Objection 1: Ephesians 1:19-20 - Whitby's refutation of Arguments in favor of irresistible grace

Dan's comments:

Gabcast! Dan's blog #12






II. OBJECTION ONE. When the apostle prays that his Ephesians may know “what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead;' (Ephesians 1:19-20) it must be absurd hence to infer, that the power of God working faith in believers, is equal to that which effected the resurrection of our Lord, and that we must be therefore purely passive in the whole work of our conversion. For as this power is not consistent with the persuasions and exhortations used in scripture to move sinners to repent and turn themselves from their iniquity, or with a rational choice, nor could it properly be said that " they turned," but only that " they were turned to the Lord;" so is not the exposition agreeable to the words: for the apostle speaks not of the power exercised on us to render us believers, but of the power which shall be exercised on us who believe already, not of the power to be exercised on our souls to raise them from a death in sin to a life of righteousness, but of the power to be exercised on our dead bodies to give them a glorious resurrection to eternal life, as he had done already in the body of our Head, Christ Jesus.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more