Difference between revisions of "Talk:2 Ne 25:9-27:35"

Revision as of 11:09, 1 April 2007

Prevenient grace

I edited out the reference to Mosiah 5:15 and Hymn 243 since I did not see the relevance to the idea of prevenient grace. I may be missing the relationship, or possibly my explanation was poor and the anonymous poster misunderstood. At any rate, I'm posting what I edited here in hopes that others can help me better represent this viewpoint (perhaps I am too close to the issue to understand the point that was being made):

The alternate meaning of after in Romans and Isaiah ("according to the direction and influence of" does not support that assertion. after starts a prepositional phrase - the object of after is "all we can do", not "grace".

Thus the available alternative is as follows:

"for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, according to the direction and influence of all we can do".

That is plausible for various reasons (grace in the Book of Mormon generally follows works, not the other way around) but it is in opposition to the Arminian / Calvinist scheme of grace driving good works, instead of sustaining good works, which is the classical Mormon perspective - Compare "Let us All Press on" (Hymn #243). Also Mosiah 5:15.

The "classic view" I could probably be expounded upon, but I don't see how the above is addressing the precedence (or causality, or temporality?) of grace in relation to works. That is, I understand the "classic view" to be that works precede grace, whereas Ostler's view is that this verse can be read so that grace precedes works (with the additional clause that it is grace therefore that actually saves us and our works follow from that grace—if such works do not follow, then it is b/c we have not properly accepted that gift of grace to enter into an indwelling relationship with God; cf. James 2:18).

--RobertC 18:00, 2 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I have to admit that I think your reading here is forced. I'm still not sure what to make of this verse, though I confess I like Stephen Robinson's reading in Believing Christ. I totally agree with the idea of "prevenient grace" (even if I hate that name for it... "grace" is good enough, isn't it?), but I think the obsession with this verse that is so common among those who read Paul can only be motivated either by a sort of ideology on the one hand or by a fear that grace is ultimately questionable on the other hand. I won't remove the comment for now, but I think that a better approach to this verse would be by taking up its textual thickness, both in its immediate context, and in its connection with 2 Ne 10:24, the words of Jacob to which Nephi is obviously making reference. I will have to work on this, and perhaps I can make some more concrete suggestions, some positive suggestions at any rate. --Joe Spencer 15:41, 3 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Here's another comment (on that unwieldy thread of Geoff's) that I think probably does better justice to Blake's view than I have (for the record, I'm still trying to stay non-commital regarding what I think!). --RobertC 17:25, 3 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding (v. 24)

I like where you're going with this Joe. Please feel free to start over with verse 23, I'm not too happy with the work I did on that verse. --RobertC 19:04, 28 March 2007 (CEST)

I may do so, but I think I'm going first to work through to the end of verse 24. I'm actually working this out in an attempt to think through some texts I will soon engage in my book on typology in the Book of Mormon, not primarily to engage the difficulty of interpreting verse 23. When I came to the page today, the comments posted before made me begin thinking about how 24-30 bear on 23. --Joe Spencer 22:10, 28 March 2007 (CEST)

Prevenient Grace Again

I'm trying to think very hard about this passage, and I want to make sure that I'm reading it well. I posted yesterday a quasi-reading of the verse on the blog, but it outlines my thoughts for now. I suppose what I'm struggling with in reading the grace-apologetics readings of the verse is that they all ignore the context (as do the works-apologetics readings of the verse). In the end, I'm not sure that the term "prevenient grace" is helpful or desirable. The term is borrowed from evangelical theology, and it seems to me to be based on rather modernistic reasoning.

All of this seems all the more frustrating because it seems to miss the most important fact: obedience itself is dependent on a call, which comes (of course) as a gift. "All we can do" can only be in response (how else could it be?), and so it seems rather odd to feel it necessary to argue about the "prevenience" of grace. By definition, grace comes before any response, any obedience, any thought, any action, any word, anything.

Well, jumbled thoughts for now.... --Joe Spencer 17:09, 1 April 2007 (CEST)