calvinistic. Arminius started out a defender of Calvinism, and Wesley, as an Anglican, was quite "Reformed" in his thinking. Both of these statements are well known and factual.

As to the "T" - if we are agreeing with St. Augustine, then yes, there is no difference in the "T." Either depravity is TOTAL or it is not. If depravity is not total, then that leads to Pelagianism, which was clearly rejected, though, maybe I should add, the Church of the Nazarene has been accused of being Pelagian or semi-Pelagian at times. If depravity is not total, then grace is not total, either.

The "Arminian/Calvinism" issue primarily revolves around the other four points of TULIP, Arminians rejecting those propositions which Calvinism uses to support their concept of predestination and election.

The "Augustine/Pelagius" debate has to do with the initium fidei, or the first step of faith. Pelagius said that the first step of faith is with man; St. Augustine said that it began with God. Pelagius' was condemned, and Augustine's view prevailed as orthodox. We could conclude that Augustine had a higher view of sin than did Pelagius.

Grace is of God. Why is God taking a step of faith? I thought prevenient grace is the grace that goes before salvation.God is not taking the step, literally; the point is that man's first step of faith does not begin with himself, but with God. Without prevenient grace, which is the grace which goes before salvation, as you said, man would not be able to choose God; therefore, grace is the source of the first step of faith - grace that comes from God, and not anything of our own ability.

Now, I have, once again, answered your questions. How about you address some of the questions and criticisms that I have raised regarding your initial post which started this thread?

Are you unable to do so, or are you unwilling to do so?

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 10:57 AM (10:57)

Adoption
The Adoption metaphor contradicts the Regeneration metaphor. If I am born into a family then I cannot be adopted. But if I am adopted then I am not born into the family. I cannot be born and adopted at the same time. In a sense Adoption is a legal term like Justification but it has the family connotation and so it partakes of regeneration.

Response to Jamie

The above is a quote from my original post. I know it troubled you a lot. So I will clarify. Legally a child cannot be adopted into a family and be born into the family at the same time. This is where adoption SEEMS to contradict regeneration. In the former the child is being adopted. The latter is associated with birth. Adoption is a legal word because you have to go through the legal system to adopt. Justification is a legal word as in the court of law. Adoption partakes of regeneration because of family connotation. Adoption is also a family word.

There is no contradiction. You just need to connect the pieces in your puzzle. I cannot give you a simpler explananton. There is no syllogism here.

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 11:09 AM (11:09)

Furthermore, you went on to say that adoption, like justification, is a legal term, but I say unto you, that adoption is a familial term, not a legal one. The state may make it a legal term, and the courts may make it a legal term, but the new parents do not embrace their new child in a legal sense - they embrace the new child in love, apart from the law. The inheritance that comes with adoption is not due to a legal requirement, but out of the love of the parents for the child.

Adoption is both a legal and family term. The state does make adoption legal and that is my point about being legal. It is true that the parents of the "adopted" child embrace the child with love. However, you cannot ignore that a legal adoption took place.

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 11:21 AM (11:21)

...adoption SEEMS to contradict regeneration.

There is no contradiction.

You haven't addressed any of my syllogisms, actually, but thanks for the clarification.

You originally wrote:

The Adoption metaphor contradicts the Regeneration metaphor.

That's a pretty big SEEMS, isn't it?

So you say that there is a contradiction, and then you say that there isn't. Isn't that a contradiction?

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 11:24 AM (11:24)

What about these? Of course, you didn't pose them in this format, but these arguments can be deduced from what you've said:

1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.
2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.
3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.
4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.
5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

Does this not suggest that they are chronologically separate, based on what YOU said?

1. Holiness requires confession and repentance.
2. Confession and repentance are conscious moments.
3. Therefore, holiness requires conscious moments.

Was my grandmother, in a coma for 8 years, unholy, then, because she wasn't conscious?

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 11:40 AM (11:40)

Theologians also call it justification and adoption. Is there a chronology, whereby there is an order, then, that one is not simultaneously justified, regenerated, and adopted?

I do not have an issue with theologians calling the experience justification and adoption. My point is that justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous in one experience. We can discuss them separetaly for theological purposes.

So, you're saying that regeneration occurs subsequent to justification? When, then, does adoption occur?

I am saying that justification, regeneration, and adoption, are simultaneous in one experience. We can take them separately for discussion.

I recall you saying that adoption contradicts regeneration, so how can adoption partake of regeneration? What part of that did I not read correctly nor grasp??

You did not grasp my last statement. It clearly says that adoption shares in regeneration becasue it has family connotation.

I don't think that my understanding is blurred at all, actually; I think that the process of sanctification or "being set apart" occurs prior to regeneration. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean that my understanding is blurred. Even before we "accept" Christ, we are being set apart, so that initial sanctification has already begun before regeneration. You are free, of course, to disagree.?

This is not my theology. It is yours. It seems like you are saying that God has done the choosing before we actually come to Him. If we are set apart before accepting Christ, then we are elected. In this case I can understand your position on confession and repentance.

Holiness, in my mind, does not begin in regeneration, but in being set apart prior to regeneration. We are made holy, so to speak, and that process begins even before we realize it.?

Again, this is your theology. However, if we are set apart prior to regeneration, there is really no need for confession and repentance. In fact, according to you, we are already made holy before the born again experience.

What I'm saying is that this "second work" is not everything, there is much, much more. Every day should entail a continuing revelation or understanding of the work that has already been done, and in that there is growth - rather than a perfection that stands without need of growth.

I do not have a problem with this. I do not believe that entire sancification is a goal. It is a life to be lived. Thus, there is growth.

If initial sanctification is taken to be directly linked to prevenient grace, then it may be hidden because God's grace is often with us long before we realize it has been there all along.

I can agree that prevenient grace is linked to initial sanctification. However, I don't know why God would hid it from us when it is freely given. I can understand if the case is made that we did not recognize that grace initially.

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 12:02 PM (12:02)

I do not have an issue with theologians calling the experience justification and adoption. My point is that justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous in one experience. We can discuss them separetaly for theological purposes.

1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.
2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.
3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.
4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.
5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

This is based on what you said; doesn't that seem to contradict what you just wrote?

I am saying that justification, regeneration, and adoption, are simultaneous in one experience. We can take them separately for discussion.See above. I do understand, however, that talking about it and the thing in itself are two entirely different things. However, the way that we talk about it should reflect what's actually going on, and the argument that I proposed above (based on what you said) doesn't seem to do that. That's my problem. Metaphors are best left as metaphors, wouldn't you agree?

This is not my theology. It is yours. It seems like you are saying that God has done the choosing before we actually come to Him. If we are set apart before accepting Christ, then we are elected. In this case I can understand your position on confession and repentance.We are ALL elected in Christ, that much I would agree with. We are ALL given grace preveniently, and God, indeed, has done that choosing (choosing to give us that grace) before we actually come to Him.

How that relates to "my" position on confession and repentance, I don't know what link you're making.

Again, this is your theology. However, if we are set apart prior to regeneration, there is really no need for confession and repentance. In fact, according to you, we are already made holy before the born again experience.We are already set apart and free from depravity before being "born again," yes; in that sense, there is a certain holiness whether we recognize that or not.

I'm actually quite big on confession and repentance, but that's another issue altogether - maybe that's the Anglicanism of my background combined with my Jesuit education.

I do not have a problem with this. I do not believe that entire sancification is a goal. It is a life to be lived. Thus, there is growth.I'm sure that we agree on much more than on what we may not.

I can agree that prevenient grace is linked to initial sanctification. However, I don't know why God would hid it from us when it is freely given. I can understand if the case is made that we did not recognize that grace initially.I don't think that it's God hiding it so much as it is our not recognizing that grace initially, as you suggested. I can allow for cases where God may choose to hide that, but I would not consider that to be normative; the normative thing is that God is working in our lives and our not having a clue.

My point is that the intial, or first moment of sanctification, meaning both being set apart and being cleansed (not necessarily entirely, though) enough to choose God out of our depravity, is absolutely linked to prevenient grace. That's why I was arguing that it occurs prior to regeneration. We can't forget all that God had done before regeneration, that God had been setting us apart and "cleansing" us even prior to regeneration, and, in that sense, we can reasonably say that we were being made holy even before we ever knew it or accepted it.

I think that we're coming to some sense of agreement, at least, amongst the confusion.

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 12:04 PM (12:04)

However, I would like for you to address the arguments that I have previously raised against what you've said.

As you can see I have gone back and answered your questions. If I miss any, I am sure you will bring it to my attention.

What is this "acquired" stuff? Depravity is TOTAL. Therefore, grace must precede if we are to overcome the weight of depravity. It is God who takes the first steps to help us overcome that weight of depravity, and, in His doing so, He is setting us apart and cleansing us from that burden of filth, enabling us to choose what is good, right, and beautiful. This happens PRIOR to regeneration, since that very grace is necessary, because of depravity, for regeneration to be possible.

Yes, depravity is total. However, theologically, the acquired stuff are the stuff we commit. Inherited depravity is what we inherited. I agree that there is grace before (prevenient) salvation. However, I disagree with the rest of the quote. According to your theology God is cleansing us from the burden of filth in grace prior to regeneration. If we are already cleansed, I don't see the need for the born again expereince. Besides, I do understand what prior means. I am trying to figure out is the "when in terms of before.

I believe that many are "saved" without confession and repentance. Regardless, confession and repentance are things that WE do, being made holy is something that He does, and our awareness has absolutely no bearing on His work of setting us apart and cleaning us. In fact, prevenient grace is often, if not usually, unnoticed by us.

In another post you were asked about being saved without confession and repentance and you said your were referring to the exceptions. I don't think the exceptions are left aside. God is just and I must trust His judgment. Aside, from the exceptions, you do not seem to give much thought to confession and repentance. I agree that we confess and repent and God makes holy. However, if God is setting us apart and cleaning us regardless of confession and repentance, what doctrine are you discussion? I agree that prevenient grace can go unnoticed. Whay do you think this might be so?

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 12:12 PM (12:12)

In other words, we're saved by grace not confession or repentance. ;)

Okay! We are saved by grace. If I understand your theology, God sets us apart and cleanse us from the burden of filth. Further, it seems like God does all of this prior to our confession, repentance and born again experience.

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 12:19 PM (12:19)

As you can see I have gone back and answered your questions. If I miss any, I am sure you will bring it to my attention.

I truly appreciate that; thank you.

Yes, depravity is total. However, theologically, the acquired stuff are the stuff we commit. Inherited depravity is what we inherited. I agree that there is grace before (prevenient) salvation. However, I disagree with the rest of the quote. According to your theology God is cleansing us from the burden of filth in grace prior to regeneration. If we are already cleansed, I don't see the need for the born again expereince. Besides, I do understand what prior means. I am trying to figure out is the "when in terms of before.

Yes, there is a difference when it comes to "actual" sin, I guess I would call it, rather than Original Sin.

I understand your concern, but don't you think that being lifted up out of depravity involves some sort of purgation on God's part to enable us to choose Him so that regeneration occurs?

In another post you were asked about being saved without confession and repentance and you said your were referring to the exceptions. I don't think the exceptions are left aside. God is just and I must trust His judgment.

I think that our arguments should allow room for exceptions, though, so that our statements should be made such that these exceptions are excluded. That's basically my point with that.

Aside, from the exceptions, you do not seem to give much thought to confession and repentance.

Actually, I would like sacerdotal confession to make its way back into the Wesleyan tradition; almost certainly that would have been something of Wesley's Anglicanism that I think that we are poorer for having lost.

I agree that we confess and repent and God makes holy. However, if God is setting us apart and cleaning us regardless of confession and repentance, what doctrine are you discussion?

I'm talking about prevenient grace. If even for a moment we are able to choose God, despite our depravity, because of grace, then don't you think that for that moment we are set apart? I'm not talking about the "stain of sin" being washed away or any of that sort of thing. I'm talking about our minds being made clean enough to choose God - not necessarily being thoroughly washed in the blood of the Lamb! I think that makes sense, don't you? I'm not minimizing holiness, I'm actually making it much larger, I think, anyway.

I agree that prevenient grace can go unnoticed. Whay do you think this might be so?

I think that God does things quite often that goes unnoticed. I suspect that the problem, which is often the case, is our own ego. Our ego gets in the way. That's sort of what happened with Pelagius, isn't it? I happen to respect Pelagius a great deal, but that's what we do when think that faith is a work of our own. We can't totally surrender to the notion that we can't even choose Him without His help. We don't want God to be sovereign. And grace goes unnoticed quite a lot because of our own ego.

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 12:24 PM (12:24)

Okay! We are saved by grace. If I understand your theology, God sets us apart and cleanse us from the burden of filth. Further, it seems like God does all of this prior to our confession, repentance and born again experience.

Yes, we would agree that we're saved by grace.

If one is set apart at all, whether a little or a lot, one is set apart.

What I'm talking about is an initial holiness (sanctification, if you will), not entire sanctification.

I'm positing that there is something sanctifying about prevenient grace - which can be rejected, by the way.

Mike McVey

24th July 2008, 12:30 PM (12:30)

Man, Jamie, I sure did miss you while I was off Naznet. I also miss these discussions :(.

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 12:47 PM (12:47)

Tami, I was responding to this question:

Jamie, I commend you for trying to get out of this one.

His argument is basically this:

1. Holiness requires confession and repentance.
2. Confession and repentance are conscious moments.
3. Therefore, holiness requires conscious moments.

I simply used the exception to reject his first premiss, the premiss upon which his conclusion is built.

If I am saying that holiness requires confession and repentance, what is theologically wrong with that? Please do not return to your grace defense. You over used that one.

If confession and repentance are conscious moments, what is wrong with that theologically?

If holiness entails a conscious moment, what is wrong with that theologically?

Here's the bottom line, in a sense, without God's help, we are incapable of choosing Him.

Previously, you said that we are saved by grace and not confession and repentance. I agreee that we are saved by grace. However, you seem to discount our part in confession and repentance. You defended this by referring to "exceptions." If God is setting us apart and cleansing us prior to the born again experience, what do we need to choose Him? It seems like He already choose (according to Jamie).

The Wesleyan perspective, if I understand it correctly, is that God gives us all enough grace, at some point in our lives, to choose Him; at that point the scales, by grace, are such that we are free to choose Him. This is prevenient grace, the grace which helps us to overcome our total depravity, the grace which helps us realize that without God we cannot do any good thing.

Since you emphasize prevenient grace so much, let me quote what the Manual says about prevenient grace. "... But we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleasning from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight."

According to you, prevenient grace sets us apart and cleanse us prior to regeneration. Holiness begins prior to regeneration.

According to the Manual:
...grace is freely given
...enables us to turn from sin to righteousness
...believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin
...follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.

Which is your position?

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 12:56 PM (12:56)

You haven't addressed any of my syllogisms, actually, but thanks for the clarification.

You originally wrote:

That's a pretty big SEEMS, isn't it?

So you say that there is a contradiction, and then you say that there isn't. Isn't that a contradiction?

WOW Jamie! It is a big SEEMS because you did not get it and did not get it. I will move on from this because I have made it clear and you failed to see the clarity.

Mike McVey

24th July 2008, 12:57 PM (12:57)

Since you emphasize prevenient grace so much, let me quote what the Manual says about prevenient grace. "... But we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleasning from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight."

According to you, prevenient grace sets us apart and cleanse us prior to regeneration. Holiness begins prior to regeneration.

According to the Manual:
...grace is freely given
...enables us to turn from sin to righteousness
...believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin
...follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.

Which is your position?

I'm just curious, how is Jamie incompatible with the Manual enough to actually have to choose a position? I am pretty sure that what Jamie means by set apart and what you mean are different. God calls all to follow, and it takes a long time for some people to follow. Does that mean that they are any less set apart to follow? I don't believe Jamie is saying that set apart is from other people as opposed to set apart in the very beginning to be in relationship with God. For that to be true, some sort of prevenient grace has to be on the table. Despite the freely given grace, we still have to choose to accept it or not. Again, I believe that God is in Christ reconciling the world to Godself, and that might go beyond our "living" years. I don't know exactly, because it is speculation. Some might follow grace more than others. How does contradict the manual?

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 01:02 PM (13:02)

If I am saying that holiness requires confession and repentance, what is theologically wrong with that? Please do not return to your grace defense. You over used that one.

If confession and repentance are conscious moments, what is wrong with that theologically?

If holiness entails a conscious moment, what is wrong with that theologically?

There is no room for exceptions; that's what is wrong.

Again, was my grandmother, in a coma for 8 years, unholy because she wasn't conscious?

Previously, you said that we are saved by grace and not confession and repentance. I agreee that we are saved by grace. However, you seem to discount our part in confession and repentance. You defended this by referring to "exceptions." If God is setting us apart and cleansing us prior to the born again experience, what do we need to choose Him? It seems like He already choose (according to Jamie).

What do we need to choose Him? We need grace. Subsequent to that grace, we are enabled and encouraged to choose Him, and that choice is ours, per the Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. Confession and repentance, if any, is subsequent to prevenient grace.

Since you emphasize prevenient grace so much, let me quote what the Manual says about prevenient grace. "... But we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleasning from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight."

According to you, prevenient grace sets us apart and cleanse us prior to regeneration. Holiness begins prior to regeneration.

According to the Manual:
...grace is freely given
...enables us to turn from sin to righteousness
...believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin
...follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.

Which is your position?

I think that I've stated my position.

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 01:03 PM (13:03)

What about these? Of course, you didn't pose them in this format, but these arguments can be deduced from what you've said:

[QUOTE=Jamie Wayne;207554]1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.

By itself, what is wrong with this?

2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.

By itself, what is wrong with this?

3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.
4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.
5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

I separated the doctrines for discussion. I kept them together as an experience.

Does this not suggest that they are chronologically separate, based on what YOU said?

1. Holiness requires confession and repentance.
2. Confession and repentance are conscious moments.
3. Therefore, holiness requires conscious moments.

Was my grandmother, in a coma for 8 years, unholy, then, because she wasn't conscious?

I will not be drawn into this.

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 01:18 PM (13:18)

I separated the doctrines for discussion. I kept them together as an experience.

Ok, but the way that you're presented them for discussion doesn't make sense - and that's a problem.

For example:

1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.
2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.
3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.
4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.
5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

This is how YOU presented this, though the form is mine.

I will not be drawn into this.

That is wise, but how, then, do you account for the holiness of my grandmother in your model if holiness requires consciousness?

1. Holiness requires confession and repentance.
2. Confession and repentance are conscious moments.
3. Therefore, holiness requires conscious moments.

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 01:19 PM (13:19)

Man, Jamie, I sure did miss you while I was off Naznet. I also miss these discussions :(.

Someday maybe you and I will have a beer together...maybe "in glory." ;)

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 01:32 PM (13:32)

Yes, there is a difference when it comes to "actual" sin, I guess I would call it, rather than Original Sin.

Question - What is your understanding of the sins we commit and the sin we are bon with?

I understand your concern, but don't you think that being lifted up out of depravity involves some sort of purgation on God's part to enable us to choose Him so that regeneration occurs?

Question - From your perspective is depravity removed in regeneration or entire sanctification?

I think that our arguments should allow room for exceptions, though, so that our statements should be made such that these exceptions are excluded. That's basically my point with that.

I am surprised that you want our arguments to allow room for exceptions. You did not allow that for what I said on adoption.

I'm talking about prevenient grace. If even for a moment we are able to choose God, despite our depravity, because of grace, then don't you think that for that moment we are set apart? I'm not talking about the "stain of sin" being washed away or any of that sort of thing. I'm talking about our minds being made clean enough to choose God - not necessarily being thoroughly washed in the blood of the Lamb! I think that makes sense, don't you? I'm not minimizing holiness, I'm actually making it much larger, I think, anyway.

Prevenient grace enables us to turn to Christ, to turn from sin to righteousness. It enables us to believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin. Your concept of "setting apart" must take into consideraton the actual meaning of what this grace does for us before we accept His salvation.

Hans Deventer

24th July 2008, 01:41 PM (13:41)

Someday maybe you and I will have a beer together...maybe "in glory." ;)

I suspect that will be a glass of wine, Jamie ;) (Isaiah 25:6)

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 01:57 PM (13:57)

Question - What is your understanding of the sins we commit and the sin we are bon with?

We are born into a sinful, broken world, and that is apart from any sins that we actually commit. Either way, relationships need to be restored, and that is only possible by grace.

Question - From your perspective is depravity removed in regeneration or entire sanctification?

No.

The scale of depravity is tipped with prevenient grace, prior to both regeneration and entire sanctification.

I am surprised that you want our arguments to allow room for exceptions. You did not allow that for what I said on adoption.

Allowing for exceptions is quite different than allowing for contradictions.

Prevenient grace enables us to turn to Christ, to turn from sin to righteousness. It enables us to believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin. Your concept of "setting apart" must take into consideraton the actual meaning of what this grace does for us before we accept His salvation.

In fact, I think that my concept does take into consideration the meaning of what grace does for us before we accept salvation - and that moment of grace is where depravity is overcome, and, hence, there is a sense of holiness or sanctity because of that very grace - whether one is conscious of that or not!

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 01:59 PM (13:59)

I suspect that will be a glass of wine, Jamie ;) (Isaiah 25:6)

Maybe you and I, Hans, will drink wine together "in glory," but I suspect that for Mike and I it will be beer. :)

AMEN!

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 02:23 PM (14:23)

Ok, but the way that you're presented them for discussion doesn't make sense - and that's a problem.

For example:

1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.
2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.
3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.
4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.
5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

This is how YOU presented this, though the form is mine.

That is wise, but how, then, do you account for the holiness of my grandmother in your model if holiness requires consciousness?

1. Holiness requires confession and repentance.
2. Confession and repentance are conscious moments.
3. Therefore, holiness requires conscious moments.

Jamie, show me step by step what does not make sense, please.

When I said that holiness is a conscious moment, I meant the awareness that one is totally free from sin. The carnal nature is removed. Christ is sitting on the throne. The heart is filled with love. You know that you are entirely sanctified. You experienced your Pentecost.

In relation to your grandmother, you know her better. You know her life. Always remember - God is JUST! You have to trust His judgment.

Ramesh Deosarran

24th July 2008, 02:39 PM (14:39)

We are born into a sinful, broken world, and that is apart from any sins that we actually commit. Either way, relationships need to be restored, and that is only possible by grace.

You are explaining. I am looking for a definition. We have no dispute over grace.

No. The scale of depravity is tipped with prevenient grace, prior to both regeneration and entire sanctification.

Since your answer is 'No" then it is removed in prevenient grace (according to Jamie). This is also where we differ. I do not believe the carnal nature is removed by prevenient grace.

In fact, I think that my concept does take into consideration the meaning of what grace does for us before we accept salvation - and that moment of grace is where depravity is overcome, and, hence, there is a sense of holiness or sanctity because of that very grace - whether one is conscious of that or not!

If depravity is removed by prevenient grace, what would be the significance of regeneration and entire sanctification?

Mike McVey

24th July 2008, 05:02 PM (17:02)

Maybe you and I, Hans, will drink wine together "in glory," but I suspect that for Mike and I it will be beer. :)

AMEN!

I'm more of Dr. Pepper guy. Haven't had one in almost a month... the shakes have stopped, but I if it will be in glory, I prefer the taste and substance of original Dr. Pepper to anything else (not that 23 flavors junk).

::laughing

Mike McVey

24th July 2008, 05:16 PM (17:16)

Question - What is your understanding of the sins we commit and the sin we are bon with?

I'm not so sure that we are born "with" sin so much as "into" sin. This might seem like a small distinction, but it makes a big difference. Jaime is more of an into sin kinda guy. This radically changes the understanding of prevenient grace. Recovering the imago dei in our lives is something that only God can do and makes little sense with being born "with" sin. Since the name of the thread is chief metaphors, it might be helpful if you both started with similar locutions.

Prevenient grace enables us to turn to Christ, to turn from sin to righteousness. It enables us to believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin. Your concept of "setting apart" must take into consideraton the actual meaning of what this grace does for us before we accept His salvation.

Your sentences don't contradict each other, but they are very close. You are right, pre-grace enables us to turn to Christ, etc. But pre-grace is not the same as irresistible grace, and does not force us to make a choice. It enables us if we choose to be enabled.

From an outsider looking in, I want to be careful in saying that Jaime hasn't taken into account what "the actual meaning of what this grace does for us before we accept his salvation". I think he has done a wonderful job providing.

My question, and it will help me no matter how it affects you two: Do you believe God has set apart everyone or just a few? If the answer is just a few, then the rest of this conversation is pointless because Jaime has stated and I agree that God has set apart everyone.

If this is true, the question is when does God set everyone apart? I would argue from creation. I don't believe nor do I see it in scripture that God sets us apart after we are in the "in" group, or had "in" experiences. Can you help me with this?

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 05:32 PM (17:32)

From an outsider looking in, I want to be careful in saying that Jaime hasn't taken into account what "the actual meaning of what this grace does for us before we accept his salvation". I think he has done a wonderful job providing.

Thanks, Mike. What guitar is that in your avatar?

My question, and it will help me no matter how it affects you two: Do you believe God has set apart everyone or just a few? If the answer is just a few, then the rest of this conversation is pointless because Jaime has stated and I agree that God has set apart everyone.

If this is true, the question is when does God set everyone apart? I would argue from creation. I don't believe nor do I see it in scripture that God sets us apart after we are in the "in" group, or had "in" experiences. Can you help me with this?My "problem" is that if everyone is set apart, then it's like nobody is set apart...get my drift? ...but I'm OK with that. :)

As to "when" God sets everyone apart, and I'm addressing this to you alone, Mike, I would say that we were set apart before creation - not "from" creation - in the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I think that you, Mike, might agree with that distinction, too.

Mike McVey

24th July 2008, 05:40 PM (17:40)

Thanks, Mike. What guitar is that in your avatar?

My "problem" is that if everyone is set apart, then it's like nobody is set apart...get my drift? ...but I'm OK with that. :)

As to "when" God sets everyone apart, and I'm addressing this to you alone, Mike, I would say that we were set apart before creation - not "from" creation - in the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I think that you, Mike, might agree with that distinction, too.

Ughh.... why did I bring up locutions and then get nit-picky with them!?!? LOL

Fender Strat

I would we are set apart from the rest of creation because of choice. And you sound way to much like Syndrome from The Incredibles, "And when everyone becomes super, no one will be." I don't buy that logic. That's like saying because God loves everyone no one is really loved by God.

Yes, before creation, not from creation. Stupid locution mentioner that I am.

:D

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 05:41 PM (17:41)

Jamie, show me step by step what does not make sense, please.

I'm getting tired, to be honest, trying to do that...

When I said that holiness is a conscious moment, I meant the awareness that one is totally free from sin. The carnal nature is removed. Christ is sitting on the throne. The heart is filled with love. You know that you are entirely sanctified. You experienced your Pentecost.

Some never become aware that they are "totally free from sin."

Here's my question to you:

Prior to Wesley's "heartwarming" moment, was he any more or less totally free from sin?

Here's another question to you:

Did Wesley (John) ever claim "entire sanctification" for himself, and how many people did he claim (for lack of better words) "entire sanctification" for?

In relation to your grandmother, you know her better. You know her life. Always remember - God is JUST! You have to trust His judgment.

My paternal grandmother died on my 16th birthday after being in a coma for 8 years. She was Roman Catholic. When we looked through her "stuff" to divy up her things after she died, I only wanted her rosary.

My maternal grandmother died last year at 93 after Alzheimer's for years and years; she was Roman Catholic also, and somehow I didn't get a rosary...Hmmmm.

Either way, they weren't conscious of their salvation or sanctification, but I didn't worry about it one bit; the day that each of them died counts among the most joyous days of my life.

You are explaining. I am looking for a definition. We have no dispute over grace.

Sorry.

Since your answer is 'No" then it is removed in prevenient grace (according to Jamie). This is also where we differ. I do not believe the carnal nature is removed by prevenient grace.

I don't think so, either.

If depravity is removed by prevenient grace, what would be the significance of regeneration and entire sanctification?

If depravity weren't overcome by prevenient grace, then there would be no significance of regeneration or so called "entire sanctification," because regeneration and/or so called "entire sanctification" would never occur!

Both regeneration and this so called "entire sanctification" are predicated upon the overcoming of depravity by prevenient grace!

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 05:46 PM (17:46)

Ughh.... why did I bring up locutions and then get nit-picky with them!?!? LOL

Do you know the story about the scorpion and the turtle?

It was the scorpions nature to sting the turtle - even if it meant that they both shall die!

Fender Strat

What kind?

I play a '97 MIJ (made in Japan) with a Fender floating trem (I don't see those often), locking nut, and fine tuners. I put the EMG DG20 (Dave Gilmour) package in there, too, which is sweet.

I would we are set apart from the rest of creation because of choice. And you sound way to much like Syndrome from The Incredibles, "And when everyone becomes super, no one will be." I don't buy that logic. That's like saying because God loves everyone no one is really loved by God.

Yes, before creation, not from creation. Stupid locution mentioner that I am.

:D

Yeah, I don't like that logic, either, but I don't know anything about the Incredibles...

If everyone is loved by God, that doesn't make His love for me any less! I think you'd drink to that, and I'm drinking a Dr. Pepper right now, actually!

Jamie Wayne

24th July 2008, 08:43 PM (20:43)

Jamie, show me step by step what does not make sense, please.

You made the following three propositions:

1. Justification describes imputed righteousness.

2. Regeneration describes imparted righteousness.

3. Imputed righteousness occurs prior to imparted righteousness.

The conclusions to those three propositions are the following:

4. Therefore, what regeneration describes occurs subsequent to what justification describes.

5. Therefore, imputed righteousness, described by justification, and imparted righteousness, described by regeneration, do not occur simultaneously.

You say that all of these three are experienced together, but, you say, for the sake of discussion we separate them.

Well, for the sake of discussion, the way that you've separated them seems to preclude the possibility that they may actually be experienced together.

Doesn't that seem problematic to you?

Moving on...

You made the following assertions:

1. Holiness requires confession and repentance.
2. Confession and repentance are conscious moments.

The logical conclusion to those assertions is the following:

3. Therefore, holiness requires conscious moments.

I raised the point of exceptions (not logical contradictions), and how there is no room for the conclusion which follows from your assertions. Yes, I admit that I am using exceptions against your assertions, but, from my perspective, charity would dictate that the exceptions should be considered when making such assertions.

The real problem with your assertion, I believe, is that you're making holiness out to require movement on our part, i.e., confession and repentance, and believe me, I'm a big supporter of confession and repentance; however, I am beginning with the premiss that holiness is not something that we do, but holiness is something that God does. We do not set ourselves apart, nor do we "cleanse" ourselves - God does both of those things. I think you would agree with my last sentence, actually.

The difference, I think, is that you (like Pelagius, which isn't necessarily such a bad thing, really) seem to focus on the response - confession and repentance - whereas I am squarely focusing on why the response is even possible (when applicable). We cannot respond on our own; therefore, our response is predicated upon God's grace. I think that you agree with that, too.

If we leave it at grace, then we don't have to worry about invalid grandmothers, the mentally retarded, people who live in Mongolia, aliens, etc...

Furthermore, the focus, then, remains on God, rather than us and our response.

But, you might ask, "What of our decision to choose Him? Don't we need to confess with our lips? Don't we have to actually have faith in Jesus? If it's all God, then why are some saved and others not? Isn't it important that I choose God? Doesn't that mean something? Don't I have to love Him out of my own free will to be saved?"

Maybe.

I guess the way that I look at it, yes, our decision is important - it does have value. I want to make that clear.

However, isn't part of the problem in "Christianity" the systematics of it? You started this thread making propositions about these three metaphors, but these three metaphors aren't simply metaphors. They are ways of viewing the greater whole. Yet, these metaphors color how we see that greater whole, or, maybe, sometimes the metaphors skew us from seeing that greater whole.

Don't we really have to start with anthropology before dealing with soteriology? Isn't that fair?

Heck, if only St. Anselm had started with sin instead of fallen angels in Cur Deus Homo?, we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Regardless, I think that Mike is right; you and I aren't starting with the same view of sin, and, therefore, we aren't coming to the same conclusions about soteriology.

Maybe if I were teaching on soteriology, or the ordo, I would start with these three metaphors, too, and then proceed with the "theories of atonement." Maybe I wouldn't.

Isn't it interesting, though, that most confessions or creeds, like the Manual of the CotN and the XXXIX Articles starts with the Trinity, and sin is much further along? Why is that?

Why is it that we have to make such statements about imputed righteousness preceding imparted righteousness?

I suspect that it's for the same reason that my brother-in-law's Mom and Dad, who are Lutherans, are so distraught because my niece and nephew haven't been baptized yet as infants. It's interesting, though, since I am such a big supporter of infant baptism, but not because I think that it "cleanses" us of Original Sin!

So much of how we think of the systematics of theology is based on how we understand sin, yet so few of us are actually willing to address sin - especially, as I'm finding out, in the Church of the Nazarene, where some believe in "Christian Perfection," as living without sin. I'm not saying that's not possible, but I would count about as many people as Wesley did when it comes to that!

Maybe I've gone on too long. Maybe I'm just rambling now and not making any sense.

However, as for me, I want to emphasize grace, and in doing that, I want to account for sin. I want to account for sin, but I don't agree with St. Anselm that God demands justice. I don't want to agree with St. Anselm that God demands blood. Yes, the wages of sin is death, and all that, but that's because one isn't really living if one separates oneself from their Source.

Let me put it this way, and perhaps I'll make less sense. ;)

I believe that all living things are animated by the Holy Spirit. Let's start with that proposition.

I also believe that all human beings have conscience because of that same Holy Spirit. In other words, the Holy Spirit is both "in" all living things, but the Holy Spirit also works "in" human beings in a special way with regard to conscience (possibly among other things).

Having said that, the notion that the Holy Spirit comes "in" to a human being upon regeneration doesn't seem to work.

Now, don't think of me as "New Age" because I'm saying this, nor do I think that my studies in Eastern philosophy are making me crazy.

I think that "Christianity" is so much more about realizing what God has already done than anything else. Period.

If we consider the "L" in TULIP for a moment, that suggests that God is waiting for our response and only spilling enough blood to cover what is necessary. On some days, I believe that; I'll be honest, though not because I believe in predestination in the Reformed sense. However, on other days I think that unlimited atonment makes more sense because the blood was shed for everybody - before anyone made any choice, before the foundation of the world, actually. "Christianity" is not about making that blood effective, but in realizing it's effect. I think some will understand what I mean by that.

This "second blessing" business isn't about the indwelling of any spirit that wasn't already there, it's about the realization of the Spirit that IS. It's not like BAM, the Spirit is within. The BAM moment is more realizing what God has already given us.

Now, am I saying that everybody is "saved"? No. There is way too much starvation going on in this world, not to mention a whole lot of other things, to say that everybody will be "saved." However, I do believe, perhaps above all else, that in the end, God will be, and God will be all in all. What exactly that looks like, I don't know, but I think that, by grace, I will find out - or maybe I won't. Maybe I won't even notice. Maybe I will be so absorbed that "I" won't really exist at all apart from Him.

Maybe, just maybe the Hindus aren't wrong; maybe they're just describing the Orthodox "theosis" when they talk about tat tvam asi - "Thou art That."

Maybe I've gone off my rocker now, and maybe I should stop while I'm not even close to being ahead. Maybe I've opened myself up to all sorts of criticisms. That's ok. I'll be ok.

But what if our view of sin has skewed Christian thought to the point where Lutheran grandparents sincerely worry about the "state" of the "souls" of their grandchildren, in fear that their not being baptized means that they remain in a "state" of Original Sin?

Oh, what a web Eve wove...