Why do Arminians...

[stan1953]

He can make it mean whatever he wants. It doesn't matter. John 6:44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and he will be raised up on the last day. The one who is drawn is raised. There is no one drawn who isn't raised, and there is no one raised who wasn't already drawn. Therefore if all (without qualification) are drawn (as is being exegetically implied by Stan1953 in John 12:32), then necessarily all are raised (i.e. universalism).

There are [by my estimation] at least three ways of dealing with this: (1) create an exegetical blunder and say the "him" of 6:44a is a different "him" than 6:44b, (2) accept universalism and accept that all are drawn and all are raised, and (3) see Jn 12:32 as reference to all types of men [as is contextually accurate], and therefore the drawing and raising of John 6:44 only applies to elect individuals.

Universalism is a strawman created by some on this forum. It has no foundation in scripture and is only used to deflect by those who believe SE.
Romans 6:10
The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
1 Cor 15:2-4
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

This is NOT universalism as it is defined, it is Unlimited Atonement. It means WHOSOEVER WILL. John 3:16-18

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
​

 

[Hammster]

This is what happens when you impose your will on my theology. You got it wrong again. That is what you want Arminian theology to mean according to RT.

What did I write? 'This is why synergism is a misleading concept. Faith, repentance, regeneration-new birth, justification and conversion happen simultaneously - in my understanding. But that's not how you see it in RT'.

Please quit your misrepresentation of what I wrote and engaging in your eisegesis of what I stated.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you didn't decide to believe (faith) you wouldn't be saved, according to your theology.

 

[Hammster]

Well when you use those words, of course not. What it conveys is seen in the metaphorical use of helko, to signify "drawing" by inward power, by Divine impulse. Not against our will, but in empathy towards our inner heart.

Divine impulse, but not against our will? If we are so willing, why do we need to be drawn?

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you didn't decide to believe (faith) you wouldn't be saved, according to your theology.

And that's what the Scriptures teach:

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 ESV)

 

[Hammster]

And that's what the Scriptures teach:

So there is a logical order. Thanks for affirming what you previously denied.

 

[FreeGrace2]

First of all, I have no issue with answering objections or trying to explain my points. I am not trying to hide and would like to remain honest in my understanding. Secondly, these aren't questions. These are true/false statements. Third, true/false statements (along with questions) can carry presuppositions, wherein giving any answer at all is to accept the presupposition. As an example, the classic atheist statement is here:

"God can create a rock heavier than He can lift."

Whether I say "true" or whether I say "false", I accept the unbalanced picture of God, which on a presuppositional basis I do not agree with. Hopefully you can identify and understand the example, since I am sure we are in agreement on that. So how this relates to your statements... I don't know how you are defining "election" and how you are defining "choice". To answer is to accept your definition of the terms. That was part of my point in the original post; I am not too interested in all of the intricacies of the English words, I am more interested in the intricacies of the greek -and- how to best explain them in the English. I'm not sure how your statements have an affect on either.

OK, I'll just boil it down for extreme simplicity. An election is a special choice. And very few choices are special.

Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

 

[FreeGrace2]

In a nutshell, faith before regeneration.

Well, since that's Biblical, the Bible teaches it.

But that doesn't really address the actual mechanism of what "synergism" is. For synergism to exist, doesn't there have to be action by at least 2 parties? Because in monergism, the view is that God does it all, all by Himself, from start to finish.

So, please explain how the order of faith and regeneration addresses synergism.

 

[Hammster]

Well, since that's Biblical, the Bible teaches it.

But that doesn't really address the actual mechanism of what "synergism" is. For synergism to exist, doesn't there have to be action by at least 2 parties? Because in monergism, the view is that God does it all, all by Himself, from start to finish.

So, please explain how the order of faith and regeneration addresses synergism.

I did. Faith before regeneration. That's synergism. Faith is the catalyst for God to regenerate.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Are you going to claim that the LXX was inspired? Besides, the real meat of the question is, how did the Greek-speaking people of the time understand helkuo?

No, the LXX wasn't inspired. And the Greek speaking people of the time understood helkuo the way it was used in Jer 31:3.

You make God's action sound like a bad thing. Since when and with what Scriptural support does God need man's permission to change the man's heart?

Please point to the exact post where I've even slightly hinted at such a silly notion. If there isn't one, please quit asking such off the wall questions.

Most unsaved people don't even realize that they need their heart changed.

I'd say all of them don't realize it. But so what? The RT view is that God unilaterally changes only some of them. Apart from any conditions. But the bible teaches that God changes the hearts of those who have believed in His Son. Quite different.

One must decide whether God's Will reigns supreme, or man's will does. Which is it?

Man's will has nothing to do with anything. No one wills faith or belief, so please stop with these silly red herrings.

Man believes from his heart, not his will. Are you aware of this difference?

Putting one's faith in someone or something does not require the will. It requires confidence in the thing or person the one is trusting in. Does that make sense? If not, please ask, before assigning any more silly ridiculous and off the wall views that are not mine.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yea, because there's nothing wrong with the word "draw". It's a fine and dandy word.

The only problem is that you don't really believe the definition(s) of helkuo

In fact, the only problem is your failure to understand what I post.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Because we don't mean "before" in a temporal sense (ie, pertaining to the physical passing of time), but rather, a logical sense (the one gives rise to the other)

Except there's no logic in how RT comes to its conclusion regarding faith and regeneration.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It can't be logically at the same time. That's illogical.

Only if one comes to the issue of faith and regeneration as though one MUST cause the other. And Scripture never indicates any causal relationship. Only a chronological order.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I did. Faith before regeneration. That's synergism. Faith is the catalyst for God to regenerate.

What do you mean by catalyst? Please be specific. I'm not familiar with that word used in any theological sense.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

OK, I'll just boil it down for extreme simplicity. An election is a special choice. And very few choices are special.

Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

...But the English term elect doesn't require that limitation to be put on the word. Is it special that I elected to go with salami instead of turkey at Subway? Obviously not. And yet that would be a perfectly normal usage of the term, although as I explained before, has a more formal sound to it. It still however primarily functions the same as the term choose.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Universalism is a strawman created by some on this forum. It has no foundation in scripture and is only used to deflect by those who believe SE.
Romans 6:10
The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
1 Cor 15:2-4
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

This is NOT universalism as it is defined, it is Unlimited Atonement. It means WHOSOEVER WILL. John 3:16-18

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
​

What on earth are you responding to? I was talking about John 6:44, the word ἕλκω and its exegetical implications. You have offered nothing in reference to what I said. If you want to maintain that ἕλκω is something different than what the Reformers taught it to be, then please respond to my post directly and exegete John 6:44.

He can make it mean whatever he wants. It doesn't matter. John 6:44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and he will be raised up on the last day. The one who is drawn is raised. There is no one drawn who isn't raised, and there is no one raised who wasn't already drawn. Therefore if all (without qualification) are drawn (as is being exegetically implied by Stan1953 in John 12:32), then necessarily all are raised (i.e. universalism).

There are [by my estimation] at least three ways of dealing with this: (1) create an exegetical blunder and say the "him" of 6:44a is a different "him" than 6:44b, (2) accept universalism and accept that all are drawn and all are raised, and (3) see Jn 12:32 as reference to all types of men [as is contextually accurate], and therefore the drawing and raising of John 6:44 only applies to elect individuals.

 

[FreeGrace2]

...But the English term elect doesn't require that limitation to be put on the word.

There is no limitation on the word.

Is it special that I elected to go with salami instead of turkey at Subway? Obviously not.

No, but the better word is simply "chose" instead of 'elected'. Yes, they both involve a choice. But let's not get picky. The Bible makes a point of who has been elected, and such election IS special. Or, do you view Biblical election is just a simple choice?

And yet that would be a perfectly normal usage of the term, although as I explained before, has a more formal sound to it. It still however primarily functions the same as the term choose.

The key here is in your acknowledgement of the "more formal sound" to it. That goes to the point; elections are special. You didn't formally elect one sandwich over another. You simply chose one over the other. Just like your socks that you chose this morning, provided you did put some on.

The very fact that elect has a "formal sound" to it makes it definitely more special than just choosing something over something else.

And this goes directly to the definition by the ISBE on election: being selected for special privilege and service.

So far, no one has even tried to refute this definition from the ISBE. A while ago someone tried to dismiss the ISBE as just an "uninspired" text. But it was written by Biblical scholars to explain Biblical terms.

So, if that definition isn't correct, please proceed with your refutation.

 

[Hammster]

Only if one comes to the issue of faith and regeneration as though one MUST cause the other. And Scripture never indicates any causal relationship. Only a chronological order.

That's what I said in response to Oz.

 

[Hammster]

What do you mean by catalyst? Please be specific. I'm not familiar with that word used in any theological sense.

Catalyst: person or thing that precipitates an event or change

 

[FreeGrace2]

Catalyst: person or thing that precipitates an event or change

Then don't use that word theologically regarding faith and regeneration. Unless you are willing to admit that God's plan is to save only believers, and when someone does believe, then He keeps His word and promise, and saves them.

If that is how you mean "precipitates", then you would be correct. But if you think it means that because man believes, forces God, or causes to save them, you'd be quite wrong.

 

[Hammster]

Then don't use that word theologically regarding faith and regeneration. Unless you are willing to admit that God's plan is to save only believers, and when someone does believe, then He keeps His word and promise, and saves them.

If that is how you mean "precipitates", then you would be correct. But if you think it means that because man believes, forces God, or causes to save them, you'd be quite wrong.

Getting back to the actual discussion, you can't use Acts 16:30 to prove synergism because not enough information is given.