Why do Arminians...

[Hammster]

So obviously the meaning or connotation is dependant on the use IN context, right? They weren't DRAGGING wine out of the barrels were they?

I'm sure you meant reference.

Yes, dragging does work here. Wooing or enticing certainly doesn't.

 

[Hammster]

That's right, so you approve of the word the translators use here as it doesn't threaten your POV, but you equivocate on how it can't have another connotation somewhere else? That would be the height of bias.

BTW, woo and entice were your words, again to equivocate on the issue.

Thayer's show it is sued in a metaphorical use and connotes to draw by inward power, lead, impel.

You can read what Trench has to say on it HERE.
Vine's comments;
This less violent significance, usually present in helko, but always absent from suro, is seen in the metaphorical use of helko, to signify "drawing" by inward power, by Divine impulse, Jhn 6:44; 12:32. So in the Sept., e.g., Sgs 1:4; Jer 31:3, "with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

Sadly this will probably not convince any who are bound by the RT dogmas, but it is how the verse is properly rendered in the NT.

Impel? I can live with that.

 

[drstevej]

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson use to say, "God tickles our willer."

 

[stan1953]

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson use to say, "God tickles our willer."

I'm not sure if I should laugh at this or not, but it is consistent with Phil 2:13.

 

[OzSpen]

By Kevin Schooley



1. If becoming an Arminian would really be a temptation to boast for you, then please remain a Calvinist.

Arminians are typically accused of holding to a view that allows us to boast, because we chose to receive God's gift when others did not. Now, most people are grateful to receive gifts, and thank those who give them to us. But perhaps you're the type who, on Christmas morning, jumps up after unwrapping presents and starts gloating about the great gifts you were smart enough to receive. Maybe you compare yourself to those who scorn gifts, and brag about how much better you are than they are. If this describes you, then I heartily recommend that you hang on to your Calvinism. It is protecting you against a temptation to vainglory that you evidently would fall into otherwise.

2. If you think that God empowering people to accept or reject Jesus somehow makes Him weak, impotent, or powerless, then you really should continue in your Calvinism.

Most of us consider it a sign of strength and confidence to give someone else the opportunity to accept or reject something--love, a job, a gift, whatever. In God's case, it would be the offer of salvation. Giving us the power to accept or reject that gift shows us that He is sovereign regardless of what our choice is. His deity does not depend on controlling our response. He is God whether we acknowledge Him or not; He just graciously invites us into His family. But if giving us the opportunity to respond would somehow diminish God in your eyes--if God can't be God without predetermining the individual response of each person--then by all means, hold tight to Calvinism.

3. If you actually think that God cannot remain sovereign without dictating the minutia of every event that occurs, then by all means, remain a Calvinist.
Some--not all--Calvinists believe that God's sovereignty necessitates an absolute determinism in which He predetermines every event that has occurred or will occur. We Arminians believe that God remains sovereign--that His reign will be established and His will will be accomplished--despite allowing room for creaturely freedom, or even rebellion against His plan. He is so great that creaturely rebellion against Him cannot possibly have any impact on His final plan--He is so great that He doesn't need to directly control every event in the universe. But if you can't get your head around this--if your view of God is so small that He must micromanage His creation in order to get His will done, then by all means, cling to Calvinism.

4. If you actually believe that accepting a freely-given gift of salvation somehow would make you your own "co-savior," then please don't abandon your Calvinism.

Personally, I can't fathom this. I can't imagine thinking, "Yes, God became flesh and Jesus lived a sinless life and sacrificed Himself, dying a brutal, torturous death, all the while restraining Himself from calling a legion of angels to rescue him; He died and then rose, conquering death and the grave, showed Himself to His disciples and empowered them through the Holy Spirit to share this gospel and pass it down the generations; God did all this--but I get credit too, because I accepted the invitation! I'm my own co-savior!" But since this charge is thrown against Arminians as the "logical consequence" of our soteriology, I can only conclude that that is precisely how many Calvinists would view their own salvation if they adopted the Arminian view. If that's you, then please grab hold of your Calvinism and don't let go.

5. If adopting an Arminian view of salvation would somehow make you really feel that salvation is "man-centered" rather than "God-centered," then for God's sake, hold on to your Calvinism.

If you can take a plan of salvation that was chosen before the foundations of the world by God, provision for that plan made by God, an offer based on that plan made available by God, our own ability to respond positively to it graciously granted to us by God--if you can take this whole thing and somehow make it "man-centered," just because human beings are empowered to accept it and be included, or reject it and exclude themselves--if you don't see how salvation is, from beginning to end, Christ-centered, then whatever you do, please do not abandon the Calvinism that cuts you out of any active participation in the process whatever. Better to think that salvation has nothing to do with you than to believe that somehow you place yourself in the center of the process simply by virtue of your acceptance or rejection of it.
So basically, if Calvinism would make you into the stereotype of an Arminian that you seem to believe us to be, then please don't become an Arminian. You'll only make us look ridiculous."

Why don't you take a read of the Society of Evangelical Arminians explanation of election in, ‘The FACTS of Salvation, C: Conditional Election‘

Henry C Thiessen does not identify himself as an Arminian, but his views are sympathetic with those of Arminianism. I used his text when in a Bible college in the early 1970s in Australia where the teacher of theology was an Arminian. Thiessen provided this definition:

1. The Definition of Election. By election we mean that sovereign act of God in grace whereby he chose in Christ Jesus for salvation all those he foreknew would accept him. This is election in its redemptive aspect. The Scriptures also speak of an election to outward privileges (Luke 6:13, Judas; Acts 13:17; Rom. 9:4; 11:28, Israel) to sonship (Eph. 1;4, 5; Rom. 8:29, 33), and to a particular office (Moses and Aaron, Ps. 105:26; David, 1 Sam. 16:12; 20:30; Solomon, 1 Chron. 28:5; and the Apostles, Luke 6:13 – 16; John 6:70; Acts 1:2, 24; 9:15; 22:14). But we are here concerned with election as related to salvation, and so we analyze the above definition more fully.

(1) Election and Foreknowledge. Election is a sovereign act of God; He was under no obligation to elect anyone, since all had lost their standing before God. Even after Christ had died, God was not obliged to apply that salvation, except as He owed it to Christ to keep the agreement with him as to man’s salvation. Election is a sovereign act, because it was not due to any constraint laid upon God. It was an act in grace, in that He chose those who were utterly unworthy of salvation. Man deserved the exact opposite; but in His grace God chose to save some. He chose them ‘in Christ.’ He could not choose them in themselves because of their ill-desert; so He chose them in the merits of another. Furthermore, He chose those who He foreknew would accept Christ. The Scriptures definitely base God’s election on His foreknowledge: ‘Whom he foreknew, he also foreordained,… and whom He foreordained, them He also called’ (Rom. 8:29, 30); ‘to the elect… according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’ (1 Pet. 1: 1, 2). Although we are nowhere told what it is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teaching of Scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man’s reaction to the revelation that God has made of himself that is the basis of His election. May we repeat: Since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him. This is the salvation-bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men. In His foreknowledge He perceives what each one will do with this restored ability, and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him. There is no merit in this transaction, as Buswell has clearly shown in his allegory of the captain who is beaten into unconsciousness by the crew on the deck of his vessel, if that captain is revived by restoratives and then accepts the proffered leadership of a captain from another vessel who has come to his rescue (Thiessen 1949:344; also HERE).​

Oz

Works consulted
Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.