Featured Arminianism = Humanism?

No, John 6 and the term "draw" does not refer to being "enabled" to come but IS the act of drawing/coming as it is impossible to draw something to yourselve and it not be coming as you draw. That is the use of the term in New Testament usage. It is NEVER once used as simply being "enabled" so that one might come if they choose.

This is simply not true! There were over 500 brethren prior to Pentecost that were baptized believers in Christ.

 

Atouching moment to be sure....just like singing in the rain:laugh:

 

Jon, welcome on board. I don't recall conversing with you before. If I have blame it on my age for not remembering.

The Greek term "elkuo" translated "draw" eight times in the New Testament is NEVER used by Scripture writers to mean conveying power or transferring power from one subject to another subject so they can potentially use it to do or not do something. That is simply pure perversion of the scripture.

The term is ALWAYS used to explain the source of power whereby something comes and if something is being drawn that something IS coming. Only in cases where the source of power is insufficient or is flawed does coming cease only because of the insufficiency in the source drawing (as in the fish which broke the net used by the disciples to draw them into the boat).

So this idea of "enable" for POTENTIAL coming is completely foreign to the Biblcial use of "elkuo" and something Skandelon nor any Greek Scholar can substantiate from NEW TESTAMENT USAGE.

Jesus explicitly points to "some" in John 6:64 who came by false profession that were NEVER drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:65) repudiating the interpretation that "all" men without exception in John 12:32 will be drawn when in context it refers to "all" men without distinction as in the case of the "Greeks" (vv. 21-24) who were seeking Christ.

 

You are abusing that text but probably don't realize it. John 6:36-40 is a complete section in itself. Jesus makes an assertion in verse 36 followed by an explanation of his assertion in verses 37-39 and closes with an assertion in verse 40 that is opposite to the former assertion in verse 36. Verse 40 is the concluding assertion of verses 37-39 and this is exegetically proven by the fact that the last clause of verse 39 is also the same last clause of verse 40 tying them together speaking of the same persons spoken of in verses 37-39 in contrast to those spoken of in verse 36.

In other words, the person addressed in verse 36 are not the persons being described in verses 37-40 but are excluded from the "all" in verse 37-39 while the ones addressed in verse 40 are included in the "all" in verses 37-39 proven by the same last clause found in verse 39 and 40.

This should be obvious, as only those given "shall come" and "be raised up at the last day" (God's perpsective) - vv. 37-39 and they are those who respond differently from those in verse 36 as described in verse 40 (human perspective).

If I need to get down and spell this out in detail and prove by sound exegesis what I am saying, please ask me too! However, you confirm my exegesis below in your next statement.

You are confirming my interpretation above of verse 36 in contrast to those given in verses 37-39 which respond as described in verse 40 who are of the "all" given in verses 37-39. Thank you. However, now be consistent and admit the same of "some of you" or his disciples in John 6:64-65 who did make a false profession and who were baptized but were NEVER DRAWN by the Father. Come on, confession is good for your soul:thumbsup:

But what is true of them is true of ALL who are not part of the "all" in John 6:37-39 as none "shall" come to Christ who were not first given by the Father to come to Christ and none shall come to Christ who are not drawn by the Father to come to Christ regardless if they are Jews, Israel, Gentiles or Gentile nations. This is a universal principle applicable to all who are outside the "all" given to Christ in every generation among all cultures.

 

Jon, note that in the context of the above phrase and Biblical context of John 6 that Skandelon is using "enabled" as a synonym for "draw" thus attempting to make "draw" the transfer of ability or power from God to man in order to simply place him in a neutral state for POTENTIALLY coming to Christ.

Skandelon knows he cannot support that meaning from the usage of "draw" in Scripture. He knows this is complete eisgesis and IMPOSSIBLE in regard to the very inherent nature of the Greek word "elkuo" translated "draw." Comiing is inherently inseparable from drawing as what is being drawn IS coming rather than providing potential to come. However, this is the extent Skandelon and other Arminians must go to in order to justify their unbiblical eisgeitical based interpretation of "draw."

He completely ignores that in the parable of the wedding which he directly alludes to, that ALL the guests first invited NONE came, while the second call went out with the command to "COMPEL" them to come. Hence, many are generally called by the gospel invitation but only those who actually corrrespond to the invitation are "chosen."

This depends upon whether he is referring to EXTERNAL hearing or INTERNAL hearing. The natural heart has no such INTERNAL ability (Deut. 5:29) as this kind of ability must be given with a NEW heart (Deut. 29:4; Ezek 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3; 4:6).

This is the case regardless of what portion of God's Word is being preached as only those "given" to the Son "shall" come" (Jn. 6:37-40) while those not given NEVER come (Jn. 6:36). Hence, the lost man has no spiritual ability because they are spiritually "dead" (Eph. 2:1,6; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Skandelon is presenting a self-contradiction. They "may" not hear BECAUSE Christ is purposely preventing such hearing and therefore they "can not" hear. Even his own disciples who are regenerated saved persons could not understand those parables without SPECIAL REVELATION and so those unbelievers without special revelation CANNOT hear or respond and be saved.

The "rhema" (word of command - Rom. 10:17) must produce INTERNAL hearing as described in 2 Cor. 4:6 which is a CREATIVE WORD OF COMMAND as in Genesis 1:3 which eliminates all instrumental means "IN the heart" as the preachers of the gospel can only bring the gospel to the EXTERNAL ear of man but it is God alone who works "IN the heart" and that is by a creative command:

2 Cor. 4: 6 [B]For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness[/B], hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

That is why the "substance" of the profession of faith does not originate with "flesh and blood" or human instrumentality (Mt. 16:17) but by direct revelation as a creative command of God (Gal. 1:15-16) and that is why one can know they are the elect if the gospel does not come in "word only" but "IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT and IN MUCH ASSURANCE" - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

Jon, you can readily see this is not "truth" but an abolute perversion of the Word of God.

Because hardening is a PROCESS from one stage to another stage so that in each stage GOD GIVES THEM OVER to a lower or more hardened condition (Rom. 1:18-32). Israel had been given over to false religion, false doctrine already and now with the incarnation of Light and rejection they are now being given over to another stage of the hardening process.

However, this is the case with every fallen man as soon as they can recognize conscience, which they always resist to some extent (Jn. 3:19-20) because the fallen condition is at enmity with light and thus anyone coming to the light is due to God's work alone (Jn. 3:21).

 

The essence or bottom line of humanism is that man is the apex of life and the essence or bottom line of Arminianism is that the human will is the apex and ultimate soverein in salvation. God and Satan are reduced to by standers and God's power is reduced to merely providing ability totally subservient to the human will where in God's will has no power or authority to actually save fallen man.

 

I really don't follow you rationale in these statements. My position always aquires what God purposes. My position denies God owes salvation to any sinner. So I am not following your rationale here.

First, you are using this parable contrary to the design Christ has for its contextually.

Second, this parable does not provide any information concerning the precise nature of any internal work of God being done within the Son in his prodigal condition and so you can assume one thing and I can assume equally another thing as doctrine is not to be established on parables.

Third, this is always your ultimate refuge - parables, unbiblical philosophical illustrations. That should tell the readers something.

 

I very much agree with Skan that accusations like this are consistently paraded as some type of theological deficiency. I own up to this, I do believe that we (men ,I) am the final decider regarding my relationship with God and eternal status. That is simply in my mind, the way God has designed things. If I reject knowing and being in relationship with God....it is I who decides that, not God who has fore ordained it.

 

Hey, FWIW, I thought you made a good point here.

Have you ever worked the equation or made the comparison from this angle?

 

Either it is granted or not. However, you position denies it is granted at all but only has the POTENTIAL for faith. Likewise, with your use of "elkuo". I can find "scholars' who teach every error under the sun. However, facts are stubborn things and the fact is that there is not ONE USE of elkuo in scripture that supports your or their interpetation. You are simply wrong and your scholars are simply wrong as you both contradict the facts. Inherent in the very meaning of "draw" is the inseparable action of coming or else whatever is being drawn is not being drawn. This term has no Biblical or secular support for the interpretation you are forcing upon it.

I will challenge this assertion. Every seasoned Greek student knows that Lexiocogphers provide etymological and usage definitions of terms as well as their own SUBJECTIVE theological interpretation. The former two are the basis for objective research while the latter is not.

1. W.E. Vine does not support your theory.

2. Abbot and Smith does not support your theory.

3. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich does not support your theory.

4. Colin Brown refuses to treat it and thus does not support your theory

5. Thayer does not support your theory.


Your theory demands that when a being/person draws something it does not come when being drawn but rather drawing transfers ability that at some later point may or may not come.