What's new
Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Online forum for sale. Please send Stovebolts PM for details. https://meetchristians.net
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

Calvinism vs Arminianism

guibox

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
1,255
Wow. It has been awhile since I have posted here. Things look different!

Lately on another website I have been constantly exposed to Calvinist arguments. I don't adhere to it but I can see the support for in the scriptures for it (John 6:37-40 for one example)

I would like to know how the Arminianist gets around the meaning of John 6 as well as the idea that man cannot seek out and choose God until he is made spiritually alive (regeneration). Obviously this would not mean everyone as then everyone would be saved.

Any ideas Arminianists?
 

Drew

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
14,047
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Hello guibox my old fellow supporter of "you know what":

What texts do you see as supporting Calvinism that also cannot be read as supporting an Arminian position.

Here is a post I have written in relations to the John 6 text:

This material challenges the notion that the John 6 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" text supports irresistable grace:

We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."


What exactly does “all that†in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40.

Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 – they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word "for" in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The "all that" in verse 39 whom the Father "has given" to Jesus is none other than "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going.

If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the "all that" in verse 39, the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that "all who freely come to believe in Jesus" are given to the Son by the Father. The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus' offer of salvation.

This text does not support an "irresistable grace" reading to the exclusion of other interpretations."
 
U

unred typo

Guest
I suppose some would think of me as Armenian but I’m more anti-calvinist. I do agree with Drew. My interpretation is quite similar to his.

The Calvinist slant on John 6 is warped. Usually when anyone takes a verse out of it’s context, it is helpful to put it back. The easiest way to do that is read the entire passage. By looking at the surrounding verses, we can see that what Calvinists claim is simply not there.

36But I said unto you, That you also have seen me, and believe not.
37All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out.
This is where they stop. The answer to their error lies in the next few verses though.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
It is plain that it is the will of God that all who saw Christ and believed what he taught, would have everlasting life. So even if some have been blinded temporarily in order to bring to pass the sacrifice of Christ, the way will eventually be open to all who believed, and even to the gentiles. Reading on, we see some who don’t believe in him:

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he says, I came down from heaven?
Now we see the context of the next verse that Calvinists like to isolate to make their doctrine:
43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Notice Jesus is addressing his comments to those who do not believe, after making a statement that God wants ‘all who believe’ to have everlasting life. He repeats this in verse 47 after he exclaims the universality of the call of God to mankind. They shall ‘all be taught of God,’ and those that believe God, will come to Christ and believe the words of Jesus, and those believers are the ones that God wants to give eternal life to.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that has heard, and has learned of the Father, comes unto me.
46Not that any man has seen the Father, save he which is of God, he has seen the Father.
47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me has everlasting life.
When Jesus says ‘he that believes on me’, he means those who believe what he said and do it. He said his words were ‘spirit and life’ to those who follow them. You can’t separate the belief in Christ from belief in what he taught.

quote by guibox:
…the idea that man cannot seek out and choose God until he is made spiritually alive (regeneration). Obviously this would not mean everyone as then everyone would be saved.
Do you have the verses that are used to make this assertion? Sometimes they use the account of Jesus to Nicodemas, and add some verses about the natural man or those in the flesh, or carnally minded. Which do you feel is the most compelling argument? I don’t want to build a straw man but I don’t think you will get any real Calvinist to make a show of their error here. :wink:
 

Drew

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
14,047
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
With respect to the matter of election, I think that one of Paul's central thrusts in Romans - that the "national boast" of the Jew that they are the people of God by right of birth is not valid - is also an argument against the notion that people are "elected" unto salvation or damnation - that God "pre-determines" who will end with salvation and who will not.

In Romans, Paul bends over backwards to argue that Jews have no claim on membership in God's family simply because they have been born Jewish. It would seem very odd, therefore, that Paul would endorse a system of salvation wherein people are equally "born pre-destined to be saved". That would be a very similar state of affairs - one where one could "boast" of being a member of the elect and claim salvation on that basis, just the like the Jew who, simply by virtue of being born Jewish, believes he has a claim on membership in the family of God.
 

stranger

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
1,296
Christian
Yes
Drew wrote:

With respect to the matter of election, I think that one of Paul's central thrusts in Romans - that the "national boast" of the Jew that they are the people of God by right of birth is not valid - is also an argument against the notion that people are "elected" unto salvation or damnation - that God "pre-determines" who will end with salvation and who will not.
In Romans 1 Paul says he set out to preach the Gospel to the Jew first and also the Greek implying the Jews had priority. Paul in Romans 3 asks: What advantage has the Jew? He answers Much in every way / in every respect. Even Jesus at one point said: Matthew 15:24 "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In Romans 9-11 Paul explains the mystery of Israel. In boasting about himself Paul did not shy away from the fact that he was a Hebrew of Hebrews. I would put it like this: That Israel proved to be a stiff necked and rebellious house does not detract from the fact of its national election. Peter puts it like this: 1 Peter 2: 9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (Capitals high references to the purpose of Israels election).

In Romans, Paul bends over backwards to argue that Jews have no claim on membership in God's family simply because they have been born Jewish. It would seem very odd, therefore, that Paul would endorse a system of salvation wherein people are equally "born pre-destined to be saved". That would be a very similar state of affairs - one where one could "boast" of being a member of the elect and claim salvation on that basis, just the like the Jew who, simply by virtue of being born Jewish, believes he has a claim on membership in the family of God.
There are advantages and disadvantages to being Jews. If you read the the prophesy of the olive tree (Romans 11) you will see this - in fact there is a warning directed to the wild branches grafted in not to boast over the natural branch broken off. . . The disadvantage is a hardening/veil that has come upon Israel for the sake/benefit of the Gentiles. When this hardening ceases it will bring blessing to the church. So Drew, the Jews are disadvantaged for your sake and when that disadvantge is removed it will also be for your sake and to your benefit. It's a strange kind of logic isn't it?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Calvinism is the way to go.
It is what the Bible teaches.
Check out my video attack on the subtle form of Arminianism known as The Three Points of Common Grace.
You can watch the videos, they are titled, "The Monty Collier Report", at this link:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30213

Red Beetle
 

Drew

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
14,047
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Mostly in other threads, I have been presenting my take on the views of NT Wright re the matter of "election" in the specific context of Romans 9. I found the following interesting quote from another writer (Todd McClure) who was analysing Wright's work:

If the doctrine of election and predestination is to be seen in the context of covenant, then this leads to a nationalistic view of predestination rather than an individualistic view. Galatians 3:8 (“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abrahamâ€Â), along with Romans chapter nine, do lead us in the direction that Paul is using the election of God as part of his argument for the righteousness of God in His faithfulness to His covenant to redeem all of creation to Himself through His Son. If the context of covenant moves one’s theology in this direction, I could see this being an argument for Barth’s Christocentric and Unlimited Atonement; that Christ died for all people and the effects of Christ’s death is universal to all people.
 
U

unred typo

Guest
quote by RED BEETLE on Mon Oct 22, 2007:

Calvinism is the way to go.
It is what the Bible teaches.
Check out my video attack on the subtle form of Arminianism known as The Three Points of Common Grace.
You can watch the videos, they are titled, "The Monty Collier Report", at this link:
Calvinism is not the way to go.
It is not what the Bible teaches.
I did check out your “video attack on the subtle form of Arminianism known as The Three Points of Common Grace.†Seemed like more of a brain washing, hypnotizing commercial for a Calvinist bookstore. What it really needs is a vortical set of black and white circles whirling in opposite directions. :crazyeyes:

I am not particularly interested in defending “Arminianism†but I would enjoy counter-attacking Calvinism’s errors if you would like to put a couple of your favorite points down here in written form.
 
D

Diolectic

Guest
RED BEETLE said:
Calvinism is the way to go.
It is what the Bible teaches.
Check out my video attack on the subtle form of Arminianism known as The Three Points of Common Grace.
You can watch the videos, they are titled, "The Monty Collier Report", at this link:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30213

Red Beetle
Has anyone ever wondered how God could take delite in making people come to Him against their wills, by this so called "regeneration". They are really nothing more than brainwashed. when they come to Him, it is only because they had no choice. When in reality they would realy prefer to continue hating Him. When the truth is to be told, they don’t really love Him, because love is dependant on choice. His converts' warm feelings toward Him are in truth, delusions that are not realy their own fealings; they are only God's own fealing for Himself implanted into the one who realy does not want them. This is equal to taking a prisoner, brainwash him or put a spell on him or even fill him with certain drugs that make him pliable, tell him to say, " I love you". Does that give you the same feeling as when your wife or child says it? And why not? Because free will has been eliminated. The priosoner is only saying what you are making him say.

Furthermore, why must we preach the gospel in order for people to be saved? If man plays no part at all in his conversion, why must he hear the gospel to be saved? A true Calvinist could never say that persuasive preaching influences the unregenerate person to yield to God, because the unregenerate person will always use his freedom to resist God (Piper, p. 9, prgh. 6). Thus the only way an unregenerate person becomes regenerate is if God sovereignly bestows upon him His irresistible grace. So all the persuasive preaching in the world won’t make a bit of difference in the saving of anyone. In fact, to even attempt to persuade someone is an attack on God’s supposed sovereign grace in salvation, because to do so implies that salvation rests, in part, on the hearer and also rests, in part, on the preacher.

According to true Calvinists, our preaching cannot have any persuasive power over one who is totally depraved, and if it does, then we must admit that unregenerate man can do something (be persuaded) that leads to his salvation.

If it is true that man’s free will plays no part in his salvation, if man has nothing to do with his repentance because the ability to repent is only God’s gift, then why did Paul often reason with the Jews from the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah (e.g., see Acts 17:2-4)? Why did he attempt to “persuade men†(2 Cor. 5:11) and beg people to be “reconciled to God� Wouldn't that be futile if it is only up to Gods sovereignity to be saved?
Clearly, Paul believed that what he said and did affected the results of his evangelism, because people’s wills played a part in their salvation.

Again, If it is true that man’s free will plays no part in his salvation, if man has nothing to do with his repentance, a preacher’s attempt to persuade an unregenerate man would be an admission that man plays a part in his repentance, and it would be an affront to God’s sovereigntyâ€â€if no man can be saved apart from God’s irresistible grace. In fact, to try to persuade an unregenerate person to yield to Christ is to mislead him into thinking that he is not so totally depraved after all, because he can choose to repent!

If people must hear preaching in order to be saved, then people (and preachers) play a part in their salvation, because preaching persuades them to do something, and thus they must have free wills that can choose to repent. This is just one more proof that salvation is not solely the work of God. Man must play a part, otherwise there would be no need for preaching.

Calvinists attempt to answer this particular objection by saying that preaching the gospel is simply a means God uses in saving people. I must ask then, “Is it a meaningless means or a meaningful means?†If it is a meaningless means, then why do you call it a means? If something is a means to something else, then it serves a purpose to a certain end. There is no such thing as a meaningless means.

If it is a meaningful means, then it serves some purpose that needs to be served to reach the desired ends. According to Scripture, preaching the gospel is an essential means (see Rom. 10:14), because by it God’s message is communicated to people who, if they are to be saved, must believe God’s message and repent. Thus, people’s salvation is dependent on preachers preaching and hearers responding.

If salvation is supposedly a sovereign act of God who bestows on some people His irresistible grace, why don’t Calvinists simply stand in front of unregenerate audiences and recite nursery rhymes? Then they could prove the truth of their doctrine of irresistible grace as people are sovereignly born again. Yet I notice that Calvinists try to appeal to the minds and hearts of their hearers in order to persuade them to repent and believe, something their audiences, by definition, can’t do unless God sovereignly regenerates them. The preaching of Calvinists contradicts what they say they believe.

If Calvinists are consistent with their theology, what is the gospel that they should proclaim? Should they deceive their audiences, calling on them to repent and believe in Christ, misleading them into thinking that they can do something in regards to their salvation, thus strengthening their listener’s pride and increasing their spiritual darkness? Or do they tell them the “truth†that they are so depraved that they are incapable of submitting to God, and unless God shows them His irresistible grace, they can never be saved? How does “faith come from hearing†(Rom. 10:17) that?

Obviously, such a “gospel†leaves nothing for the hearer to cling to in faith. That is why Calvinists keep their unique doctrines secret from the unregenerate, only to reveal them at a later time to Christians when they are ready to receive the “truth.†Truly, the five points of Calvinism are the “family secret.†Even though they are supposedly the foundational truths of salvation, they dare not be revealed to the unsaved. This, by itself, shows the fallacy of Calvinism. Calvinists intuitively know thatf they tell unregenerate people the “truth,†they will have no converts. So they preach a deceptive Arminian gospel, hope for a response, and later let their converts know “what really happened.â€Â
Excerpts by David Servant ©2007
 

Vic C.

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
18,230
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Diolectic said:
... Obviously, such a “gospel†leaves nothing for the hearer to cling to in faith. That is why Calvinists keep their unique doctrines secret from the unregenerate, only to reveal them at a later time to Christians when they are ready to receive the “truth.†Truly, the five points of Calvinism are the “family secret.†Even though they are supposedly the foundational truths of salvation, they dare not be revealed to the unsaved. This, by itself, shows the fallacy of Calvinism. Calvinists intuitively know that if they tell unregenerate people the “truth,†they will have no converts. So they preach a deceptive Arminian gospel, hope for a response, and later let their converts know “what really happened.â€Â
Excerpts by David Servant ©2007
Heh. Sometimes I tune into Harord Camping on TV and hear him actually teach these secret truths you mentioned. He is quick to point out that no one knows who is the elect and by preaching the word, it puts someone into an environment where God can now save them.

I scratch my head wondering if God is incapable of saving anyone outside this "environment ". However I know firsthand that is isn't true at all. I wasn't in the best of enviornments when I was saved. I also know the thief on the cross wasn't either. 8-) A true sovereign God can save anyone, any place, any time after the cradle and before the grave.
 
L

Lincoln

Guest
I consider myself a Calvinist-Arminian hybrid. :-D

Rather than debate the theology, I'm always fascinated to see how prescribing to a particular theological view influences how a Christian behaves. I've always found Calvinists today to be obnoxious and arrogant, which I attribute to the emphasis on election (God chose ME, I'm so special, nyah nyah!) Back in the olden days, I think the emphasis was more on depravity, and for some of the foremost Calvinists of those times, the humility and complete disregard of their own fleshly ability to do good was so clearly evident in their writings do to their own emphasis on depravity. Spurgeon is a good example. :biggrin
 

Drew

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
14,047
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Lincoln said:
I've always found Calvinists today to be obnoxious and arrogant, which I attribute to the emphasis on election (God chose ME, I'm so special, nyah nyah!)
Even if this observation were not true, I still think that Paul's critique of the national boast of Israel in the book of Romans (if not elsewhere) would make a very odd combination with a belief in personal election.

In Romans, Paul goes to great lengths to argue that, despite the national boast of Israel, membership in God's true covenant family (including, of course, ultimate salvation) is not a birthright - you are not "automatically in" by being born Jewish. There is "Israel according to the flesh" and then there is the true Israel - "Israel according to the Spirit".

It would be very strange indeed for Paul to then put forward a position that people are born with their covenant membership already assured by virtue of membership in what is, after all, just as much of a "special member's only" group as the Jewish nationalist claimed he was a member of.
 
L

Lincoln

Guest
I know what you're referring to as well:

Romans 11:19-22 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Yikes. :o

What I liked about Spurgeon was that he basically gave up at the end, it wasn't a debate that could be resolved then, and it's not going to be resolved now. He believed free will and predestination do coincide, just not on any "earthly anvil." His focus had always been about feeding the flock and edifying the body of Christ. :biggrin
 

mondar

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
2,025
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Drew said:
Hello guibox my old fellow supporter of "you know what":

What texts do you see as supporting Calvinism that also cannot be read as supporting an Arminian position.

Here is a post I have written in relations to the John 6 text:

This material challenges the notion that the John 6 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" text supports irresistable grace:

We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."


What exactly does “all that†in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40.

Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 – they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word "for" in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The "all that" in verse 39 whom the Father "has given" to Jesus is none other than "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going.

If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the "all that" in verse 39, the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that "all who freely come to believe in Jesus" are given to the Son by the Father. The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus' offer of salvation.

This text does not support an "irresistable grace" reading to the exclusion of other interpretations."
Drew, I am glad you are attempting to work with the text. But your exegesis is inaccurate. There is no ABC structure to verses 39-40. It is true that the there is parallelism between the A and C parts of your structure, but the B part is not parallel. Also, you connection using the term "for" is faulty. You are incorrectly using a post positive contrastive conjunction which actually occurs in both verses and not just verse 40. This can be seen in the KJV which translates both conjunctions "and."

Also, verse should be seen as a contrast to verse 36. In verse 36 you have those who see Christ and believe not, in verse 40 you have those who see Christ and believe. Both see Christ, but both do not believe. Verses 36-45 explain why it is true that some who saw Christ believe, and some did not. The reason some believe is because some are given by the Father, and some are drawn by the Father.

The order in the passage is:
1-- some do not believe (36).
2-- Of the ones given by the Father, All will come to Christ (37).
3-- Of those given by the Father, none will be lost by Christ (38).
4-- Of the ones that believe, they receive eternal life.

Verse 40 is a contrast to verse 36. It is an explanation of why some believe, and some do not.

Drew, even verses 39 and 40 were linked in the way you say, there is no logical reason to assume that this ABC construction demonstrates "free will." You want to insert "free will" into the text so that you can somehow deny that verse 44 says that "no man can come to me."

Verse 44 speaks clearly to the complete inability of man. Without the work of God in verse 44, no man would be able to come to Christ at all. The verse is indisputably clear.

I have noticed the pattern among arminians that when ever you see the concept of "faith" or "believe" in the text that you automaticly assume that it means "free will." Then you make free will the basis of a false Gospel of human works for justification. Such a practice is not sound exegesis, but is merely "free will" inserted into the concept of faith. That is not the scarey part, the terrible part is when it leads to the heresy of placing works into the concept of justification.
 
L

Lincoln

Guest
mondar said:
You are incorrectly using a post positive contrastive conjunction which actually occurs....
:crazyeyes:

This is why I don't bother with these debates for the most part. I don't think even Jesus had a vocabulary as big as some Calvinists do. :o :-D
 
U

unred typo

Guest
quote by Lincoln:
What I liked about Spurgeon was that he basically gave up at the end, it wasn't a debate that could be resolved then, and it's not going to be resolved now. He believed free will and predestination do coincide, just not on any "earthly anvil." His focus had always been about feeding the flock and edifying the body of Christ.
I disagree that the issue cannot be resolved, but I agree that the debate cannot. The reason being that Calvinists will not admit to any other interpretation of the scriptures even when more reasonable ones are given. They hold to their election doctrines as tenaciously as a pit bull clenches a lamb shank. Except it’s more like a death-grip. The very ones who mock Armenians for their pride, ironically are attracted to a theology that sets them on a pedestal. I also find it weird that these same people revere and cherish the words of some of the ‘Giants of the Faith’ who lived comfortably in times when the witch and heretic were burned alive. No wonder they could not make sense of the true love of God for all people.
 

cyberjosh

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
3,472
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Since Javier isn't here to say it: Calminian anyone? :-D
 

Drew

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
14,047
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
mondar said:
Drew, I am glad you are attempting to work with the text. But your exegesis is inaccurate. There is no ABC structure to verses 39-40. It is true that the there is parallelism between the A and C parts of your structure, but the B part is not parallel. Also, you connection using the term "for" is faulty. You are incorrectly using a post positive contrastive conjunction which actually occurs in both verses and not just verse 40. This can be seen in the KJV which translates both conjunctions "and."
There most certainly is an ABC structure. I will repeat and attempt to amplify:

Here are verse 39-40 in the NIV:

39 {this is the will of him who sent me = A1}, {that I shall lose none of all that he has given me=B1}, {but raise them up at the last day = C1}.

40For {my Father's will = A2} is that {everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life = B2}, and {I will raise him up at the last day = C2}


A1 and A2 are obvious parallels.

C1 and C2 are obvious parallels.

Re B1 and B2: I assert that it is obvious that "not losing" (as in B1) is an obvious parallel to "have eternal life" (as in B2). One is expressed in the positive, the other in the negative. But they are both saying the same thing about people getting salvation. Given the exceedingly close parallelism between the verses, the pattern almost begs to conclude the following in respect to B1 and B2:

"those given by the Father to the Son" (B1) = "those who look to the Son and believe" (B2).

And it is also a perfectly legitimate move to claim that this belief can be a free will act and that those who perform this act are those given by the Father to the Son.

Now mondar is correct in claiming that B1 and B2 are not self-evidently "equivalent". But that is not needed in order to establish the argument I am making. All that is needed is a tight enough structural similarity to lead the reader the reader to conclude that the bit that is not obviously equivalent is, in fact, intended to be read as equivalent.

It's like if I, as a manager of staff, write the following to my underlings, making reference to my own boss as well:

{this is the will of my boss at work = A1}, {that I shall not overlook important work of any of you =B1}, {but will give you each a bonus at Christmas = C1}.

40For {my boss's will = A2} is that {I recognize everyone who go the extra yard on the Higgins account = B2}, and {I will give him a bonus at Christmas = C2}


Is B1 equivalent to B2? Not as isolated statements. But the whole point is that B1 and B2 are not isolated. Their specific location in a structure of parallel texts, with the connective "for" strongly suggests that I mean to communicate that "important work" = "going the extra yard on the Higgins account".

Now back to the word "for". I do not know what a "post positive contrastive" conjunction is. However, I believe that the word "For" as in John 6:40 is the greek word "gar". This word is used in other places (e.g. by Paul) in precisely the manner I am asserting.

Consider Romans 8. Admittedly I do transition from the NIV to the NASB here. I understand that the NASB is a better translation (perhaps less readable) and I am going to be lazy and not go back and rework what I have written above based on an NASB version of John 6:39-40. I am sure that if such a move causes my argument to self-destruct, someone will point this out.

1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are (B)in (C)Christ Jesus.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

6For the mind set on the flesh is (O)death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace


In all these cases, I believe the same word "gar" has been translated as "for". I suggest that I do not need to argue that here in Romans 8, Paul is using "for" as we might use the word "because". If we read a similar connection back into the John 6:39-40, we do indeed see a tight correlation between verses 39 and 40 that further strengthens the argument that verse 40 is intended to further elaborate or explain verse 39.

Of course, if, as you seem to suggest, the correct rendering of the first word in verse 40 is in fact "and", then perhaps the argument is weakened, although only slightly if at all. To keep this post from getting any longer. I will not explain why I think the use of "and" instead of "for" is not problematic to my position. Besides, we all need to find out whether the KJV is indeed the "best" translation.
 
U

unred typo

Guest
quote by mondar:
Drew, I am glad you are attempting to work with the text. But your exegesis is inaccurate. There is no ABC structure to verses 39-40. It is true that the there is parallelism between the A and C parts of your structure, but the B part is not parallel. Also, you connection using the term "for" is faulty. You are incorrectly using a post positive contrastive conjunction which actually occurs in both verses and not just verse 40. This can be seen in the KJV which translates both conjunctions "and."

Also, verse should be seen as a contrast to verse 36. In verse 36 you have those who see Christ and believe not, in verse 40 you have those who see Christ and believe. Both see Christ, but both do not believe. Verses 36-45 explain why it is true that some who saw Christ believe, and some did not. The reason some believe is because some are given by the Father, and some are drawn by the Father.
This is all very technical and impressive but you miss the forest for the trees. The whole passage is written to those who lived in the days before the crucifixion. God wanted Christ to be rejected and killed. That was the plan from the beginning. Only a few were allowed to see Jesus as whom he really was. They were the common people who received his word gladly and those who were taught of God who believed the message and followed him. They were the faithful few who obeyed God and looked for the Messiah, such as Anna and Simeon.



quote by mondar:
The order in the passage is:
36But I said unto you, That you also have seen me, and believe not.

1-- some do not believe (36).
Not all were allowed to know that Jesus was the son of God come to earth or even that he was, in truth, the messiah. If the majority were allowed to believe in him, would they allow him to be crucified? Hardly. Would you vote to crucify a leader who could feed thousands with a boy’s lunch or heal the lame, blind, raise the dead, and cure all illnesses? Clearly, this wouldn’t happen unless God blinded the crowds from seeing his incredible potential as their king.


quote by mondar:
37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

2-- Of the ones given by the Father, All will come to Christ (37).
Yes. Those that were sincerely living for God and had faith in the promise of the Messiah were given to Christ and even some who had truly repented of their sin were included, such as Zacchaeus. Jesus said those who do truth come to him in John 3:16-21. Out of those, he chose 12 disciples. This verse had a limited meaning applicable to the people spoken to in the time and place it was given. Not everything that came out of the Lord’s mouth was spoken for the purpose of becoming doctrine for the future world. Put it back in the setting it belongs.


quote by mondar
38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

3-- Of those given by the Father, none will be lost by Christ (38).
Your #3 doesn’t match the verse you linked it to (38). This verse speaks of the fact that Jesus didn’t come to make a name for himself, but to die for the sin of the world.


quote by mondar 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

4-- Of the ones that believe, they receive eternal life.
Right. We see he has kept all those that were given him unto the end. To really appreciate the people he was talking about there, look at John 17:11-13. He kept those that were given him, except the son of perdition. There is no justification in expanding this concept to include all the saved throughout history. The ‘all’ in this verse is the group of followers who were his little support group while he lived on earth preaching and healing.


quote by mondar 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."


Verse 40 is a contrast to verse 36. It is an explanation of why some believe, and some do not.

Drew, even verses 39 and 40 were linked in the way you say, there is no logical reason to assume that this ABC construction demonstrates "free will." You want to insert "free will" into the text so that you can somehow deny that verse 44 says that "no man can come to me."
You see, this is so local you have missed it entirely. Have you ever seen the Son? I don’t think so. This is no one other than the actual people who walked beside him on the roads of Israel and followed him faithfully and accepted his teaching as the word of God himself. You have mistakenly assumed that it is some sort of proof for your warped doctrines of election, predestination and sovereignty.

quote by mondar:
Verse 44 speaks clearly to the complete inability of man. Without the work of God in verse 44, no man would be able to come to Christ at all. The verse is indisputably clear.
Verse 44 tells us of the complete inability of the majority of the Jews in Jesus’ day to recognize the Messiah in order that he could become the savior of the world and not just an earthly king performing miraculous feats for the benefit of his people. What is really clear is that you are blinded by your own bias.


quote by mondar:
I have noticed the pattern among arminians that when ever you see the concept of "faith" or "believe" in the text that you automaticly assume that it means "free will." Then you make free will the basis of a false Gospel of human works for justification. Such a practice is not sound exegesis, but is merely "free will" inserted into the concept of faith. That is not the scarey part, the terrible part is when it leads to the heresy of placing works into the concept of justification.
LOL. I know you are scared of works being inserted into the concept of justification. You hate the thought that your behavior is responsible for any part of your salvation or damnation, whichever the case may be. ‘Works’ to you is a dirty word, even if we put ‘of faith’ behind it, unless you can qualify ‘faith’ as something that God puts in you. Pathetic.
 

mondar

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
2,025
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Drew,
Now back to the word "for". I do not know what a "post positive contrastive" conjunction is. However, I believe that the word "For" as in John 6:40 is the greek word "gar". This word is used in other places (e.g. by Paul) in precisely the manner I am asserting.
Drew,
A small matter of texts.
I went back tot he greek text once again, and I realize I overlooked some of the footnotes. My foot notes list different manuscript traditions. I was using the majority text. "gar" is absent from the Majority text. I also checked the Byzantine text and it is absent. Unfortunately, I misplaced my NA26 (critical text). I think from the footnote aparatus of the Majority Text, it appears that the word "gar" must be in some of the critical texts. The Majority and Byzantine retain the contrastive conjunction "de" as I will copy below.

Joh 6:40 ÄοÅÄο δὲ εÃĀι Äὸ θέλημα ÄοÃ… ÀέμÈανÄÌ με, iνα Àα ο θεÉÃÂÉν Äὸν Ã…ιὸν καὶ ÀιÃĀεÃÂÉν ει αÅÄὸν εÇη ζÉὴν αιÎνιον, καὶ αναÃĀήÃă αÅÄὸν εγὼ Äη εÃÇάÄη ημέÃÂα.

Of course with the word "de" your argument has no textual support. On the other hand, even if we use the critical text with "Gar" in it, it does not follow that you can read free will into the word "believe."

Drew,
The main issue.
If we read the word '"gar" (for) as you say, then you are using verse 40 to say the exact opposite of verse 39. the entire concept of verse 39 is completely nullified. You use verse 40 as though it leaves Christ without any ability to keep the "given" ones. Then verse 39 should read ... "that of all which he hath given me, none should loose themselves because of their own free will." The words "I should loose nothing" places the necessary action and ability on Christ. The connection in verse 40 is then that because Christ looses none of them, that is why the believing ones receive eternal life.

Your argument is that verse 40 explains verse 39. Then it must be read that our faith is due to the fact that Christ will not loose any. It still leaves faith and salvation completely dependant on God, and not man.

Other issues of context.
Also, your view of 36-40 would completely violate what is said in verse 44. Now if you can read Kione Greek, notice the word "δÃÂναÄαι" (can---to be able). This word clearly speaks of human ability. In verse 44 no man has the natural ability to come to Christ. Then the exception clause is added ("except the Father which hath sent me draw him"). Notice that without the work of God, once cannot come to faith and salvation. With the work of God, faith is infallible.

This also fits with the repeated terminology of the passage. In verse 37, how many that are given by the Father come to Christ? A Few? Some? Most? A lot? --------> or ALL!!
In verse 39 how many does Christ loose? A few? Some? Most? A lot?------ or NONE!!!

In this passage, those given by the Father, come to Christ because they are drawn by the Father.

In light of verse 44 you must read a complete lack of human ability. The ability to believe (in verse 44) is based upon an exception in which the Father draws. Without that drawing, men will not believe because they have no ability. Again, the concept of ability in verse 44 is found in the word "can" (δÃÂναÄαι).
 
Top