Calvinism vs Arminianism

[mondar]

unred, most of what you wrote above is simply not worth much. There was one thing you said that was worth while. I appearently posted some wrong references, but any reader working at trying to understand what I was writing would have noticed that I was one verse off.

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.

To suggest that "works is a dirty word" for me is such drivel. Works or sanctification is a very important part of my theology. I believe that those who are justified always have the fruits of justification, and that will be works. On the other hand, I recognize that those who deny sola fide are outside the gospel, and outside salvation. Faith is totally sufficient to bring our justification, and no works will add one iota to our justification, but is rather the outworking of justification. Your failure to understand evangelical doctrine is what is pathetic.

 

[Drew]

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.

I do not think this is correct although I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Here are the two verses, this time in the NASB:

"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."

I will try to be as precise as possible. I have asserted that the structural parallels between the verses justify inferring that the set of of those given to the Son (verse 39) is the same set as the set of persons who believe in the Son. You argue that I am forced to conclude that Christ can "lose somebody" by the action of that person when, as you say, "the necessary action and ability" has been represented as being on Christ.

This would be a critique with some force if it were true that I was claiming, or was logically compelled by my own argument to claim, that a person can be lost after freely coming to the Son. But while I was silent on this issue, I will now assert that once someone has been given to the Son, they indeed cannot be lost. This, I suggest, renders my argument immune to your specific criticism above.

Bottom Line: I see nothing in my argument, as qualified by the content of this present post, that requires me to see humans as able to "lose themelves", and thus create a contradiction with the stated mode of Christ "doing the losing". The act of believing in Christ remains a free will act. Verse 39 is definitely open to a reading where people are given to the Son contingent upon their "beholding and believing" in Him as further explained in verse 40.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Sun Oct 28, 2007:
unred, most of what you wrote above is simply not worth much.

Why is that? Because you can’t give a plausible reply so you think it best just to summarily dismiss it? I bet you have a fancy word to describe passing off such a disparaging remark as a valid argument.

quote by mondar:
To suggest that "works is a dirty word" for me is such drivel. Works or sanctification is a very important part of my theology. I believe that those who are justified always have the fruits of justification, and that will be works. On the other hand, I recognize that those who deny sola fide are outside the gospel, and outside salvation. Faith is totally sufficient to bring our justification, and no works will add one iota to our justification, but is rather the outworking of justification. Your failure to understand evangelical doctrine is what is pathetic.

I understand the doctrine. I just don’t believe it is what the Bible teaches.
We are justified by the blood of Christ when we repent and confess our sin. Are we justified if we don’t repent of our sins and follow Christ? No. When I say you find ‘works’ a dirty word I mean in their role as part of your salvation. As long as they are a non essential part of the whole redemptive package, you are probably happy to make a ‘gift’ of them to God. The idea that you only remain in Christ’s love when you keep his commands may even sound like something I made up. It’s not.

 

[mondar]

Drew,

I will try to be as precise as possible. I have asserted that the structural parallels between the verses justify inferring that the set of of those given to the Son (verse 39) is the same set as the set of persons who believe in the Son.

And how does this logically lead a person to believe in free will? Calvinism also asserts that the set of persons given to the Son are the same set of persons who believe in the Son.

This would be a critique with some force if it were true that I was claiming, or was logically compelled by my own argument to claim, that a person can be lost after freely coming to the Son. But while I was silent on this issue, I will now assert that once someone has been given to the Son, they indeed cannot be lost. This, I suggest, renders my argument immune to your specific criticism above.

Drew, while I do not believe that there is an ABC structure, that is not the issue. What you are doing is you think you see free will in the parallel. You only do this by seeing free will in the word believe in verse 40 and then you read it back into verse 39. Neither verse has a concept of free will. You are still equating the word "believe" with free will and there is no biblical justification in such an assumption. You do this because of some supposed connection with the phrase "all that he hath given me, I should loose none" and believe. The fact stands that neither the concept of faith demands free will, neither does the concept of Christ loosing none mean free will. In fact if anything the concept of Christ loosing none, reflects a no free will statement. Why can I not look at his statement in verse 39 and say "I dont have the free will to choose to leave Christ?" Would not that imply that verse 40 should be read that I dont have the free will to believe, but rather I believed because Christ choose me to believe.

In the context, you assume that there is an order. You assume that the elect believe and then the Fathers gives the elect to the Son. The question is who chose who first. The order in the passage is clear. The elect were first given by the Father in verse 37.

What I said above allows for your parallelism. Yet I still do not see the ABC ABC structure of 39-40 but rather see an ABC ADC structure, with other connections in the context. Read the parallelism in verses 37-39. There is the giving concept in 37 and 39, then in vs 44 there is an explaination of the giving and how it works. There is the concept of the will of the Father in 38, 39, 40 (if there is free will, it is the free will of the Father--not even the Son!). There is also the concept of "raise him/it up on the last day" in 39,40,44. You are isolating the 39-40 from the overall structure to create this ABC structure and it is not really there.

We are actually disagreeing then on 2 levels. First, even if there is an ABC structure it does not communicate free will. Also, I dont think there is an ABC structure anyway.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
Drew, while I do not believe that there is an ABC structure, that is not the issue. What you are doing is you think you see free will in the parallel. You only do this by seeing free will in the word believe in verse 40 and then you read it back into verse 39. Neither verse has a concept of free will. You are still equating the word "believe" with free will and there is no biblical justification in such an assumption. You do this because of some supposed connection with the phrase "all that he hath given me, I should loose none" and believe. The fact stands that neither the concept of faith demands free will, neither does the concept of Christ loosing none mean free will. In fact if anything the concept of Christ loosing none, reflects a no free will statement. Why can I not look at his statement in verse 39 and say "I dont have the free will to choose to leave Christ?" Would not that imply that verse 40 should be read that I dont have the free will to believe, but rather I believed because Christ choose me to believe.

In the context, you assume that there is an order. You assume that the elect believe and then the Fathers gives the elect to the Son. The question is who chose who first. The order in the passage is clear. The elect were first given by the Father in verse 37.

What I said above allows for your parallelism. Yet I still do not see the ABC ABC structure of 39-40 but rather see an ABC ADC structure, with other connections in the context. Read the parallelism in verses 37-39. There is the giving concept in 37 and 39, then in vs 44 there is an explaination of the giving and how it works. There is the concept of the will of the Father in 38, 39, 40 (if there is free will, it is the free will of the Father--not even the Son!). There is also the concept of "raise him/it up on the last day" in 39,40,44. You are isolating the 39-40 from the overall structure to create this ABC structure and it is not really there.

We are actually disagreeing then on 2 levels. First, even if there is an ABC structure it does not communicate free will. Also, I dont think there is an ABC structure anyway.

Since you have total disdain for my theological arguments, and you seem to appreciate my correction of an insignificant typographical error in your previous post, I only have a couple of worthwhile comments here:

‘Loose’ is an adverb, rhymes with ‘goose’. ‘Lose’ is a verb, rhymes with ‘choose’ and ‘use’, not to be confused with ‘use‘, rhymes with goose. Their proper use can be illustrated in the following sentence:
Choose to use the right spelling, you silly goose, or your essay might lose it’s effectiveness and your grip on the reader’s admiration will be loosed from your otherwise impressive collection of wordage.

Also, an “explaination†doesn’t have to ‘explain’ itself to be n explanation. For instance, the statement, “We could all benefite from the use of a spallchecker†is self explanatory. :-D

 

[Drew]

Drew, while I do not believe that there is an ABC structure, that is not the issue.

Thanks to some of your feedback, I believe that I need to rework the "ABC" structure argument. I will not do so in the present post, but hope to get back to it. I think we agree that even if the ABC argument does indeed work, all it accomplishes is to establish the plausibility of a "free will" reading local to these verses. The text is also consistent with a "Calvinist" reading. But, and this is important, to the extent that the "ABC" argument gives a reader the legitimate option of sustaining a "free will" reading, it is a "piece" of an an overall argument that the entire John 6 text is consistent with the notion that we come to God freely. So, of course, I now need to turn to your other points. I think that there is nothing in the entire John 6 passage that trumps a free will reading. But let the reader evaluate the arguments and if see if they agree or not.

What you are doing is you think you see free will in the parallel. You only do this by seeing free will in the word believe in verse 40 and then you read it back into verse 39. Neither verse has a concept of free will. You are still equating the word "believe" with free will and there is no biblical justification in such an assumption.

I suspect that the reader will agree that the word "believe" could embody an implicit commitment to an element of free will, specifically in virtue of how a culture's generally accepted "worldview" is reflected in how it uses this word, or words like "choose" (as another example). One of the arguments that some Calvinists will use is "free will is not mentioned in the Bible". To your credit, I am going to assume that you will not be making that argument, at least not in the form some people use it.

The argument, at least one form of it, is not very good at all. And the reason is this: The absence of any direct statements about humans having free will does not undermine the truthfulness of the free will position if it is the case the very fabric of the language entails publically agreed upon commitments to the notion that free will is entailed by, or bundled up in, the concept that words like "believe" or "choose" are intended to denote.

And I think there are indeed such commitments to such an understanding. When people in the 21st century world say "I choose" or "she believes", they do not need to explicitly add qualifiers about free will - they do not need to say "I freely choose" or "she freely believes". Why? Because our collective cultural history is such that a global belief in free will infuses the intended meanings of all such terms.

Can I "prove" this? Of course not. But I ask the reader to consider how these terms are used in our culture. I submit that they will agree that, in the secular world at least, there is an implicit understanding that such words "carry free will along for the ride" whenever they are used.

And, again, I admit that I simply assume that the same was true 2000 years ago in Palestine. People are, of course, welcome to put forth any arguments that the people in that culture did not implcitly attach free will to such terms.

I will keep this post from getting longer. My intent in this post, apart from saying that I will refine the ABC argument, has been to argue that the absence of explicit declarations of free will do not really undermine the free will position, since the publically accepted meaning of such words as "believe" and "choose" already includes an explicit commitment to an element of free will.

I will return to all your other remarks in other posts.

 

[mondar]

Drew,
We were talking about verses 39-40. I am introducing something not directly related to verse 39-40. You seem to want to give that a break for now. I want to say that I would not choose those two verses to establish a non-free will doctrine. I would choose verse 44.

When verse 44 says that "No man can come to me." That phrase speaks of complete human inability. As I said, this human inability is because of the greek word "dunamai." "Dunamai" speaks of what a person "can" do, or what they are "able" to do. The verse says "no man is able (or can) come to me. This natural inability of man is only overcome by the ministry of the Father in drawing. So then, people cannot come to Christ unless the ministry of the father interveines. Thus the exception clause. No one is able to come (human inability) unless they are drawn in the ministry of the Father (exception clause).

In verse 44 the only ones who come to Christ are drawn by the Father. This group of people that have been drawn by the Father are the same ones in verse 37 and 39 that have been "given to the Son." "All" of them come to Christ.

This entire biblical passage is built around verse 36. It is an explaination why some do not believe. Unbelievers do not believe because they have not been given to the Son, and because they are not drawn by the Father.

So then, if we use the term free will, man has the free will to reject Christ. Man does not have the free will to "come to me" (Christ).

 

[Drew]

Drew,
We were talking about verses 39-40. I am introducing something not directly related to verse 39-40. You seem to want to give that a break for now.

I will return and squarely address verse 44. The material in my previous post is intended to respond to an argument that a reader might have understood you as making when you wrote:

You are still equating the word "believe" with free will and there is no biblical justification in such an assumption.

My last post merely argued that there is indeed justification for ascribing a free will element to "believe" even if there is no explicit declaration of such.

 

[Drew]

Obviously any argument about John 6 should ideally consider the entire exchange that is arguably relevant to the issue of pre-destination, if not other related texts. I will basically consider verses 36 through to 44 inclusive (with some excursions outside this).

An important point about methodology. In this series of posts, I intend to argue to argue that the entire exchange can work on a "free will" reading. This is not to say that it cannot also work on a "Calvinist" reading. I think we will agree that the world is not so simple that God has given us chunks of text whose meaning is always unambiguous. I can give counter-examples, if necessary, of texts that clearly can legitimately be taken in either one of 2 ways.

To keep posts short and readable, this present post will only address verse 36 in its role of establishing "what is the question, if any, that the verses that follow it are addressing?"

Here is the verse in the NASB along with a number of preceding verses:

Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
"For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."
Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
"But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe

Mondar claims (I believe) that this verse establishes the subject of the dialog as "why some do not believe":

This entire biblical passage is built around verse 36. It is an explaination why some do not believe. Unbelievers do not believe because they have not been given to the Son, and because they are not drawn by the Father.

I will concede that his suggestion about how verse 36 establishes "what question is being asked" is a plausible one. I think we can all imagine Jesus actually uttering the words from verses 32 to 36 and concluding, in verse 36, with something along the lines of "Now I will explain to you why it is you do not believe".

Now, it is often the case that the way one interprets a text is contingent upon what question you think it is responding to. And if we take mondar's view about what verse 36 is all about, I will concede that his whole argument, as I understand it anyway, probably has a lot of strength.

But are we compelled to see verse 36 in this way? I do not think so. We can equally well imagine Jesus uttering the material in verses 32 to 36 and concluding with the statement "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" as a rebuke and challenge to them to repent and believe, not as an introduction to an explanation of why they do not believe. Now I will anticipate an objection and concede that if the material that follows can only be seen as an answer to the question "why you have not believed", then this is a strong argument for mondar's take on verse 36. I doubt that this will turn out to be the case, however. We shall see, I admit that I am "making up the argument as I go" and could conceivably argue myself into a position that undermines the "free will" position. So be it.

On this construal of verse 36 as a rebuke / call to repentence, the entire way one looks at the following verses differs from a construal where we believe that verse 36 is essentially an introductory remark to an explanation of why people do not believe.

And I will vouchsafe to add that we look at texts like John 5:34 and 6:27 we get a picture of a Jesus who wants his hearers to believe in Him:

John 5:34:
"But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved"

John 6:27
"Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

The latter of these 2 verses is delivered to the same crowd as is the content of verse 36. Does it seem sensible that Jesus would exhort the peope to "work for the food that endures to eternal life" and then immediately launch into an explanation as to why some of them will simply be incapable of doing the very thing He has just exhorted them to do?

I hope to continue presenting this argument in later posts.

 

[mondar]

On this construal of verse 36 as a rebuke / call to repentence, the entire way one looks at the following verses differs from a construal where we believe that verse 36 is essentially an introductory remark to an explanation of why people do not believe.

And I will vouchsafe to add that we look at texts like John 5:34 and 6:27 we get a picture of a Jesus who wants his hearers to believe in Him:

John 5:34:
"But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved"

John 6:27
"Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

The latter of these 2 verses is delivered to the same crowd as is the content of verse 36. Does it seem sensible that Jesus would exhort the peope to "work for the food that endures to eternal life" and then immediately launch into an explanation as to why some of them will simply be incapable of doing the very thing He has just exhorted them to do?

I hope to continue presenting this argument in later posts.

Drew,
PARTIAL AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU SAY
I want to make a point concerning what you are saying above. The verses you quote clearly place a responsibility upon all mankind to believe. I certainly would accept that thesis. God desires all men to repent, but this is not the same thing as a statement of ability. In the past you equated the words "believe" and "faith" with the term "free will." Now it seems as if you are making no difference between the scriptural concept of responsibility, and the unscriptural concept of human ability.

WHILE I AGREE WITH RESPONSIBILITY, I DO NOT SEE ABILITY AS FOLLOWING FROM THAT.
I would say that we look at those texts differently. The difference is that you are willing to assume that where there is universal responsibility to believe, that there must be human ability. I would disagree with that association. Where there is universal responsibility, I see no more then universal responsibility. Of course once a person is regenerate, there is human ability. The new nature has the ability to believe. The reprobate have no such ability.

THE NATURAL OUTCOME IS THAT I BELIEVE WE ARE SAVE FULLY BY GRACE.
This means that when I get to heaven, I cannot boast or brag that "at least I made a better decision then this unbeliever next to me." I will be no better then the unbeliever next to me. It was Gods work of regeneration which gave me the ability to believe. Salvation is then totally the work of God for man, and not a cooperative work between God and man (which is "free will" doctrine).
Again, I know you have not replied to John 6:44 yet, but that text is not about responsibility, but the lack of human ability.

 

[Drew]

Hello mondar: I still intend to work my way through the John 6:36-44. But I should respond to what you have recently posted

PARTIAL AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU SAY
I want to make a point concerning what you are saying above. The verses you quote clearly place a responsibility upon all mankind to believe. I certainly would accept that thesis. God desires all men to repent, but this is not the same thing as a statement of ability. In the past you equated the words "believe" and "faith" with the term "free will." Now it seems as if you are making no difference between the scriptural concept of responsibility, and the unscriptural concept of human ability.

WHILE I AGREE WITH RESPONSIBILITY, I DO NOT SEE ABILITY AS FOLLOWING FROM THAT.
I would say that we look at those texts differently. The difference is that you are willing to assume that where there is universal responsibility to believe, that there must be human ability. I would disagree with that association. Where there is universal responsibility, I see no more then universal responsibility. Of course once a person is regenerate, there is human ability. The new nature has the ability to believe. The reprobate have no such ability.

I am sure that you will agree that you merely assert that the doctrine of human ability is unscriptural. Perhaps you will either defend this claim or point us to posts where you have done so. And I realize that I. for my part, am implicitly assuming the existence of free will in human beings.

Please remember that my ambitions here are lower than you might think. I do not claim that the John 6 cannot be legitimately be read on a Calvinist view, but rather that it can also be read on a "free will" view. So we need to be clear - I do not need to make a case that we "freely" accept God's gift of grace, I merely need to show that such an act is conceptually possible and that the text is consistent with such a view.

I am not 100 % sure I know what you mean when you use the expression "human ability", but I do think we do indeed disagree about the following: I believe that every human person is born with the potential to accept the gift of salvation and that, if they do accept it, they are not fully compelled to do so - there is a degree to which they make the decision to do so as "free" agents.

In any event, I do want to take issue with you post above from what I will call a "conceptual" point of view rather than a scriptural one. I do think that you are "playing fast and loose with concepts". I am going to claim that whenever we use the word "responsibility" in respect to a human being, we implicitly bundle the concept of "freedom" into that word. We would never say, "the apple is responsible to fall from the tree to the ground" precisely because we believe that the apple is compelled by gravity to do so.

I really do not know how to make sense of the word "responsibility" if you are going to take away this element of freedom. Can you see what I am getting at here? To me, the disassociation of "freedom" from "responsibility" effectively transforms the word "responsibility" to another word altogether. You simply cannot say that "Fred is responsible to do X" if Fred does not have the ability to do X. No one would ever say that a man born blind man has a responsibility to recognize changes in the traffic signal. The very concept of "responsibility" requires the notion of ability.

Now, of course, this does not mean that people have to have ability. But they have to have ability if they are to be described as "responsible". I politely suggest many Calvinists try to leverage what is ultimately a conceptual impossibility - that there can be moral culpability in the absence of ability. This just cannot make conceptual sense, I submit.

Now I will repeat - there is no conceptual problem with saying that humans lack ability to do something. But to claim that they some have some kind of moral responsibility to do that thing - you are going to have to tell me how to make sense of that.

Just to let you know, I believe that Adam's sin has affected me - his sin nature is transmitted "genetically" to me. So I have a big problem. But I am not really responsible for Adam's actions. The only way to argue that I am responsible for Adam's sin and therefore share in his culpability, is to make some kind of case that I was "present with him" when he ate the fruit.

I do think that one of the problems with certain aspects of Calvinism, at least as I understand it, is that it is so deeply non-sensical to us that we cannot engage it in any sense that is useful. Now, please, if you can, explain to me how a human being can be responsible for something that they do not have the ability to do.

Let's say I am given the responsibility to be a crossing guard - helping children cross the street safely. If I gouge out my own eyes, then perhaps it can be said I still retain the responsibility for the children's safety since I was the one who did the act. If I am struck blind by some external force, my "job" is still to protect the children. But since I have been zapped by an external force, I doubt any human can make sense of my still having any kind of "moral" responsibility to protect them.

Perhaps you mean "responsibility" in a sense that has no "moral culpability" dimension to it. If so, please explain.

 

[guibox]

I politely suggest many Calvinists try to leverage what is ultimately a conceptual impossibility - that there can be moral culpability in the absence of ability. This just cannot make conceptual sense, I submit.

Yes, this was the type of answer I got from a Calvinist when I pointed out why Christ would say to the Pharisees: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one convert and when he is made ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves - Matthew 23:15

His answer was that:
"He would be a children of hell because he's a sinner. And he will receive more punishment because of the nefarious influence of the Pharisees."

:-?

I can't understand the fact that election makes him a 'child of hell' and he has no way of being saved, but nefarious actions will result in even stronger and worse punishment. The sinners can't help it for they are kept in a state of 'total depravity' by God.

According to election and the 'total depravity' argument, sinners are sinners due to sin that they cannot come out of. It is their nature and God chooses not to save them. Then God punishes them for no fault of their own but an inherent nature that causes them to sin and of which they cannot escape. They have no chance to repent of their wicked ways and then they are punished more for continuing in a sinful path that they have no hope of ever leaving thanks to God.

Oy vey! What messed up doctrine.

 

[mondar]

I am sure that you will agree that you merely assert that the doctrine of human ability is unscriptural. Perhaps you will either defend this claim or point us to posts where you have done so. And I realize that I. for my part, am implicitly assuming the existence of free will in human beings.

I have already mentioned that John 6:44 is one verse that can be used to defend the view that there is no natural human ability (or free will). John 6:44 demonstrates that man has no ability to come to Christ (or believe).

The very first phrase reads:
οÃ…δεὶ δÃÂναÄαι ελθειν ÀÃÂÌ με,
No one is able to come to me

It is the 2nd greek word that I am focusing upon. It is the word "δÃÂναÄαι." Its lexical form is dunamai. For its meaning, let me quote Thayer.

dunamai
Thayer Definition:
1) to be able, have power whether by virtue of one’s own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom
2) to be able to do something
3) to be capable, strong and powerful

You can also look this up in strong at word G1410.

This word in John 6:44 speaks of ability. No man has the ability to come to Christ.

Please remember that my ambitions here are lower than you might think. I do not claim that the John 6 cannot be legitimately be read on a Calvinist view, but rather that it can also be read on a "free will" view. So we need to be clear - I do not need to make a case that we "freely" accept God's gift of grace, I merely need to show that such an act is conceptually possible and that the text is consistent with such a view.

OK

I am not 100 % sure I know what you mean when you use the expression "human ability", but I do think we do indeed disagree about the following: I believe that every human person is born with the potential to accept the gift of salvation and that, if they do accept it, they are not fully compelled to do so - there is a degree to which they make the decision to do so as "free" agents.

First, "human ability" would be defined as the ability to believe in the complete Gospel to the extent that you "come to me" (Christ). I am asserting the opposite of you. I believe that no person born after Adams sin (except Christ) has the ability to have faith by himself without the ministry of God.

Second, I would agree that when God chooses to regenerate the elect, they are not compelled to come to Christ. There is no force used. Rather the elect will then come because their own nature will inevitably bring then to choose that which is within their nature to choose. When a shepherd calls, is he using force to bring the sheep in? Or do the sheep simply know his voice?
Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:4 When he hath put forth all his own, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
Joh 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

..... much snipped......I do think that one of the problems with certain aspects of Calvinism, at least as I understand it, is that it is so deeply non-sensical to us that we cannot engage it in any sense that is useful.

I understand this part of what you are saying, and even agree with part of it. Calvinism is not derived by common sense or logic. It is exegetical in nature. We who are Calvinists think that human spiritual logic is flawed anyway. Is that not what Romans 1 tells us?
Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

Now, please, if you can, explain to me how a human being can be responsible for something that they do not have the ability to do.

Let's say I am given the responsibility to be a crossing guard - helping children cross the street safely. If I gouge out my own eyes, then perhaps it can be said I still retain the responsibility for the children's safety since I was the one who did the act. If I am struck blind by some external force, my "job" is still to protect the children. But since I have been zapped by an external force, I doubt any human can make sense of my still having any kind of "moral" responsibility to protect them.

Perhaps you mean "responsibility" in a sense that has no "moral culpability" dimension to it. If so, please explain.

If I have to give analogies, OK. But I still contend that Calvinism is exegetical in nature.

I would say that a blind car driver still has the responsibility to get his license, and drive according to the laws. If a blind person does not act responsibly, (s)he will be arrested and punished. Yet, even if a blind person chooses to buy a car and drive without a license, this would not mean that this blind person has the ability. They have responsibility, but not ability.

The same with the blind crossing guard. If a blind crossing guard somehow deceives the school board that he can see, and gets a crossing guard job, he still has the responsibility to direct the children in crossing the sidewalk. This blind person does not have the ability to accomplish his job, but he would still have the responsibility.

I hope this helps to understand what I mean by the terms. It is not a mere playing with words.

It is interesting to me that Romans 1 makes it clear that we have responsibility.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

Responsibility leaves us without excuse. Responsibility means that we can be judged by a just God for our evil deeds.

Ability, we are born with no ability. Ability must be given by God. Ability is called regeneration. Ability is called the drawing of the Father.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
I have already mentioned that John 6:44 is one verse that can be used to defend the view that there is no natural human ability (or free will). John 6:44 demonstrates that man has no ability to come to Christ (or believe).The very first phrase reads:οÃ…δεὶ δÃÂναÄαι ελθειν ÀÃÂÌ με, No one is able to come to me It is the 2nd greek word that I am focusing upon. It is the word "δÃÂναÄαι." Its lexical form is dunamai. For its meaning, let me quote Thayer. Dunamai Thayer Definition:1) to be able, have power whether by virtue of one’s own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom2) to be able to do something3) to be capable, strong and powerful You can also look this up in strong at word G1410.

This word in John 6:44 speaks of ability. No man has the ability to come to Christ.

That’s great, Mondar. All that work to prove what I agree with. Neat. Except that Jesus is talking to those people standing there in the time before the crucifixion and telling them that not all of them have the ability to believe but only the ones that God allowed. He doesn’t say that the reason is because God wants to give him as a sacrifice. That is still a secret they are not given to know as well…yet. Only a few chosen ones are allowed that privilege at this time.

Why? Because if all are given the opportunity to see and believe, they would make Jesus king for the sake of the earthly blessings they can get from him. That was not his mission. He had come to die. Eventually, they shall all be taught by God, but not yet. Before he died, they were blinded to his actual destiny, which was to bear the burden of the sin of the world.

quote by Mondar:
First, "human ability" would be defined as the ability to believe in the complete Gospel to the extent that you "come to me" (Christ). I am asserting the opposite of you. I believe that no person born after Adams sin (except Christ) has the ability to have faith by himself without the ministry of God.

See, this is where you mess up. You take what Jesus said in that setting, to those people, and you extend it to cover all people everywhere for all times since Adam. You have lost sight of the story here. The gospels tell the story of how the crucifixion came to be. The question of how could people kill this incredible man is answered by the recorded facts that Jesus reveals here. This is where we discover ‘the rest of the story’ as it were. They were blinded to his mission and not given the ability to believe in him….until after the mission was accomplished.

quote by Mondar:
Second, I would agree that when God chooses to regenerate the elect, they are not compelled to come to Christ. There is no force used. Rather the elect will then come because their own nature will inevitably bring then to choose that which is within their nature to choose. When a shepherd calls, is he using force to bring the sheep in? Or do the sheep simply know his voice?

Now, you are building on the first error. You have to do something with the mess you have made of the truth by your misunderstanding of those few sentences Jesus spoke. You have to redefine all of scripture to work out this conceptual error. You have to take the truths presented and force them into the paradigms you have erected. You’re dedicated to it and you do a glorious job. I mean that sincerely, but I still believe you are wrong. Your truth is irreparably intertwined with error. Worse yet, you have so much invested in the assemblage, you can’t simply go back to the text and read it plainly. You would have to count it all as dung for the excellency of the knowledge of the truth. Loss is never easy to deal with. But the gain is worth it.

quote by Mondar:
If I have to give analogies, OK. But I still contend that Calvinism is exegetical in nature.

I would say that a blind car driver still has the responsibility to get his license, and drive according to the laws. If a blind person does not act responsibly, (s)he will be arrested and punished. Yet, even if a blind person chooses to buy a car and drive without a license, this would not mean that this blind person has the ability. They have responsibility, but not ability.

The same with the blind crossing guard. If a blind crossing guard somehow deceives the school board that he can see, and gets a crossing guard job, he still has the responsibility to direct the children in crossing the sidewalk. This blind person does not have the ability to accomplish his job, but he would still have the responsibility.

I hope this helps to understand what I mean by the terms. It is not a mere playing with words.

It is interesting to me that Romans 1 makes it clear that we have responsibility.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

Responsibility leaves us without excuse. Responsibility means that we can be judged by a just God for our evil deeds.

Ability, we are born with no ability. Ability must be given by God. Ability is called regeneration. Ability is called the drawing of the Father.

Ah yesss… the joy of analogies. You would say that a blind car driver still has the responsibility to get his license, and drive according to the laws? Whatha? What kind of analogy is that? Are you saying that his blindness doesn’t exempt him from the responsibility to follow the driving laws? That’s true. If he is going to drive, he still would have to obey the laws and get his license. But it isn’t true that he doesn’t have the ability to obey the laws. He has the ability to obey the driving laws by not driving at all. So your analogy will not hold true. If he drives, he will be guilty and deserving of punishment because he had the ability to refrain from driving and he still chose to get behind the wheel and drive. If we had the ability to not be born in sin, and knowing the consequences, we chose to be born in sin anyway, we could be held responsible. Such is not the case.

The same is true with the blind crossing guard. If a blind crossing guard somehow deceives the school board that he can see, and gets a crossing guard job, he still has the responsibility to direct the children in crossing the sidewalk because he chose to take responsibility knowing he was not able to do the job. He would be guilty and deserving of punishment because he made the choice to do what a blind man is not able to do and in so doing, put others at risk. You cannot divorce ability from responsibility. If a person is not free and able to choose, they are not responsible for what they did.

The only one who fits your profile for deserving punishment is your god. He is the one, knowing that man is not able to drive or do the job of crossing guard, still requires that the blind man drive and take a job leading others into harm‘s way. If you put a loaded gun in a baby’s hand, who is responsible for the resulting tragedies?

 

[Drew]

..... much snipped......I do think that one of the problems with certain aspects of Calvinism, at least as I understand it, is that it is so deeply non-sensical to us that we cannot engage it in any sense that is useful.

I understand this part of what you are saying, and even agree with part of it. Calvinism is not derived by common sense or logic. It is exegetical in nature. We who are Calvinists think that human spiritual logic is flawed anyway. Is that not what Romans 1 tells us?
Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

I am still thinking about what my overall argument for defending a "free will" reading of John 6. It is not a simple task, but I will get back to it.

And I must say that this is one of the most civil and thought-provoking exchanges on this topic for a while.

With respect to what you say above, I think you are over-reaching in what seems to be your use of Romans 1 to undermine the ability of human beings to think properly. I think that we all know that unredeemed humanity can think logically and clearly. There is tons of evidence for this - great works of intellectual achievement from non-believers, engineering, science, etc. There really is no doubt - unregenerate men can and do think logically and effectively (not all of them, of course).

I know that you refer specifically to "spiritual" logic. But it seems rather obvious to me that the very tools that we apply in exegisis are good old "garden variety" tools of clear thinking - understanding words, maintaining consistency, respecting principles of logic and argumentation etc. I think you cannot argue for Calvinism without resorting to the very tools of logic that you seem to argue are not to be trusted. I see no distinct category of "spiritual logic". Can you define what this term means and specifically how it differs from "good old fashioned everyday" logic?

Your argument seems to eat its own tail - the very act of exegesis that is your stated reason for believing in Calvinims is thrown into question.

Besides, I still maintain that knowledge that we cannot make sense of is really "empty' and can no informing ability in respect to how we act in the world. I understand you as saying that the Scriptures teach Calvinism. Now I suspect that this is not actually the case, but that issue is for other posts. In this post, I want to argue that you are claiming what is effectively an untenable position when you claim to hold to a position that defies common sense or logic (you seem to almost grant that this is indeed the case).

My argument is this: Human beings think with their brains and simply cannot hold beliefs that are conceptually incoherent - a human cannot believe that a triangle has four sides. Can such a statement be written down? Of course. But it cannot really be believed - people can claim to believe it, but I suspect that such a claim is made through gritted teeth. When we use the word triangle we implictly commit to a three-sided object. So it cannot have four sides. Our minds can make no sense of such a statement.

With all respect, I see this as being a common problem with forms of Calvinism that I run across. Words like "responsibility" (I think your analogies are problematic, I will address this in a later post) cannot be used in a sense that empties them of their implicit commitment to freedom. The word ceases to have any meaning when one does that. Its kind of like saying we can remove the "tails" side of a coin and still have a "heads" side.

At the end of the day, even if the Scriptures makes statements that effectively work out to be "we are cuplably responsible for things we have no control over", such statements cannot have any meaning. One cannot have things both ways: when one commits to a position that the Scriptures are our authority, there is an implicit commitment that the words have certain meanings - thats what words do, they mean things. And we commit to certain principles of logic in our reading. Again, the very process of reading requires such commitments.

So it seems entirely incoherent to claim doctrines that blow up on themselves in light of the very necessary commitments we make when we say "sola scriptura".

 

[Drew]

I would say that a blind car driver still has the responsibility to get his license, and drive according to the laws. If a blind person does not act responsibly, (s)he will be arrested and punished. Yet, even if a blind person chooses to buy a car and drive without a license, this would not mean that this blind person has the ability. They have responsibility, but not ability.

The same with the blind crossing guard. If a blind crossing guard somehow deceives the school board that he can see, and gets a crossing guard job, he still has the responsibility to direct the children in crossing the sidewalk. This blind person does not have the ability to accomplish his job, but he would still have the responsibility.

I share some of unred's concerns about these analogies.

I do not understand the car driver analogy. Why would a blind person have a responsbility to get a licence and drive according to the law?

Whether you intended this or not, I submit the following will happen in the mind of the reader who is not being exceedingly careful when they read the above analogies:

1. In the case of the blind driver, the reader may not notice that the word "choose" has been slipped into your analogy as in "even if a blind person chooses to buy a car...". Because the word "choose" has free will implicitly bundled into it, the reader will agree that such a choice makes the driver culpable. So he will agree that your analogy has force, all the while not realizing that it is an invalid analogy precisely because "free will has been snuck in by the back door" through the use of the word "choose".

2. In the case of the crossing guard, the reader may again agree that your analogy has force because he has failed to realize that, once again, "free will" has been slipped in. You refer to the crossing guard "deceiving" the board - this is where free will leaks into your analogy.

These analogies only work in the mind of the reader to the extent that the reader fails to see how "free will" has been slipped in by the back door. Yet, because free will has been so introduced, the reader might be convinced, but he is only convinced because he fails to see the introduction of free will.

 

[mondar]

I share some of unred's concerns about these analogies.

I hesitated to go with the flow and speak in terms of analogies. I dont know anyone that came to a Calvinist position because it is logical. One must pay close attention to the detailed exegesis of scripture to understand Calvinism. I think faulty human logic always makes man sovereign, but the scriptures picture God as sovereign.

1. In the case of the blind driver, the reader may not notice that the word "choose" has been slipped into your analogy as in "even if a blind person chooses to buy a car...". Because the word "choose" has free will implicitly bundled into it, the reader will agree that such a choice makes the driver culpable. So he will agree that your analogy has force, all the while not realizing that it is an invalid analogy precisely because "free will has been snuck in by the back door" through the use of the word "choose".

2. In the case of the crossing guard, the reader may again agree that your analogy has force because he has failed to realize that, once again, "free will" has been slipped in. You refer to the crossing guard "deceiving" the board - this is where free will leaks into your analogy.

These analogies only work in the mind of the reader to the extent that the reader fails to see how "free will" has been slipped in by the back door. Yet, because free will has been so introduced, the reader might be convinced, but he is only convinced because he fails to see the introduction of free will.

In the case of the analogies, it was meant to illustrate only one thing. It was to illustrate that responsibility and ability are not the same thing. Now the analogy is being taken in many ways I never intended it to be taken. This was why I hesitated to discuss any analogies. We really should stick to the scriptures.

In any case, I notice above that you think Calvinists do not have any concept that a person chooses. Such a caricature of Calvinists is not true. The reformed doctrine of "sola fide" implicitly demands an understanding that a person makes a choice. A Calvinist believes in choice, but that is not the question. The question of "choice" is the question of who chooses first. The Calvinist recognizes that in the scripture the elect choose God because God has already done a ministry in the hearts of the elect. So then the order is that God must first choose man and do a work in his heart, and then after this, man will infallibly choose God. That is what John 6:37, 44 is about. Then salvation is totally by Grace (sola gratia). Also salvation is completely the work of God for man (monogerism). Non-Calvinists reverse this. They say that man must choose Christ so that God can choose him. Non-Calvinistic doctrine makes salvation a synergistic effort in which man and God get together to save a person. I admit, many non-Calvinists do not think of their own theology in that way. They might see their faith as a part of a synergism, but most non-Calvinists also would confess sola gratia... by grace alone. Nevertheless, in non-Calvinistic soteriology salvation becomes partially the grace of God and partially the act of man.

So then, if your following this... the word "choice" as two separate meanings. It has one meaning to a Calvinist, but a different meaning to a non-Calvinist. To the non-Calvinist, the word "choice" means "free will." In your post above, you assumed this. To the Calvinist the word "choice" means that God recreates the nature so that a man can and does "Choose" God. So then in when a Calvinist uses the word "choice" he does not think in terms of free will.

This is another reason it is better not to be discussing things in terms of analogies. Because of the way differing theologies look at certain terms, there is the danger of using the same term, and attaching two different means to the term and talking right past each other.

There are even Calvinists that use the term "free will." John MacArther is one of them. Of course what he means by the term is not the same thing non-Calvinists associate with the term. John Mac says that man has the "free will" to choose any path of sin he desires. Another Calvinist that uses the term is John Owen. But again, John Owen is using the term in a way different from non-Calvinists. When these Calvinists use the term free will, they communicate that man has no ability to choose God. They still believe that God must choose to have a ministry in the heart of man so that man can and will choose God.

Lets go back to the scriptures. John 6:44

Mondar

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
I hesitated to go with the flow and speak in terms of analogies. I dont know anyone that came to a Calvinist position because it is logical. One must pay close attention to the detailed exegesis of scripture to understand Calvinism. I think faulty human logic always makes man sovereign, but the scriptures picture God as sovereign.

Heh heh. We hate them, too.

quote by Mondar:
In the case of the analogies, it was meant to illustrate only one thing. It was to illustrate that responsibility and ability are not the same thing. Now the analogy is being taken in many ways I never intended it to be taken. This was why I hesitated to discuss any analogies. We really should stick to the scriptures.

We know responsibility and ability are not the same thing. But we also understand that unless a person has the ability to do something, he cannot be asked to be responsible to do that something. The biggest problem with your analogy is that in no way can a person who is unable to do something be held accountable unless they somehow make themselves responsible.

quote by Mondar:
In any case, I notice above that you think Calvinists do not have any concept that a person chooses. Such a caricature of Calvinists is not true. The reformed doctrine of "sola fide" implicitly demands an understanding that a person makes a choice. A Calvinist believes in choice, but that is not the question. The question of "choice" is the question of who chooses first. The Calvinist recognizes that in the scripture the elect choose God because God has already done a ministry in the hearts of the elect. So then the order is that God must first choose man and do a work in his heart, and then after this, man will infallibly choose God.

This is not different than Calvinists believing all non Calvinists have no concept of God making sovereign choices. God sovereignly chooses men to special assignments, to do deeds and fill positions in his earthly kingdom. The problem is that whenever you see these things being done in scripture, you immediately apply this act as an example of how he deals with all mankind at all times.

quote by Mondar:
That is what John 6:37, 44 is about. Then salvation is totally by Grace (sola gratia). Also salvation is completely the work of God for man (monogerism). Non-Calvinists reverse this. They say that man must choose Christ so that God can choose him. Non-Calvinistic doctrine makes salvation a synergistic effort in which man and God get together to save a person. I admit, many non-Calvinists do not think of their own theology in that way. They might see their faith as a part of a synergism, but most non-Calvinists also would confess sola gratia... by grace alone. Nevertheless, in non-Calvinistic soteriology salvation becomes partially the grace of God and partially the act of man.

I have no problem admitting that a man’s salvation is based on his works. That is what the Bible teaches. These are works of faith in his blood, works of having faith in doing what Jesus taught and works of love for one another and God. The Bible specifically condemns the works of the law as a means to save us. The works of the law are the ceremonial rites that were meant to illustrate the separation of God’s ways and people from the evil idolatry of the world. The Bible also condemns the works of the flesh. The term, ‘works of the flesh’ refers to the actions that are done in satisfaction of the sinful desires and lusts of the flesh and the ego of man. The deeds of the flesh are not ’good deeds’ done by humanity in an attempt to please and obey God. God wants us to do these deeds of the flesh. If he causes you to do these deeds, why should he reward you for doing them? He plainly tells us that he will not acquit the wicked. Unless you repent, you remain under his wrath. God does not pick out a few wicked men and redeem them. That is not what the Bible teaches whatsoever.

quote by Mondar:
Lets go back to the scriptures. John 6:44
(44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. )

OK. Lets go back to the scriptures.
John 12:31-33
31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Nahum 1:3
The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked

Psalm 32:2
Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputes not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

 

[mondar]

Drew, I missed this post.

... some material snipped to shorten the quote....
With respect to what you say above, I think you are over-reaching in what seems to be your use of Romans 1 to undermine the ability of human beings to think properly. I think that we all know that unredeemed humanity can think logically and clearly. There is tons of evidence for this - great works of intellectual achievement from non-believers, engineering, science, etc. There really is no doubt - unregenerate men can and do think logically and effectively (not all of them, of course).

I know that you refer specifically to "spiritual" logic. But it seems rather obvious to me that the very tools that we apply in exegisis are good old "garden variety" tools of clear thinking - understanding words, maintaining consistency, respecting principles of logic and argumentation etc. I think you cannot argue for Calvinism without resorting to the very tools of logic that you seem to argue are not to be trusted. I see no distinct category of "spiritual logic". Can you define what this term means and specifically how it differs from "good old fashioned everyday" logic?

Your argument seems to eat its own tail - the very act of exegesis that is your stated reason for believing in Calvinims is thrown into question.

Besides, I still maintain that knowledge that we cannot make sense of is really "empty' and can no informing ability in respect to how we act in the world. I understand you as saying that the Scriptures teach Calvinism. Now I suspect that this is not actually the case, but that issue is for other posts. In this post, I want to argue that you are claiming what is effectively an untenable position when you claim to hold to a position that defies common sense or logic (you seem to almost grant that this is indeed the case).

My argument is this: Human beings think with their brains and simply cannot hold beliefs that are conceptually incoherent - a human cannot believe that a triangle has four sides. Can such a statement be written down? Of course. But it cannot really be believed - people can claim to believe it, but I suspect that such a claim is made through gritted teeth. When we use the word triangle we implictly commit to a three-sided object. So it cannot have four sides. Our minds can make no sense of such a statement.

With all respect, I see this as being a common problem with forms of Calvinism that I run across. Words like "responsibility" (I think your analogies are problematic, I will address this in a later post) cannot be used in a sense that empties them of their implicit commitment to freedom. The word ceases to have any meaning when one does that. Its kind of like saying we can remove the "tails" side of a coin and still have a "heads" side.

At the end of the day, even if the Scriptures makes statements that effectively work out to be "we are cuplably responsible for things we have no control over", such statements cannot have any meaning. One cannot have things both ways: when one commits to a position that the Scriptures are our authority, there is an implicit commitment that the words have certain meanings - thats what words do, they mean things. And we commit to certain principles of logic in our reading. Again, the very process of reading requires such commitments.

So it seems entirely incoherent to claim doctrines that blow up on themselves in light of the very necessary commitments we make when we say "sola scriptura".

Drew, I think my statement was too short and cryptic. I probably could have expressed myself more clearly. You have made some good points, and I do not wish to be seen as saying man has no ability at logic at all. Yet as you, yourself noted, I am saying that man's spiritual and moral logic is flawed. Men find it easy to rationalize ethnic cleansing, destroying innocent lives without any meaning. Men have been at war with each other since the foundation of the world. Our streets are filled with violence, drugs, and all sorts of evil. The point is that man might be a creature made in the image of God with logic, but his logic does not apply to spiritual and ethical matters. Men find rational reasons for their misbehavior, why does evil seem so rational to man? This is the loss of logic that man has.

Now concerning your comment about sola scriptura. I would suggest that my view of man fits very well with the teaching of sola scriptura. I admit that a certain amount of logic is neccessary to properly exegete scriptures in their contextual, lexical, historical, literary, syntatical setting. But to place reason either to be equal, or superior to scripture is not sola scriptura.
(I wish to note that this discussion is moving from the issue of John 6 to the presuppositional level of authority).

I could give some historical anecdotes on how certain things were logically irreconcilable. Please indulge me in digressing on this issue.
The king list in the OT in Kings and Chronicles were once thought irreconcilable. Then someone recognized that the two books were using separate calendars. When the king lists were adjusted for the calendars the so called irreconcilable and contradictory reigns of the kings suddenly was understood to be correct.
We each live at a time and place in the history of man where limited information and resources is available to us. If I see a so called error in the scriptures, I am happy denying it as an error on the basis of my presuppositions.
The synoptic Gospels are famous for this. Did Christ ride one or two donkeys into Jerusalem? Each author might not read identically, and might not have all the details in his story. There may have been 5 donkeys, but one author mentioned the one donkey that was pertinent to his story. The other author mentioned the two donkeys that were pertinent to his story. Neither author said there was only one or two donkeys. It was not the point they were making. Entire books have been written on reconciling the accounts presented in the Synoptics.
Why are these books necessary? They are needed because men approach the scriptures with their own world view, and their own fallible spiritual logic.
Why are there so many different theological views? Even among evangelicals who believe in sola scriptura, why are there so many different views? We pick and choose what we want to believe, we pick and choose what "makes sense." I would call that a mixture of sola reason, and sola scriptura. Now certainly I am not infallible. I too have this curse of flawed spiritual reasoning. For this reason, I must always check my theological views against scripture. And that is sola scriptura.

Sola fide,
Mondar

 

[unred typo]

Do you have me on ignore, Mondar? That’s what AVBunyan and Solo used to do when they couldn’t answer my scriptural analysis.