Calvinism vs arminism

[Skala]

You ignore that the key word in the verse is not "draw" but "come," the Greek erchomai, coupled with the use of the Greek dunamai, translated here as "can." In this context, erchomai means to be established. We are established in Christ by faith alone. Dunamai as I'm sure you know, is "to be able." One can be drawn, but if one does not "come" there is no salvation. The onus -- once the drawing, calling and opening of the mind is done by the power of the Holy Spirit -- is then on man to believe. There is no two ways about it. God is sovereign, man is responsible.

Those that are drawn WILL come to Christ.

How does that help your case?

"All that the Father gives me WILL come to me" - Jesus , John 6:37

 

[Hammster]

Only if you believe in irresistible grace does that false dichotomy exist. God is sovereign, man is responsible. Man cannot come to Christ unless he is drawn, which simply means to "impel," bring to a place where one can be taught, where one will listen, or at the very least be held. That isn't impelling to belief, that is simply drawing to a point where one can hear what is to be said. Man cannot respond to the call of Holy Spirit without the Spirit opening his mind. But his responsibility enters in at that point. He has the ability to reject the truth revealed to him, and many do.

In John 3:1-10, we have as clear a presentation of God's sovereignty as there is in the Bible. Immediately on it's heels, in vv. 11-21, is as clear a presentation as exists in Scripture of man's responsibility. If man has a responsibility, then he must have some part in the decision to follow Christ, even if it is so small a part as believing what only the Holy Spirit can enable. God does not manually insert the Holy Spirit into the human brain. He must be invited in.

In the John 3 passages cited, Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, at this point a doubter, a non-believer, though he is obviously seeking to understand the truth of Who he thinks Jesus might be. And Jesus immediately introduces to him to twin and parallel truths of divine sovereignty in salvation and human responsibility to accept it. In essense, Jesus says, "This is a work of God, solely a work of God, but you will be held responsible if you do not believe, and you are called to believe and eternal life awaits you if you will believe." Those are twin truths that run parallel.

How do you get these two truths to merge? You can't. They will always run parallel. They will always run parallel. They will never come together. They will never intersect. They will never be diminished. Legitimately, they are what they are. The fact that you don’t understand how they go together only proves that you’re less than you should be, and since I don't understand them either, so am I. It doesn’t say anything about God. Our inability to harmonize those things is a reflection of our fallenness. When someone asks me to harmonize these biblical facts, these truths, I have to say, "I can’t."

They can’t be harmonized in the human mind. But realize this, we are puny minds. It is an utter waste of time to try to reconcile these truths. They can't be reconciled in the human mind. It is impossible. Yet Calvinism pretends to do so. That's nothing more than man's folly and insistence that he not be denied understanding. Rather than simply accept God's truth, no matter how impossible it seems, we invent a God who is capricious and cruel, claiming He created some who can never know Him. How arrogant!!

Collectively we are puny compared to the infinite, vast, limitless mind of God. All I can tell you is that in the Word of God, these truths run parallel. And the answer is to believe them both with all your heart. The one, divine sovereignty, will inform your worship. The other, human responsibility, will motivate your evangelism. Why seek to do the impossible? Just believe. If we are ever intended to understand, we will -- in heaven.

What you're missing is that Jesus was pretty definitive that He will raise up those who are drawn. You can't just make a sharp left at the very end and avoid universalism.

 

[BBAS 64]

You ignore that the key word in the verse is not "draw" but "come," the Greek erchomai, coupled with the use of the Greek dunamai, translated here as "can." In this context, erchomai means to be established. We are established in Christ by faith alone. Dunamai as I'm sure you know, is "to be able." One can be drawn, but if one does not "come" there is no salvation. The onus, once the drawing, calling -- which is the opening of the mind -- is done by the power of the Holy Spirit, is then on man to believe. There is no two ways about it. God is sovereign, man is responsible.

Good Day,

I am waiting for your full exegesis of the passage....

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Those that are drawn WILL come to Christ.

How does that help your case?

That's a misinterpretation of the verse. Jesus will not raise up the ones "drawn." He will raise up the ones who "come." "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." That's obvious, particularly in the original Greek, which says "Oudeis dunamai erchomai pros Meh ean may ho Pater pempo autos kago anistemi autos en eschatos hemera." which translates literally as "No one is able to be established to [in] advantage of Me if unless the Father carries him; I will do likewise in raising him on the last day." Being carried is not being established, it is being placed in a position that one can be established. We have the responsibility to respond to the truth revealed not just to our mind, but to our soul, and Jesus will do in raising us up as the Father does in carrying us to that truth.

"All that the Father gives me WILL come to me" - Jesus , John 6:37

The Father's "giving" of us to Christ is dependent upon our having believed His truth. The word "come" in John 6:37 is heko, not erchomai as in John 6:44. The word is an aorist tense, meaning a one time action with continuous consequences -- specifically, belief -- puts us in Christ. Your verses disprove your hypothesis.

 

[Skala]

The Father's "giving" of us to Christ is dependent upon our having believed His truth.

Then why does Jesus tell the crowd later in the chapter that the reason some had not believed His truth is because the Father did not grant it to them?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Then why does Jesus tell the crowd later in the chapter that the reason some had not believed His truth is because the Father did not grant it to them?

The crowd had already rejected Him. They wanted free meals for life, not eternal life. Read Romans 1. It enlightened me when I was confused about Calvinism.

Also, Scripture never contradicts Scripture. If you quote another verse that appears to counter one I've exegeted, most likely your verse is not related, and is speaking of something else -- such as with this comparison of John 6, vv. 37 and 44.

 

[Hammster]

The crowd had already rejected Him. They wanted free meals for life, not eternal life. Read Romans 1. Maybe that will enlighten you.

But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 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." (John 6:64, 65 NASB)

The flaw in your argument is that on one hand you say that God draws everyone, and everyone must then choose, but here it says that they don't believe because it's not been granted by the Father. If your view was true He would have said that no one will come who doesn't want to.

 

[Skala]

The crowd had already rejected Him. They wanted free meals for life, not eternal life. Read Romans 1. It enlightened me when I was confused about Calvinism.

You didn't answer my question. You said the reason the Father gives people to Jesus is because they believe, but Jesus said the reason people don't believe is because the Father didn't give them to him.

So who is right? You or Jesus?

Also, Scripture never contradicts Scripture. If you quote another verse that appears to counter one I've exegeted, most likely your verse is not related, and is speaking of something else -- such as with this comparison of John 6, vv. 37 and 44.

Is this what you did when you brought John 12:32 into the picture?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

You didn't answer my question. You said the reason the Father gives people to Jesus is because they believe, but Jesus said the reason people don't believe is because the Father didn't give them to him.

So who is right? You or Jesus?

Your mode of "argument" is mostly disingenuous. I did answer your question regarding John 6:37 right here:

The Father's "giving" of us to Christ is dependent upon our having believed His truth. The word "come" in John 6:37 is heko, not erchomai as in John 6:44. The word is an aorist tense, meaning a one time action with continuous consequences -- specifically, belief -- puts us in Christ. Your verses disprove your hypothesis.

Then you asked me about the crowds later in the chapter, and as I said, they had already rejected Him, preferring free meals for this life as opposed to eternal life, the former of which He was not in the business of giving, but the latter of which was most certainly theirs for simply believing.

Is this what you did when you brought John 12:32 into the picture?

All men are drawn, not all are called. Simple as that. Again, the word translated "draw" does not mean to establish, but simply to impel, as in to listen.

What you're missing is that Jesus was pretty definitive that He will raise up those who are drawn. You can't just make a sharp left at the very end and avoid universalism.

You can't make a word mean what it doesn't. What you're missing is the "drawing" is not establishing in Christ. It is only (as explained in my post, #64 on this thread) is that drawing is not salvation. It is only impelling to a point, as to listen, or do. It is not the act to which one is called.

 

[Hammster]

Your mode of "argument" is mostly disingenuous. I did answer your question regarding John 6:37 right here:Then you asked me about the crowds later in the chapter, and as I said, they had already rejected Him, preferring free meals for this life as opposed to eternal life, the former of which He was not in the business of giving, but the latter of which was most certainly theirs for simply believing.All men are drawn, not all are called. Simple as that. Again, the word translated "draw" does not mean to establish, but simply to impel, as in to listen.
You can't make a word mean what it doesn't. What you're missing is the "drawing" is not establishing in Christ. It is only (as explained in my post, #64 on this thread) is that drawing is not salvation. It is only impelling to a point, as to listen, or do. It is not the act to which one is called.

So all are drawn, but not all are called? Do I understand that correctly?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

So all are drawn, but not all are called? Do I understand that correctly?

I've oversimplified it. Essentially yes, but by "not all are called" I mean they do not respond to the Gospel, to which God opens the mind, the heart, the soul to believe. I suppose you, as a Calvinist, would say they were not "effectively called." I don't agree with that characterization because it implies God is not omnipotent. However, since He is omnipotent, and states categorically that He desires no man shoujld perish but all should come to repentance -- and how will they come to repentance without salvation? -- then man must have the capability of rejecting God's truth. Not inability to believe, ability to disbelieve. There is a difference.

Some will not even allow the opening of their soul, rejecting God's efforts. That is the extent to which Total Depravity/Inability is true, that the soul must be opened by the power of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, as I said in my post here, #57, man has the ability to reject. God did not create any to be rejected by Him. They must reject Him. The breakdown of the Greek I gave in post #64 shows that the original languages support that concept.

 

[Skala]

Your mode of "argument" is mostly disingenuous. I did answer your question regarding John 6:37 right here:

You made some assertions but they had little to do with the context.
If you read verses 35ff you will note that Jesus equates "coming to Him" with "believing in Him". He's using the two phrases interchangeably. He is fond of doing this. You might recall him saying somewhere "You refuse to come to me, that you might have life". (He's saying "You refuse to believe in me, that you might have life". Previous chapter, John 5:40)

This proves that Jesus uses the phrase "come to me" in a way that is salvific.

All men are drawn, not all are called. Simple as that.

Not all individuals are drawn. Jesus explicitly says this when he tells the audience there is still unbelievers precisely because the Father did not grant it to them to come to Him (ie, the Father did not draw them to Him)

He says "This is why I told you that no man can come to me unless granted by the Father". But if you notice, he didn't actually use that exact phrase. Instead, earlier in the conversation, he was speaking about the Father drawing people to Jesus. So when he says "This is why I told you (earlier)...", he is simply repeating what he already said: The Father draws people to Him. If they don't believe, it is evidence they were not drawn by the Father.

Again, the word translated "draw" does not mean to establish, but simply to impel, as in to listen.
You can't make a word mean what it doesn't.

I'm not making it mean something it doesn't. In fact, the opposite is true. You are the one making it mean something other than what it means. The Greek word for draw is helkuo, which is the same word the author (John, and elsewhere, Peter and James) used for the following:

1) drawing fish with a net (John 21:6, 21:11)
2) drawing a sword from a sheath (John 18:10)
3) dragging the apostles into the marketplaces (Acts 16:19)
4) dragged Paul out of the temple (Acts 21:30)
5) The rich oppress you and drag you into court (James 2:6)

The meaning of the word is clear, to effectually do something. It doesn't mean to "woo" or "attract" or "persuade". Instead it is a more powerful word that gets results. When you "draw" fish with a net, you are capturing them and dragging them into the boat. When you draw a sword, you don't say "Come here sword, Please come, I hope you come". You grab it and forcibly pull it from its sheath.

Anyone who says "draw" means to "woo" or persuade is missing the meaning of the word.

The fact is, if someone is drawn to Jesus, they come to Jesus. They believe in Jesus.

Praise God's grace that He drew us to Jesus, so that we would be saved. Right brother?

 

[Hammster]

I've oversimplified it. Essentially yes, but by "not all are called" I mean they do not respond to the Gospel, to which God opens the mind, the heart, the soul to believe. I suppose you, as a Calvinist, would say they were not "effectively called." I don't agree with that characterization because it implies God is not omnipotent. However, since He is omnipotent, and states categorically that He desires no man shoujld perish but all should come to repentance -- and how will they come to repentance without salvation? -- then man must have the capability of rejecting God's truth. Not inability to believe, ability to disbelieve. There is a difference.

Some will not even allow the opening of their soul, rejecting God's efforts. That is the extent to which Total Depravity/Inability is true, that the soul must be opened by the power of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, as I said in my post here, #57, man has the ability to reject. God did not create any to be rejected by Him. They must reject Him. The breakdown of the Greek I gave in post #64 shows that the original languages support that concept.

You've equated the calling of God with responding to the gospel. That changes the definition of called.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

You made some assertions but they had little to do with the context.
If you read verses 35ff you will note that Jesus equates "coming to Him" with "believing in Him". He's using the two phrases interchangeably.

Agreed. But that is not what you said. Earlier, you made the claim that "drawing" is also believing, and I've shown that to be incorrect.

Not all individuals are drawn. Jesus explicitly says this when he tells the audience there is still unbelievers precisely because the Father did not grant it to them to come to Him (ie, the Father did not draw them to Him)

Same error all over again. I've shown that "drawing" is not "coming" to Christ. Coming to Christ is salvation by faith alone. "Drawing" -- look at post #64 again -- in the Greek is literally being carried, and the context of the verse proves that being drawn is simply being brought to a place where one can be given truth. Accepting it is another step, acknowledging the call by believing His truth.

He says "This is why I told you that no man can come to me unless granted by the Father". But if you notice, he didn't actually use that exact phrase. Instead, earlier in the conversation, he was speaking about the Father drawing people to Jesus. So when he says "This is why I told you (earlier)...", he is simply repeating what he already said: The Father draws people to Him. If they don't believe, it is evidence they were not drawn by the Father.

The only time in Chapter 6 the term "draw" or "draws" is used in in v. 44. He does not refer to drawing anyone elsewhere in the chapter.

I'm not making it mean something it doesn't. In fact, the opposite is true. You are the one making it mean something other than what it means. The Greek word for draw is helkuo, which is the same word the author (John, and elsewhere, Peter and James) used for the following:

1) drawing fish with a net (John 21:6, 21:11)
2) drawing a sword from a sheath (John 18:10)
3) dragging the apostles into the marketplaces (Acts 16:19)
4) dragged Paul out of the temple (Acts 21:30)
5) The rich oppress you and drag you into court (James 2:6)

The meaning of the word is clear, to effectually do something.

Wrong. It means exactly what I've shown it to mean. For example, if I "draw" you -- drag you -- to a meeting of the Republican Party, have I converted you to party doctrine? No. I've only gotten you, albeit against your will, to a place you can listen to what the Party believes. You can claim that doesn't make it the same thing as helkuo if you like, but you will no more correct then than you are now.

It doesn't mean to "woo" or "attract" or "persuade". Instead it is a more powerful word that gets results. When you "draw" fish with a net, you are capturing them and dragging them into the boat.

But you aren't turning them into a flllet, are you? All you've done is move them from one place to another. You have done nothing to change their state, only their location.

When you draw a sword, you don't say "Come here sword, Please come, I hope you come". You grab it and forcibly pull it from its sheath.

And again, all you've done is change it's location. It was a sword in the sheath, and it is still a sword, and if you don't know what to do with it, you're gonna die.

Anyone who says "draw" means to "woo" or persuade is missing the meaning of the word.

Yet that is precisely what you and Hammster are trying to make it mean. Drawing doesn't convert anyone. It gets them to a place they can listen, and decide to be converted, although in this case, even that is impossible unless the heart, the soul, their mind is opened to belief by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The fact is, if someone is drawn to Jesus, they come to Jesus. They believe in Jesus.

Don't you see the dichotomy you've created here? You just said "Anyone who says "draw" means "woo" or "persuade" is missing the meaning of the word." Yet you insist that by the Holy Spirit getting someone to listen with their heart and soul, they are converted. Sorry, but just like me dragging you to a political party meeting, getting you there doesn't make you a member of the party.

Praise God's grace that He drew us to Jesus, so that we would be saved. Right brother?

Praise God that He drew us to Jesus so we could listen, and hear, and believe. Amen.

 

[JM]

It should be crystal clear from the drawing below that the Assyrians converted these folks.

 

[Skala]

Agreed. But that is not what you said. Earlier, you made the claim that "drawing" is also believing, and I've shown that to be incorrect.

I never said drawing was believing. I said drawing resulted in believing, because of the following logic:

P1 All who are drawn come to Jesus
P2 Come to Jesus is synonymous with believe in Jesus
C All who are drawn believe in Jesus

As for the rest of your argument, you show that you don't understand the soteriology you are arguing against.

Calvinists don't' believe that God draws people kicking and screaming to Jesus and forces them to do something they are unwilling to do. The heart is not skipped over in salvation. The will is not left alone in salvation. God changes our hearts from stone to flesh. He quickens us so that we are no longer spiritually dead, but alive. He removes the scales from our eyes.

In short, God converts us. Regeneration entails a powerful spiritual change in the person so that they are now willing to do what previously they were unwilling to do. Namely, repent of the sins they formerly loved and embraced the God they formerly hated and were enemies with.

What, did you think you converted yourself?
Keep in mind who actually converted you next time you are singing worship songs on Sunday

Praise God that He drew us to Jesus so we could listen, and hear, and believe. Amen.

Praise God he converted us, right brother? He did more than just bring us to a point and leave us in our depravity. Observe:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3)

You were dead and God made you alive, by grace you have been saved! (Eph 2)

he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, (Tit 3:5)

If you think your salvation was nothing more than the result of some neurons firing in your brain in a certain pattern, that your salvation was nothing more than an intellectual decision you made with your mind, I am truly saddened for you. I am truly saddened if you don't see the Holy Spirit's role in your salvation. He worked hard to convert you and make a powerful change in you. So like, what do you do with all of those Bible verses which describe how God changes us and turns us 'round? Nothing? Ignore them? Do they not apply to you?

 

[Bluelion]

Good Day, Bluelion

For what purpose(s) does God Draw men to himself?

Does he draw all men?

Please provide the evidence that Judas was drawn.

Man does have free-will, just how unconstrained that will is there is the question.

Define what you mean by free-will.

In Him

Bill

Well if you don't know judas story maybe you need to research, clearly he was drawn.

Define free will thought that was quite clear, not going to have philosophical debate about free will and what it is.

 

[Skala]

Define free will thought that was quite clear, not going to have philosophical debate about free will and what it is.

If it's so clear you should be able to define it.

Go on.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Skala, when you can discuss without misrepresenting what I've said, ignoring what I've said and attempting to restate it, and stop acting as if I've said salvation is of my own volition, we can continue. Your last post, however, is totally disingenuous, derogatory, and misrepresentative of my arguments. If that is what you have to do to "win," there must be considerably wrong with what you have to say.

 

[Skala]

Skala, when you can discuss without misrepresenting what I've said, ignoring what I've said and attempting to restate it, and stop acting as if I've said salvation is of my own volition, we can continue. Your last post, however, is totally disingenuous, derogatory, and misrepresentative of my arguments. If that is what you have to do to "win," there must be considerably wrong with what you have to say.

Where did I misrepresent you?