Arminianism = Humanism?

[Skandelon]

I do believe that all men are able to respond to God apart from God drawing them unto himself. It isn’t, to my understanding, an issue if inability but of unwillingness.

I'm well of that nuance, which is why I typically say 'willingly respond.' John 6 references being 'enabled' thus I see no reason not to stick with that terminology. Either we are enabled to come to Christ or we're not. The audience in John 6 was not entrusted to Christ because they were being hardened (John 12:39), with the exception of a remnant (the 12 referenced at the end of the chapter). It is not until Christ accomplishes redemption on the cross that the gospel appeal is sent into all the world to draw all men to himself (enable all to come).

There are many characterizations and misstatements regarding Arminianism. Some have presented it as a “works based” salvation, or as “man saving himself.” These types of statements are just as useless and dishonest as others which present Calvinism as depriving God of sovereignty, arbitrary, or violating human free-agency. Both display an unwillingness to enter into an honest discourse or explore the topic. IMHO, describing Arminianism as humanism falls into this category (as the theology does acknowledge a vital importance of divine grace in regards to salvation).

I agree. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

John 6 references being 'enabled' thus I see no reason not to stick with that terminology. Either we are enabled to come to Christ or we're not.

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.

The audience in John 6 was not entrusted to Christ because they were being hardened (John 12:39), with the exception of a remnant (the 12 referenced at the end of the chapter). It is not until Christ accomplishes redemption on the cross that the gospel appeal is sent into all the world to draw all men to himself (enable all to come).

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

 

[JonC]

I'm well of that nuance, which is why I typically say 'willingly respond.' John 6 references being 'enabled' thus I see no reason not to stick with that terminology. Either we are enabled to come to Christ or we're not. The audience in John 6 was not entrusted to Christ because they were being hardened (John 12:39), with the exception of a remnant (the 12 referenced at the end of the chapter). It is not until Christ accomplishes redemption on the cross that the gospel appeal is sent into all the world to draw all men to himself (enable all to come).

For what it’s worth (probably not much), I do not know that “enabled” is the best translation of the word in John 6:65. I realize that it suits your purpose here as it can be taken to allude to an innate ability, or perhaps a bestowed capability, but the passage is not a clear-cut stand regarding being enabled to come to Christ. "Enabled" seems to be carrying too much into the text. As I was probably the worst student of Greek in the history of American seminaries, I will defer to you guys to hash that out.

 

[Skandelon]

For what it’s worth (probably not much), I do not know that “enabled” is the best translation of the word in John 6:65. I realize that it suits your purpose here as it can be taken to allude to an innate ability, or perhaps a bestowed capability, but the passage is not a clear-cut stand regarding being enabled to come to Christ. "Enabled" seems to be carrying too much into the text. As I was probably the worst student of Greek in the history of American seminaries, I will defer to you guys to hash that out.

lol

either way, I like you...very reasonable.... and funny. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JonC]

lol

either way, I like you...very reasonable.... and funny. :smilewinkgrin:

Thanks, I was predestined to be this way. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks, I was predestined to be this way. :smilewinkgrin:

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

 

[The Biblicist]

For what it’s worth (probably not much), I do not know that “enabled” is the best translation of the word in John 6:65. I realize that it suits your purpose here as it can be taken to allude to an innate ability, or perhaps a bestowed capability, but the passage is not a clear-cut stand regarding being enabled to come to Christ. "Enabled" seems to be carrying too much into the text. As I was probably the worst student of Greek in the history of American seminaries, I will defer to you guys to hash that out.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand the confusion surrounding the word 'draws,' but I also think much clarity can be brought to the intent of Jesus by looking at the context of what is happening in John 6.

Calvinists like to quote Jesus saying, "39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."

But why don't Calvinists equally enjoy quoting:

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."​

OR

54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.​

Clearly Jesus is intentionally provoking his audience. Have you read all the verses having to do with eating flesh and drinking blood? It sounds like pure cannibalism and Jesus doesn't offer any qualifications or explanations of what that really means. The audience has NOT been 'given to the Son.' They are being HARDENED, or BLINDED from the reality of what is happening right in front of them. Israel is being CUT OFF! (John 12:39; Acts 28:21-28; Rom 11, etc) Now, they may come to faith later (as many do in Acts 2), but for now they are being blinded from the truth and left in their rebellion.

Imagine what would have happened if Jesus didn't do this. Imagine what might have happened if Jesus didn't speak in parables and in provoking confusing language like this. Many may have believed (according to the text) and then they would have NEVER wanted to crucify Him. The father had only granted for a preselect few from Israel to come to Christ while he was with them. They were granted and even drawn to come because they were establishing the church, the very reason Israel was elected to begin with...they were being set apart so that 'God's purpose in electing Israel might stand.'

That is the Historical Context of these verses and it cannot be ignored when it comes to discerning the intent of what Jesus is attempting to communicate.

 

[JonC]

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

Thank you, Biblicist. Long time listener, first time caller. (I think we interacted a couple of times, but I have “been here” much more than I have been actively participating).

John 6:65 (NIV) He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

John 6:65 (NASB) And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

didômi (δίδωμι) is used in 6:65. This is what I was considering when I said that the NIV’s use of “enabled” perhaps carried more meaning into the verse than was warranted. It just seems that other words (e.g., “granted” as in the NASB, or given, bestowed, etc.) would have not carried the baggage (as you say, the implied “potential” for coming) of “enabled.” No one can come to Christ unless it has been given to him by the Father. The word itself does not strictly deny the enabling of man, I suppose, but it also doesn’t confirm a potential to come.

That is the Historical Context of these verses and it cannot be ignored when it comes to discerning the intent of what Jesus is attempting to communicate.

I do not see how verses 40 or 54 are contrary to Calvinism. What you are saying is that God drawing to Christ in John 6 is specific only to the immediate situation of the text and is not applicable once Israel is “cut off” to graft in non-Israelites. God’s “selectiveness” (of this passage) was accomplished and negated when the gospel was extended beyond Israel (correct me if I misunderstand). I take it that this also applies to the “enabling” of 6:65.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand the confusion surrounding the word 'draws,' but I also think much clarity can be brought to the intent of Jesus by looking at the context of what is happening in John 6.

Calvinists like to quote Jesus saying, "39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."

But why don't Calvinists equally enjoy quoting:

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.

The audience has NOT been 'given to the Son.'

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:

They are being HARDENED, or BLINDED from the reality of what is happening right in front of them. Israel is being CUT OFF! (John 12:39; Acts 28:21-28; Rom 11, etc) Now, they may come to faith later (as many do in Acts 2), but for now they are being blinded from the truth and left in their rebellion.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

What you are saying

First, allow me to thank you for attempting to restate my position and show that you understand me before engaging in debate. That is refreshing.

What you are saying is that God drawing to Christ in John 6 is specific only to the immediate situation of the text and is not applicable once Israel is “cut off” to graft in non-Israelites.

Kind of...
I'm saying the immediate situation helps to understand the intent of the authors. I'm not denying the universal principles contained in the passage. For example, I affirm that one must be enabled in order to come. Paul said, "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard?" In my view, that is virtually the same principle. One cannot come to the wedding banquet unless they have been invited, right? But once invited is there anything preventing their response?

Paul's question in Rom 10 strongly suggests that if someone does hear about Christ they may believe.

Why is that significant?

Because Jesus is intentionally speaking to Israel in parables and provoking teachings so that they CANNOT HEAR. He is speaking to them "in parables lest they hear and believe." (Mk 4; Matt. 13) In other words he is trying to keep them from hearing because he believes (as Non-Calvinists like I do) that IF THEY HEAR then they MAY BELIEVE. Hearing is the means for faith and so by preventing people from hearing the truth you will prevent them from believing the truth. Does that make sense?

Now, this truth creates a major problems for Calvinism.

Why would Christ need to speak in parables to prevent a Total Depraved non-elect Jew from believing the truth and being saved?

 

[The Biblicist]

Kind of...
I'm saying the immediate situation helps to understand the intent of the authors. I'm not denying the universal principles contained in the passage. For example, I affirm that one must be enabled in order to come.

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."

Paul said, "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard?" In my view, that is virtually the same principle. One cannot come to the wedding banquet unless they have been invited, right? But once invited is there anything preventing their response?

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."

Paul's question in Rom 10 strongly suggests that if someone does hear about Christ they may believe.

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).

Why is that significant?

Because Jesus is intentionally speaking to Israel in parables and provoking teachings so that they CANNOT HEAR.

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).

He is speaking to them "in parables lest they hear and believe." (Mk 4; Matt. 13) In other words he is trying to keep them from hearing because he believes (as Non-Calvinists like I do) that IF THEY HEAR then they MAY BELIEVE.

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.

Hearing is the means for faith and so by preventing people from hearing the truth you will prevent them from believing the truth. Does that make sense?

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.

Now, this truth creates a major problems for Calvinism.

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

Why would Christ need to speak in parables to prevent a Total Depraved non-elect Jew from believing the truth and being saved?

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 Biblicist]

A signature line of a regular poster reads:

Arminianism is simply the religious expression of Humanism. If the child of God cannot "will" or "do" anything pleasing to God apart from God working it in him (Philip. 2:13) how in the world does the Arminian think the lost man can?????​

This question is a gross misrepresentation of Arminian theology.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

That assumes (1) that this is not the way God wanted it and (2) that God owed it to believers to save them.

That is tantamount to arguing that (1) the prodigal son's humiliating return home was the apex of his father's gracious reception and (2) that the father owed it to the son to forgive him and restore him fully as an heir purely based on the son's willingness to return home to ask for help. Sorry, but that is just silly.

 

[The Biblicist]

That assumes (1) that this is not the way God wanted it and (2) that God owed it to believers to save them.

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.

That is tantamount to arguing that (1) the prodigal son's humiliating return home was the apex of his father's gracious reception and (2) that the father owed it to the son to forgive him and restore him fully as an heir purely based on the son's willingness to return home to ask for help. Sorry, but that is just silly.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Even Calvinists quote passages which speak of God 'granting' men faith. That is the same word. It is 'enabling' or 'allowing.' And every biblical lexicon I've looked at allows for 'drawing' to be understood in the same sense. I know, I know you disagree with them (surprise, surprise), but that doesn't change the fact that scholars support the concept of the word 'draw' possibly being interpreted in the same sense as 'being granted' or 'enabled.' Given that Jesus uses both terms as synonyms in John 6 only goes to support this interpretation. 'helko' (draw) is used earlier in the chapter and then Christ references back to that former verse saying, "this is why I told you..." but uses the word 'didōmi' this time.

What is interesting to me is that Calvinists are always so careful to say that man is not FORCED to come to Christ, but that they come willingly...yet when speaking of the word 'helko' they insist on the interpretation of "dragging by force." The idea of "persuasion" is seen in many texts, and with Christ clarifying use of the word 'didomi,' there is no reason to suggest that anymore is meant than the concept of 'granting' and 'persuading.'

Given that the majority of His audience hasn't been granted to come to Christ, due to being cut off/hardened from the truth temporarily, this interpretation makes the most logical sense.

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, the way you worded your statement would lead one to believe that Arminians deny the need for God's gracious enabling work in order for us to please him. That is what I was addressing.

Likewise, in regard to who determines man's salvation, even in the non-Calvinistic framework the choice is God's to save those who repent and believe as He was not obligated in any way to do so. Faith and repentance don't merit salvation. It is of pure grace that God CHOOSES to save those who choose to repent and believe, so in that regard salvation is all of Grace and completely determined by God.

Granted, once that choice has been determined and God has made His promise to save whosoever will believe and repent, it is 'up to man' to respond, which is why we believe man is 'response-able.'

But is it misrepresentative in my opinion to state things in the manner you did.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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

I'm not addressing your position. I'm addressing your assessment of my position.

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

Then forget about the biblical use of this analogy. Just take it as an independent, stand alone analogy...as if I just made it up myself. It still reveals the point I'm attempting to make. The return of an evil enemy who is in need of reconciliation with an innocent person doesn't guarantee a gracious reception. The innocent person doesn't owe it to the enemy to run to him, embrace him and forgive him just because he comes home to ask for that. Your accusations PRESUME that perspective onto our view of salvation by suggesting that the enemies willingness to return home and beg for forgiveness somehow merits being forgiven...as if the innocent one who was offended doesn't even have a say in the matter. The innocent man who was sinned against doesn't have to forgive the returning enemy, because the enemy doesn't deserve it. The enemy deserves death but gets grace and that is NOT based on the willingness of the enemy to come back home.

 

[kyredneck]

The part that needs to actually be discussed is the definition of "humanism." Turn the statement around: does Humanism = Arminianism? If the answer is no, then Arminianism is NOT the religious expression of humanism. If the answer is yes, then the discussion *must* determine how the arminian adheres to humanistic beliefs of the inherent goodness of humans; and how the arminian seeks solely rational means of solving problems without divine guidance or support.

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

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

 

[The Biblicist]

Even Calvinists quote passages which speak of God 'granting' men faith.

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.

And every biblical lexicon I've looked at allows for 'drawing' to be understood in the same sense.

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.