Why do we ignore some scriptures?

[TheArtguy58]

Beginning to look a little too much like a situation from a month or two ago when someone made out to be Methodist but took the same tact and argued for Calvinist thought.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Beginning to look a little too much like a situation from a month or two ago when someone made out to be Methodist but took the same tact and argued for Calvinist thought.

I'm not willing to go there. PaulFan indicates that he has attended the Methodist church and there is every reason to believe him with regard to that, and he doesn't indicate he is not attending it now. Given the emphasis on pluralism in the UMC, it shouldn't surpise us that there are not just a variety of different political views, but even theological views popluating our churches. If you were to poll the beliefs of my congregation, the truth is they may sound more Baptist than Methodist. At least he is here asking questions. The next step isn't to agree/disagree, but to actually listen to the answers if he desires to learn the nuances of Wesley thought from a Welsey perspective rather than the strawman that might substitute for it from those who are not themselves Wesleyan in perspective.

 

[TheArtguy58]

Given the emphasis on pluralism in the UMC, it shouldn't surpise us that there are not just a variety of different political views, but even theological views popluating our churches. If you were to poll the beliefs of my congregation, the truth is they may sound more Baptist than Methodist. At least he is here asking questions.

Well, truth be told, my own church is very large and the beliefs are diverse as they come. My Sunday school class has quite a few former Presbyterians and Baptist and most are always surprised to learn there are differences. So you're right, he is asking questions, and he is a lot more polite, which I always appreciate, and he is making me think. I am sure that if you polled each of us who identify with Wesley you would still find a pretty broad range of different ideas there too.

 

[PaulFan]

How ironic. You've told us, not just that you disagree with our interpretation of the scriptures, but that we were wrong. You say things like:
And then you accuse someone else of "tell[ing] someone who disagrees with you, to think like you."

Not even remotely equivalent.

How strange also that you identify yourself as a United Methodist and ContraMundum does not, and yet he is the one who has the better understanding of Wesleyan theology, while you reject what little you do understand.

I don't find that strange at all that you take the side of the one whom you agree with, doctrinally. It is as if I am back in high school debate. Am I supposed to feel bad about myself for holding a different view? I'm sorry, but Jedi mind tricks do not work on me. I am not 12 years old.

The question that remains to be answered (or, one might say, completely bypassed) by either you or CM is why you ignore Paul's teachings about PD. Of course, I have heard the excuse that you interpret them differently, but I find that lacking. This whole thread has been about that very point... to accept free-will, you must ignore Paul in some places while upholding him in others. Such an approach to the inspired works is , well, not advisable IMHO.

 

[PaulFan]

Beginning to look a little too much like a situation from a month or two ago when someone made out to be Methodist but took the same tact and argued for Calvinist thought.

Are you calling me a liar, sir?

 

[Historicus]

Mod Hat On
Please stay on topic to the OP.
You can review CF rules here.
Mod Hat Off
​

 

[TheArtguy58]

Are you calling me a liar, sir?

Not at all. It's just that a very similar situation came up not too long ago of someone arguing a very Calvinist view while making a point of saying he attended a UM Church.
As I said to Graceseeker I have to admit there are a lot of people in my church who might agree with you. But as I told you before this has been an interesting thread, it makes me think. So if you took offense I apologize.

 

[PaulFan]

I'm not willing to go there. PaulFan indicates that he has attended the Methodist church and there is every reason to believe him with regard to that, and he doesn't indicate he is not attending it now.

It would certainly be bizarre if anyone thinks I am a "pretend Methodist" masking my beliefs in order to steal the souls of the unsuspecting Arminians.

Given the emphasis on pluralism in the UMC, it shouldn't surpise us that there are not just a variety of different political views, but even theological views popluating our churches.

Absolutely correct. I speak of this in other threads and I see it as a problem. I was told by a congregate at the "United Methodist Church" where I have attended for the past "five years" that everyone will be saved. I thought this was called Universalism and not taught by the Methodist Church. It is not. However, there are many diverging views such as this in the UMC and it is because, IMO, that we do not get as much scriptural education as we should be getting.

My ideas of salvation (in regard to my Calvinist bend) are simply from my own research and, by revelation from the Holy Spirit. The Methodists in my Church seem like good Arminians. That is, the ones who actually have read and understood the scriptures, which I am afraid, is a small percentage of the congregation.

At least he is here asking questions. The next step isn't to agree/disagree, but to actually listen to the answers if he desires to learn the nuances of

This thread is based on an honest question I have come to ask, one in which I have yet to receive what I feel is a proper answer which satisfies me, personally. "Why do we Methodists ignore the scriptures of Paul which indicate predestination?" I have received answers such as "We take the scripture as a whole" and "We don't ignore it, we just interpret it differently". My point is, Romans 8:28-30 are quite clear and direct. ContraMundum did give a very good description of the Wesleyan view and I appreciate that. To be honest, it did sound more palatable to me (that regeneration is necessary before one can "choose" faith in Jesus Christ) seeing as I consider Paul's teachings to be taken at face value.

 

[PaulFan]

So if you took offense I apologize.

If you are not implying I am dishonest, then I take no offense.

 

[MarkEvan]

The question that remains to be answered (or, one might say, completely bypassed) by either you or CM is why you ignore Paul's teachings about PD. Of course, I have heard the excuse that you interpret them differently, but I find that lacking. This whole thread has been about that very point... to accept free-will, you must ignore Paul in some places while upholding him in others. Such an approach to the inspired works is , well, not advisable IMHO.

But they aren't ignoring the writings of Paul that is simply the way you have decided to see their 'interpretation,' I believe that an answer has been provided to every idea you put forth but those answers have not conformed to your own belief in what the scriptures say......ergo you see their interpretations as lacking, why? They have provided scripture for the views they hold therefor it seems to me that the passages you quoted aren't 'ignored' just seen in a different light.

Are they lacking simply because it isn't what you believe? Well to quote yourself from post 39......

In your world, sir, I am sure you believe you have a right to tell someone who disagrees with you, to think like you. But, that is not the world I live in

 

[PaulFan]

But they aren't ignoring the writings of Paul that is simply the way you have decided to see their 'interpretation,' I believe that an answer has been provided to every idea you put forth but those answers have not conformed to your own belief in what the scriptures say......ergo you see their interpretations as lacking, why?

So, because they have given "a" response to my question, should I accept it as valid to my belief? Is that what you are suggesting?

I don't agree. If I say blue is blue, and someone says "blue is red", it would be silly of me to accept their retort just because they "replied", except that I do accept that we have different opinions. To quote John Wesley, "let us agree to disagree".

They have provided scripture for the views they hold therefor it seems to me that the passages you quoted aren't 'ignored' just seen in a different light.
..

Another dismissal of the predestination scriptures of Paul. This is what I keep pointing out and everyone keeps walking right back into it. How does one possibly interpret this differently than a view of predestination???

Romans 9
28And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His purpose.

29For those whom He (C)foreknew, He also (D)predestined to become (E)conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the (F)firstborn among many brethren;

30and these whom He (G)predestined, He also (H)called; and these whom He called, He also (I)justified; and these whom He justified, He also (J)glorified.

But, as has been pointed out, the Wesley-refined view of salvation does require regeneration (God must step in and assist before a person can come to God). Having heard it described in that manner, it is more palatable to me as I guess my experience as a Christian is that I believe in the total depravity of man. That is, I suppose, the root of most of my other views.

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. How many ways can you interpret that quote? It is very direct. The only way to not interpret it as predestination is if you "twist" the meaning of if.

Actually, anyone who teaches that predestination refers to a Divine decree which selects some people to be forced into believing in Jesus Christ and to ultimately persevere unto the end has twisted the meaning of the word.

Let me break it down to very basic points. The word προωρισεν (often translated as "predestined"- the word you are talking about) simply is προ - before, and ωρισεν - mark out. "Marked out before". We do not twist the word at all. We teach that God marked out in eternity that those who believed would be conformed to the image of His Son, as Rom 8 teaches.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." (KJV)

eg. Those who follow Jesus are marked out (προωρισε&#957 to be conformed into His image.

That's what you are predestined to.

You would have to agree that the word does not say or imply "pre-chosen" or "preselected" as you have been told "predestination" means. So, you see, we hold a far more literal understanding of the text than you are thinking.

Unless you believe you have chosen without the assistance of God. And, I'm sorry, many Arminians and Semi-Pelagians hold such a view in direct opposition to the scripture. And some people apologize for them.

As GraceSeeker has pointed out, no one here believes that.

Well, you do realize, I hope, that because Pelagius was deemed a heretic, not much of his work has been saved.

Then why do you claim to call us Pelagians if on not one point of his surviving works do we comply? This is why I asked you the question.

I have read what you have written. I apologize if I lack the time to reply to every point you have made.

It's not the lack of time that is the issue here- it's the lack of substance in your responses.

What I realized was that, to hold an Arminian position, quite simply, you MUST ignore much of the scripture.

You still have not established that assertion. You say it a lot, but you can't seem to be able to substantiate it.

Yes, I know what determinism is and predeterminism. I have already spoken of this in a previous post.

Not really. No, you haven't.

I'll change tact here.

Q: If God determined from eternity for you to be a sinner, and determined from eternity your sinful actions, is it true justice that He should then judge you to be a sinner after death and send you to Hell? He made you do it, and now He wants you to accept the blame.

That is utter nonsense.

I actually don't think you are qualified on this topic to say that. Unless you can prove to me that determinism was not a feature of paganism in the eras before before Augustine introduced some notions of it into Christianity you had better not accuse me of speaking nonsense. Trust me, I know this very, very well, as it was an important issue for me (coming from Judaism to Christianity)

You have written more than I have time to respond to at the moment. Thank you. I do enjoy the back and forth and I am learning from you. I appreciate the time you are taking to express your views.

God bless you.

I appreciate the efforts you have made, but I think you are spending too much time on the argument and not enough time demonstrating your concerns. That would be helpful.

 

[GraceSeeker]

This thread is based on an honest question I have come to ask, one in which I have yet to receive what I feel is a proper answer which satisfies me, personally.

Yes, I believe it is an honest question. As to whether you have received an answer or an answer that satisfies you personally, well those are actually two different things. I haven't been too involved in this thread as I thought ContraMundum was doing a good job and didn't need me interrupting his train of thought.

As for you own question:

"Why do we Methodists ignore the scriptures of Paul which indicate predestination?"

I don't see where we ignore Paul. Look at how many of us have said that we do indeed recognize that predestination exists. What we haven't done is to conflate predestination with predetermination as if the two were synonymns.

So, I apologize that it is asking you to go over ground you've already covered, but where is it that you think Methodists have ignored Paul? (I understand not wanting to restate the whole post, just give me a link back to it or a post reference number.) But also don't expect a quick response from me. Since Contramundum hasn't provided a "proper answer" that "satisfies you personally", it is obvious that you want more than what was already a fairly extended reply. I expect this to take me a week or more, and probably more than one post. I should get credit for seminary again given all that you are asking me to write.

 

[GraceSeeker]

So, because they have given "a" response to my question, should I accept it as valid to my belief? Is that what you are suggesting?

No. But I am suggesting that you shouldn't say that people have ignored you. Giving a response that you disagree with is a response.

I don't agree. If I say blue is blue, and someone says "blue is red", it would be silly of me to accept their retort just because they "replied", except that I do accept that we have different opinions. To quote John Wesley, "let us agree to disagree".

Again, no. But you may have to accept that the other person does indeed see it that way.

For instance, this same illustration you cite would actually be true if you had used the colors blue and and green. For, in many cultures of the world they do not have two different terms for what we call blue and green, they are all just one color. So you might call something blue, and they would call it green, and you would both, from your own persepctive, be right.

Another dismissal of the predestination scriptures of Paul. This is what I keep pointing out and everyone keeps walking right back into it. How does one possibly interpret this differently than a view of predestination???

Viewing something differently, is NOT the same as a dismissal.

But, as has been pointed out, the Wesley-refined view of salvation does require regeneration (God must step in and assist before a person can come to God). Having heard it described in that manner, it is more palatable to me as I guess my experience as a Christian is that I believe in the total depravity of man. That is, I suppose, the root of most of my other views.

And Wesley-Arminianism begins with the total depravity of man just as does Calvinism. The difference is that in Wesley-Arminianism, God graciously awakens us to a realization of our depravity (prevenient grace) and hence our need for him and then we hear that he has indeed provided the answer to that depravity (regenerating grace) if we are willing to accept it in our lives and grow into the righteous people he created us to be (sanctifying grace).

Calvinism (from this Wesleyan's point of view) doesn't awaken people to the realization of their depravity, it just announces it as a given, but people can function without any awareness of that reality. God then acts to save them from their depravity or he doesn't. End of story.

 

[PaulFan]

Well, I do appreciate the time that both of you (and others) have taken to share your views. Though I may not agree, I do realize that it is an act of kindness and mercy that you share your views and talk about the Word of God. I will wind things down in this thread because, unfortunately, I have not found anyone who will admit that these scriptures about PD stand on their own. They don't need interpretation. Take this scripture, for example;

18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For (AM)who resists His will?"

20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

Paul says it all. Who are you to question the ways of God? Paul is always direct, I think, because he knows the heart of man. He even reprimanded Peter in public because of a perceived disagreement. So, I take Paul at his word as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I am a Wesleyan in every way except that I cannot ignore Paul's teachings on this subject even when those around me will ignore them. I guess I am seeking someone to help me understand our differences and, the fact is, I have learned that there are those who will ignore these scriptures, or change their meaning, and will not give it a second thought when doing so. These are my opinions. I mean no disrespect.

But I- I *am* giving them a second thought. I do not believe man's doctrine in and of itself. Nowhere else in scripture was I expected to suspend or "gloss over" the message of the scripture except in the case of Paul's discussion of predestination. I noticed that early and it didn't sit right with me. I believe God's doctrine as in Sola Scriptura. When I first sat in Disciple study and was experiencing the mercy of God in his revelation of his Word to me, a lowly sinner, I was overwhelmed. I had read the bible and never understood, but now, I was learning so much and so quickly through prayer and study of the scriptures. When I first questioned my Methodist pastor about election and Paul's scriptures on predestination, he gave me similar answers to what I have received in this thread. The difference is, this man of God didn't tell me my belief in PD was a deal breaker. He didn't tell me I was a pagan or a heretic. Rather, he told me God would reveal to me what he wanted me to know and that I must learn to trust God. Further, he explained that there was room for both beliefs (Arminian/Predestination) in the Methodist church.

Anyway, this thread has come full circle and, I think, is coming to an end.

God bless you and thank you.

 

[ContraMundum]

Don't forget that there are Calvinist Methodists too.

 

[GraceSeeker]

PaulFan,

I appreciate that you have edited your post, but it is important in this case to note that you initially posted as follows:

originally by GraceSeeker
Calvinism (from this Wesleyan's point of view) doesn't awaken people to the realization of their depravity, it just announces it as a given, but people can function without any awareness of that reality. God then acts to save them from their depravity or he doesn't. End of story.

To which you responded:

originally posted by PaulFan
Again, you have made my point by ignoring the truth of the scripture.

How quick you were to jump to such a statement. Not agreeing with you with regard to the truth of scripture is NOT ignoring the truth of scripture. There is a difference between disagreeing and ignoring. Ignoring is when you fail to notice that we are engaging scripture just because we come out at a different place in our understanding of it than you do.


But you did edit that part out. So we're making progress. And your pastor is right, there is room for BOTH understandings of Paul in the UMC. My objection to what you have said is more in your implication that your understanding of Paul is necessarily correct in understanding what Paul was writing about and therefore everyone else needs to come around to your way of reading Paul or they are ignore scripture. But of course everyone does think there own understanding is right, so I don't blame you for that part, just for the unwillingness to grant that we may have read and engaged these passages and yet without ignoring them have arrived at a different understanding of what Paul was saying.

Now, as I said yesterday, that takes more than the time I have available to commit to it right now. But I'll give you a hint, I don't think Luther was always the best interpret of Paul. So it goes a lot deeper than just Wesely-Arminianism vs. Calvinism. Paul's understanding of an imminent apocalypse and the sign of the incorporation of the nations into also being chosen by God alongside the Jews as a work of the Messiah in God's final consumation of the world and setting things right is background for all of these passages you are asking about. Unfortunately the passage of time has changed the way we read these passages so that we don't always get out of them the same ideas that Paul was expressing when he wrote them because the sense of that imminence has faded.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, I do appreciate the time that both of you (and others) have taken to share your views. Though I may not agree, I do realize that it is an act of kindness and mercy that you share your views and talk about the Word of God. I will wind things down in this thread because, unfortunately, I have not found anyone who will admit that these scriptures about PD stand on their own. They don't need interpretation. Take this scripture, for example;

The text you have given, taken in context, in about nations, not people. Please re-read them in full context and take note of that. To say that those texts refer to the predestination of individuals being appointed to salvation or damnation is to violently rip them out of context. FYI- many Calvinist commentators also point this out.

I am a Wesleyan in every way except that I cannot ignore Paul's teachings on this subject even when those around me will ignore them.

Wesleyans do not ignore these texts! Have you consulted a Wesleyan commentary on these? I would like to suggest an investment in this, it will certainly help you along the way.

But I- I *am* giving them a second thought. I do not believe man's doctrine in and of itself. Nowhere else in scripture was I expected to suspend or "gloss over" the message of the scripture except in the case of Paul's discussion of predestination.

Whoever told you to "gloss over" any text of scripture was wrong. As an ordained minister myself, although not UMC, I put the opposite challenge to you: continue to engage the text. Take your time, research. Allow yourself years, not hours, days or weeks, to settle in on a position. You will change your thoughts on a dozen points in a decade, and that is part of being a Christian and a human being.

When I first questioned my Methodist pastor about election and Paul's scriptures on predestination, he gave me similar answers to what I have received in this thread. The difference is, this man of God didn't tell me my belief in PD was a deal breaker. He didn't tell me I was a pagan or a heretic.

Please note that no one on this thread called you a pagan or a heretic. I personally pointed out that determinism has roots in pagan philosophy (which is true) and that Wesleyans are not Pelagians. Both of those points clearly are not directed at you.

 

[MarkEvan]

I appreciate that you are drawing the thread to an end but I think this is worth saying so will hope you revisit.

It is possible that 2 people can hold separate views on matters such as this and still both love the Lord their God with all their heart.....what it comes down to is does a view on whether man is predestined in the Calvinist sense or not affect how you live your life as a follower of Jesus.....it shouldn't. And that's the most important thing how you live your life, Paul also says that 'whether you eat or drink or whatever you do do all to the glory of the LORD.'

 

[PaulFan]

I did read the final responses and I thank those who added to this thread. We may differ on the non-essentials, but let us maintain our unity on the truth of Jesus Christ.

I give the last word to John Wesley. God bless you.

Suppose then you stood with the "great multitude which no man can number, out of every nation, and tongue, and kindred, and people," who "give praise unto Him that stretch upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever;" you would not find one among them all that were entered into glory, who was not a witness of that great truth [the Gospel]. (ht tp://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/]Global Ministries - Sermon 58, On Predestination)