Post by RayW on Dec 23, 2013 8:11:55 GMT -8
Please post your answers to the following questions:
1. The doctrine of conditional election teaches that God’s election/predestination of people is based on His foreknowledge rather than His sovereign “secret” will. How is this understanding more palatable than the doctrine of unconditional election?
2. The second defense for conditional election asked, “Why would God make people that he did not elect? He would simply be making them to go to Hell, with no chance otherwise. This is borderline blasphemy.” Discuss the validity of this argument.
3. Notice again how the Protestant Church has traditionally divided over this issue, with those on the bottom line adhering to some form of conditional election, and those on the top line adhering to some form of unconditional election. Discuss your exposure to these issues in your tradition.
4. Most would say that they have never been exposed to a balanced presentation concerning election. Why do you think that this is not discussed much in the Church?
5. Compatibilism is described as “the belief that God’s unconditional sovereign election and human responsibility are both realities taught in Scripture that finite minds cannot comprehend and must be held in tension.” Refer to the Scriptures used to support Compatibilism and discuss its validity.
6. Why do you think God often leaves issues and doctrines in tension?
7. Discuss other doctrines which cannot be reconciled by the finite minds of man, yet are true nonetheless.
8. If God is unchangeable, then He always does things the same way. In your personal life, how do you see God allowing tension and confusion, wanting you to trust in Him even if you don’t understand?
9. Having explained all major traditions, which do you identify with most? Explain.
10.How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
1. The doctrine of conditional election teaches that God’s election/predestination of people is based on His foreknowledge rather than His sovereign “secret” will. How is this understanding more palatable than the doctrine of unconditional election?
2. The second defense for conditional election asked, “Why would God make people that he did not elect? He would simply be making them to go to Hell, with no chance otherwise. This is borderline blasphemy.” Discuss the validity of this argument.
3. Notice again how the Protestant Church has traditionally divided over this issue, with those on the bottom line adhering to some form of conditional election, and those on the top line adhering to some form of unconditional election. Discuss your exposure to these issues in your tradition.
4. Most would say that they have never been exposed to a balanced presentation concerning election. Why do you think that this is not discussed much in the Church?
5. Compatibilism is described as “the belief that God’s unconditional sovereign election and human responsibility are both realities taught in Scripture that finite minds cannot comprehend and must be held in tension.” Refer to the Scriptures used to support Compatibilism and discuss its validity.
6. Why do you think God often leaves issues and doctrines in tension?
7. Discuss other doctrines which cannot be reconciled by the finite minds of man, yet are true nonetheless.
8. If God is unchangeable, then He always does things the same way. In your personal life, how do you see God allowing tension and confusion, wanting you to trust in Him even if you don’t understand?
9. Having explained all major traditions, which do you identify with most? Explain.
10.How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.