Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  I think that states is pretty well.
I'm a bit annoyed Chad that you'll read what I wrote and then say that "sometimes people will say it's a means of grace and sometimes they will say it is not."
They are a means of grace but they're not magic. I have no interest in interacting with a dozen different sentences that can be used as a launchpad to go in 100 different ways.
After that pulling together of a bunch of quotes it seems to me that you have an agenda coming in to this thread to begin with that I don't particularly appreciate. You're just a curious questioner but you pull out a dozen snippets to challenge the Reformed understanding? |
More specifically - when I read the term "Means of Grace" I take that to be defined as a the "means" by which God gives his grace. If it is not the "means" by which God gives his Grace than it isn't a "Means of Grace". Now if there is another definition out there please let me know.
Also - I am a sincere questioner as I indicated above...and I wasn't trying to challenge the reformed understanding which is why all the above quotes were from as solid a reformed folks as I think you get. If I want to get into polemics I'm smart enough to know that going to a "reformed" board is not the place to do it.
Frankly, I prefer to go straight to the horses mouth - I find some LUtherans to have a chip on their shoulder against the reformed (and often vice versa) so I was hoping that engaging in this discussion I could find out more about how those here view the doctrine of assurance.
Actually - I was quite surprised that there was resistance to my initial post. I thought this was commonly accepted in reformed circles. I wonder if it would have been taken different had it not been posted by Lutheran. Again, by posting those quotes I was hoping to get people to look at the content of my comments and not the label on the signature line.
----
Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado
With due respect,