Talk:Nathan Bangs

From Theopedia

I really like the article, but I think statements like "Bangs defended Arminianism against the Calvinism of his day. He was a strong believer in prevenient grace but not at the expense of total depravity." ... need to be conformed to the writing guidelines, as this is certainly not the view of the Reformed evangelical community. Thanks. -Aaronshaf 08:15, 9 Mar 2005 (EST)

I believe (and could be wrong) that Calvinism's problem with the Wesleyan understanding of prevenient grace has been that it jeopardizes the idea of total depravity. Historically, Calvinists have claimed that Methodists claim too much for free will, when that will is, after all, completely subverted by sin.

Wesley maintained the idea of the complete sinfulness of human beings (and humanity in general), affirming Calvin's take on total depravity. But with his own development of prevenient grace as a gift from God without which no good thing is possible, he felt that he had solved that impasse.

Bangs was one of the staunchest 19th century defenders of Wesley's ideas. It was a period when the Arminian-Calvinist battles got pretty nasty, and little common ground was sought after (which is too bad, as American Methodists and American Calvinists in that century had so much in common and might have done even greater things for Christ's Kingdom had there been some kind of unity).

So, the statement about Bangs is completely correct, and I can't imagine how it could be tendentious in any way; it's a statement of historical fact...Bangs did indeed defend Arminian thinking, and also believed strongly in prevenient grace in a Wesleyan fashion...hand in hand with total depravity.

I certainly did not intend the sentence to be offensive at all. I could clarify it a bit if you'd like. KHM03 08:46, 9 Mar 2005 (EST)