Featured Arminianism = Humanism?

It does not make any such point! There is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove your conclusion. The father is a man not God and there is nothing provided concerning the nature of drawing by the Father preceding the son returning. You have NOTHING in this parable but what you READ into it.

 

If the equation is a valid one, then it matters not if the equation is "flipped". One could argue the finer points regarding the definition of "equality", which many confuse with equivalence.

 

We never have denied that the will is effected by INTERNAL force of their own nature which "drawing" is the transformative power that provides a new heart. So you argument is baseless.

Now you are changing the meaning from transferral of neutral "ability" which has POTENTIAL for coming to power of "persuasion" which has nothing to do with ability to be persuaded. You are like a drunk man on a ship in a rough sea stumbling back and forth. Your attempts simply don't measure up to the facts of Biblical usage - period.

 

This is a pure distraction from the OP and the objections placed before you that you are not answering. Thus an attempt to steer away from the OP and current points of debate.

 

Again, the Arminian interpetation of "draw" makes the human will sovereign in regard to salvation and both God and Satan mere bystanders hoping that the sovereign will of man is able to choose and will choose what is contrary to its own nature.

Anyone can read any any of the other six uses of "draw" in the New Testament and easily see that drawing is inseparable from coming rather than some delayed action or potential action as Arminians demand. Just common sense exposes the Arminian interpretation as oxymoronic in nature. To suggest that something being drawn is not coming is simply irrational if applied in any of the other six uses in the New Testament.

 

This is a failure to distinguish between "dead" "vain" and saving faith. No demons posses or are given saving faith. More importantly the NATURE of demons prohibits the possiblity of saving faith as their nature is "enmity against God and is not subject to" obedience to the gospel or any other law of God. This is your problem with the fallen nature as you really do not understand the nature of sin as you define sin merely superficially rather than how God defines sin. Please challenge me on this point!!!

I have exposed this fallacious interpretation of Romans 10:17 countless times and yet you still come back repeating the same erroneous things. 2 Cor 4:6 explains Romans 10:17 in the same context of preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4-5, 7). The "word" by which faith comes is the word OF COMMAND as clearly described in 2 Cor. 4:6 and the "substance" necessary for saving faith to exist "in our heart" is "given" by the creative command of God and thus does not originate externally from human instruments (Mt. 16:17; Gal. 1:15-16) as your system of interpretation erroneously demands.

You continue to ignore the CLEAR distinction between the general call in the wedding parable where NONE met the qualifications of the invitation whereas only the effectual call ("compel them") is the only call that provided qualified guests. Hence, many are called (general and effectual) but few are chosen (effectual).

You continue to ignore the hard facts of scripture that distinguish between EXTERNAL versus INTERNAL hearing and that the INTERNAL fallen heart has no ability to hear and no external instrument can convey that ability (Deut. 5:29; 29:4) but that ability is only conveyed by INTERNAL IMMEIDATE and direct command by God as in creation of light (2 Cor. 4:6).

First, the Bibiical use establishes the Holy Spirit's use of it rather than extra Biblical secular usage.

Second, the term is used in scripture as the IMMEDIATE and DIRECT CAUSE for coming to Christ rather than some transferrable ability or potential indirect consequence.

Third, the fact that "some" who professed Christ, submitted to baptism were NEVER drawn, NEVER "urged", NEVER pursauded, and NEVER appealed (Jn. 6:64-65) completely and utterly destroys your whole interpetative scheme.

You are using the term contrary to the scriptural usage as it is not used to refer to EXTERNAL means but INTERNAL as the problem is not external but internal. Hence, reading, studying and anything else originating from "flesh and blood" is not what Jesus is talking about (Mt. 16:17; 2 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:15-16).


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.

The translation "drag" is used in the context of human application to EXTERNAL things which can be dragged. The term "draw" is used in the context of Divine application to INTERNAL things that men are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of moving - "no man can" whereas YOUR application is in the context of men applying this when the context is about what NO MAN can do. The term "come" in context is synonymous with "believing" in Christ and that is what only God can do as faith is "the work of God" (Jn. 6:29) and only possible for those the Father gives to the Son as none other can "come" but those given as John 6:64-65 proves beyond dispute.

 

No, the very nature of demons makes them incapable of exercising saving faith as a verbal action and that is the very same nature of fallen men (Rom. 8:7). Remember, "NO MAN CAN COME" is a universal delcaration of total inability of the FALLEN HUMAN NATURE as he is not talking about regenerated mankind. Hence, it is not a matter of verb or noun but a matter of INABILITY due to nature. Remember the elementary essential to please God is to come to God by faith and the fallen nature is incapable of that very thing "so they that are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD" due to the nature previously described in verse 7. So any way you cut it, your argument is simply false.

See above paragraph.

No, you don't! You deny that man is a sinner BY NATURE but only by choice and actions. If you believed man is a sinner BY NATURE then we are speaking of his CONDITION or STATE of being in regard to his heart. The heart determiines MOTIVE and every choice you make in regard to "thoughts" or words or actions is MORALLY determined by motive and the heart is the seat of motive. God looks on the heart rather than words or actions. The reason the violation of ONE POINT is the violation of EVERY POINT in the law is because EVERY POINT demands the very same righteous motive and that is all must originate from the motive to GLORIFY GOD and that is precisely why all have sinned because all have "come short of THE GLORY OF GOD." The first sin originated with the wrong motive - that which was not for the glory of God.

That is why there IS NONE GOOD, no not one (nature of the heart) and why there is NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, no not one (fruits of the heart).

That is why one must be first "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" or else there choice of thoughts, words and actions are sin in God's sight.

Therefore, man is a sinner first BY NATURE and then by CHOICE of thoughts, words and actions. You do not believe all human beings are born into this world as sinners BY NATURE or operate by motives other than the GLORY OF GOD.

 

1. There is not ONE text in all of scripture in which the drawing of God necessitates coming to Christ - it merely allows for it.

2. There is not ONE text that says that "Drawing of God" is meant to force the one drawn to take some action - against their will.

3. There is not ONE text in all of scripture that says that if the person who is drawn - does not come to Christ - then it is a sign of God's failure.

4. There is not ONE text in all of scripture that says "all whom God draws Will COME to Christ".

What is worse!

The Calvinist bend-wrench of John 12:32 that takes 'I will Draw ALL mankind to me" and turns it into "I will draw only the arbitrarily elect FEW of Matt 7 that will one day be saved" - revises the text down so far that it is tantamount to a universalist statement.

Because "ALL mankind" is redefined to be those only who are arbitrarily selected and will go to heaven. And so "I will DRAW ALL mankind unto ME" becomes "I will take ALL mankind to heaven"!! Because "All mankind" has been "redefined" as "only those that go to heaven".

The bend-wrench done to John 12:32 could make almost any statement - "Calvinist" because it appears to have "no limit" to the degree that it is allowed to bend the text away from its apparent meaning.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. The only ones who can come are those given - Jn. 6:37-40
2. The only ones who can come are those drawn - Jn. 6:44
3. All others cannot come and will not come BECAUSE they were never given
and never drawn- Jn. 6:36; 64-65
4. He who is given and drawn EQUALLY are "raised up at the last day" - vv. 39
b, 44b and NONE are lost - v. 39
5. Hence, all who are drawn equal "all" who are taught (v. 45a) and all who are taught are all who have "heard" and learned" and none of that "all" fail to come to Christ (v. 45b) and all who come to Christ NONE are lost (v. 39).

We teach no such doctrine. We teach that drawing is God changing the heart which in turn freely chooses to come to Christ.

There is scripture that teaches that all who believe not and all who are false professors were NEVER drawn, NEVER impelled, NEVER taught, NEVER learned, NEVER heard of the Father - Jn. 6:64-65 AND "him" that is drawn is "him" that is raised up in the resurrection of life - Jn. 6:44b.

"except the Father which hath sent me draw HIM: and I will raise HIM up at the last day." - Jn. 6:45

1. Him given equals "him" raised up at the last day - Jn. 6:39b and NONE ARE LOST

2. Him drawn equals "him" raised up at the last day - Jn. 6:44b and NONE ARE LOST.

The context demonstrates the "all" is the same "all" in John 6:37-39 and the same "all" in John 6:45a which EXCLUDES "some" as in John 6:64-65. So your interpretation is just false.

The term "all" is not interpreted by us to mean "all mankind" as John 6:64-65 explicitly denies that "some" of mankind are included in this all. Instead, "all" is contextually restricted to "all" the elect which are called out of "ALL races, genders and classes" of mankind - Rev. 5:9. Hence, this charge of universal salvation is a pure figment of your fertile imagination that you force upon us without a shed of evidence.