Arminianism = Humanism?

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[quantumfaith]

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

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

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.

 

[Skandelon]

"...how the arminian adheres to humanistic beliefs of the inherent goodness of humans..."

Calvinism has a higher view of humanity than we do.

Calvinism: Believes humans hate a God who hates them first.
Non-Cal: Believes humans hate a God who loves them first.

Which is worse?

Calvinism: Believes humans reject God because they were born unable to do otherwise by their innate inborn nature (which is ultimately determined by God).
Non-Cal: Believes that humans who reject God do so even though they could have willingly done otherwise because God made them response-able.

Which is worse?

Calvinism: Believes that fallen humans die and go to hell because God passes them over.
Non-Cal: Believes that fallen humans die and go to hell because they pass God over.

Which is worse?

You guys are a lot more humanistic than we are IMO.

 

[The Biblicist]

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."

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.

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.'

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinism has a higher view of humanity than we do.

Calvinism: Believes humans hate a God who hates them first.
Non-Cal: Believes humans hate a God who loves them first.

Which is worse?

Calvinism: Believes humans reject God because they were born unable to do otherwise by their innate inborn nature (which is ultimately determined by God).
Non-Cal: Believes that humans who reject God do so even though they could have willingly done otherwise because God made them response-able.

Which is worse?

Calvinism: Believes that fallen humans die and go to hell because God passes them over.
Non-Cal: Believes that fallen humans die and go to hell because they pass God over.

Which is worse?

You guys are a lot more humanistic than we are IMO.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Either it is granted or not. However, you position denies it is granted at all but only has the POTENTIAL for faith.

Even the demons believe. Its what you do with the faith that is granted. Faith is granted in the sense that the 'HEARING' is granted...as faith comes by hearing. They can't come unless they are invited and if you invite someone then you are GRANTING them the ability to come. Same thing here. The reason men don't have faith is because they don't hear. That can be a result of self-hardening (growing calloused), judicial hardening (speaking in parables, sending spirit of stupor, etc), or just not ever hearing the truth...or a combination of all the above. But those who do hear have no excuse.

You are simply wrong and your scholars are simply wrong as you both contradict the facts.

The word is only used 8 times in the bible but it is used in extra-biblical texts too. Scholars agree that besides meaning 'drag' it can also mean 'lead' or 'impel' (urge) which goes more along with verse 65 and other texts which speak of 'persuasion' and the 'appeal' of the gospel.

Now allow me to DRAW your attention to another point...the strongest arguments are typically the ones unanswered and I noticed you didn't answer the point about how Calvinists are always so insistent upon how they don't believe we are saved by force but when it comes to this word you insist on interpreting it as to 'drag' instead of to 'lead,' 'draw' 'urge' or 'impel.' [***Edit...just saw that you did reply to this point]

Every seasoned Greek student knows that Lexiocogphers provide etymological and usage definitions of terms

Granted, every translation is an interpretation, but even the word 'draw' in the english (which many english translators are obviously ok with using) doesn't carry an effectual connotation. This is why translators don't use the word 'drag' in this verse while they do in verses having to do with fish and being dragged into prison. If they all agreed with your assessment why don't more translators use the word 'drag?' And again, why do Calvinist continually insist that no one is saved against their will, or by force, while at the same time arguing for this particular translation?

 

[Skandelon]

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.

No, its to show why I believe Calvinists are more humanistic than we are....a valid point considering the OP title and subject matter. Plus, its not as if I'm avoiding any other point you have argued, brother. So, I see no validity to this accusation. (what points am I not answering exactly?)

 

[Skandelon]

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.

So, why object to those who argue that men are being 'forced' or 'coerced' in the Calvinistic system? It's not as if anyone is speaking of physical force when making such accusations about Calvinism, so why the objection to that accusation at all given your insistence on this particular interpretation?

And why don't translators use the word "drag" like they do in regard to those being dragged into prison or the fish being dragged by the net? Why is 'draw' the most chosen english word here do you suppose?

Could it be because the GREEK language is studied enough and influenced by more than the mere 8 uses in scripture and scholars know that the words 'draw,' 'lead', 'impel, or 'urge' are also options?

You are like a drunk man on a ship in a rough sea stumbling back and forth. .

Unnecessary and rude. You are better than this.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Tozer answers this type of argument better than I can:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God​

 

[The Biblicist]

Even the demons believe.

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!!!

Its what you do with the faith that is granted. Faith is granted in the sense that the 'HEARING' is granted...as faith comes by hearing.

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.

They can't come unless they are invited and if you invite someone then you are GRANTING them the ability to come.

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).

Same thing here. The reason men don't have faith is because they don't hear.

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).

The word is only used 8 times in the bible but it is used in extra-biblical texts too. Scholars agree that besides meaning 'drag' it can also mean 'lead' or 'impel'

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.

Now allow me to DRAW you attention to another point...

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.

Granted, every translation is an interpretation, but even the word 'draw' in the english (which many english translators are obviously ok with using) doesn't carry an effectual connotation. This is why translators don't use the word 'drag' in this verse while they do in verses having to do with fish and being dragged into prison. If they all agreed with your assessment why don't more translators use the word 'drag?' And again, why do Calvinist continually insist that no one is saved against their will, or by force, while at the same time arguing for this particular translation?

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.

 

[Skandelon]

This is a failure to distinguish between "dead" "vain" and saving faith.

No, its your failure to distinguish what makes a faith dead or living.

No demons posses or are given saving faith.

That's because faith isn't a noun but a verb. It's not an attribute one is given, it is a truth one chooses to trust or trade in for lies.... (faith is a verb unless you're talking about the "Christian Faith") Sometimes the word 'trust' carries a better english connotation for 'faith' because it better demonstrates action, not mere mental assent.

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 define and understand sin in the same manner you do (or at least what I know of Calvinistic scholars on the subject). The difference is that I have a higher view of the gospel than you do because I believe it is sufficient to enable a response, whereas you believe it is powerless apart from pre-regeneration.

I have exposed this fallacious interpretation of Romans 10:17 countless times and yet you still come back repeating the same erroneous things.

Oh, I didn't know that once your opponent gave an opinion on his views that we all had to adopt it unquestionably. We disagree, as argued before... you continue to repeat your erroneous conclusions after I correct you too...(in other words, these kinds of arguments are a waste of our time)

Hence, many are called (general and effectual) but few are chosen (effectual).

You conveniently ignore the part of the parable where the condition of the choice for those permitted to enter the banquet is whether they are properly clothed by faith in Christ's righteousness...which presents a bit of a problem for you so-called "U" in the TULIP. Those CHOSEN were clearly chosen BECAUSE they were properly clothed...they were not chosen unconditionally. The invitation went out unconditionally to all peoples (i.e. election of Israel first and then the nations). This is a perfect example of Calvinism's interpretive error in so many texts.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, its your failure to distinguish what makes a faith dead or living.

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.

That's because faith isn't a noun but a verb. It's not an attribute one is given, it is a truth one chooses to trust or trade in for lies.... (faith is a verb unless you're talking about the "Christian Faith") Sometimes the word 'trust' carries a better english connotation for 'faith' because it better demonstrates action, not mere mental assent.

See above paragraph.

I define and understand sin in the same manner you do (or at least what I know of Calvinistic scholars on the subject).

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.

 

[BobRyan]

T
The translation "drag" is used in the context of human application to EXTERNAL things which can be dragged. .

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[Skandelon]

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

No man can come unless enabled to hear the truth....i.e. 'he who has ears let him hear.'

The truth is being blinded from Israel prior to Christ's crucifixion. He doesn't enable the world to come UNTIL after he is lifted up (Jn 12:32), and its then that he commissions the apostles to spread the truth to all creation thus drawing all to come to Christ.

Hearing truth is the means to enable one to come. "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard," is the question posed by Paul? They CAN'T, and Jesus is speaking in parables and hard sayings to the Jews while he is with them so as to prevent them from HEARING, because He knows if they HEAR they might come and if they come prior to the right time they won't crucify Him. Hardening Israel is for a redemptive purpose, but Calvinism makes the mistake of interpreting texts as if the condition of the hardened Jew who is being blinded by God from hearing the truth is a universal condition of all men from birth, which is just biblically unfounded.

No, you don't! You deny that man is a sinner BY NATURE

You can affirm that a man is sinful by nature without denying (1) fallen human's responsibility and (2) the power of the enabling Gospel truth.

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).

No one is good enough to merit salvation by works, but that does not mean that no one is able to trust in Christ for salvation. Your fallacy is call non-sequitur....meaning 'it does not follow.' It does not follow that because someone is unable to earn righteousness by works that they must be unable to trust in one who is righteous. (see my sig line)

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.

You are incorrect. You should not tell others what they do or don't believe. Instead, you should say, "I know you claim to believe X but I don't believe you do because of Y."