a question for Calvinists

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Scott_Bushey:
[QB]For 1, I will not acknowledge his contrast to Plato's work.

How do you think we know koine Greek? There are hundreds of words in the Greek language that appear only once in the NT. How do we understand them?

Answer: We look at the usage in extrabiblical works. By refusing to accept the word usages outside contemporary works of the Bible, you are showing yourself to be an opponent of Biblical scholarship.

and 2 his *misunderstanding* of Gods grace. He (Kittel) see's it as universal.

He sees at as universal based upon the exegesis of the Bible. It is not a misunderstanding of grace - it is sound exegetical practice. This point stands unless you provide scholarship to the contrary.

Also, The scriptures and comparisons cannot be denied. The harmony is irrefutable......sorry!

And yet, it is refuted by six scholarly sources. You have proven nothing to the contrary. Do you not see this?

It's like me saying, "That the earth is flat cannot be denied. It looks flat to me.......sorry!" Both my phrase and your phrase hold the same weight. You must provide some kind of proof to the contrary. Otherwise it is your word against six scholarly works, and in any court, the six scholarly works win.

Just because John (in your opinion) is using metaphors, the intent is there.

Not my opinion. The facts shown by the authors of the works I quoted.

The power of God dragging the person to himself. All of the lexicography that you presents support this idea. Check it out for yourself. It may not be a physical pulling, but it is on the spiritual level.........

Read the evidence from those who know a whole lot more about the Greek language than you or I. They are in harmony that helkuo does not mean "dragging."

Okay Scott, take the bible, use every scripture using Helkuo'and show me how it is not intended to mean what I say. Even though I disagree with you, as I believe you have misinterpreted the lexicology, lets let the scriptures speak for themselves.

This contention is between you and the experts. You state one thing - the theological experts of koine Greek language. You are unable to argue with the evidence that was presented. If you were to look at all the examples of helkuo in the body of all the Greek writings of the time of the Bible, you would understand my point. HOwever, you have admitted that you do not care what other contemporary Greek writings say about it. To me, this shows that you are closed-minded to the idea that you may, in fact, be wrong.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Scott E,
Just for the sake of continuing our exchange, lets conclude at this point that the word helkuo' *IS NOT* aggressive. Can we agree that the word helkuo' IS an action that has "determination" at the end of it? In other words, In the pulling of Peters sword, lets assume that he (Peter) pulled it out of the sheath slowly, but with determination. Or the fish in the net, they were pulled slowly, patiently, but the pullers were "determined" to get the fish into the boat, onto the shore.

Can we look at 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Scott E.
Does the above scripture imply that the father gives men to Jesus?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

[ November 20, 2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Scott_Bushey:
Scott E,
Just for the sake of continuing our exchange, lets conclude at this point that the word helkuo' *IS NOT* aggressive.

Thanks for conceding the point.

Can we agree that the word helkuo' IS an action that has "determination" at the end of it? In other words, In the pulling of Peters sword, lets assume that he (Peter) pulled it out of the sheath slowly, but with determination. Or the fish in the net, they were pulled slowly, patiently, but the pullers were "determined" to get the fish into the boat, onto the shore.

For you to state the helkuo has an implication of determination, you would have to provide some exegetical proof other than two passages that you read "determined" into.

Can we look at 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Does the above scripture imply that the father gives men to Jesus?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Yes. The Father does give man to Christ. But we have to look further to notice what qualifications occur for God to give man to Him.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

OK Scott E.,
I'll bite....why does the father give the son "men"?

 

[Dave Bussard]

That is not a hard question at all. Even if Calvinism is wrong, God still would have created the earth and its inhabitants knowing full well that most would go to hell.

The reason being--You cannot deny that God knows all, even before it happens. So, if He knew all before He created the world He certainly knew that most would reject Him, and He would know WHO would reject Him. But He created everything anyway because He was willing to lose many in order to gain a few.

Calvinism or not, He chose to create us knowing most of us would reject Him.

Dave Bussard
www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Scott_Bushey:
OK Scott E.,
I'll bite....why does the father give the son "men"?

John 6
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Verse 40 kinda sums it up nicely. Those who look to the Son and believe in Him will come to Him.

And verse 45: It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[4] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me."

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
John 6
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Verse 40 kinda sums it up nicely. Those who look to the Son and believe in Him will come to Him.

And verse 45: It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[4] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me."[/QB]

Scott Bushey responds:
Actually Scott, you state that verse 40 sums it up, but cutting to the chase,Jesus Himself states that (in verse 44) those whom God draws, He raises up.....right? What does this statement mean, "raise up?" This implies Heaven. So, everyone whom God draws, will be raised up. So, whatever men are drawn, are saved, raised up. It does not say, "some of them whom I draw will be raised", it says all, I will lose none!

~I ask you, are all who are drawn raised up?

Jesus Himself states that He came "not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." What was the Fathers will? Verse 39: And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

Now Scott, you have admitted that the Father gives the Son, men. The Father does not give Christ "ALL" men right? Some men!

The scripture reads:
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

You propose that God only gives men whom first believe in the son...right? But John 6:45 says that these men that are given to the son are taught of God.

If believing were a catalyzing component to regeneration it would contradict Eph 2:8,9, Titus 3:5. and John 1:13. This idea denies justification by faith alone. You place emphasis upon believing; it becomes the catalyst, a work. Men believe because God regenerates. It is not the catalyst. The catalyst is God giving faith to believe.
Psa 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power , in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Isa 54:12 And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.
Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD ; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
Isa 54:14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them , saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Now Scott, we know everyone does not know Christ. But all the elect DO KNOW Christ! And Christ will lose none of them. Those whom God gives Christ, are based upon a covenental promise to the Son. This idea is not based upon HOPE that the created will fulfill the requirement by believing, as it is quite possible, none may believe. The idea is based upon Gods unchangeable character. The idea that God cannot lie. Hence, the promise is determined in Him from before the foundation of the world.

[ November 20, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[Frogman]

To answer the question:

For the praise of the Glory of His Grace. Eph. 1.6

Bro. Dallas

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Amen Frogman!
Which concurs w/the covenental promise as stated above.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace , wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

~My emphasis added.
Scott Bushey

[ November 20, 2002, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[BobRyan]

Scott B. Says:
You did not respond to my exegesis (above) of the word "draw"????

As Scott Emerson pointed out your case is not made from the Greek.

But your problems are plentiful regarding the John 12:32 text "I will Draw ALL MEN unto Me".

#1. You are forced to argue that the translators themselves are in error since 'draw' should have been "drag" or "forcibly cause". Translation that was clearly available to them and that they reject.

#2. You can not make the case from the Greek such that Greek might "only allow" one rendering.

#3. Your problems only begin with "Draw" - next you must work over the term "ALL mankind" and insert "types" so that it becomes "ALL types of mankind". Otherwise all your work on redefining "Draw" merely gets you into the problem of having ALL mankind dragged to God.

#4. Finally you must agree not to notice that "I will Drag a few of mankind" (as in the arbitrarily selected few of Matt 7) - is a very different statement from "I will Draw All Mankind".

However - as already noted. You did not respond to the point that it is not the fact that depravity's "innaction" is turned into "action" - man is "enabled" by that John 12:32 principle EVEN by Calvinist standards. It is just a question of how many - and how forcibly.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 20, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Scott B
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

How do you suppose Peter retrieved his sword from the sheath during this tense moment?

Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

Granted - context determines meaning. When applied to an "object" it means one thing but when applied to a human - it means another.

Similar to the difference in "Fly" between a rock flying through the air and a bird flying through the air. Context determines how we view the meaning.

And so your point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Bob,
My post is clear. You might want to go back and re-read it.

You write:
#4. Finally you must agree not to notice that "I will Drag a few of mankind" (as in the arbitrarily selected few of Matt 7) - is a very different statement from "I will Draw All Mankind".

However - as already noted. You did not respond to the point that it is not the fact that depravity's "innaction" is turned into "action" - man is "enabled" by that John 12:32 principle EVEN by Calvinist standards. It is just a question of how many - and how forcibly.

Scott Bushey writes:
I did not say that the scriptures imply that only a select few are "drawn"; but you must agree based upon the scripture that not every single person in the world is drawn. Also, the word election is a biblical term. The term itself excludes; not everyone in an election is elect!

I did however state that every single one who IS drawn will be saved.
You acknowledge like Scott E. that God gives men to the Son right? You must acknowledge that God does not give "ALL" men to the Son. These men are given to the Son because of a covenental promise to the Son, by the Father for a bride.

Notice that the scripture states that those whom are given to the Son, drawn by the father are raised up on the last day.....does it not?

John 6:44 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.

So Bob, in regards to this statement:
However - as already noted. You did not respond to the point that it is not the fact that depravity's "innaction" is turned into "action" - man is "enabled" by that John 12:32 principle EVEN by Calvinist standards. It is just a question of how many - and how forcibly .

Scott replies:
So, in answering your earlier question, the Greek rendering has to be, that the drawing is efficacious , no matter how subtle or aggressive, and all that are drawn, are efficaciously raised!

Bob writes:
Granted - context determines meaning. When applied to an "object" it means one thing but when applied to a human - it means another.

Similar to the difference in "Fly" between a rock flying through the air and a bird flying through the air. Context determines how we view the meaning.

And so your point?

Scott inquires:
Bob, I disagree. Greek grammar is not held by the view that the meaning (necessarily) changes because of the object being either animated or inanimated.

[ November 21, 2002, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

In regards to Scott Emerson's post from the Arminian magazine of 2001:

The quote used from Kittel is taken out of its fuller context. The quote is actually part of the Old Testament usage of the word, usually found in the LXX. In the LXX the use is sometimes to “draw a sword” or to “draw someone into a net” (like a trap). However, the Greek word continues the description of its Hebrew counterpart as “one who is drawn by God in an irresistible and supernatural force.” It seems, Scott, that the Arminian magazine author did not quote all of Kittel's work.

Kittel continues, “When a man is suddenly, supernaturally and irresistibly called to God, he often looses balance of thought (Old Testament par: 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff; 2 Kings 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hosea 9:7; cf. also Mark 3:21).” Kittel is actually quoting T. Canaan, a German linguistic.

The word “elkw” is most likely drawn from a derivative of haireomai {hahee-reh'-om-ahee) which means to 1) to take for oneself, to prefer, choose. It is the idea of “taking” which eludes to the derivative the force of the idea to “drag” in secular writing. The word “elkw” is actually used a number of times in extra biblical writings as “drag” respectively. That is why the preciseness of Luke’s usage in Acts 21:30 (“seized Paul and dragged him…”) is correct. (CF. 16:19)

There is also another word that Luke uses for a more violent “dragging” as if when Paul is thought to be dead and the people drag him out of the city. But the “elkw” usage is more akin to those who are alive and are being affected in some manner by another.

As for his second usage in Baur’s Lexicon, he seemed to gloss over the initial use of the Word both cited by Libanius, Clearechus, Herodas, which refer to the common use of the word as “drag.” Your author from A.M. seems to be confusing the idea that a “figurative use” does not embody the sense of the word, but changes it. In Greek that is simply wrong Figurative usages of Greek words, in Greek, embody the full-orbed idea of the term, or word, and express it more forcefully not less forcefully. Nor is this word used in a manner that is less forceful with the text. When God “draws” or “impels by supernatural compulsion” someone to believe, this is not something that they can resist. Tense mood and case all create John 6:44 as something God supernaturally does in changing the soul in an irresistible manner. The other contextual wording is emphatic – universal negatives are used with the verb which is a subjunctive aorist active 3rd person singular use and connotes an act of irresistible “coercion.” It also can possibly mean “haul in.”

Kubo, (another Lexicon) utilizes both ideas of “leading” and “drawing".

I do not want to belabor this for you, and reiterate the possible misuse of the lexicography this magazine uses. Let me give you the basic Greek.

The term is a derivative verb. Its basic meanings are to “draw and drag.” It only occurs in the New Testament a few times and the need to return to extra-biblical Greek is essential in understanding the word usage, so Plato's work is acknowledged! In almost every usage I have of extra biblical writing the term is used as “drag”. Rabbinic literature even proves this out as something which is based in a religious experience that God accomplished upon someone. If you really want a basic, simple definition of the word’s “figurative meaning,” in John 6:44 the idea is to “take possession of.” So Scott E., whatever the case (at this point), the drawing that God accomplishes, the helkuo' is fully efficacious to acomplish His will.

As a note: Zhodiates on this point is exceedingly in error. He has compared “suro” with “elkw” which is simply incorrect. (I am really surprised that he would do that.) “Suro” and “Elkw” are mutually exclusive terms and in both John and Luke they are used for two very different ideas.