John 6:44

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by whatever:
FA,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you always respond to those with whom you interact on these forums, when they do not agree with you, by ridicule? FYI, I refuse to have anything to do with those who act with unChristlike attitudes on such forums. Please consider a more gracious response.

No, I ignore those I don't like and ridicule the rest. Seriously, I meant no ridicule. I only meant that you continued to argue your assumption as proof of your assumption. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, I like your humor. I have been blasted by people in other forums who can't seem to disagree with someone and logically, intelligently talk abouttheir differences without becoming intense and angry. Thx.

I am not assuming there. I showed how it fit the context naturally. I went into some detail on it.

Originally posted by whatever:
As for the rest: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You continue to say simply that since in some places ELKUW is referring to physical dragging of people, that it always means this.

I guess I am doing a really bad job of getting my point across. I will try once more. I do not say that 6:44 and 12:32 are referring to physically dragging people. What I do say is that the drawing of God is like dragging in this sense - those so drawn end up in a place (believing) where they would have never chosen to be even if they had the ability to so choose. The fact that when they get there, they want to be there, is irrelevant to the point. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, you may be surprised, but I don't exactly disagree with this. Unless God drew us to Himself we would never respond in faith - I agree. The issue is that I am convinced that the way which God designed was for us to respond to His drawing. Reformed theology tends to make it simply God draws, mysteriously implants faith in our hearts and walla - we believe. But faith is not a concrete substance. We cannot choose to believe something. Either we believe or we do not - either we have become convinced in our minds that something is true, or we do not. We cannot force ourselves to believe something that we do not really believe is true or possible.

Now I do speak of people having a choice... a choice to seek truth., to seek illumination, or not to seek it. As a result of that choice, God either reveals more truth to us, or does not. As we are illuminated by more truth, eventually we reach a point of coming to belive the truth or rejecting it.

An issue I have w/ reformed soteriology is that it assumes that ONLY those who are the elect are drawn by God and illuminated. But we see countless examples throughout scripture of those outside the elect being drawn to God, being illuminated as well. The gospel draws others than just the elect to His Son. Some reject it, harden their hearts, or refuse to consider it genuinely. Others say, "Hmmm, I think I'll hear more of this - not convinced yet, but... interesting."

Well, now I've probably thoroughly confused you. Let me just say that htis is not your typical Arminian, Reformed, or even Baptist position. IMO it helps me align scripture.

Originally posted by whatever:
You keep making much of the choice of the word 'draw' as opposed to 'drag'. As I have already shown the two are synonyms. The choice of one synonym for another does not change the meaning of the statement. At least one of your sources also uses 'attract', which you seem to like. Well first, that source uses 'attract' in the sense of magnetism, and magnets don't 'woo' that which they attract. And second, that source is using a physical example to illustrate a nonphysical reality, which seems to negate your inststence that the meaning in a nonphysical context is always different that in a physical context. I still don't see why you insist that your sources prove compulsory movement in a physical context and voluntary movement in a nonphysical context.

Ah, but you've ignored those examples given by Kittel and others in the OT and classical Greek of those wooed by a lover. There "attract" does not mean in the sense of a magnet. And more than one of my sources referred to "attract." I'm trying to show through Hosea and those LXX and Classical Greek sources listed that this was how God intended us to view ELKUW in John 6:44.

"Drag" and "draw" could be used in the same sense, but they are not synonyms and ELKUW can be used to mean drag as in dragging a net, but it also can be used to mean "draw" as in encouraging someone to come to you. That is the definition that you seem to refuse to accept as the meaning here.

God does not draw people to His Son through some sort of compulsory means. He does so by alluring and attracting us and causing us to think. Jesus used parables and allegorical imagery to make people think... all part of the drawing. That's why vs. 45 says "all thopse who have heard and learned from the father come to Me." God causes us to want to learn. We can choose to learn or resist the Spirit's work. There is a choice involved for the unbeliever. Though he would never choose to seek the truth on his own, God works to move him to seek more truth.

Reformed theology tends to make it seem like some mysterious magical thing. That's not how God works in our lives. He does give us choices. The way that God has chosen to offer eternal life is through enlightening those who seek the truth.

Originally posted by whatever:
As for Matthew 23, I read that differently. I see significance in the fact that Jesus says "how often would I have gathered your children" rather than "how often would I have gathered you", as it is usually (mis)quoted.

Actually, you've misquoted it a bit as well...

"O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!"

It is the children of Jerusalem that Jesus would have gathered - Jews. IOW, Jesus was saying that He wanted to gather many of the Jews in Jerusalem, like baby chicks, yet they resisted His wooing.

The same idea comes through in John 5:

John 5:39, 40 You search the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me. And you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

"Yet you were not willing to come to me that you may have life."... Isn't that obviously teaching that there is a choice involved in coming to Him? ...that God desires us to be willing to come to Him?

Originally posted by whatever:
As for Hosea, you ought to also consider what God says He plans to do to His people prior to verse 14. Basically He plans to strip them bare and then 'allure' them. How do you think they will respond?

The point is simply that Hosea got an idea of the frustration the Lord experienced in seeing the unfaithfulness of his wife - like the unfaithfulness of Israel to the Lord. God seeks us, allures us, like Hosea did his unfaithful wife.

Of course, we will not respond to Him if He does not bring us through trials.

Originally posted by whatever:
Oh, I almost forgot - about Robertson on 12:32. Not only does he say that 'all men' doesn't mean every single person, he also points out that some are actually repelled, not drawn, by the cross. I find that interesting to meditate on.

Yes, I fully agree that some will be repelled by the cross. Even His 12 disciples objected to His first insistence that He was going to Jerusalem to die. But those truly seeking truth will seek more truth and eventually believe and come to Him. In John 6 some who had been following Jesus were offended by Jesus' words and refused to follow Him anymore. the gospel has that effect on people.

Originally posted by whatever:
You still haven't answered my question. How can men, who by nature are hostile to God, ever submit to His demands?

They cannot... unless God works in their lives, drawing them to seek morer truth. The difference in your and my approach is that you see God as regenerating people who have not responded to the gospel first... But that is best left to some otehr thread. (The ordo salutis.)

Thx whatever,

FA

 

[ascund]

Pastor Larry

As you should hae noticed, I didn't even comment on those five quotes becuase they are off topic and irrelevant. The discussion was about Numbers 21 and you brought in five totally irrelevant quotes. Why would I comment on them?

Clearly you are wrong about Calvinism. Why do like embarassing yourself? Those five quotes were the first five I got when I did a web search.

Here are some well-known well-respected authorities who disagree with your view on Calvinism (I'm home now with access to my private library).

"Total Depravity: As a result of the fall, the entire huma nrace is affected; all humanity is dead in trespasses and sin. Man is unable to save himself.

Unconditional Election: Because man is dead in sin, he is unable to initiate response to God; therefore, in eternity past God elected certain people to salvation. Election and predestination are unconditional; they are not based on man's response.

Limited Atonement: Because God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God's unconditional election, He determined that Christ should die for the elect. All whom God has elected and Christ died for will be saved. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: 1977), 297.

You are wrong according to the main stream of scholarly publications. Here is more!

In earlier chapters we talked about the fact that all have sinned and deserve eternal punishment from God, and the fact that Christ died and earned salvation for us. But now in this unit we will look at the way God applies that salvation to our lives. We begin with God's work of election, that is, his decision to choose us to be saved before the foundation of the world. This act of election is not part of the application of salvation to us, since it came before Christ earned our salvation when he died on the cross. ...
Election is the beginning of God's dealing with us.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Leicester, England: IVP, 1994), 669

Again, you are wrong in your view of Calvinism.

The ordus salutis begins with God's election and calling (454) followed by regeneration (455). Election is that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleassure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and of eternal savlation (114). Louis Berkhof, [/i]Systematic Theology[/i].

So, unless you change your spots you cannot say that Calvinism allows God's will to be thwarted.

All you can do is bring your own words - empty of scholarly references - in contrast to the main stream of scholarly opinion on Calvinism.

Yet when pressed you can only respond with general denials. Where did you botch your education?

Lloyd

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ascund:
Clearly you are wrong about Calvinism.

Based on what?

Why do like embarassing yourself?

Where have I embarrassed myself? The fact that you don't know what you are talking about is certainly not a reflection on me.

Those five quotes were the first five I got when I did a web search.

So what? You are doing web searches to find out what Calvinism teaches? And choosing the first five you come up with? That is hardly respectable research. I don't have to do a web search to find out what Calvinism teaches. I konw what it teaches.

And as I pointed out, I didn't even address those quotes because they were off topic of what we were talking about. I didn't even read them closely. I looked to see if they were addressing Numbers 21, which is what you offered them in support of.

Here are some well-known well-respected authorities who disagree with your view on Calvinism (I'm home now with access to my private library).

Ok, Let's look

"Total Depravity: As a result of the fall, the entire huma nrace is affected; all humanity is dead in trespasses and sin. Man is unable to save himself.

I completely agree.

Unconditional Election: Because man is dead in sin, he is unable to initiate response to God; therefore, in eternity past God elected certain people to salvation. Election and predestination are unconditional; they are not based on man's response.

I completely agree.

Limited Atonement: Because God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God's unconditional election, He determined that Christ should die for the elect. All whom God has elected and Christ died for will be saved. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: 1977), 297.

I completely agree.

You are wrong according to the main stream of scholarly publications. Here is more!

So far, I am not wrong since I agree with what you have said. But let's look at the "more." (BTW, Enns is a very surface look at the issues. It is a beginner's level book. He does not address the intricacies.)

In earlier chapters we talked about the fact that all have sinned and deserve eternal punishment from God, and the fact that Christ died and earned salvation for us. But now in this unit we will look at the way God applies that salvation to our lives. We begin with God's work of election, that is, his decision to choose us to be saved before the foundation of the world. This act of election is not part of the application of salvation to us, since it came before Christ earned our salvation when he died on the cross. ...
Election is the beginning of God's dealing with us.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Leicester, England: IVP, 1994), 669

I agree with Grudem here.

Again, you are wrong in your view of Calvinism.

How so? So far, you haven't quoted anything I disagree with. In fact, you have even addresssed any of the issues that this conversation was about.

The ordus salutis begins with God's election and calling (454) followed by regeneration (455). Election is that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleassure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and of eternal savlation (114). Louis Berkhof, [/i]Systematic Theology[/i].

Here, I would differ slightly, on a definitional basis of regeneration, technically speaking. But based on the evidence you have revealed about yourself here, that discussion is way over your head. In short, I tend to agree with Lewis and Demerest.

So, unless you change your spots you cannot say that Calvinism allows God's will to be thwarted.

I don't remember this particular context of this claim. Please cite for us what you are referring to so I can look at it again.

All you can do is bring your own words - empty of scholarly references - in contrast to the main stream of scholarly opinion on Calvinism.

Well, if you want scholarly references, I will assure you that can't keep up, and that I don't have time to provide it here. Furthermore, you have yet to show where I disagree with the scholarly opinion in mainstream Calvinism. Everythign you have cited, I agree with. It seems to me that you are simply not engaged in the conversation here. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yet when pressed you can only respond with general denials.

What have you pressed me on and what general denial did I make? We were talking about a particular topic and I was commenting on that topic. I have made no general denials except to poitn out that you attributed somethign to me that I did not say. And that was a specific denial on my part.

Remember the particular topic was your claim that the serpent was an act of grace extended to all men. I pointed out that was incorrect. It was an act of grace extended to all who looked. If you hadn't changed the subject, we could have progressed on that idea. But you decided to go off on my understanding of Calvinism, which reveals that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Where did you botch your education?

I didn't. I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am finding out that you are very confused and desperate here.

 

[ascund]

Hey Pastor Larry

If I am confused, then the whole of reformed scholasticism is equally confused. Your statements of agreement here show that you cannot admit to previous error. What a shame for someone who represents God.

Well - at least you no longer claim that God's will can be thwarted. In a less than sincere fashion, you have avoided admission of error.

In the future, try to be more honest with your posts.

Lloyd

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are confused, and reformed scholasticism is not confused. I have read some of the former and much of the latter. I don't think you get it at all. I don't think you have a clue about what Calvinism actually believes beyond a very rudimentary foundation.

You talk of my previous error. Please show it. I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked you to cite this issue of thwarting God's will and you refused. Why? If I made the claim, then let's see where and let's examine it for what I actually said.

Then you say I "no longer claim that God's will can be thwarted." This was not entirely true was it. I didn't say anything about this claim one way or the other. For you to say I no longer claim something requires that you first prove that I did claim it (I asked you to and you didn't yet) and then for you to prove that I no longer claim it (I didn't do that either).

This is typical of your side and I have seen it often here. You claim great knowledge of Calvinism and then fail to demonstrate that knowledge. You accuse me of believing somethign I don't believe. You accuse me of differing with Calvinism when everything you have stated so far is somethign I agree with.

You have been backed into a corner. You say I have admitted error, yet I did no such thing. You accuse me of being dishonest in my posts, but I have done no such thing and the evidence is here for all to see.

If you think I have been dishonest, then show us where. It should be easy. This thread is five pages long (unless this goes to the sixth). In those fives pages, you can surely find this claim about God's will you say I made, and you can surely find examples of my lack of honesty. Please do so. Surely it is not too much to ask that you actually demonstrate these charges you have brought against me.

If you can't, you need to apologize for your misrepresentation.

 

[ascund]

Hey Pastor Larry

I already showed you! That you have to ask for it again only shows that you do not read the posts and learn from your oversights. I make incredible goofs in typing from time to time. At least I admit to these errors when shown them. Your ego prevents you from acknowledging a previous goof in a post. As a result, you respond with scorn and double talk.

As a moderator, you are called to show the highest forms of Christian ethics in these public exchanges. Please live up to your billing! Here is your error which you deny.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
What does the context say? Going back to v. 21, there were Greeks who asked to see Jesus in the midst of the Jews. Jesus said No. He said when he was crucified he would draw all to himself. The context leads us to conclude that "all" means all kinds of people, Jews and Greeks both.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1604/3.html#000033

Then you stated the following second goof:

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
it is clear that salvation is God's gift that can be rejected (thwarted) or accepted.

So look it up and deal with it as you wish. I’m done discussing a matter that can be easily checked. I’m tired of dealing with a person who holds that God’s will can be thwarted who then changes spots by saying that he holds to the fundamentals of Calvinism. “Yes” and “No” in the same posting followed by forceful denials of such tactics has been your repeated pattern. I doubt you will change now.

Ego is quite an obstacle!
Repentance is near the core of evangelicalism.

Post your worst - I will not respond again to this topic.
Lloyd

 

[Pastor Larry]

So where is the error of which you accuse me? You have made direct charges of "previous error" and have yet teo provide one example.

Here is what you can come up with.

1. You cite my comments on John 12:32. I have just checked five major commentaries: Tenney, Carson, Morris, Barrett, and Kostenberger. All five agree with me. Your disagreement with me is a matter of interpretation, not of clear error. You tell me I am not really a Calvinist, but the fact is that I hold the standard Calvinist position on this verse. So there's no error here on my part.

2. You say that I said "it is clear that salvation is God's gift that can be rejected (thwarted) or accepted." The first occurrence of that phrase in this thread is on page 4 from a post dated October 19, 2005 03:50 PM. The author of that post is none other than ascund. Isn't that the name you post under???? You took your words and attributed them to me.

I responded that I didn't disagree with your statement. But let's look a little further.

On page four, after your infamous five quotes, you say It is curious that you hold to the validity of these quotes and yet hold to the fact that your view that allows God’s gift to be thwarted. It makes me wonder if you read your own quotes. In none of those five quotes will you find anything about God's gift being thwarted. You find only statements about God's will or purposes being thwarted. Those are different things, as you should know since you know so much about Calvinism.

Then you charge me with the following here on page 5

So, unless you change your spots you cannot say that Calvinism allows God's will to be thwarted.

Well - at least you no longer claim that God's will can be thwarted. In a less than sincere fashion, you have avoided admission of error.

Did you notice a change you made? You should ... You started off talking about thwarting God's gift and changed to talking about thwarting God's will. It is no wonder I didn't recognize the quote about thwarting God's will. I would never say that God's will can be thwarted. God's gift of salvation can be rejected.

There was clear misrepresentation and distortion on your part. In case you didn't read, let me emphasize it here.

1. You said I said God's will could be thwarted. When asked to prove that I said that, you quote yourself.

2. The quote of yourself that you provide in support of your charge doesn't even say what you calim. You claimed I said God's will can be thwarted. Your quote asserts that God's gift can be thwarted.

3. Your five quotes of Calvinism do not address the thwarting of God's gift of salvation, but the thwarting of God's purposes. I agree with the five quotes on that issue.

So look it up and deal with it as you wish.

I have done so, and you have been caught. I figured you wouldn't be able to prove your claims. I had no idea that you would make such a low, unethical effort as quoting yourself as if I said it, and then changing words to change the topic.

bI’m done discussing a matter that can be easily checked.

It would have been better for you to have stopped before this post. You have just revealed that you are the one who doesn't read what others say. You have revealed that you are unethical in attributing your words to me, and in changing the words to make it look like I said something I didn't say.

I’m tired of dealing with a person who holds that God’s will can be thwarted who then changes spots by saying that he holds to the fundamentals of Calvinism.

I did not say that God's will can be thwarted. It is dishonest for you to say so.

“Yes” and “No” in the same posting followed by forceful denials of such tactics has been your repeated pattern. I doubt you will change now.

My pattern is to look at facts. As all can see, you have been caught and the proof is right here. You have condemned yourself.

Ego is quite an obstacle!

Perhaps. The question is how big is yours? Will you be honest enough to come back and admit your failures and apologize for them? Or will you, like Mike, try to just leave it hanging?

Repentance is near the core of evangelicalism.

I hope you will repent. So far, you have shown nothign that I need to repent for. You have however, shown that you need to repent of distorting people's words and making false charges.

I will not respond again to this topic.

Why doesn't this surprise me? You make these charges that I have proven false, and now you want to run? That is weak. That is cowardly. You made the charges. Be man enough to explain why you changed words. Be man enough to explain why you misrepresented what I said.

You took the bait, hook, line, and sinker. I knew you would never be able to provide any proof of error on my part. I figured you would attempt something like you did on John 12:32, using a difference in interpretation to avow an error. But I never, in a million years, would have guessed your second tactic of attributing your quote to me and then changing words. Lloyd, that is shameful, no matter what side you are on. And now you have posted it for all to see. The proof is right here in this thread. How will you respond?

These kinds of tactics will not be tolerated by anyone on either side of this discussion.

 

[Faith alone]

May I suggest that we all move on - if we have come to a concensus regarding what Calvinism teaches.

This thread is about John 6:44 and irresistible grace.

Thanks,

FA