The nominative (subject) is Jesus, the accusative (direct object) is all men, and the dative (indirect object) is Jesus.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Arminian sovereignty: In charge vs. in control
- Thread starter robustheologian
- Start date
It cannot be "PERIOD". If you say "PERIOD", then you say all men get saved. One must deal with how the verse makes sense. I think it would be Calvinism doing the amending. All men will not be saved, thus, the verse must be focused on all men being forced to deal with Jesus Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure we all (I know I have) encountered many of men and women who were drawn (forced spiritually) to consider Jesus Christ, yet they walked away. I have a personal friend whom I only get to see maybe every other month or two, every time I bump into him he initiates the conversation towards Jesus Christ. I have known him for about 30 years now, but he will not take the step to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Come on my man. I already addressed that the issue is no longer whether all men will be drawn to Christ (which I settled) but who is "all men".
Now as Bro. Curtis said "men" is a supplied word which means it is not in the original text. So the verse literally says He will draw ALL to himself. This then makes "all" an adverb and determiner. So the question is now "all" of who? The Calvinist then answers all those given to him by the Father (John 6:37-39), not the whole world. (John 17:9) That's the only way to embrace the antinomy (seeming contradiction that is true) of scripture saying all will come to Him and the reality of all having not come to Him.
It's also possible that "men" replaced another word. We don't know.
But we do know people are thrown into the lake of fire. We know Jesus will deny people in front of his father.
But we do know people are thrown into the lake of fire. We know Jesus will deny people in front of his father.
You can rename “compatibilism” to whatever you want (i.e. :”concurrent moral agency”) but the logical construct still unavoidably attempts to conclude volition/not volition as both true which in no way can be logically true. You’d be better off calling your conclusion a “mystery”. I call the attempt at compatibilism being Arminian at heart.
God is in Providential Sovereign Control of the creatures which He designed to have the abilities of sense, intellect and reason. The doctrines of Deterministic Sovereign Control limits God’s free will to manage His creatures otherwise.
You can rename “compatibilism” to whatever you want (i.e. :”concurrent moral agency”) but the logical construct still unavoidably attempts to conclude volition/not volition as both true which in no way can be logically true. You’d be better off calling your conclusion a “mystery”. I call the attempt at compatibilism being Arminian at heart.
God is in Providential Sovereign Control of the creatures which He designed to have the abilities of sense, intellect and reason. The doctrines of Deterministic Sovereign Control limits God’s free will to manage His creatures otherwise.
That sure limits God's power. We embrace other antinomies in scripture such as Jesus being man and God, or God being 1 and 3, or the immanence and transcendence of God. So it's not possible for compatibilism (the thought that men are moral agents and God's absolute sovereignty are compatible) to be true? In our finite thinking that's impossible but with God all things are possible (Matt. 19:26).
As I explained above the Doctrines of Deterministic Sovereign Control limits God's power.
I suppose you think God can also make a rock so big that even He can't lift it? There is huge difference between believing the truth of His nature and attributes as per the Bible and that of believing He can illogically make things both true and not true in order to support a finite systematic theological position.
Yes determinism does but not compatibilism.
Concurrence is perfectly logical and biblical...Gen. 50:20.
Yes, we all have witnessed men and women who have not responded to God's influences. The Bible makes it clear that all understand and none (as per the TRUTH of judgment) will have an excuse.
(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Yet, the Determinist doctrines does just that - gives men the excuse that they cannot understand.
Such denies the true judgment of God and His ways in creation:
(Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Romans 3:11 anyone?
Well, if the philosophical construct of compatibilism were possible but it's not.
That proof-text does nothing to demonstrate something (your doctrine of compatibilism) can be both true and not true.
The Bible doesn't contradict itself and your pot-shot does not answer my argument:
Last edited by a moderator:
Says who? Many theologians agree with that doctrine. Even those who don't agree with at least acknowledge it as a valid position.
This verse shows that:
1. Joseph's brothers meant for those things to happen.
2. God meant for those things to happen.
AND
3. Joseph's brothers intent were evil.
4. God's intent was good.
The same thing is occurring by two different subjects—concurrence.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bible contradicts (goes against) itself? Well I guess we end on that note. I'm arguing from the viewpoint of us who hold to the inerrant, infallible, and authoritative view of the Bible...like most Baptists.
You know what I meant (doesn't) okay?
Reading the rest of the rest of my post, which you ignored, should have made that clear.
I assume you mean the Bible does NOT contradict it's self? I'm guessing you just forgot a word
Many more are coming to understand the logic doesn't fly and if they are intellectually honest are turning to Hard Determinism.
"Those things" you speak of are "evil" AND "meant" means that He "used" the evil for good not that He "caused" the evil. Or that God does both evil and good.
Begging the question...
Last edited by a moderator:
Umm...that's the definition of concurrence.
Wayne Grudem says in regards to concurrence: God uses the willing actions of men to accomplish his purpose.