In what way is the unbeliever "free"?

[Ray Berrian]

A degree or lack thereof has nothing to do with reading the plain English. God does not say to make ' . . . your calling and inner peace assured;' rather, He says, to make 'your calling and election sure.' Without your diligence your election is not assured. With your concern for spiritual things, your election can be a reality in your lives. Once again, the Reformation/Catholic fathers were given some spiritual insight, but not in every dimension of Christian theology.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
A degree or lack thereof has nothing to do with reading the plain English. God does not say to make ' . . . your calling and inner peace assured;' rather, He says, to make 'your calling and election sure.' Without your diligence your election is not assured. With your concern for spiritual things, your election can be a reality in your lives.

My point about "assurance" was not based on election vs. inner peace. It was based on "sure." We are to make it sure. I agree that without your diligence, your election is not assured. That does not mean that it does not exist; it means that you cannot be sure of it. It is similar to the teaching of 1 John. We know that we know him if certain things are evident in our lives. The absence of things such as obedience, love for God and brethren, freedom from a lifestyle of sin removes our assurance. It is not about election being a reality in our lives; it is about assurance of that reality. Lastly, its not the "plain English" that I am referring to. It is the theological concepts and scriptural support for distinction between a general call and effectual call. Even if you disagree with the concept of effectual call, you misrepresented it.

[ June 29, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Primitive Baptist]

In fact, I challenge anyone to find any kind of use in ancient or koine Greek outside the NT where "kosoms" is translated "the elect."

I never said "kosmos" was translated "elect." Jesus did die for the world - every kindred, tongue, people, and nation. Regardless of how many He died for, He still died for the world. I have heard people say America is a proud nation. Does that mean every individual in America is prideful? Certainly not, but following your theory to its logical conclusion, yes. What is meant by that statement is that America at large is prideful. Jesus died for the world at large - every kindred, tongue, people, and nation. Since you really wanted to challenge someone, I met yout challenge. These are three New Testament Greek definitions of "world" defined by Strong's:

1.) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

2.) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

3.) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

Remember, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, a Jew. Many of the Pharisees would not accept Jews associating with Gentiles. Jesus told Nicodemus, a Pharisee, He was going to die for the world (Gentiles). Compare Scripture with Scripture. Don't tell me you would hang on to John 3:16 and neglect all other Scripture which plainly teach the doctrines of grace. I challenge you to answer this:

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

"And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." (John 11:52)

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In fact, I challenge anyone to find any kind of use in ancient or koine Greek outside the NT where "kosoms" is translated "the elect."

I met yout challenge. These are three New Testament Greek definitions of "world" defined by Strong's:

1.) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

2.) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

3.) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

</font>[/QUOTE]The challenge was to find some aspect in any other text around the time that the Bible was written in koine Greek. Strong's does say elect, but with the preponderance of scholarly work going against it, I would maintain that Strong's adds it as so because of a doctrinal thing. The list I posted above shows ten or so that do not use it as such. Christ died for every person who ever lived. Scholarship backs up that interpretation.

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

Jhn 6:45, "...Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." - Those who listen come to Christ. The whole chapter speaks of people being active.

"And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." (John 11:52)

Children here is in the same sense as nation. The high priest wasn't prophesying specifically for individuals, but for groups - Christ will gather together the Gentiles with the Jews.

 

[Ray Berrian]

The Father has only given to the Son those who have received Jesus. [John 1:12] When we receive Jesus we also have welcomed the Father and the Holy Spirit into our lives. When the Holy Spirit calls it is the sinners day for His grace to be received. Hopefully, it will be a positive response to His call.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The Father has only given to the Son those who have received Jesus. [John 1:12]

This is an interesting point of inconsistency on your part. You say that the Father has only given those who received Jesus. Yet John 6 tells us that no one comes unless given by the Father. It furthermore says that all who are given do come. Clearly, the giving to the Son precedes the coming. Yet you say the coming precedes the giving (something John 1:12 does not say). Now who is right? Is Jesus wrong in John 6 when he places the giving prior to the coming?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Yet John 6 tells us that no one comes unless given by the Father.

Where do you see that?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Yet John 6 tells us that no one comes unless given by the Father.

Where do you see that?</font>[/QUOTE]John 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted (same word as 6:37 and John 1:12) him from the Father."

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Yet John 6 tells us that no one comes unless given by the Father.

Where do you see that?</font>[/QUOTE]John 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted (same word as 6:37 and John 1:12) him from the Father."

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.</font>[/QUOTE]Great! Here's the inconsistency. It says that all men are drawn. God must draw first. The one who comes gets raised up on the last day.

And no one can come unless God grants it - and since we see that God draws all men, it is clear that God takes the first step inviting all men to him. Those who choose to follow Christ, then, are in a sense, "given" to Christ to be a fellow son.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why do you twist the text of Scripture??

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Great! Here's the inconsistency. It says that all men are drawn. God must draw first. The one who comes gets raised up on the last day.

It does not say that God draws all men. It does say that all who are drawn get raised up at the last day.

And no one can come unless God grants it - and since we see that God draws all men, it is clear that God takes the first step inviting all men to him. Those who choose to follow Christ, then, are in a sense, "given" to Christ to be a fellow son.

You here deny the clear text of Scripture. "All that the Father gives comes." There is no distinction between those who are given those who come. Furthermore, the giving clearly precedes the coming, direclty contradicting your above statement that those who come are then given.

You must submit your theology to the text of Scripture. You should not twist it for your own ends.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Amen, Brother Larry.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Some of the brethren on this board seem to be having difficulty with understanding the words of Jesus in 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." Let us examine this verse to absolve any misunderstandings of what Jesus said or any interpretation man has applied to it in order to explain it away despite the clear teaching of the Saviour.

No man can come to me clearly teaches the inability of man to come to Jesus apart from the drawing of the Father.

can
New Testament Greek Definition:
1410 dunamai {doo'-nam-ahee}
of uncertain affinity; TDNT - 2:284,186; v
AV - can (could) 100, cannot + 3756 45, be able 37, may (might) 18,
able 3, misc 7; 210
1) to be able, have power whether by virtue of one's own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom
2) to be able to do something
3) to be capable, strong and powerful

Jesus taught that no can come to Him, in other words, man has not the ability, power, or capability of coming according to his own ability.

Except the Father which hath sent me draw him refers to the necessity of God taking the initiative. No, you did not meet God "half way." He came all way down and lifted you up! You were totally helpless. He spoke the life-giving word into your soul and gave you life in Christ.

draw
New Testament Greek Definition:
1670 helkuo {hel-koo'-o} or helko {hel'-ko}
probably akin to 138; TDNT - 2:503,227; v
AV - draw 8; 8
1) to draw, drag off
2) metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

No man can come to Jesus except the Father draws him by inward power, leads, or impels him to come. It does not matter if the natural man sits under the most eloquent preacher because if God has not opened his heart to receive spiritual things it will not profit him. Paul described the condition of the natural man as "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). When a man is dead he does not move unless he is first acted upon. There should be no confusion about the meaning of these texts, but false teachers are always twisting Scripture to their own destruction and heaping to themselves multitudes having "itching ears." That is exactly what modern society wants, a humanistic religion. Surely, Arminianism has granted them that.

[ June 30, 2002, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It does not say that God draws all men. It does say that all who are drawn get raised up at the last day.

Um... "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

You here deny the clear text of Scripture. "All that the Father gives comes." There is no distinction between those who are given those who come. Furthermore, the giving clearly precedes the coming, direclty contradicting your above statement that those who come are then given.

I'm just trying to define the "giving." The drawing is what precedes the coming, more specificially.

You must submit your theology to the text of Scripture. You should not twist it for your own ends.

This coming from someone who changes the meaning of "all" and "world."

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:

Since I agree that God has to make the first step toward man, I'd like to argue against the word "draw" as you define it.

Does draw carry with it the meaning of irresistible dragging or does it allow people to come to a belief in Christ on their own?

From Kittel:

"The basic meaning is "to draw," "tug," or, in the case of persons, "compel." It may be used for "to draw" to a place by magic, for demons being "drawn" to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227]."

Other sources

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature - "of the pull on man's inner life.... draw, attract"

The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament - "to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32"

The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament - "met., to draw, i.e. to attract, John 12:32. Cf. John 6:44"

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament - "figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (John 6.44)"

Calvinist Spiros Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, - "Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)"

I cannot find a single scholarly Greek work that uses "drag" for draw in these two passages in John. Even in using the Strongs, as you did, there are two definitions - you use the latter, but scholars do not.

"This gracious working of God does not compel or force anyone to believe but enables all to respond to God's commands to turn away from sin in repentance, and towards the Savior Jesus Christ in faith. Therefore, with all the strength of Calvinism, salvation can be ascribed completely to God, but without denying genuine human responsibility that Calvinism does." (Witski)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Um... "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

The text does not say "all men;" it says "all." But the question is "all of whom of what"? Read Morris's discussion on this in the NICNT. It is brief but clear.

I'm just trying to define the "giving." The drawing is what precedes the coming, more specificially.

But according to the text, the giving precedes the coming. Therefore, the giving and the drawing are probably synonymous, or at the very least, both prior to the coming. There is no legitimate way to read the text and get the coming prior to the giving as you have it. It is not what John reports to us that Jesus said.

This coming from someone who changes the meaning of "all" and "world."

I have redefined the meaning of neither. Words are defined in context. You have redefined them as much as I have. You just redefine them in different places.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The text does not say "all men;" it says "all." But the question is "all of whom of what"? Read Morris's discussion on this in the NICNT. It is brief but clear.

There is no limiting word on "all." Therefore, we should take all as meaning all.

I have redefined the meaning of neither. Words are defined in context. You have redefined them as much as I have. You just redefine them in different places.

So you deny you redefine them and then admit to redefining them? That's just it - I don't "redefine them." If it says "all," I take it to mean "all," not "some."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The text does not say "all men;" it says "all." But the question is "all of whom of what"? Read Morris's discussion on this in the NICNT. It is brief but clear.

There is no limiting word on "all." Therefore, we should take all as meaning all. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you participating here?? "All" is what the text says. But "all what"?? You have decided that the text says "All men without exception." Yet that is not what John says. That is what Scott says. Did you read Morris???

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I have redefined the meaning of neither. Words are defined in context. You have redefined them as much as I have. You just redefine them in different places.

So you deny you redefine them and then admit to redefining them? That's just it - I don't "redefine them." If it says "all," I take it to mean "all," not "some."</font>[/QUOTE]Scott, sometimes its like you are not even reading along here. You are not addressing any issues. Why not?

I have not redefined any word. "All" means "all." But "all" what?? In each context, the "all" is determined by the surrounding passages. You have inserted your own ideas as to what "all" means. I have done the same. The question is, Which fits the context of the passage and the broader discipline of theology.

[ July 01, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Primitive Baptist]

There is no limiting word on "all." Therefore, we should take all as meaning all.

I'm glad you brought that up!

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

So what's the problem???

 

[tyndale1946]

There is no problem as I see it and as the scriptures declare it!... Why do brethren invent one?... Go figure?... Brother Glen

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no limiting word on "all." Therefore, we should take all as meaning all.

I'm glad you brought that up!

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

So what's the problem???</font>[/QUOTE]No argument of the exegesis of "draw?"

There are two different all's here. This one is specifically limited by "All the father gives to me." The other simply says all.