tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post775630893424730220..comments2023-05-12T10:37:20.308-05:00Comments on Examining Calvinism: Dialogue on John 6:44 with oldtruth.comRichard Coordshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-15655265415753122022013-02-18T21:21:38.542-05:002013-02-18T21:21:38.542-05:00Because God is communicating to mankind through th...Because God is communicating to mankind through the Scriptures in the Bible in a style that reeks with an obvious understood implication that the hearer/reader, mankind, has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject His call, commands, instructions and promises (some folk briefly refer to it as man's free will), and also because the majority of the Scriptures also reeks with the same implication that mankind has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject His call, commands, instructions and promises, I let the concept of mankind having this inherent ability be the precedence. I refer to myself as an inherent-free-willer.<br /><br />Therefore when I encounter the very few verses of Scripture text (approximately less than 0.5% of the Scriptures) that on the surface possibly could be interpreted to contradict that majority precedence (man's inherent ability to accept/believe or reject God's call, commands, instructions and promises), I interpret them in light of this majority precedence. By the way, to my simple mind, since all communications has an ultimate purpose (or desired outcome); and I believe God's ultimate purpose for communications to mankind is to convince men and women to repent of their sin and believe/accept His call, commands, instructions and promises. The whole of God's communication in the Bible reeks with an implication that fallen mankind has a free will because His purpose in communicating with fallen mankind in the Bible is to convince fallen mankind that we need to decide to repent of our sin and believe/accept His call, commands, instructions and promises.<br /><br />In light of the precedence of “man's inherent ability to accept or reject God's call, commands, instructions and promises”, I will now give my interpretation of John 6:44, 65 (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."). But first, the inherent-no-free-willers interpret these verses to indicate that the phrase (..."can come"...) in these two verses indicates that fallen man does not have inherent-free-will capacity and can't accept/believe the call/drawing of God and come to Christ. However my interpretation is as follows: if one assumes that the person DOES NOT HAVE the inherent ability to accept or reject God call, the verse implies that he WILL NOT be raised up in the last day if God does not draw him; and also, if one assumes the person DOES HAVE the inherent ability to accept or reject, he ALSO WILL NOT be raised up in the last day if God does not draw him. This line of reasoning would also apply to Jn 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 him from the Father.'") In verse 65 it also does not make any difference WHETHER OR NOT a person has the inherent-free-will ability to accept or reject, the person can not come to Christ if God has not granted him to be called and drawn to Christ. Therefore, those two verses are not talking about the capability of man's will to accept/believe, but about the fact that it is God that choses, grants, calls and draws. Therefore, the conclusion from this line of reasoning is that the drawing and granting by God is not God irresistibly/regeneratively giving the person a will that believes, but God is only presenting the Gospel to the foreknown persons in the crowd of people through the word of God and convicting Holy Spirit, giving those individuals the opportunity to accept or reject the call/drawing of God. God granted that if those individuals accept the call/drawing (but God foreknew that He could convince those individuals to freely accept the call), they will be raised up on the last day.<br /><br />David Geminden<br />http://thoughtsbydcg.wordpress.com/davidgemindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00311449800554068949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-40582437833310734672012-02-04T16:22:50.720-05:002012-02-04T16:22:50.720-05:00Hello Cadgie,
Calvinists would say that a desire ...Hello Cadgie,<br /><br />Calvinists would say that a desire to "want" to get saved, is a sign of "Election to Heaven" and that "Irresistible Grace" is already at work, but that view is loaded with problems. Setting aside Calvinism and its many problems, Jesus stated what salvation is, and how to get it: <br /><br />"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)<br /><br />"Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." (Revelation 3:20)<br /><br />"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him." (John 14:23)<br /><br />"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."<br />(John 5:24)<br /><br />The Apostle Paul said this: "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, R508 abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."" (Romans 10:9-13<br /><br />The result of salvation is that God comes and lives inside of you. The Apostle Paul wrote: "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise." (Ephesians 1:13)<br /><br />Salvation is essentially a matter of forgiveness of sins against God, and then God completing reconciliation and coming to live inside of you: "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1st Corinthians 3:16)Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-17364288856775093102012-02-03T15:04:28.792-05:002012-02-03T15:04:28.792-05:00i want to get saved! but i know that im not! am i ...i want to get saved! but i know that im not! am i elected to hell then by God?Cadgiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13746145369113149359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-36704328332504948552007-01-05T22:11:00.000-05:002007-01-05T22:11:00.000-05:00One other note, in terms of Total Depravity, which...One other note, in terms of Total Depravity, which you raise, I understand it to great detail. It's not about receiving faith, or having your heart opened. Calvinism requires a new heart (Ezek 36:26) in order that the decision be rendered "irresistible." Here's the catch: you only get the new heart in Christ (2Cor 5:17), and you only become sealed in Christ after believing in the Gospel. (Eph 1:13) Thus, the whole system breaks down. Examples of Prevenient Grace are things like having your heart pierced, pricked, convicted and even opened, but those are all things done to the old heart. After believing and being sealed, then you become in Christ (Eph 1:13), and then you get the new heart. Otherwise, when you do suppose that you were in Christ? Before the foundation of the world? At Calvary? When?Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-38237288206211621712007-01-05T22:03:00.000-05:002007-01-05T22:03:00.000-05:00Typo: I'm not trying to make this a contest.
By t...Typo: I'm <i>not</i> trying to make this a contest.<br /><br />By the way, I am not asking you to defend Calvin. That's the first response of every Calvinist. I'm not asking you to do that. I just want you to see where I am coming from, and that I got it from a legit and well respected source.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-77617534308090090222007-01-05T21:57:00.000-05:002007-01-05T21:57:00.000-05:00Chad,
We crossed paths. I was a 4-Pointer. As a s...Chad,<br /><br />We crossed paths. I was a 4-Pointer. As a student of Calvin's writings, the Calvinism that he knew was this: Elective Grace predetermines Regenerative Grace which results in Persevering Grace. Total Inability is built into Regenerative Grace.<br /><br />However, this is a much deeper subject than I think that you realize. I'm trying to make a contest, because we are probably the only two reading this. Nevertheless, you can be of help to me, by me showing you what I found.<br /><br />My writeup on Eph 1:4 details what I'm about to say.<br /><br />The common interpretation is that Eph 1:4 means that the elect (the chosen) are chosen "to be" in Christ. Ok, so in what were they elect, before? Hence: Elect in the Father.<br /><br />When people leave out <i>in Christ</i> from Eph 1:4 quotes, it has the same effect as meaning, God chose us <i>in Himself</i>.<br /><br />The whole concept of Elective Grace is that God has an eternal flock. I have a slew of quotes from Reformed commentators that insist that this means that "the elect" are chosen "to be" in Christ. According to Calvin, before you were ever depraved, you were in an eternal flock. Make no mistake about it. Calvin was a supralapsarian, though I argue a 4-Pointer, and I have some quotes to that effect in my writeup on Calvinism. That's besides the point.<br /><br />You feel that I am ignorant on these subjects, and yet you are quite mistaken. <br /><br />The essense of Calvinistic Election is an eternal election in the Father, and that any understanding of the subject, must include that point. Calvin touched on it. Here are the quotes:<br /><br />John Calvin writes: “Paul further confirms this, declaring that God was moved by no external cause; He Himself and <b>in Himself</b> was author and cause of our being elected while yet we were not created, and of His afterwards conferring faith upon us.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.69, emphasis mine)<br /><br />Calvin writes: “Then, when Paul lays down as the unique cause of election the good pleasure of God which He has <b>in Himself</b>, he excludes all other causes.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.69, emphasis mine)<br /><br />Calvin writes: “Christ therefore is for us the bright mirror of the eternal and hidden election of God, and also the earnest and pledge. ... We see here that God <b>begins with Himself when He sees fit to elect us</b>....” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.127, emphasis mine)<br /><br />Calvin adds: “The calling is therefore a certain and specific calling, which seals and ratifies the eternal election of God so as to make manifest what was before <b>hidden in God</b>.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.70, emphasis mine)<br /><br />Calvin writes: “First he points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it. Christ says that <b>the elect always belonged to God</b>. God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, not by faith, nor by any merit, but by pure grace; <b>for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own</b>.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393, emphasis mine) <br /><br />Calvin writes: “Christ certainly counts none among His own, unless he be given by the Father; and He declares those to be given <b>who before were the Father’s</b> (ibid. 17:6).” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.147, emphasis mine)<br /><br />Calvin writes: “<b>God has chosen His own</b> to be holy and without blame (Eph 1:4).” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.134, emphasis mine)<br /><br />John Calvin writes: “This way of speaking, however, may seem to be different from <b>many passages of Scripture which attribute to Christ the first foundation of God’s love for us</b> and show that outside Christ we are detested by God. But we ought to remember, as I have already said, that the <b>Heavenly Father’s secret love which embraced us is the first love given to us</b>.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.76, emphasis mine)<br /><br />These quotes all add up to an eternal hidden election <i>in the Father</i>, and there are more.<br /><br />Thus, those who are eternally elect <i>in the Father</i> are given to the Son in order to be <i>in Christ</i>.<br /><br />I see no logical basis from which to deny this. Yet, as you point out, besides the fact that election is in Christ, the only way to the Father is through Christ. (John 14:6; 1st John 2:24) <br /><br />Even more telling is this:<br /><br />One Calvinist responds: “Do Calvinists secretly believe that God chose them for some reason other than their need for salvation? Would I, as a Christian, believe that God chose me for some other reason than my need for salvation? <b>Yes, I do. God chose me for His glory, for His pleasure, for His purposes. Sure I had a need for salvation. But that is not why He saved me primarily</b>.”<br /><br />The Calvinist answers: “In the Bible, God does not say He chose us because of our desperate need. <b>He chose us before our need ever arose</b>.” <br /><br />If you still feel that I'm drawing an incorrect inference from Calvin's writings, then reread each quote in detail, take a few days off, and come back to it again, because it's there. The question is whether you are willing to accept what Calvin is saying?Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-92116790447704137852007-01-05T19:43:00.000-05:002007-01-05T19:43:00.000-05:00Richard, you're just not getting it. This discuss...Richard, you're just not getting it. This discussion has degraded into us just gainsying eachother. Of course the elect are in the Father but none can be in the Father except through Christ. This Primary election in the Father and Secondary election in the Son is an invention of your own imagination. Your propensity to compartmentalize scripture has seriously clouded your thinking on these issues. By the way, If you want to study the T.U.L.I.P. try starting with the foundation, Total Depravity, and then work your way through the doctrines. Starting with election is the surest way to get every thing about Calvinism wrong, wich is pretty much what you've managed to do. I can't repeat myself any more Richard. Please take my admonishon in the way it's intended, in brotherly love. I used to be a KJV only Arminian Fundamentalist, (I'm not saying that you are too, just giving you my background) and I wouldn't listen to any one either. It eventually got to the point where people just had to leave me to my own devices because no one could teach me. Well, I had to study scripture on my own and I came out the other side a Calvinist. Maybe one day you'll have a website dedicated to teaching doctrine instead of trying to analyze something that you clearly don't understand.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-60372456901046612962007-01-05T16:20:00.000-05:002007-01-05T16:20:00.000-05:00Chad,
I cannot get over how much you have scored ...Chad,<br /><br />I cannot get over how much you have scored a mortal blow against Calvinistic Election, which indeed teaches that people were eternally in the Father, and hence chosen to be in Christ. Visit my writeup on Eph 1:4. See the quotes for yourself. When Calvinists teach that the elect were chosen to be in Christ, "in what" were they before, to be "the elect" that are given? I've caught other Calvinists in the same trap. At 1st John 2:24, they've admitted that "in the Father" means being of "the elect." You have explained in perfect detail, why I had to reject Calvinistic Election, which is indeed a primary election in the Father with a secondary election to become in Christ: Elect in the Father in order to become elect in the Son.<br /><br />This is your open invitation, Chad, to set the record straight.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-7261295316439501322007-01-05T00:17:00.000-05:002007-01-05T00:17:00.000-05:00Chad,
I am very familiar with John 14:6, and have...Chad,<br /><br />I am very familiar with John 14:6, and have a write-up for that verse:<br /><br />http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John14_6.html <br /><br />Carefully consider the quotes from Calvin, which is illustrates the true nature of Calvinistic Election, which is an <i>in the Father</i> election. I would love to take up a dialogue with you on that point. I already have a discussion in progress if you would like to join us. This is your opportunity to set the record straight.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-25621677212985903832007-01-04T23:57:00.000-05:002007-01-04T23:57:00.000-05:00Jim,
I have posted your conclusion verbatim into ...Jim,<br /><br />I have posted your conclusion verbatim into the writeup for John 6:44, with the links you provided. You'll find it in the blue dialogue box:<br /><br />http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_44.html<br /><br />Below it, I respectfully offered the following statement:<br /><br />It was suggested that Richard “doesn't like the idea of God electing humans to salvation,” and hence, Richard believes what he does. However, I like whatever God has revealed in His word, and His word says that I have an election in Christ, but never says that I have a primary election in the Father, independent of being in Christ. At John 6:44, I’ve explained that it was the Father giving and drawing His true sheep to His Son, that they may become His sheep, in contrast to the false sheep who rejected the Son while claiming that God was their Father. At John 6:45, I cited Jesus’ own explanation of v.44, in that “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” At John 8:42, I reiterated what Jesus said, that if God was truly their Father, as they had claimed, that they would love, not hate, the Son that proceeded from Him, and hence believe in Him. At John 12:32, I’ve explained that after Calvary, Jesus indiscriminately draws all men to Himself.<br /><br />Ultimately, I think that this discussion will prove very useful for the education of those desiring to know what each side believes regarding John 6:44.<br /><br />Currently, we still have an on-going dialogue concerning Eph 1:4, in terms of whether the true essence of Calvinistic Election is an "in the Father" election with a secondary election "in Christ."Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-83195698124120459572007-01-04T21:36:00.000-05:002007-01-04T21:36:00.000-05:00Richard, haven't you ever read John 14:6? If not ...Richard, haven't you ever read John 14:6? If not go and look it up now. Your idea that Reformed theology teaches "in the Father" first then in Christ later" is completely false and only shows your ignorance of the theology you are trying to decry. Remeber, Christ is our High Priest and the only access to the Father any one has ever had in any point of history. I'm just getting weary of wathcing you repeat the same error over and over again. Debate and discussion of doctrine is good and important. You may not agree with Reformed theology but you are not properly informed enough to competently run your own blog on this issue. <br /><br />Nothing in James White's quote says anything about "being the Father before the Father's drawing to the Son". There is no secondary election to the Son in reformed theology. No one can be in the Father except through the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the World.(Rev 13:8). That is the crux of Reformed Theology. <br /><br />I'm sorry if my rebuke seems a bit strong but you must properly understand what you are trying to decry and you clearly donot understand Reformed Theology. It's hard to debate you because we have to spend so much time first clearing up your ignorance of what Reformed theology teaches and then show you why Reformed theology is just Biblical theology. I'll quote Charlse Spurgeon only because he says so eloquently what the rest of us have been trying to say to you for the past 100-some-odd postings;<br /><br />"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon<br /><br />Richard, may the Lord direct your steps and give you peace. <br />Your's in Christ<br />-ChadChad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-90526117442503158672007-01-04T21:29:00.000-05:002007-01-04T21:29:00.000-05:00Richard:
Well, I assumed at the start that I prob...Richard:<br /><br />Well, I assumed at the start that I probably would not convince you of anything, so this has been and continues to be a debate for the readers to judge, for their own knowledge of the truth. <br /><br />I'm going to try to wrap up my side of the John 6 debate in this comment, as I think I have thoroughly stated my case at this point.<br /><br />First, I would appeal to the readers on the basis of the simplicity of the text in John 6, and ask, which side is allowing John 6 to speak for itself, and which side is presenting a highly complicated explanation that has literally taken us on a tour of the bible, in order to explain. Let's face it, anyone can import scriptures into the context of just about any passage in the bible in order to change the meaning of the passage. I have a friend who claims that there will be nobody in Hell (including the devil) one day. How does he get away with this belief? By starting off with a problem (ie: "I don't like Hell") and then forcing other texts about God's love into the hell passages of the bible, and thereby changing the meaning of them. I submit to the reader that this is what Richard is doing with John 6. He doesn't like the idea of God electing humans to salvation, so he contaminates that doctrine (and John 6) in order to eliminate it. The position that I espouse lets John 6 speak for itself, and if Richard had not taken us around to all of these other verses in the bible, I would have stayed within John 6 in order to present my case. My position does not need to journey outside the context.<br /><br />Richard limits John 6 to a select few Jews and says that the drawing and enabling and giving in this passage are "not for today". His reason for this is that the drawing of all men in John 12:32 cancels-out the John 6 drawing. But I ask the readers, does John 12 really do this? Is there something in John 12 that stands up and shouts "John 6 does not relate to you now".<br /><br />Richard believes that John 12 conveys a drawing to every last human on earth following the cross. This includes (for example) the people in China in 40AD. He admits that this drawing isn't effectual like the John 6 drawing is. He also admits that the word "ALL" in the New Testament does not always mean "humanity in it's entirety" but can relate to a more limited scope than that. <br /><br />I ask the reader to read the first 31 verses of John 12 (the context) and ask yourself - what does Jesus mean? I think if you will do this, you will see that Jesus simply means that "salvation is not for the Jews only". Does that mean that every last human receives some kind of drawing to salvation then? No. The end effect is what we see in Revelation 5:7-10 where it says: "by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” In other words, the ALL in John 12:32 means "all without distinction" and not (as Richard wants) "all without exception".<br /><br />Richard has been challenged to produce some commentaries that prove that others in church history have believed as he does on this passage. The best he seems to be able or willing to do is give us the name a modern paperback book on Arminianism, and some citations from Vance's contemporary "shoot Calvinism down at any cost" smear book. Nothing from church history on John 6. Calvinists can produce example after example of both classic and modern commentary works, going back centuries, giving the same basic explanations of John 6 that you've seen from me.<br /><br />Richard has taken the "teaching" in John 6:45 and made it a cause for the "drawing" in the previous verse. I've explained above how this disrupts the temporal order of the passage, and I demonstrated how the teaching flows out from the drawing (which is opposite of what Richard says). Did Richard give an adequate response to my pointing that out (teaching, drawing)?<br /><br />Richard reads into passages like John 8:42 by insisting that some people can "MAKE God" their Father, when in fact - none of the texts that he brings up teach that at all. This is eisegesis on his part.<br /><br />For more discusion of John 6 - I recommend these articles:<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/04/john_645_and_free_will.php">John 6:44, 45 and Free Will</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/01/logic_and_john_644.php">Logic and John 6:44</a><br /><br /><a href="http://aomin.org/johnchapter6.html">An online commentary on John 6</a><br /><br />Additionally, you might Google "John 6" on Spurgeon.org and Biblebb.com or have a look through most of the bible commentaries written before the last century, for other opinions.Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-79557655871431746492007-01-04T00:28:00.000-05:002007-01-04T00:28:00.000-05:00Jim,
Consider these two quotes from James White:
...Jim,<br /><br />Consider these two quotes from James White:<br /><br />James White: “<b>Jesus begins where Christian salvation begins (and ends!), with the Father.</b> The Father gives a particular people to the Son.” (<i>Debating Calvinism</i>, p.118)<br /><br />White adds: “I just also believe the undisputed and unrefuted fact that I come to Christ daily because the Father, on the sole basis of His mercy and grace, <b>gave me to the Son in eternity past</b>.” (<i>Debating Calvinism</i>, p.306)<br /><br />In my writeup on Eph 1:4, I point out that the Reformed view of Election is primarily an "in the Father" Election with the result that these who are "the elect" <i>in the Father</i> are then chosen "to be" or "to become" in Christ, as a secondary Election, such that the <i>drawing</i> and <i>giving</i> of John 6:37, 44 was from <b>before the foundation of the world</b>.<br /><br />Arminianism, in contrast, places the beginning of the giving and drawing of the Father TO THE SON at Matthew 3:17. Previously, the Father drew people to HIMSELF at various times, as mentioned in the prior post.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-22909013475557559832007-01-03T14:07:00.000-05:002007-01-03T14:07:00.000-05:00Jim,
[First of all, I apologize for not respondin...Jim,<br /><br />[First of all, I apologize for not responding in a timely manner. I seem to have come down with a bit of a fever, but a little rest will take care of that.]<br /><br />Your wrote: Ok, so you are saying that "ALL" in John 12:32 does not include the sum total of humanity in it's entirety, because you limit "ALL" as being every human being after the cross. Whereas when scripture says that He is the "savior of all", on the other hand, then you interpret "ALL" as meaning the sum total of humanity in it's entirety. <br /><br />On the one hand, Jesus draws the <i>living</i> post-Calvary, indiscriminately from among all humanity, whereas Jesus being the “Savior of all” has an additional element, namely that when He was on the cross, Abraham’s Bosom was already a place of the righteous dead from the OT. So He’s the Savior of them too, i.e. Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, ect.<br /><br />Or, perhaps you are alluding to 1st Timothy 4:10: “He is the <b>Savior of all men</b>, especially of believers.” This shows that “all men” does not merely constitute believers (.i.e. the elect in Christ), and that the “Common Grace” of 1st Timothy 4:10, according to Arminianism, is the “Atoning Grace” of Calvary that is fully substitutionary (John 3:14/Numbers 21:6-9), and if it wasn’t, then Christ’s grace which abounds to all men, becomes bogus. In order for an offer to have legitimacy, the money (so to speak) must be in the bank. In other words, you cannot <i>offer</i> salvation to “all men” if the Atonement isn’t fully substitutionary. Often, this draws the charge of Universalism, which is silly, because 4-Pointers and Arminians believe that there is a differentiation between a universal purchase and a universal redemption. I have some write-ups on this discussion in which I cite for support, 4-Pointers, such as William MacDonald. Also, I’ve responded to the points of Erwin Lutzer. I’m sorry if this gets off track, and if it is, feel free to disregard it, or come back to it later.<br /><br />You wrote: Is that accurate to say that you interpret the word "ALL" differently in passages like these, with "ALL" in one passage encompassing more people than "ALL" in another passage?<br /><br />Yes, especially in Jesus being the “Savior of all men” (1st Timothy 4:10), because there is an added dynamic of "all men" that would not apply to a post-Calvary draw of the living. (John 12:32)<br /><br />You wrote: I hope you will have the integrity to change them, if you agree that the scope of "ALL" can be different for various contexts.<br /><br />Absolutely. I want both sides well represented, and then let the two sides battle over their interpretations of the context. Let’s look at a few of your examples:<br /><br />John 8:2 - All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. <br /><br />(obviously that included Israel and perhaps some Gentiles too, but that also appears to be <i>indiscriminate</i> in nature, since many of “the people” left Him, per John 6:66. Therefore, “all men” doesn’t necessarily mean “all of the elect in Christ.”)<br /><br />Acts 4:21 - all men glorified God for that which was done. <br /><br />(sometimes “all” is meant from one person’s perspective, in what <i>seems</i> to be the case, though not literally true, such as at John 11:48, since obviously when the Pharisee said “all men,” he did not include himself. So I agree that context is the determining factor.)<br /><br />You wrote: To answer your previous question, yes I do believe that the John 6:44 drawing goes all the way back to Genesis, as does Christ's role as savior span backwards to Genesis as well.<br /><br />In hindsight, I partially agree. The Father drew Israel to Himself. (Isaiah 65:2; 2nd Chronicles 7:14) He drew the Assyrians to Himself through the prophet Jonah, who initially <i>did</i> in fact, repent. Jesus drew the Samaritans prior to Calvary, as I discussed with Chad, though the full-scale drawing throughout Asia by the apostles, clearly didn’t begin until after the resurrection, as per Matthew 28:19. However, the difference in our views is that I interpret John 6:44 as the drawing of the Father’s sheep to His Son in order to follow Him, which is consistent with what other prominent Arminians (Wells and Dongell) and non-Calvinists (Laurence Vance) have also stated about that verse.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-89665594646618213242007-01-03T01:44:00.000-05:002007-01-03T01:44:00.000-05:00Ok, so you are saying that "ALL" in John 12:32 doe...Ok, so you are saying that "ALL" in John 12:32 does not include the sum total of humanity in it's entirety, because you limit "ALL" as being every human being after the cross. Whereas when scripture says that He is the "savior of all", on the other hand, then you interpret "ALL" as meaning the sum total of humanity in it's entirety. Is that accurate to say that you interpret the word "ALL" differently in passages like these, with "ALL" in one passage encompassing more people than "ALL" in another passage?<br /><br />If so, then I hope you don't have any pages on your website that disparage Calvinists for interpretting the scope of the word "ALL" differently, in different contexts. Since that is what you are doing yourself, above. If you do have pages like that on your website, I hope you will have the integrity to change them, if you agree that the scope of "ALL" can be different for various contexts.<br /><br />I hope you will agree that "ALL" is less than everybody in these passages as well:<br /><br />John 8:2 - All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them<br />2 Cor 3:2 - our letter of recommendation...to be known and read by all [men].<br />Luk 16:16 - the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone [all] forces his way into it<br />Acts 4:21 - all men glorified God for that which was done,<br />Luke 21:17 - Jesus told his disciples that they would be "hated of all men" <br />Acts 21:28 - Paul was accused of teaching all men everywhere against [the law]<br /><br />To answer your previous question, yes I do believe that the John 6:44 drawing goes all the way back to Genesis, as does Christ's role as savior span backwards to Genesis as well.Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-49152938969108026582007-01-03T01:01:00.000-05:002007-01-03T01:01:00.000-05:00Jim,
You wrote: 1) Does the ALL in John 12:32 inc...Jim,<br /><br />You wrote: 1) Does the ALL in John 12:32 include ALL men that lived <b>before</b> Jesus went to the cross? <br /><br />No.<br /><br />You wrote: 2) Does the ALL in John 12:32 indicate a drawing of every last person who will ever live <b>after</b> Christ's resurrection?<br /><br />Yes, while they’re <i>alive</i>. Obviously, He does not draw those in Hell, and that's all that I meant by the "Red Herring" comment. If I misunderstood your intention, then I apologize.<br /><br />Classical Arminianism has taught:<br />"all men" = "all nations" and what are the nations but the sum of the individual units, which is tantamount to the same thing as individuals?Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-77566084633061041772007-01-02T17:38:00.000-05:002007-01-02T17:38:00.000-05:00Richard:
I'll come back to the elaborate explanat...Richard:<br /><br />I'll come back to the elaborate explanation that you have given above related to John 6:44, but I want to address "the red herring" idea right off the bat, with a couple of yes or no questions:<br /><br />1) Does the ALL in John 12:32 include ALL men that lived before Jesus went to the cross? <br /><br />2) Does the ALL in John 12:32 indicate a drawing of every last person who will ever live after Christ's resurrection?<br /><br /><br />For the readers, here is an excerpt from John Gill's commentary, which I think does a good job of phrasing the significance of John 12:32:<br /><br />I will draw all men to me; which is not to be understood of the concourse of people about him, when on the cross, some for him, and others against him, some to bewail him, and others to reproach him; but rather of the gathering of the elect to him, and in him, as their head and representative, when he was crucified for them; or of the collection of them, through the<br />ministry of the apostles, and of their being brought to believe on him for eternal life and salvation: and this drawing of them to him, in consequence of his death, supposes distance from him, want of power, and will, to come to him, and the efficacious grace of God to bring them, though without any force and compulsion; and this is to be understood <b>not of every individual of human nature; for all are not drawn to Christ, or enabled to come to him, and believe in him.</b> There were many of the Jews who would not, and did not come to him for life; and who instead of being drawn to him in this sense, when lifted up on the cross, vilified and reproached him; moreover, in the preceding verse, “a world” is spoken of, whose judgment, or condemnation, was now come; and besides, <b>there was at this time a multitude of souls in hell, who could not, nor never will be, drawn to Christ</b>; and a greater number still there will be at the last day, who, instead of drawing to him in this gracious way and manner, will be bid to depart<br />from him, as having been workers of iniquity. Christ died indeed for all men who are drawn unto him; but this is not true of all men, that are, were, or shall be in the world. ... [This drawing] designs some of all sorts of men, of every state, condition, age, sex, and nation, Gentiles as well as Jews...Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-18938614285026131742007-01-02T17:01:00.000-05:002007-01-02T17:01:00.000-05:00Jim,
You wrote: “How are people which match the d...Jim,<br /><br />You wrote: “How are people which match the description given in John 8:40-47 supposed to MAKE God their Father, when in fact - it says they can't hear and they can't understand? So let me get this straight Richard: In passages like that, you believe that some people were able to ‘snap out of it’ (break out of a hardened state that God put on them), and make God their Father? Then if they do, afterwards God draws them in John 6:44? Am I getting that right?” <br /><br />No. First, I’ll say what <i>caused</i> the problem, and then I’ll explain the <i>solution</i>, and that should clear up the misconception of “snapping out of it.” <br /><br />Those of John 8:41 were hardened because they rejected the Father’s grace numerously (Isaiah 65:2), and finally because they rejected Him by rejecting John the Baptist who was sent to them for a ministry of repentance. (Not <i>all</i> rejected him.) But those of 8:41 <i>did</i> indeed reject John the Baptist. God graciously provided the way of repentance and preparation for His Son, and those of 8:41 refused. Each time they said “No” to John, they actually said “No” to the Father, and became harder each time, without even realizing it. And <i>now</i> they are completely stiff-necked. God had warned: “Harden not your heart.” (Psalm 95:8) Now they’re in <b>big trouble</b>. In contrast, others who had heard and learned through John, and who had <i>submitted</i> to the ministry of repentance, were being drawn to Jesus, and were believing in Him. However, the 8:41’s remained <i>unwilling.</i> Even the miracles, which they were witnessing first-hand, were not having any impact on them, as they simply attributed them to the power of demons. (Matthew 9:34) In the case of the Jew, Saul of Tarsus, who had been kicking against the goads (Acts 26:14), it literally took Jesus having to make a personal encounter with him, for him to become broken, in which afterward, he fasted for three days prior to meeting up with Ananias. (Acts 9:9) For many of the 8:41’s, like Saul of Tarsus, they have come to a point, nearly, of no return. You ask me how the 8:41’s, at this stage of the game, can MAKE God their Father, and for many, like Saul, it takes divine intervention. The “draw” of John 6:44 has absolutely nothing to do with the 8:41’s making God their Father. My point, which I was very consistent about, is that <b>IF</b> they had made God their Father, they would have been drawn by the Father to His Son, and have loved the Son. But now, being in such a hardened state, they are unwilling to listen to God, even if one of the foremost of them, should convert, such as Saul, and plead with them. However, previously, they could have made God their Father back when John the Baptist was calling them to repentance, when instead, they stood there on the shoreline, smug and indifferent, merely seeking ways to catch John in his words, so that they could use it to bring accusation against him. So there is no snapping out of it, until or unless, God breaks their stiff-necked heart. <br /><br />You wrote: If ‘all means ALL’ in that passage, did this drawing go back prior to the time of the cross, including even people who were already in Hell at the time of the cross?”<br /><br />In my discussions with Chad, I mentioned that the draw of John 12:32 had pointed to a time in which Jesus would reach out to the Gentile world, which He did through the apostles, after the resurrection. (Matthew 28:19) “All men” means all nations of men, and what is a nation but so many units of so many people?, which is tantamount to the same thing as individuals since, what is a nation but the sum of its parts? To suggest that it must also include those in Hell is a red herring.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-72167105306803346322007-01-02T13:39:00.000-05:002007-01-02T13:39:00.000-05:00Regarding John 8:42 . . .
Richard now says: "I di...Regarding John 8:42 . . .<br /><br />Richard now says: "I didn't intend to retreat on anything."<br /><br />Earlier you said:<br /><br />"...the true Jewish sheep of the Father who have made God their Father according to John 8:42. ..."<br /><br />But when I asked you how they MADE God their Father in John 8:42, you said . . .<br /><br />"Answer: Those of 8:41 did not make God their Father, which was Jesus’ point at 8:42. They refused God’s Word through Moses, whom they claimed to serve. (9:28) Jesus presents the solution in that IF they had made God their Father..."<br /><br />. . . and you said . . .<br /><br />"Answer: Those in 8:42 who did not make God their Father, were not “of God” (8:47)"<br /><br />How are people which match the description given in John 8:40-47 supposed to MAKE God their Father, when in fact - it says they can't hear and they can't understand? <br /><br />Richard says: "Jesus is pointing out that they need to go back to the Father, whom they claimed to serve, and get right with Him, and then IF they do, the hardening will cease, and the drawing will begin, and they will see that the Father is in the Son, and believe in Him."<br /><br />How does someone who is hardened do that? How does someone who "can't hear" and "can't understand" cause themselves to start hearing and start understanding in order to get themselves "right with God"? You apparently would have us believe that hardened people (take for example Pharoah) can "snap themselves out of it". Deuteronomy 29:2-4 is passage similar to the one that you keep bringing up in Luke; it says:<br /><br />"“You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day the LORD HAS NOT GIVEN YOU a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear."<br /><br />So let me get this straight Richard: In passsages like that, you believe that some people were able to "snap out of it" (break out of a hardened state that God put on them), and make God their Father? Then if they do, afterwards God draws them in John 6:44? Am I getting that right?<br /><br />You never addressed my earlier point about the temporal order of the drawing and teaching in John 6:44-45 but I'll let that go for now.<br /><br />Next, you ask me . . .<br /><br />"However, I’ve pointed out that the drawing of John 6:44 had begun in Jesus’ ministry. But doesn't your argument require that the “draw” of John 6:44 be stretched all they way back to Genesis, being allegedly the only way anyone could have ever made God their Father? John 6:44 is clearly teaching how men come to the Son, but you've used it to explain how men come to the Father, from the Genesis."<br /><br />Ok, I'll answer that if you address the very similar point that I made much earlier about the drawing in John 12:32 not being for everyone. If "all means ALL" in that passage, did this drawing go back prior to the time of the cross, including even people who were already in Hell at the time of the cross? If you say "no", then you are conceding the Calvinist's point that "ALL doesn't necessarily mean everyone who ever lived everywhere during every time" and are admitting that the scope of "all" can (and should) be limited at various times based on context. If you are going to say that the John 12:32 drawing didn't apply during OT times, but the (limited for Jews only) John 6:44 drawing did, then please explain what drawing applied to the (non-Jewish) people in Ninevah during Jonah's time.Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-46076411477667660812007-01-02T12:09:00.000-05:002007-01-02T12:09:00.000-05:00Jim,
I didn't intend to "retreat" on anything. If...Jim,<br /><br />I didn't intend to "retreat" on anything. If I missed it, I apologize, and will certainly address it here:<br /><br />You wrote: “Richard, please demonstrate how John 8:42 teaches that they ‘MADE God’ their father.”<br /><br /><i>They</i> didn’t. But IF they had, then Jesus plainly says that they would love Him instead of hating Him, showing that they were not right with the Father, whom they claimed to serve. (v.41) However, the thrust of your point seems to seek the answer to HOW a person can MAKE God their Father, which I've answered from Luke 16:29. You're answer is that it's impossible apart from being drawn to Him according to John 6:44. However, I’ve pointed out that the drawing of John 6:44 had begun in Jesus’ ministry. But doesn't your argument require that the “draw” of John 6:44 be stretched all they way back to <b>Genesis</b>, being allegedly the only way anyone could have ever made God their Father? John 6:44 is clearly teaching how men come to the <b>Son</b>, but you've used it to explain how men come to the <b>Father</b>, from the Genesis.<br /><br />You wrote: “But you seem to be insisting that people that are described that way CAN be taught of God, and can be convinced to make a decision to make God their Father. We all start off in that "don't understand / don't hear" condition, and Richard espouses that man can be taught to make God their father while still in that condition.<br /><br />Those of v.41 had been hardened. (Isaiah 6:10; John 12:37-41) Jesus is basically diagnosing the <i>source</i> of the cancer which is that they were not right with God (first and foremost), so Jesus is pointing out that they need to go back to the Father, whom they claimed to serve, and get right with Him, and then IF they do, the hardening will cease, and the drawing will begin, and they will see that the Father is in the Son, and believe in Him.<br /><br />You wrote: “Question for Richard: How can you justify that position when verse 47 clearly says that the reason they don't hear is that they are not of God, and they don't understand (John 8:43)? How does someone get taught (John 6:45) if they don't hear or understand?”<br /><br />Once they get right with the Father, and <i>His</i> teachings, then they will be able to bear the Son’s teachings, since the Son's teachings are the Father's teachings, being exactly what the Father tells Him to say.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-76769746909170972802007-01-02T00:36:00.000-05:002007-01-02T00:36:00.000-05:00For the readers:
Here is an excerpt from a Reform...For the readers:<br /><br />Here is an excerpt from a Reformation Theology <a href="http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/04/john_645_and_free_will.php">blog page</a> on the "teaching" in John 6:45 as it relates to the drawing of the previous verse.<br /><br />First, who is "they"? The "all" is all of "them," whoever they are. Context tells us: the preceding verse speaks of the one who is drawn by the Father and who, as a result of being drawn, comes to the Son (and is raised up by Him). The being "taught by God" is not some general revelation, some peanut-butter activity that is devoid of connection with the preceding context. No, this is a restatement, an expansion, explanation, of what it means for the Father to "draw." The drawing of the Father leads those drawn to the Son. Why? Well, part of it has to do with imparting knowledge, teaching. God does the teaching. And just as the drawing of the Father brings all who are drawn to the Son (and hence to eternal life), so too He never fails in imparting the knowledge that leads to life. All who are taught "hear" (aorist) and "learn" (aorist), and as a result of this action, come to Christ (just as v. 37 and 44). Here all truly does mean all, because it has a specific delimiter in the context: all drawn, all given, all taught, all hearing, etc. In v. 45 the emphasis remains upon the Father, not upon those taught, those who, as a result, hear and learn. I may comment just in passing that in reality, man looks rather desperate when he tries to find in passages such as this the much vaunted free will of man.Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-34230972384943535822007-01-02T00:25:00.000-05:002007-01-02T00:25:00.000-05:00Richard said: "I infer, by interpretation, that ha...Richard said: "<i>I infer, by interpretation, that having “heard and learned from the Father” was the basis for why the Father draw His own to His Son, and especially since Jesus stated at John 8:42: “If God were your Father, you would love Me….” Would they, Jim? Do you agree that loving the Son was clearly shown, in Jesus’ words, to be conditional on having made God their Father?</i>"<br /><br />Absolutly not; it does not teach a conditional human decision as a prerequisite to the Father's drawing, at all. <br /><br />And now you are back to John 8:42, from where you once before retreated. Jesus is stating a fact when He says "If God were your Father, you would love Me". The verse says nothing of how God became their Father. So, since you have gone back to this passage again, I'll ask you the same question that you dodged the first time. Here it is again:<br /><br />-----------------------<br />Richard, please demonstrate how John 8:42 teaches that they "MADE God" their father. The very next verse says "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word." and verse 47 says "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”"<br /><br />But you seem to be insisting that people that are described that way CAN be taught of God, and can be convinced to make a decision to make God their Father. We all start off in that "don't understand / don't hear" condition, and Richard espouses that man can be taught to make God their father while still in that condition.<br /><br />Question for Richard: How can you justify that position when verse 47 clearly says that the reason they don't hear is that they are not of God, and they don't understand (John 8:43)? How does someone get taught (John 6:45) if they don't hear or understand?<br />-----------------------<br /><br />And finally, back to what I just asked . . .<br /><br />“Also, can you show us where the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is conditional based on someone first being responsive to the teaching in verse 45?”Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-79873332943295801862007-01-01T23:11:00.000-05:002007-01-01T23:11:00.000-05:00Jim,
You wrote: “Citing a modern paperback theolo...Jim,<br /><br />You wrote: “Citing a modern paperback theology book is hardly what Gene had in mind.”<br /><br />Then I encourage Gene to contact Walls and Dongell, professors of Asbury Theological Seminary, and ask them the same question. <br /><br />Since you did a critique on Laurence Vance, http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.188, surely you recall his words on John 6:44: <br /><br />Vance: “…we have here the separation of the Jewish sheep from the goats and the drawing of them to the Messiah. The ones given are Jewish disciples. They are said to be his sheep. (John 10:27). John baptized that Christ should be manifest to Israel (John 1:31). Although Israel as a whole received him not (John 1:11), he was known of his sheep (John 10:14), the epitome of which can be seen in Simeon, who was ‘just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him’ (Luke 2:25). … The error of the Calvinists on John 6:44 is two-fold. First and foremost is the misapplication of a verse with a decidedly Jewish context as a doctrinal statement on salvation in this age. And secondly, in a spiritual sense, there is the fallacy of making the drawing of God irresistible and equating it with salvation.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, pp.510, 511)<br /><br />Jim from oldtruth.com wrote: “Also, can you show us where the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is conditional based on someone first being responsive to the teaching in verse 45?”<br /><br />I infer, by interpretation, that having “heard and learned from the Father” was the basis for why the Father draw His own to His Son, and especially since Jesus stated at John 8:42: “If God were your Father, you would love Me….” Would they, Jim? Do you agree that loving the Son was clearly shown, in Jesus’ words, to be conditional on having made God their Father?<br /><br />You wrote: “As far as the Gadfly banning, it seems from your statement above that you believe rules are to be followed so long as you agree they are justifiable. Yet another logic breakdown.”<br /><br />Do you believe that we are to place God’s rules ahead of man’s rules? Acts 5:29 states: “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’” With your reasoning, you might also say: “Hey Peter, you believe rules are to be followed so long as you agree they are justifiable. Yet another logic breakdown, Peter.” The question is whether or not posting a clarification on a Bible verse (John 6:44) is in obedience to “God”, despite being in clear violation of the rules of “man”, namely Alan K. That’s why I wonder who is really leading Alan, when he bans a person who politely and respectfully interacts on a Bible verse. I know that it cannot be God, and therefore it leaves only one person left. So whose side are you on, Jim? God’s side, or on the side that motivates Alan to banish a sincere servant of the Lord?Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-1008916900400378982007-01-01T16:38:00.000-05:002007-01-01T16:38:00.000-05:00Richard:
Gene asked "Can you find any commentator...Richard:<br /><br />Gene asked "Can you find any commentators from the **standard works** that agree with you here, namely that (a) this text is restricted to Jews in that time and place and (b) that this drawing is referring to Luke 16:29? If so, what are their reasons?"<br /><br />Citing a modern paperback theology book is hardly what Gene had in mind. <br /><br />Also, can you show us where the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is conditional based on someone first being responsive to the teaching in verse 45? That seems to be the case that you are attempting to make in your last comment. <br /><br />So you are espousing:<br />Successfully Taught --> Drawn --> Raised<br /><br />But John 6 is not communicating that at all. Please show us how "Teaching" is placed before "Drawing" in the temporal order of this passage. The burden of proof is on you to do this.<br /><br />As far as the Gadfly banning, it seems from your statement above that you believe rules are to be followed so long as you agree they are justifiable. Yet another logic breakdown.Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-60022840174467303522007-01-01T15:23:00.000-05:002007-01-01T15:23:00.000-05:00Jim,
Thank you for continuing in this discussion....Jim,<br /><br />Thank you for continuing in this discussion. I would be glad to address Gene's points, but my only stipulation is that we do not respond to each other with an A-Z Thesis, but 1 point at a time, in order to enjoy a meaningful dialogue between us. Thanks to you, you have chosen one of his points to begin this dialogue, and I'm glad that we can continue.<br /><br />First, a word to James. I posted on the Gadfly that I had quoted you at Matt 22:14, and if you wish to begin a dialogue on your quote, feel free to contact me and I would be glad to begin a blog discussion on that verse.<br /><br />Now to Jim's opening point:<br /><br />Jim wrote: "what Richard aims for instead - which is 'The Father Draws/Gives those who have already chosen to believe'." <br /><br />It is fair for him to infer this, without me complaining about misrepresentation. However, my duty is to clarify how I'd rather Jim had put it: <br /><br />"what Richard aims for instead - which is "The Father Draws/Gives those who have already <br />[heard and learned from the Father, 6:45] and chosen to believe in Him so that they might now believe in His Son]." I believe that's faithful to John 6:44.<br /><br />Jim is correct that I was banned from the Gadfly. Judge for yourself if I did anything remotely deserving of such action: <br /><br />Banned: <br />http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=348#comments<br /><br />Jim asks where I had gotten my view of John 6:44 from:<br /><br />Walls and Dongell explain: “Had they received Moses fully, thereby coming to know the Father to the degree possible at that time, they would have belonged to the Father’s flock, and the Father would have drawn them to the Son. But in rejecting Jesus, they demonstrated that they never surrendered to God in the first place, that they had set their faces like flint against all of his continued overtures. Since they did not belong to the Father’s own flock, they wouldn’t be part of the <b>transfer of sheep already trusting the Father into the fold of the Son</b> (Jn 6:37, 39).” (<i>Why I am Not a Calvinist</i>, p.75, emphasis mine)<br /><br />Jim, thoughts?<br /><br />As for previent grace of Arminianism, also known as FREE GRACE, like Walls and Dongell, in the mold of Classical Arminianism, I agree. Refer to the article: "In a Nutshell"<br /><br />http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Articles/ac_nutshell.html<br /><br />Lastly, you asked how John 6:44 relates to Luke 16:29. That is what I infer. If Chad can say that the absence of any mention of an eternal decree at 6:44 means nothing because the Bible teaches it at Eph 1:4, and that the Bible "cannot be separated" (see his comment above), then, Jim, why can I not do the same? Will you similarly condemn Chad? <br /><br />Jim, I will answer any post tomorrow. I will spend the rest of today with family.<br /><br />Best wishes In Christ. (Matt 25:40)Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.com