Allowing Drew time to respond, I think he’s about done; I’ll post a little something something.
one can immediately raise the objection that the writer seems to be unjustifiably concluding that God first picks out a set of people, gives them to the Son, and that set of people will then (necessarily) believe.
This is what is said to happen throughout scripture. 2Ti 1:9 “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,†1) saved 2) called and it’s not according to anything we have done [our works], but God’s purpose. Please don’t get bogged down in Drews phony details, he takes one scritpure and interprets it until nothing but unbelief is left.
This is simply another, possibly legitimate, interpretation of this material. But the author's "reformulation" of the (b) verses has not been fully justified in the specific sense that need for "giving to precede believing" has not been explained. It is true that the reference to "giving" is in verse 39 and the reference to "believing" is in verse 40. But this is not much of a case - or in any event it does not touch my account of how the temporal ordering could be "believe and then be given".
As we can see Drew IS NOT using the Bible as a whole, and decides to interpret a passage outside of it’s logical context as a great, complete revelation and hoping you’ll ignore other passages that are clear.
The careful reader will note that I am not claiming the "Calvinist" interpretation is necessarily incorrect- I am merely showing that other competing interpretations, are also legitimate. So for my argument to stand, I do not need to disprove the "Calvinist" take on this material, I only need to establish thet plausibility of the view I am espousing.
This is quasi-scholarship at best. As one of the quotes I provided has shown, the Bible either teaches something or it doesn’t. Plain and simple. Drew wants to create a false sense of ambigiouity in divine revelation that isn’t there. Both cannot be correct, this is true. Both can be incorrect and this is where Drew is heading by claiming one is not more logically valid then another.
I will not repeat my argument as to how verses 39 and 40 collectively can be seen as consistent with what I guess has been called an Arminian view. I will point out, that the writer of the above material needs to explain how the John text rules out my take on it, and not simply express a competing interpretation. One way to do this is to explain precisely why these verses require us to conclude that the order must be "God gives, then men believe" to the specific exclusion of "men believe, then God gives".
Then I’ll repeat what every Calvinist will tell you, redemption originates in eternity past. As Eph. 1:4 “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:†This is the first link in the chain of redemption [do a google]. Now John 6:44 is given more clarity on it’s meaning, “"No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me, draw him and I will raise him up again in the last day." Another example of God’s drawing is found in Romans 9:11, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his callâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“ ESV
What could be more clear the “having done nothing good or bad†but “in order that God’s purpose†[not man’s will deciding without add] “of election might stand?†Drew wanted background; I’ve supplied it willing and know he’s aware of the foundation behind the argument.
Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
The Arminian will confuse “foreknow†with “foresaw†but I contend they’re different…but does it matter? Yes and no. Yes, because the issue is being confused for traditions of men and no, because God must have created man knowing they would not accept them with no purpose whatsoever. This leads to Open Theism which has been condemned by the Church universal.
Now to be fair, the author attempts to justify his interpretation of the "b" verses by quoting verses 44 to 47. I have carefully read this material and simply do not see anything that justifies his take on verses 39 and 40. Sure, this material is consistent with his take, but it does not exclude other interpretations.
Dabney wrote, “A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true.†(Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8).
VanTil agreed, “We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. . . . It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. (A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204).
My interpretation is consistent with the idea that God's drawing is necessary for entering the Kingdom (verse 44). My interpretation is consistent with verse 45, which, despite possible appearances, does not really exclusively support a Calvinist reading. This text would be better support for the Calvinist if it said "Everyone who has heard from the Father comes to me--". This would put the Arminian in the awkward position of having to explain how it is that this does not result in the salvation of all. But it doesn't say this. The "and learned" part allows a legitimate introduction of a free will act - the learning can involve free will (why not?). I see verses 46 and 47 as being non-controversial and not directly relevant in the sense that they do no particularly discriminate between a Calvinist and an Arminian reading.
And as far as verse 37 is concerned, the author does not explain how my take on it is incorrect.
Drew’s view inconsistent with Christ’s teaching, “44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.†Here is the inconsistency; those who are called are also RAISED UP! I hope Drew isn’t teaching universal reconciliation, that everyone, even the God haters are going to be raised with Christ…but that’s exactly where Drew’s thinking leads. If all are drawn, then all are raised with Christ. It’s that simple.
This is very, very important that you understand…John 6:44 is already given a qualifying text in v. 35 “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.†Those who come, come by a saving faith and never “hunger†or “thirst.†They come by FAITH, this is shown by the fact that they never “hunger†or “thrist.â€Â
"Everyone who has heard from the Father comes to me--". This would put the Arminian in the awkward position of having to explain how it is that this does not result in the salvation of all.
Drew now finds himself in that “awkward position.†The inconsistency of the Arminian view is clear.…now go back and read the quotes by Dabney and VanTil.
Of course, I am making an assumption that "people that are 'given' are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus'offer". I have never (I believe) stated that the "Arminian" reading is the only one. Someone who supports a Calvinist reading is doing the exact same thing. The John 6; 37-40 text does not require a reading wherein people are drawn irresistably. If the author of the above wants to discredit my plausibilty argument he has to do more than claim I am making an assumption - he has to show that my assumption is incorrect or otherwise dubious. To be fair, the author starts down this path by asserting that we "have no ability to see the light of the gospel" and provides 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 as supporting text. If this case for our inherent inability to "see" the gospel sticks, this would be a powerful counterargument to my position.
It does require the tug of conquering Grace, as you know, man is dead in sin. Not sick. Not going down for the 3rd time. Dead in sin and I confess, “The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.†The Bible tells us that natural man is hostile to God, he is a God hater. This term enmity is a powerful word and not to be passed over lightly, man is not an innocent child who really wants to love God, who’s trying his best to follow God’s commands…he is a God hater. Paul makes that clear in Romans 3 and 8, “… for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.†The natural carnal mind CANNOT see the things of Spirit and is not able to [see the ASV].
If all are drawn, that would include the pagan in Africa. How are they drawn without the preaching of the Gospel? [another question that’ll get ignored]
Let's see if this text really does the trick:
With some more context, we have starting at verse 1 (with bolding added by me):
Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
The reference to every man's conscience is strongly suggestive of a degree of free-will agency being involved in human processing of the gospel. The "plain" meaning of the term "conscience" suggests notions of evaluation, autonomy, and responsbility. At least in common usage, to "commend something to a man's conscience" means to hand that thing over to a free agent who makes the necessary decision based on the internal deliberations of his own mind. It does not seem sensible for Paul to appeal to the involvement of the human conscience if that very facility is irredeemably damaged in respect to accepting the gospel.
Drew is attempting to create a mountain of argumentation based upon v. 2, but the crux of his argument can’t be sustained because he hasn’t proven man has autonomous freewill. In Romans 2 we find that every one is without excuse because of his conscience, but this doesn’t suggest ability. If we re-read 2 Cor. 4 we find no mention of human ability or inability as is suggested, we simply see the Gospel being presented and left. The means is the Gospel but the work of applying that Gospel to bring about a spiritual change in the person is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit, which I’m sure Drew will inconsistently find agreeable. It can and has been demonstrated that man is dead in sin, hates God and cannot be subject to spiritual things if left in carnal state, for the argument to make sense it has to disprove man’s slavery to sin and prove his ability to see the merit in the spiritual offer of the Gospel.
As far as the reference to the god of this world blinding the minds of the unbelieving, this text certainly does suggest that Satan (under God's sovereign control) does interfere with man's ability to understand the gospel. However, the text is not unambiguous enough to rule out an interpretation where man at first understands and freely rejects the gospel and only then, once he has freely gone that road of rejection for a time, the person is essentially "handed over" to the god of this world and at this point, their minds become "veiled"
This is logically inconsistent with the plain reading of the quotation. The Arminian view inserts the idea of the Gospel being rejected based on human autonomous freewill. The argument falls flat when one affirms God’s sovereign will, when it’s ultimately denied, everyone but God has freewill in this view.
I am not entirely satisfied with this argument of mine because it could be argued that I am making an artificially complex interpretation. The principle of simplicity might cause one to lean in the direction of an interpretation that does not have this "2-stage" complexity - why not, in the absence of any other information take it at its most plain reading, that is that the lost are blinded to the gospel from the very first time they hear it.
Agreed.
Fair enough, but then one still has to deal with the reference to role of man's conscience and the strong implication of free will agency that seems to come bundled with the very concept of conscience.
Furthermore, it appears to be a pattern of life that people can evolve from a free will decision to dabble in some sin to winding up in a state of total enslavement (e.g. the process of become addicted to drugs). While this analogy perhaps begs the question by presuming some human free will is present in the initial sin, it at least appeals to a widely held human belief: that indeed people may freely start down some road and then slowly but surely wind up in a state where such freedom is effectively taken from them.
Have you done anything wrong, knew it was wrong and did it anyways? The God hater is dead in sin, a slave to sin and hates God so they do express the will of their conscience accordingly. The implication for a totally free human will when it’s deeply ingrain in your presuppositional subset of beliefs. No one, not the Calvinist, nor I will argue against the sinner willing to do sin. Did Jesus say something like, “you do the will of your father the devil?†The will of the natural man is in tune with sin, it’s sinful and they WILL to sin.
I can certainly see how the Ephesians text could be seen to support a Calvinist reading. Here are the first 5 verse of Ephesians 1, rendered in the NASB (with bolding added by me):
1Paul,an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.
I suggest that the initial reference to the saints who are at Ephesus suggests that subsequent references to "us" are really references to believers. This is important because it establishes the plausibility that the "us" in verses 4 and 5 specifically refers to believers that have already made a free-will acceptance of the gift offered at the cross. If I am not mistaken, the Calvinist will read the "us" in verses 4 and 5 and believe that it refers to men in their unredeemed state. That is a possibility too, but I see no particular warrant to accept the Calvinist reading to the exclusion of the reading that I am offering.
Let's see if my reading can be made to work with verses 4 and 5. In verse 4, we have "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him" Can this work if we construe "us" to be "a person who has already freely accepted the gift of Christ"? I think it indeed can. On such a construal of "us", a reasonable interpretation of the text is basically that God, before the foundation of the world, chooses that those who have freely accepted Christ will be made holy and blameless.
Now I suspect that the Calvinist will respond with something like "But salvation is the act of being made holy and blameless, so you cannot 'split things up' like this". I will respond by agreeing that a free will acceptance of the gospel is indeed conceptually "prior to" being made holy and blameless - you accept Christ and you are then made blameless as a result. So it is entirely reasonable to see this text as saying that what is "chosen" before the foundation of the world is the surety of this transformation from a state of guilt to a state of blamelessness, contingent on free will acceptance of the gospel. The plausibility of such a reading is strengthened by the fact that the text reads "He chose us in Him", consistent with the suppostion that we were in the state of being in Him before our becoming "holy and blameless" is carried out - he chose us when we were in a state of being "in Him".
What Drew has effectively done is shown how he inserts human autonomous freewill and ability here and there and then arrives at his doctrine. By inserting anything into the scripture you can get whatever interpretation you seek, so I suggest you read the scripture WITHOUT adding anything…at all…even the idea of total depravity…and see what it has to say. The basis for the Arminian argumentation is based upon the presupposition that man is only wounded by the fall, he then precedes to read this into the passage…simply read Drew’s re-writes of the texts to see what I mean. It’s a terrible job of exegesis and Drew forces the text to say something it doesn’t by inclusion of human ability. ex.†This is important because it establishes the plausibility that the "us" in verses 4 and 5 specifically refers to believers that have already made a free-will acceptance of the gift offered at the cross. If I am not mistaken, the Calvinist will read the "us" in verses 4 and 5 and believe that it refers to men in their unredeemed state.†Drew decides to give “us†human ability, free from sin, which is impossible until regeneration occurs, and then proceeds to interpret the passage. Where does this chapter speak of human ability to accept the Gospel without divine intervention? It doesn’t. The passage simply reads that,â€Â…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…â€Â
Although the post was lengthy it crumbles easy. The “us†are the saints, they became saints because they were chosen before the foundation of the world. That’s what it tells us and it’s consistent with the rest of scripture.
For the sake of brevity, I will merely state my argument about verse 5 would be similar - that free will acceptance can be seen to conceptually, if not temporally, precede the "pre-destining".
Ditto.
Drew wrote:
Of course. I have never disputed this. The important point is that John 6 is open to both a Calvinist and an Arminian interpretation. The text is sufficiently ambiguous to allow both as legitimate readings.
in response to
There is neither the explicit nor implicit understanding in John 6 that an ungodly person has such a freeness in their natural 'will' (desire) to judge the worthiness (personal value) of God's salvation in order to determine if it is what they want
Did you get that? This is simple game playing, word play and dishonestly.
John 1:13 says:
"who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
This is, yet again, subject to 2 different interpretations (at least). It is perfectly consonant with an Arminian reading because one who believes in free will acceptance can legitimately claim that God's will is by far and away the most significant element in the salvation in the salvation process, utterly dwarfing the role of man simply "reaching out and grabbing the life rope".
We now see a pattern of inserting something into a passage that just isn’t there. The passage is really simple; the Arminian is making a mess and a mockery of the passage in hopes to save his drowning argument. We find Christ’s teaching in v. 5, “"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.†This clearly demonstrates that one cannot, until regeneration, cannot see the spiritual offer, which is consistent with the Calvinist interpretation.
Dr. John Gill wrote the following:
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; and unless a man has this work of his wrought on his soul, as he will never understand divine and spiritual things, so he can have no right to Gospel ordinances, or things appertaining to the kingdom of God; nor can he be thought to have passed from death to life, and to have entered into an open state of grace, and the kingdom of it; or that living and dying so, he shall ever enter into the kingdom of heaven; for unless a man is regenerated, he is not born heir apparent to it; and without internal holiness, shall not enter into it, enjoy it, or see God.
Let's say someone has driven their car off a bridge and in now trapped at the bottom of river. A valiant passerby dives in, swims to the bottom, bangs on the window. The passenger weakly reaches over and unlocks the driver side door allowing the rescuer access. The rescuer enters the cabin, takes off the seatbelt, grabs the victim and swims to the surface, saving the passenger.
This would be reported as the driver being saved by the rescuer, and not by himself since he opened the door (which admitttedly was required to ensure his rescue).
Like all illustration, they can’t prove points; they “illustrate†the point in hopes of making the point clear. The breakdown in this little story of Drew’s is again found in his insistence for man’s ability to add something to the “rescue.†Man doesn’t need help in his salvation, but needs to be saved. The story would be more consistent with scripture if the person was knocked out when hitting the embankment, and the rescuer swam down to save the victim. What the little story does illustrate is the person’s ability to assist in his rescue. [read my sig]
If news stories were really written the way that I would expect a Calvinist would demand based on their approach to such texts as John 1:13, we would have:
"Man saved by collective efforts of resucer, himself, the woman who flagged the rescuer down, the wife of the rescuer who, over the years, nagged him to stay in shape with the result that he was able to swim to the bottom of the river, etc. etc."
Instead, we we would have: "Man saved by valiant good samaritan".
And I am prepared to respond to the claim that the man to be rescued "is incapacitated to the point of not doing anything", but I will leave that to another post, if required.
And you claim I’m good at rhectoric? Sure, ok, whatever.
Drew wrote:
This is a strawman in respect to my position. This is a refutation of some position other than the one I hold. However, to be fair, the author of the above material, unlike people familiar with my views on this topic, would have no basis to assume that I do not hold the position imputed to me in the above quote.
I do not hold such a position. Stated very crudely, I think salvation is 99.9 % the work of God, with man contributing a measly 0.1 % by reaching out and taking the gift as a free agent.
in response to the following
The 'free-will' theist literally places more authority for one's salvation in the 'will' of the ungodly than God Himself. It is a serious matter to give the ungodly more sovereignty than the most Godly of all.
Do you remember Drew’s little story, how the women added to her rescuers efforts because they were insufficient and how the rescuer was unable to do anything UNTIL he as aided by the work of the drowning women? I’d say Drew is being inconsistent. It’s more then 99.9% God if God can’t do anything to get salvation underway.
Quote: The second error I noticed is the un-Biblical doctrine of 'possibilities' which are also given more sovereignty than the explicit statements of Holy Scripture as found in this comment, 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. 1) Possibilities are NOT facts. That is why they are only possibilities. 2) Where does Scripture state the possibilities or that possibilities have more authority than facts clearly stated?
This is quite a strange postion to take. For one thing, it seems to beg the question by presuming that the "facts clearly stated" support a Calvinist reading to the exclusion of other ones. Such a case actually needs to be made. To be fair, the author may believe that he has made such a case based on his references to texts such as John 1:13 and Ephesians 1:4-5. I will let the reader make that judgment, based on all that has been expressed in this thread.
I disagree on the begging the question assumption. We know Drew doesn’t believe in sola scriptura [scripture alone], we also know that Drew is an Open Theist [meaning God only has an idea of the future, the future isn’t certain]. These are his underling presuppositions and if anything, Drew is begging the question by assuming [as we have seen] man’s total ability in almost all matters: salvation, future events, as the final authority over the faith, etc.
But more importantly, the author incorrectly attributes a belief to me, namely the belief that "possibilities are not facts". I have, of course, never said or implied otherwise. There is indeed a "fact of the matter" about the issues we are debating. So, for example, I believe that the actual state of affairs is that God calls all to repentence, and only some freely choose to accept it. It would be a very odd position indeed to think that there were no underlying truth. Fortunately, I am not that odd.
I have only used the word "possibilities" to refer to the inherent ambiguity in some Scriptural texts. I would have thought that it was obvious, from the very nature of natural language (e.g. with possibilities of allegory, and other inherent ambiguities) and the rich, complex subject matter, that many snippets of texts can be read multiple ways and that resolution of the ambiguity requires the application of other information (e.g. other items of Scripture).
All that I have said is that the John text can be interpreted in two different ways - hence there are 2 "possible" interpretations. Besides, the countless examples of disputes among Christians (e.g. faith or works, hell or annihilation, divorce under some circumstance vs no divorce, etc) show that certain Scripture texts can be given different interpretations - this is why this debate exists in the first place. Of course, I a not disputing there is an underlying "correct answer" to each of these debates.
But this is a bit of a digression. What the author needs to do is directly and squarely show what is wrong with my argument (I will not repeat it - it is the one about how v. 39 and v. 40 are structurally similar and the implications of this).
For those familar with the term, I have only attempted to provide a plausiblity argument for an Arminian reading, not a refutation of a Calvinist reading. There is, indeed, an important difference.
And here it is, the jist of the argument: “The Calvinist interpretation isn’t correct because other possibilities exist, however, I’m not trying to refute the Calvinist position.†The different texts examined in this thread can be read in a number of incorrect ways, but logic demands we read ALL scripture in the most consistent manner to find the correct belief.
We’ve seen a lot of smoke but not much fire. To God be the glory, he saved us, peace.
JM
