For J.P. Holding, on Arminianism

[Sheepdog]

hi folks, this is a spill-over of a discussion on another thread. I would have totally hijacked the thread, so i opted to do this here. please note that this is ment to be informative. I don't intend to debate whether Arminianism is actually true or not.

original converstation can be found here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...5979#post285979
(yes, it is a pick of the day... figures that I of all people would turn it into a discussion on Arminianism :ahem:)

I as an Arminian would not dispute your responses to TULIP. in fact, i agree that we need to go back to the Author's (and authors') meaning in the 1st Century-- not to the interpretation of said meanings from the c. 16th Century.

beyond that, a disctinctively Arminian position would have a further refinement of your position on U; and L could go either way.

On U, i think you hit the nail on the head: "'Does God foreknow because he foreordains or does he foreordain because he foreknows?' The latter seems to please Arminians; the former seems to please Calvinists" (Un Conditioning (http://www.tektonics.org/ulip.html)). Although, i think both sides have habitually bastardized what Rom. 8:29 is trying to say (perhaps another passage for you to cover in suppliment to your TULIP articles? just a thought). To narrow the view down a bit, i further propose that the contention between the views is, what is predestination contingent on? i would argue that the traditional Arminian supposes that "whosoever believes" are predestined to salvation (and to be conformed to the likeness of his Son); whereas Calvinists suppose that folks are predestined to salvation and belief, according to God's unrevealed will (or plan, purpose, or good pleasure). i think that these views are the only ones that could conceivably be interpreted from Scripture.

John Wesley places the source of the contention in the form of a dilemma, "'Is predestination absolute or conditional?' The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute." (What Is an Arminian? (http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian.stm), paragraph 10). I think this is a helpful approach, though i prefer starting from Previent Grace and working the other way.

now on General Atonement, the Arminian doctrine, there is a bit of ambiguity. The original creed made by the Remonstrants says this: That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (The Remonstrant Articles (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm), Article 2). The actual ambiguity isn't obvious, but i have observed two distinct interpretations of the doctrine.

1) that Christ actually suffered for all in the sense that his blood covers all sins, and it is disbelief that keeps people from being saved. (i've seen a couple on the CARM forums hold this view)

2) that Christ suffered for all, so that his blood would cover the sins of anyone who believes. in this view atonement is limited in a sense, but by man's belief/disbelief, rather than God's absolute election. (Jaltus, myself, and a few others here hold this one)

I believe that the second position is the most biblical and theologically sound, though i can see how some might come to the first interpretation from verses like 1Jn. 2:2. Interestingly enough, an adherent to the latter view would not disagree at all with your language: "Christ suffered sufficiently to atone for all the world's sins, but suffered effectively only for the elect" (Within Limits (http://www.tektonics.org/lip.html)); that is, so long as it is recognized that "elect" and "believers" are roughly equivalent (which is obviously true, but remember that Calvinists load the term "elect" differently from Arminians). Where we contrast from Calvinism's Limited Atonement is that in their view it is impossible for any person who is not elect to be atoned for (hence it is limited in the most literal sense). On the other hand, we believe that the nonelect could have been atoned for, since anyone could have believed in Christ. As you see, our respective positions on atonement are closely related to how each side views the belief-election relationship.

in regards to Apostasy and Anxiety (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AAA.html), my personal view of Conditional Assurance (people use the term "Conditional Eternal Security." i think it is oxymoronic, but oh well), is pretty much along the same lines. And in fact, a lot of Arminians i have chatted with have come to the same conclusion.

[Sheepdog]

one thing, upon reflection, i realized i should correct.


Sheepdog:

I as an Arminian would not dispute your responses to TULIP. in fact, i agree that we need to go back to the Author's (and authors') meaning in the 1st Century-- not to the interpretation of said meanings from the c. 16th Century.


it should be noted that i do read and consider the insights of modern writers and even historical writers, but i tend to place more emphasis an info we have regarding the view the writers would have from their cultural background.

[Jaltus]

Good thread. I think we can try to lay out the different doctrines of Arminianism more fully as we go, if you wish.

[Sheepdog]

that'd be good. i didn't want a debate, but i really don't want to discourage informative discussion either.

[geebob]

If you start a thread with anyone in particular in mind, be sure to send him a pm with a link to this thread.

[Sheepdog]

i linked to this thread from the the other thread. Holding mentioned he might be too busy, so i assume he is aware of this thread. you think i should PM him anyways?

[jpholding]

Yes you should have. Luckily I saw this at a bottomside list. I'll get back to it tomorrow.

[Sheepdog]

oh, sorry about that JP.

[jpholding]

Okey doke...now to business... :smile: But I have a dumb question...what was I being asked about?

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 01:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=301401#post301401)
jpholding:

Okey doke...now to business... :smile: But I have a dumb question...what was I being asked about?

i guess you weren't being asked about anything per se. i was joking about converting you to Arminianism, you commented that people have thought you were one anyways. i figured it would be cool to have a conversation about where your view and Arminianism are similar, and where they contrast. there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding at large about what Arminianism teaches (and what it doesn't)-- i'd dare say that even many who profess to be Arminians don't know what it is, and many who claim to be middle-of-the-road are actually Arminian in theology. this is just from my observations, however.

i figured if you had any doubt or lack of knowledge about Arminianism, we could flesh this out. i honestly don't know how much you studied about our side of the spectrum, so it's possible you know it better than me! :smile: either way i figured this would be a fruitful topic to explore.

i'll be gone for the weekend, so if you post from not till then, i can get back to you monday or possibly sunday night. coo?

[geebob]

i'd dare say that even many who profess to be Arminians don't know what it is

arminianism is just the name for the free will tradition in much of protestantism. most arminians don't feel all that compelled to stick to arminius even on all the details in which he defended free will.

why, just look at Arminian.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 09:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=303114#post303114)
geebob:

arminianism is just the name for the free will tradition in much of protestantism. most arminians don't feel all that compelled to stick to arminius even on all the details in which he defended free will.

why, just look at Arminian.

i could have sworn Arminian said that he wasn't ... an Arminian :hrm:

i would agree and disagree, sort of. there is enough wiggle room so that different views have emerged within Arminianism (to some extent the same could be said about Calvinism). however, i would be cautious to define an Arminian as any Christian who disagrees with Calvinism-- lest the term becomes as meaningless as the term "Christian" as become in the popular culture.

i would agree that the definition is heading that way, if it isn't already there. i just disagree that it should.

[geebob]

i would agree and disagree, sort of. there is enough wiggle room so that different views have emerged within Arminianism (to some extent the same could be said about Calvinism). however, i would be cautious to define an Arminian as any Christian who disagrees with Calvinism-- lest the term becomes as meaningless as the term "Christian" as become in the popular culture.

I didn't. catholics don't consider themselves arminians or calvinsits.

actually, there are even reformed theists who prettymuch disagree with all five points of calvinism. For example, up in michigan, there's calvin college which has one of the best undergraduate departments in philosophy. And all the faculty up there are free will theists.

I consider myself an arminian because I come from that tradition, the methodist tradition which championed arminius and I hold to several of the main tennents.

as for the term getting a little squishy, it's really nothing. You should see what wittgenstein observes about the term "game."

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 11:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=303273#post303273)
geebob:

I didn't. catholics don't consider themselves arminians or calvinsits.

err... you know what i meant though, right? even with a definition akin to "any protestant who believes in free will and disagrees with key points in TULIP," it becomes too vague. if i claim to be an Arminian, Gebob claims to be an Arminian, yet we make statements that totally contradict each other, what is the Calvinist to think? It is little wonder why the Arminian Strawman market is on a steady rise-- everyone is just too darned confused about what Arminianism is, and isn't.


actually, there are even reformed theists who prettymuch disagree with all five points of calvinism.

i'm not sure they could be called reformed if they disagree with the five points. otherwise, i'm reformed :ahem: (though i do hold to T)


...

as for the term getting a little squishy, it's really nothing. You should see what wittgenstein observes about the term "game."

if a term get's a little soft, i don't object. (some Arminians probably wouldn't consider me an Arminian because of my position on Atonement). the problem is, the more broad a term becomes, the less useful it becomes in practical discourse. we've already seen this happen with "Christian." in America you can no longer ask someone, "are you a Christian?" and get any useful information about the person from one's answer.

[geebob]

if i claim to be an Arminian, Gebob claims to be an Arminian,

then we agree on some things really important to the paradigm.


what is the Calvinist to think?

that paradigms are broad enough such that there are in house squabbles.


It is little wonder why the Arminian Strawman market is on a steady rise

or shallow blanket statements that refuse complexity to the world of ideas.


i'm not sure they could be called reformed if they disagree with the five points. otherwise, i'm reformed

The reformed tradition is too rich to be reduced to the debate on theological determinism. Many reformed scholars though knowing that that issue was very important to calvin are still faithful to other very important distinctives of the tradition.

In epistemology for example, Alvin Plantinga, a fine free will theist (has argued the "free will defence" (which uses libertarian free will BTW, and that's where the definition I use here on the web comes from) so successfully that real philosophers of the atheistic sort (not your interent "free thinkers") don't really talk about the logical problem of evil any more) has piorneered "reformed epistemology" which is part of the project of defending the knowledge of God "without arguements."

There's a lot that goes on in reformed epistemology, such as warrent, and arguements for the rationality of taking belief in God as "properly basic," but some of the main features are inspired by calvin himself.

Another good one to note is that John Sander's book "THe God who Risks" is heavily documented (I rarely run across books with a foot note section as think as his. Open theists are far from shallow on the scholarship). His book is a decent length, and yet one fifth of it is footnotes. Most of those notes tracing deeper support of his arguemets come from reformed scholars.

Free will theists of the reformed bent like Plantinga, Nicolaus Wolterstorff, and Vincent Brummer probably know far more about Calvin and how to understand him then some of your run of the mill "scholastic calvinists" (the likes of RC Sproul), But no, they can't be considered reformed because some calvinists' world revolves narrowly and uninterestingly around just that one issue of theological determinism.

[Sheepdog]

i'm just going go concede since we are going a bit off topic, and this isn't too critical-- i could always define myself as a "Classical Arminian," though i do so grudgingly.

but note that we are using different parameters, as i don't frame the dispute in terms of free will / determinism. rather, i propose that the dispute is over the nature of Predestination (is it based on some unrevealed divine will, or based on belief of creatures?). one's position on the other doctrines and on free will are a natural outcome of the answer to that question, as well as from Scripture as a whole. or at least they should be, in my opinion.


alrighty Holding, maybe it'll be easier on both of us if i frame this thread with the question, "What in the first post would you dispute, from your current theological position?" or what do you think could be biblical or even would agree with? have a good weekend, all :cool:

[geebob]

i could always define myself as a "Classical Arminian,"

good idea.


propose that the dispute is over the nature of Predestination (is it based on some unrevealed divine will, or based on belief of creatures?).

but that might emphasize to much of a wedge between classical arminians and modern scholars who hold to corporate election. You might be making your view closer to calvinism then arminians who would in fact have more aggreements with you.


since we are going a bit off topic, and this isn't too critical

I'll quit then, regrading that issue. I thought your topic was a bit squishy anyhow though.

[Sheepdog]

heh, sorry Gebob, but i was compelled against my will to respond :tongue:


Today @ 11:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=304811#post304811)
geebob:

but that might emphasize to much of a wedge between classical arminians and modern scholars who hold to corporate election. You might be making your view closer to calvinism then arminians who would in fact have more aggreements with you.

i was given the impression that corporate election wasn't so much a doctrine but an interpretation of certain passages. but, i don't think what i said is mutually exclusive of corporate election, as one could argue from the perspective that God chose a class of people which entry into that class is based on belief.

I've been told that even Arminius interpreted Rom. 9 to mean that the spiritual children of Abraham were elected over the nonbelieving natural descendants. i.e. no individual election was in view.


I'll quit then, regrading that issue.

i apologize, as i don't mean to sound like I am kicking you out. you do raise some good points i didn't anticipate.

[jpholding]

Sheepdog:

i guess you weren't being asked about anything per se. i was joking about converting you to Arminianism, you commented that people have thought you were one anyways. i figured it would be cool to have a conversation about where your view and Arminianism are similar, and where they contrast.

Oh. :doh: Well, the peculiarity of that is, since I came at what I believe by starting with Jewish thought of the NT era, and all the social science stuff...not knowing what all the categories were...it may be inevitable that you'll find stuff in there that every party will say, "Uh huh" to....

i figured if you had any doubt or lack of knowledge about Arminianism, we could flesh this out. i honestly don't know how much you studied about our side of the spectrum

Not at all. :smile: I find I can be most objective if I stay away from knowing what party believes what, as possible.

In any event I saw nothing disagreeable in the first post. :smile:

JP

[Sheepdog]

well, in the sense that gebob was advocating, Holding, you would be an Arminian :wink:


Today @ 02:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=305474#post305474)
jpholding:

Oh. :doh: Well, the peculiarity of that is, since I came at what I believe by starting with Jewish thought of the NT era, and all the social science stuff...not knowing what all the categories were...it may be inevitable that you'll find stuff in there that every party will say, "Uh huh" to....

huh. the funny thing is, i came to my position in just my daily Bible study and meditation. to this day i have never read a systematic text by any major theologian. (the closest would be your material on TULIP, but i was already at my position and that seemed to cement my framework). i honestly believed i was middle-of-the-road, until i started posting around, asking Calvinists questions and challenging them. i noticed that there was never any dispute between myself and the Arminians, so i started inquiring about their position.

at this point i am going through the New Testament again, with the help of a background commentary. it is interesting how a lot of gaps have been filled by learning about the NT culture and tradition. i've changed my position on different issues, and i probably will again in the future.


Not at all. :smile: I find I can be most objective if I stay away from knowing what party believes what, as possible.

i can understand that. i still am partial to your quote... somewhere: that you'd want know what the NT writers were thinking more than theologians in the 16-17th centuries, or something like that. i can't say i haven't already been biased, but i'd like to be on a similar track.


In any event I saw nothing disagreeable in the first post. :smile:

cool. :smile: though, i take it that doesn't necessarily mean you agree either :huh:

if you have the time and would like to, maybe next week i could toss up some scripture references that have been pivotal to me, state my interpretation as an Arminian, and you could comment on them in light of what you know about the socio-historical background? it's honestly ok if you are unable to, as i'm sure you have bigger fish to fry :herring:

or we could do what is normally done: try to pin each other in undesirable philosophical contructs, without really addressing the issues :noid: :lol:

[jpholding]

Sheepdog:


if you have the time and would like to, maybe next week i could toss up some scripture references that have been pivotal to me, state my interpretation as an Arminian, and you could comment on them in light of what you know about the socio-historical background?

Sure, but it would be best to wait until after the holiday. I should still have Net access even when I travel.
:thumb:

JP

[Sheepdog]

...doesn't the Count... count? :huh:


jpholding:

Sure, but it would be best to wait until after the holiday. I should still have Net access even when I travel.
:thumb:

the funny thing is, i just realized it is probable that i won't be around form some of the holiday season. :doh: That's Moseran Foresight for ya. :haha: if there are delays, no biggie. that's what i like about discussion forums.

I'm not aware of any Arminians who would disagree with your findings on Total Depravity (i think only Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians would dispute it). The Vine allegory in John adds another statement affirming man's inability to please God apart from Christ (John 15:5).

Beyond that, i'll start with a common misuse of John 6:44: [Jesus said:] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." I've seen folks correctly interpret this as "All people who come are drawn people," but then invalidly convert it to "All drawn people are people who come." On Born Bad (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BB.html), you appeal to John 12:32 to show that this cannot be since not all men are saved. The difficulty i have in discussing theology with Calvinists, they often carpet bomb one with examples of where "all men" or "whole world" (or equivalents) are used hyperbolicaly in the Bible, and thus they think this gives them some wiggle room around John 12:32. Of course, we could counter by carpetbombing with verses like Rom. 3:23.

Ultimately, I think it is sufficient to point out that they commit some sort of distribution fallacy (i'm not aware if there is a proper term for this one), where it is reasoned that "all S are P; therefore all P are S." In reality all the statement ("All people who come are drawn people") only tells us that the class "People who come and aren't drawn" is an empty set, i.e. no one can exist in that class. We can counter-example by the analogous argument, "All cats are mammals, therefore all mammals are cats." Obviously the latter doesn't follow from the former.

Thus, those who argue along these lines interpret far too much from John 6:44, as Jesus tells us nothing here of whether there are people in the class, "Have been drawn and don't come."

(edit: indeed, i realized it should be, "all drawn people are people who can come." it seems that switching the subject and predicate also gets a true statement: "all people who can come are drawn people;" though i'm not sure why.)

I do agree with your interpretation of John 12:32, and in fact it is a major factor in Arminian theology. If a Calvinist wants to come along and dispute it, i'll leave the onus on him.

On the topic of election and predestination (i often treat them as being equivalent ["all elected are predestined" and "all predestined are elected"]), i'd like to start out with some prooftexts often used by Calvinists, then next time move to the Pro-Conditional Predestination passages. My earlier statement is important on this point: To narrow the view down a bit, i further propose that the contention between the views is, what is predestination contingent on? I've observed that Calvinists often toss up some passage that speaks of predestination, as though it supports their view. What's important here is that we Arminians don't dispute that some people are predestined, but what Calvinists think this predestination entails. Hence, I often get ran into circles like in this discussion that happened on Paltalk: Sheepdog: ... Even in Arminianism God is doing all the work of salvation. all man does is choose. do you think choice is a work?

Person 1: Sheepdog, man doesn't choose God, He chose us: John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you"

SD: you are taking that verse out to context. Jesus is talking to the Disciples

Person 2: we were chosen by God before the foundation of the world (posibly quoted Scripture, i don't recall)*

SD: P2, based on what did He chose us?

P1: Jesus was talking to all his disciples

SD: no, P1. he was talking to the Twelve

P3: we are chosen according to God's will, not based on anything we do

P2: He chose us based on his Good pleasure, Eph 1:5 "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

SD: we were chosen according to God's will-- but what is His will?

SD: What is God's good pleasure?

P1: we were ordained to believe, Acts 13:48

SD: based on what were we ordained?

P2: we were ordained according to God's will

SD: but, can you tell me what God's will is...

*(text in parentheses is my commentary after the fact) you know what i felt like when i was done!? maybe Toby would understand :lol:
http://www.tektonics.org/log_beg.gif
To start:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3-6, NASB

Calvinists tend to argue that this passage teaches us that each Christian is elected and predestined to adoption, not because of anything we do, but because of the "good pleasure" of God's "will." Arminians often rebut that the passage speaks of corporate election, that God is electing the church here, not individuals. But is this necessary? Even if the corporate election interpretation is right (unless they have scholarship on their side, i think it is ad hoc and the rest of the chapter implies individual application [cf. 1:7]), a better route is available. I simply point out that the Calvinist begs the very question of what God's good pleasure / will is. What if God's will is "whosoever believes" is predestined to salvation? In other words, the passage doesn't say enough to really support Unconditional Election. Passages like Eph. 1:11, 2Th. 2:13, and Col 3:12 also fall into the same category.

Also, it is ironic that when pressed to explain what God's will in election is, they usually say that it is a mystery, and we don't know. Yet, look what Eph. 1:9 says: He made known to us the mystery of His will... The mystery has been revealed, and is in plain sight within Scripture (even prior to socio-historical concerns)! But i'll save that for next time...

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48. This passage suffers from the same problem as Eph. 1, but even moreso: it doesn't say that particular individuals were appointed, but only a number. Could those who weren't appointed ("ordained" in KJV) to believe that day be ordained to believe later? How do you know this applies to all believers and wasn't just describing an isolated event? The passage only helps if Unconditional Election is true from the get-go. The next is even worse:

[Jesus said] "You did not choose Me but I chose you..." John 15:16. I initially considered this ripped out of context, that Jesus here was speaking of the Twelve, not all Christians. Little did I know how right I was! Zondervan** notes, "In terms of teacher-pupil relationships, Jesus here breaks with contemporary custom, for it was common in first-century Palestine for disciples to attach themselves fo a particular rabbi, not vice versa..." So, this explicitely is about Jesus' "election" of the Disciples to learn from him and finish His work after he leaves.

**(Arnold, Clinton E. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 2. pp. 146-7. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.)

Often Paul's conversion is cited as evidence of God's unconditional election. However, this only helps if you don't consider Paul a special case (I do, and even some Calvinists admit this).

This leaves us with such passages to look at as Rom. 8:29, 1Pe. 1:1-2, and Rom. 9. Romans 9 is a monster unto itself, so i'd like to set it aside for another day, so...

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son... Romans 8:29. I've made note of my observations earlier, in the OV debate: In the NT, the term “to foreknow” originates from the Greek words pro and ginosko. It is notable that ginosko is used for “to know” in John 10:27, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” Here, intellectual certainty isn’t in view, but intimate knowledge of persons. Likewise, “to foreknow” as used in the NT (perhaps with exception to Acts 2:23) carries the same connotation of knowing someone on an intimate level, prior to one’s existence. For instance, when we look at Rom. 8:29 above, we don’t see “those that He foreknew would chose Him” (denoting a known fact), but instead “those whom He foreknew.” I futher submit Matt. 7:23 as evidence of this usage (though in the negative). I actually got this observation from Calvinists. Yet, some make a leap in logic from this that "being foreknown" means "being chosen beforehand." That has to be presumed into the text, as all that is evident here is that Christians were foreknown on an intimate level.

Likewise, I've seen some Arminians argue for a corporate interpretation of the whole verse (to the exclusion of individuals). But just like in Eph., this is superfluous, as all that is evident here is that "some are foreknown and also predestined to be conformed to Christ." Again, unless scholarship is on their side, such Arminians are guilty of the same kind of non sequitur reasoning as the Calvinists.

So, what do we have? God foreknew some people (the Elect? whosoever believes?), and predestined, called, justified, and glorified those people! I would suggest that the context implies an individual application (though a corporate one at the same time is possible-- they aren't mutually exclusive). I would further propose that "the foreknown" in Romans is the same "whosoever believes" in John, so that predestination/election to slavaiton/glory is made by God contingent on belief; not the other way around. It seems that Peter goes further to driving this point home:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens,... who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood... 1 Peter 1:1-2. Here the foreknowledge -> predestination relationship is less ambiguous. But what did God foreknow about these people? If "foreknowledge" is made contingent on election, what we would have here is a needless tautology (predested -> foreknown -> predested). Thus, i submit this relationship as the most Biblical and meaningful: faith/belief -> foreknown -> predestined to salvation and obediance.

But does faith/belief rightfully have this place in the equation? i'll go into the texts next time which i think cement this equation as being Biblical.

finally, Holding, you said elsewhere that the Gospels were prepared for the churches, (well, perhaps with exception to Luke/Acts). Was John written for believers or nonbelievers? If the former, what is your understanding of John 20:31? It's not critical, but it would help me to know before we go on.

Also, a verse for Toby: "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Matthew 15:27. Even little doggies are providentially cared for by God. :hehe:

[Sheepdog]

:bump:

[AVmetro]

Beyond that, i'll start with a common misuse of John 6:44: [Jesus said:] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." I've seen folks correctly interpret this as "All people who come are drawn people," but then invalidly convert it to "All drawn people are people who come." On Born Bad, you appeal to John 12:32 to show that this cannot be since not all men are saved. The difficulty i have in discussing theology with Calvinists, they often carpet bomb one with examples of where "all men" or "whole world" (or equivalents) are used hyperbolicaly in the Bible, and thus they think this gives them some wiggle room around John 12:32. Of course, we could counter by carpetbombing with verses like Rom. 3:23.

Wouldn't Jn12:32 have to be hyperbolic by necessity? Yes, it doen't mean that all men are saved but also, all men are not simply drawn either (e.g. the 'heathen'). I would see it as harmonizing with Jn6 rather than contradicting the Calvinist view the passage. In fact, if the "all" is limited to the elect, the word wouldn't have to be taken hyperbolically.


I've seen folks correctly interpret this as "All people who come are drawn people," but then invalidly convert it to "All drawn people are people who come."

I see the difference (from the cat example) but I don't see it as an accurate analogy (I think). Vs65 states that an individual cannot come to begin with unless drawn. So I'd feel the need to take the latter. Those who are drawn are specifically said to be the one's "given" to the Son. And of course the "giving" precedes the "drawing". So I definitely see predestination in this verse. Of course, the issue (as I think you mentioned in regards to other passages) would be if this predestination was based on foreknowledge of those who would accept Him or God's Sovereign choice.

God bless--AV

Ack! It's 12:22am :*sigh*:

[AVmetro]

Sheepdog:

:bump:

I never get tired of that smilie.. :smile:

[Sheepdog]

Alrighty, from elsewhere it sounds like Holding is still on his holiday trip. I may PM him in a few days, just in case.


Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327302#post327302)
AVmetro:

Wouldn't Jn12:32 have to be hyperbolic by necessity? Yes, it doen't mean that all men are saved but also, all men are not simply drawn either (e.g. the 'heathen'). I would see it as harmonizing with Jn6 rather than contradicting the Calvinist view the passage. In fact, if the "all" is limited to the elect, the word wouldn't have to be taken hyperbolically.

i don't see why it would be necessarily hyperbolic. The only reason to take it hyperbolically, that i see, is if one has a presupposition to protect: all who are drawn are saved. Really, John 6:44 and 65 have to be contorted badly to make that interpretation.

to be honest, it isn't critical to me that it applies to every single individual-- but saying that it only refers to the elect seems rather silly. i will counter, however, by noting that no one aside from a pelagian would take "all men" to be hyperbolic in Romans 3:23. I am not saying that all "all men" passages have to be interpreted that way-- what i'd ask is, give me a good exegetical reason to believe that "all men" doesn't apply to each and every individual in John 12:32.


I see the difference (from the cat example) but I don't see it as an accurate analogy (I think). Vs65 states that an individual cannot come to begin with unless drawn.

which is more or less what 44 says (except uses "given to him" rather than "has been drawn").


So I'd feel the need to take the latter. Those who are drawn are specifically said to be the one's "given" to the Son.

where are you getting the "given to the Son" language from? sounds like another passage :err:

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 6:65

we run into the same issue: all it says is who has come was first drawn, or it was granted to them. we are told nothing here of whether there are those who were given the same opportunity and yet didn't come (it doesn't say either way, mind you, so it doesn't favor either position).


And of course the "giving" precedes the "drawing". So I definitely see predestination in this verse. Of course, the issue (as I think you mentioned in regards to other passages) would be if this predestination was based on foreknowledge of those who would accept Him or God's Sovereign choice.

that could get you in trouble here with Calvinists (unless you are one, then you are already in trouble :yipee:). if you take the position that only the elect are drawn (and likewise all who are drawn come), you would be forced to concede that predestination is based solely on who God choses to draw.

if a Calvie comes along to argue the point, he may do so

[AVmetro]

i don't see why it would be necessarily hyperbolic.

Okay, I think I made a boo-boo in word usage. I probably should have said it is not necessary to extend Jn12 as applicable to "all men". Rather "all" the elect.

...8<...


to be honest, it isn't critical to me that it applies to every single individual-- but saying that it only refers to the elect seems rather silly. i will counter, however, by noting that no one aside from a pelagian would take "all men" to be hyperbolic in Romans 3:23. I am not saying that all "all men" passages have to be interpreted that way-- what i'd ask is, give me a good exegetical reason to believe that "all men" doesn't apply to each and every individual in John 12:32.

Answering your question - The reason being, as I stated in my last post, that all men are not drawn. The one example I cited being the "heathen". They perish (die or what have you) without any knowledge of Christ i.e. no "drawing".

...8<...


where are you getting the "given to the Son" language from? sounds like another passage

Vss 37 and 39.


we run into the same issue: all it says is who has come was first drawn, or it was granted to them. we are told nothing here of whether there are those who were given the same opportunity and yet didn't come (it doesn't say either way, mind you, so it doesn't favor either position).

I'd have to disagree. vs 37 "..ALL that the Father GIVES to me WILL come to me." Not only this but as vs 39 states, Christ, in perfectly fulfilling the will of the Father, will lose none of those who the Father has *already* given to the Son. Note the "*I* will lose none of them." There is no uncertainty of what will happen in this passage.


that could get you in trouble here with Calvinists (unless you are one, then you are already in trouble ).

From what I've seen, some calvinists can get pretty aggressive. I don't think I want to be in any trouble with 'em :lol:

:hkitty: ........................... :eeek:


if you take the position that only the elect are drawn (and likewise all who are drawn come), you would be forced to concede that predestination is based solely on who God choses to draw.

Isn't that the Reformed position? As for me BEING a Calvinist, that's still kinda up in the air right now. At times I feel I'll either have to be a Calvinist or OV :egad:

...8<...

I hope I'm not missing any points you're making. My head isn't on straight right now (or any other time for that matter :-).

God bless--AV

[Sheepdog]

AVmetro, there a few verses, right from John, where "all" is used in a universalistic sense; John 2:24, 3:31, 5:23, 10:29. oh yeah, and i just found that one passage (6:37).

JP, I figure it'll be easy for you to respond to the last post, since there isn't much there i think you would dispute. Movin right along...
For this round i'll go over a few passages that are important to the issue raised, what is presestination/election based on. I'll focus on passages i believe support that the belief or faith of free will creatures is the condition God set to be predestined to salvation.

Really, the only passage that says anything even remotely what the Calvinist needs for his theology is Romans 9-- but there are some issues with how it is typically interpreted (Holding, have you updated your page on U recently? i see that you cover Rom. 9, but i don't remember it from the the first times i read your page). I figure we'll save Romans 9 for next time, as what i cover here will only strengthen any later critique of the Calvinistic interpretation of Rom. 9.

the inherent problem with these disputes is that you can always interpret the supposed "free will" passages in light of the supposed "absolute predestination" passages, and vice versa. many folks i know have discovered this the hard way, and simply shy away from the discussion.

...of course, that doesn't mean all interpretations are equal...

There are a few passages that imply that man is has a choice-- Nay, a choice is demanded by God:

"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

"See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them." Deuteronomy 30:11-20.

This is not the best passage, since it deals more with obeying the law and inheriting the promised land. After all, the law doesn't justify, but condemn (Rom. 3:20). Still, if they had chosen life, and by extension placed their faith (loyalty) in God, they would have been given the grace sufficient to love and obey God in general, and by that faith would be saved spiritually as well as physically.

(Jesus said) "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30.

Here, we have an invitation, which was probably to the Jews (who were under the heavy burden of the law, Acts 15:10), though certainly would be applicable to anyone in general. "Rest for one's soul" is probably refering to salvation (cf. God's rest, Heb. 3:7-4:11). This passage forces us to ask, if the decision is not up to us, why does Jesus make an invitation as though we had a choice to make?

And who can forget the vine parable!?:

(Jesus said) (1) "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. (2) Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. ... (4) "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. (5) I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. (6) If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned." John 15:1,2,4-6.

My, that's a lot of theology compacted in one passage! Let's see what we have:
v. 1: Jesus establishes the framework for the lesson. He uses a vine that bears fruit to compare His relation to the Father (vine and vinedresser, respectively), and later Him and His followers.
v. 2: Those who fail to bear fruit are removed. Those who do are pruned to bear more fruit. Fruit, here, is analogous to works that are pleasing to God (some object this advocates works-salvation. in a moment, I'll show that this isn't the case).
(v. 3: Jesus declares the Twelve (minus Judas) clean. This is comparable ceremonial cleanliness as laid out in the Law)
v. 4, 5: Here, we see:
1. A command to abide in Jesus (implied, by faith, John 5:24, 6:35)
2. One cannot please God apart from abiding in Jesus
3. Jesus shifts the analogy to vine and branches (it is worthy to note that, properly, there is no distinction between a vine and it's branches: they are seen as a unity. This speaks volumes of the tightness of a relationship Jesus desires with us)
4. Those who abide in Jesus, will produce fruit
5. Apart from Jesus, we cannot hope to please God (that is, do nothing).
v. 6: Those who don't abide in Jesus are thrown in the "fire."

From these observations we see a few application points:
A. Man can not save himself, but must rely on Christ.
B. Faith justifies, but saving faith produces works. Failure to produce works indicates lack of faith.
C. One must choose to abide.

Of course, for my purposes, i will focus on C (Though, i want the reader to be aware of A and B, because these are fundamentals of the Christian faith). Jesus here does not tell us that we will abide in Him, nor that some will and others won't. No, He commands us to abide. If we were unable to choose either way, this command would be highly irrelavent (or worse, we could have a contradiction-- it implies we can determine whether to abide, when it is really God determining us to abide, granted Unconditional Election is true).

What is interesting is aparently this is based in part on Is. 5-- i hadn't put 2 and 2 together until recently, :lol:

Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.
He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones.
"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard.
"What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
"So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground.
"I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it."
For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress. Isaiah 5:1-7.

What is particularly interesting about this passage is the rhetorical question, what more could be He do? I could only imagine how hard this would be for a Calvinist to answer: what more could God do that He didn't do for Isreal and Judea? of course, i won't go the route of those on the lunatic fringe: i do believe God could have irresistably drew them so that they would have necessarily produced "good grapes." But He obviously chose not to, and Calvinists are faced with a dilemma: if God was shown so much grace to them as described, even expecting them to,* why didn't they produce? what more could He do that He didn't?

*("expecting" as in, not failing to anticipate their failure, like the OVers would have you believe; but as in moral expectation, that they ought to have done something that they didn't).

But of course, the Calvinist will no doubt dispute all of the above, prefering to force fit these passages into their interpretation: "we decide to be saved because God has predestined us to do so." Of crouse, they render the passages irrelevant. (If you were predestined to, Jesus had no more reason to say "abide in me" than "spam, spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam." [Monty 3:16, SHV].) nevertheless, this is seldomly convincing, so it is time to cement the issue of conditional predestination once and for all.

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. John 3:14.

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." John 6:40

Here we see purpose; we see, the will of God, the mystery revealed. the Temple curtain has been sheared from top to bottom, figuratively speaking. Christ has been lifted up (figurative of his death; cf. John12:32 and the crowd's response in 12:34), so that whoever believes will be saved... not to save a few handpicked individuals, but any who comes to Him. The will of the Father is that whoever believes shall have eternal life. God's will is not to pick some and not others based on some unrevealed plan, but to choose to save those who, after being drawn to him, choose to believe. indeed, the latter is within John chapter 6, which seems to be a pinnacle section of scripture for Calvinists.

it is kind of funny (strange, not "haha") how this can be so obvious yet unseen. maybe if Toby's been good, i'll email him a snack :poochie:

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 02:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327343#post327343)
AVmetro:

Okay, I think I made a boo-boo in word usage. I probably should have said it is not necessary to extend Jn12 as applicable to &quot;all men&quot;. Rather &quot;all&quot; the elect.

ah crap.. you know i though that might have beent he case at first :duoh:


Answering your question - The reason being, as I stated in my last post, that all men are not drawn. The one example I cited being the &quot;heathen&quot;. They perish (die or what have you) without any knowledge of Christ i.e. no &quot;drawing&quot;.

ahhhh... i tend to be agnostic in regards to the inclusivism/exclusivism issue. most free-willers are inclusivist, inclusivism being that God does reveal himself to those who never hear the gospel naturally-- not to be confused with religious inclusivists, who think all religions are different paths to God (bovine excrement comes to mind, here). i merely state that God is not limited to the shortfalls and limitations of Christian missionaries, and leave it at that.

soooo.... i can see why you are cautious about the notion that all are drawn. though, it doesn't mean that others who hear of the gospel, yet reject it, weren't drawn.


Vss 37 and 39.

yeah, i found it after rechecking the passage. iwas thinking you confused it with 65, but my bad.


I'd have to disagree. vs 37 &quot;..ALL that the Father GIVES to me WILL come to me.&quot; Not only this but as vs 39 states, Christ, in perfectly fulfilling the will of the Father, will lose none of those who the Father has *already* given to the Son. Note the &quot;*I* will lose none of them.&quot; There is no uncertainty of what will happen in this passage.

ok. yeah, for some odd reason i forgot about those verses, even though i shouldn't have. :footmouth: you were right... or i was?.... these verses can be viewed via absolute or conditional predestination.


From what I've seen, some calvinists can get pretty aggressive. I don't think I want to be in any trouble with 'em :lol:

can't say folks on my side have been better. at least we aren't trying ot burn each other at the stake anymore :rofl:



:hkitty: ........................... :eeek:

Isn't that the Reformed position?

yup, that'd be dem.


As for me BEING a Calvinist, that's still kinda up in the air right now. At times I feel I'll either have to be a Calvinist or OV :egad:

ahh. just don't forget not to exclude the middle :brow:

if it's an issue of philosophical consistency, we can chat later, as my theology is pretty coherent, as far as i know (though, i fear i may have to concede that those heathen Molinists are right).


I hope I'm not missing any points you're making. My head isn't on straight right now (or any other time for that matter :-).

actually, i share some of the blame for the confusion.

[Sheepdog]

AV, you might want to follow along when we come to General Atonement. we will find that the universal language we see in John 12:32 again, only in passages where to not interpret it as universal would do serious harm to the passages the words are in.

[AVmetro]

AVmetro, there [a few verses, right from John, where "all" is used in a universalistic sense; John 2:24, 3:31, 5:23, 10:29. oh yeah, and i just found that one passage (6:37).
Yes, I would agree. I don't dispute that "all" is in reference to 'all men' in general. But I think that in some contexts, the word "all", although being non-hyperbolic, is limited in to whom it applies.


Deuteronomy 30:11-20

I'm beginning to take the view of such passages as the above to merely demonstrate a standard as opposed to a demonstration of 'free will'. I.e. "If you do x______ you will have x____ (knowing they cannot possibly fufill "x"). I think this is sound given Paul's statement that no one can fulfill the law, we are dead in our sins etc,. etc,. As you mentioned the law is merely meant to convict. After the fall, the law's purpose was to condemn mankind in preparation for the coming Messiah. ...But..if I'm wrong, correct me!


Matthew 11:28-30.

Hmm..I'll have to look into this more and see if the "come to me" is an "invitation" or a "command". Supposedly, Christ's "request" to the Father to "forgive them" (at the cross) was, in the Greek, a form of 'command' as opposed to a mere request. So I'm curious if the same applies here. In any case, Acts17 states that God "commands" all to repent. I'm not sure if that is a significant point, but it doesn't seem to be an invitation. Of course one could easily DISOBEY the command to repent, but I think you see my point. Also, the "heavy laden" can't refer to ONLY the elect. But then again, what is the "heavy laden" in reference to? The burden of sin and unfulfillment of life's pleasures? I'm not sure, but if so then it would seem that those "dead in sin" would not consider this a "burden" and therefore would not fall under the "burdened" class.


And who can forget the vine parable!?

Have you read James White's response to JW apologist Martin Smart on this verse? I'd be genuinely interested in your comments. At least until JP gets back, then I can butt out of your thread :-D (of course anytime you say so as well)


Here we see purpose; we see, the will of God, the mystery revealed. the Temple curtain has been sheared from top to bottom, figuratively speaking. Christ has been lifted up (figurative of his death; cf. John12:32 and the crowd's response in 12:34), so that whoever believes will be saved... not to save a few handpicked individuals, but any who comes to Him. The will of the Father is that whoever believes shall have eternal life. God's will is not to pick some and not others based on some unrevealed plan, but to choose to save those who, after being drawn to him, choose to believe. indeed, the latter is within John chapter 6, which seems to be a pinnacle section of scripture for Calvinists.

What is your view on the will of the Father being fulfilled by Christ? Does He fulfill the will of the Father perfectly?


ahhhh... i tend to be agnostic in regards to the inclusivism/exclusivism issue. most free-willers are inclusivist, inclusivism being that God does reveal himself to those who never hear the gospel naturally-- not to be confused with religious inclusivists, who think all religions are different paths to God (bovine excrement comes to mind, here). i merely state that God is not limited to the shortfalls and limitations of Christian missionaries, and leave it at that.

I think the difference would be between simple 'knowledge OF God' {e.g. Paul's statement that from creation around us we are "without excuse"} and being drawn TO the person of Jesus Christ. In the context of Jn6, I think the drawing, coming, giving etc,. is referent to 'salvation' rather than mere head knowledge of aspects of the Christian religion.


soooo.... i can see why you are cautious about the notion that all are drawn. though, it doesn't mean that others who hear of the gospel, yet reject it, weren't drawn.

I think those drawn are limited to those given. For example, see Jn10:25-26 "You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep." Here, I think being one of the "sheep" precedes the ability to 'believe' {"because you are not..."} as the "giving" in Jn6 precedes the "drawing" and subseqent "coming" of those given to Christ by the Father.


ok. yeah, for some odd reason i forgot about those verses, even though i shouldn't have. you were right... or i was?.... these verses can be viewed via absolute or conditional predestination.

Yeah, that's the part I'll have to look into. I really don't have a problem with either other than that the latter would necessitate to an extent (?) that God forms his plans around man's actions rather than the order of things around the Sovereignty of God (?).


ahh. just don't forget not to exclude the middle

if it's an issue of philosophical consistency, we can chat later, as my theology is pretty coherent, as far as i know (though, i fear i may have to concede that those heathen Molinists are right).

I want to look into Molinism so if anyone has any recommended reading, I'd be interested in seeing it.


actually, i share some of the blame for the confusion.

No, I'm dense :-)

God bless--AV

[AVmetro]

Sheepdog:

AV, you might want to follow along when we come to General Atonement. we will find that the universal language we see in John 12:32 again, only in passages where to not interpret it as universal would do serious harm to the passages the words are in.

Okie doke. Being this is you and JP's thread, I may just watch though unless you wanted multi-person participation :nsm:

God bless you--AV

[jpholding]

Sheepdog:


olding, have you updated your page on U recently? i see that you cover Rom. 9, but i don't remember it from the the first times i read your page).

Nope, nothing new there. :smile: I can't add a thing to what you just said...I have seen the same attempts to force-fit passages, on both sides, actually.

Maybe if Toby's been good, i'll email him a snack :poochie:

Please do. He likes liver treats. I can't pick up the bag without him going to full attention and continually pawing at it.

[AVmetro]

*eww Liver*

:puke:

[Sheepdog]

AV, by all means feel free to contribute. i think i made it a point that anyone could jump in on this discussion.

Holding,


Yesterday @ 12:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327815#post327815)
jpholding:

Nope, nothing new there. :smile: I can't add a thing to what you just said...

lol. maybe i should say something totally stupid, that way you can have something to contribute :lol:

i know: Ancient Isreal was an individualistic society :shocked:


I have seen the same attempts to force-fit passages, on both sides, actually.

yeah, that is a fair observation, and i have noted it myself (i've been called out on it before, to be honest).


Please do. He likes liver treats. I can't pick up the bag without him going to full attention and continually pawing at it.

lol, sounds like our cat back at home. i've heard of dogs learning human words and expressions, but have you ever heard of that froma cat? (for us it is "nummies" that gets his attention... don't ask).


i'm actually finding this edifying believe it or not. i think this is the first time i've really fleshed this out-- i'm used to responding to Calvinists, so i know all the handy passages. but, i haven't had the opportunity to analyze them in a systematic manner like this until now. :smile:

[Sheepdog]

alrighty, Romans 9! actually, i had already posted my exegesis of it on CARM a while back-- although i shouldn't really claim it, because it is really a variation of the same exegesis Arminian (another participant here at TWeb) originally posted here:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=219094#post219094

below is a copy of what i posted. for some odd reason, i didn't feel satisfied in my attempt to articulate it, so i would recommend Arminians post as well. i'll probably redo mine later.

Holding, we seem to come to the same basic conclusion in regards to God electing the spiritual descendants (those of faith) over natural Isreal. you definitely make some killer points on your material on Rom. 9, and i really don't think our views are mutually exclusive. i tend not to make use of the possible worlds hypotheticals you do, though they do illustrate a good point. rather, what i see going on is not unlike the traditional Rabbinic tactic, arguing from the lesser to the greater (if God is not unjust in choosing Jacob over Esau, how much more is He not unjust in picking the spiritual children over the natural descendants?).

this is where the corporate interpretation of election comes into view, but probably not in the same way you might have seen the notion tossed up by other Arminians. what is interesting is that this interpertation seems to do more justice to the Jewishness of Paul's argument than the Calvinistic one does, and vv. 19ff seem to follow more logically.

please pardon the formatting:

>in order to understand 9, we must first understand relevant
>sections of Romans that have led up to this point:
>
>Romans 1 starts with an introduction, and how all will be
>judged by God, as His wrath has been made evident to all.
>
>in Rom. 2, we read where Paul chastizes the Jews judging
>others for their sins, yet doing the very things condemned by
>the law. Note this passage:
>For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the
>Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your
>circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the
>uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not
>his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is
>physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not
>judge you who though having the letter of the Law and
>circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
> For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision
>that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is
>one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart,
>by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from
>men, but from God. Romans 2:26-29.
>
>Observation: The Jew of God is not he who is circumsized of
>the flesh, but he who is circumsized of the heart. We will be
>noticing a few of these kinds of statements...
>
>Romans 3 continues on, clarifying himself by admitting that
>the Jew does have an advantage, because they were entrusted
>with the very words of God. Also, God has been faithful even
>if we have not. This leads to the next section:
>
>Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God's
>righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is
>unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human
>argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge
>the world?
>...
>Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying
>and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may
>result"? Their condemnation is deserved. 3:5,6, 8
>
>Observation: We see the first sentiment that suggests that God
>is unjust for judging sin since sin "brings out God's
>righteousness." Paul clearly rejects this idea.
>
>Paul goes on describing that all Jews and all Gentiles under
>sin (not just that all do sin, but are under sin-- implying
>that is is controlling). Because of this, no one is declared
>right by the law. Righteousness cannot come by observing the
>law-- only be faith (thus, there is no boasting).
>
>Chapter 4 brings up the example of Abraham. Here we see
>another important passage:
>
>Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for
>the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith
>was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances
>was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before?
>It was not after, but before!
>And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
>righteousness that he had by faith while he was still
>uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe
>but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness
>might be credited to them. And he is also the father of
>the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk
>in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had
>before he was circumcised. 4:9-12
>
>Observation: Abraham is the father of all those who are
>not circumcized yet believe, as well as the believers
>who are circumcized (note, the statement excludes the
>nonbeleivers of the circumcision. this is important).
>
>We see this again:
>
>Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by
>grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not
>only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of
>the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. v. 16.
>
>And again:
>
>Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became
>the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him,
>"So shall your offspring be." v. 18.
>
>Abraham is not the father of national Isreal, but those "who
>are the faith of Abraham"-- i.e. this includes the Gentiles.
>
>Paul's argument continues on, as we all know it. But since
>this is an exegesis of 9, not the whole book, i'll move on
>(these points are all i wanted to hit before hitting 9, at any
>rate).
>
>(From here on out, i assume you have a Romans 9 opened in
>front of you to follow along...)
>
>Romans 9.
>
>vv. 1-5. Paul laments over the Jews who rejected their
>Savior.
>
>v. 6,7. A dilemma supposedly arises from Pauls argument.
>Because the Jews have rejected the Messiah and the salvation
>he brought, it seems as though the word of God has failed.
>What word? "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And
>you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer
>shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be
>Abraham; For I have made you the father of a multitude of
>nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make
>nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. I will
>establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants
>after you throughout their generations for an everlasting
>covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after
>you." Genesis 17:4-7. If salvation was coming to the
>Gentiles, to the exclusion to a vast majority of the Jews (not
>all, of course), then how can He be fulfilling his promises to
>the Jews? "He owes the descendants of Abraham!" some in the
>audience may have been thinking.
>
>But no! God's word hasn't failed! No, they are not all
>Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all
>children because they are Abraham's descendants... That
>is...
>
>v. 8. The children of the promise, not the natural children,
>are Abe's descendants. As we have seen from the prior
>passages, who are the children of the promise? Those who have
>faith like that of Abraham! 9 and 10 go on, then we get into
>the passages where the contention comes between Arminians and
>Calvinists:
>
>v. 11-13. Because of God's purpose, not because of works, God
>chose Jacob over Esau. "Look! It is proof of unconditional
>election!" Is it, in the sense that Calvinists think? Look at
>it in context. First off what was the choice about? Salvation?
>Noooo, 12 tells us what they were elected to: "The older
>will serve the younger." Jacob, to the exclusion of Esau,
>was chosen to be the Patriarch of national Isreal, that it was
>his family line that received the promises of the Old
>Covenant. Verse 13 buttresses this by quoting Malachi:
>
>"I have loved you," says the LORD .
>"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
>"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have
>loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his
>mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the
>desert jackals." Malachi 1:2-3.
>
>The Bible doesn't ever describe Esau actually serving his
>brother Jacob. Rather, what we see in these passages is the
>distinction between national Isreal and Edom. Isreal was
>chosen over Edom to receive the Covenant promises, and through
>whose line the Messiah later came. (But, individual Edomites
>could proselytize into Judaism, just like any "alien").
>
>Likewise, why is God expected to save the natural Isrealites?
>What obligation does He have to them? Paul here is reasoning
>by analogy, that if God can choose Jacob over Esau, or Isreal
>over Edom, why can't he choose the spiritual children of Abe
>(i.e. those of his faith) over the natural children (those who
>are Abe's physical seed)? (Interestingly enough, once again we
>see that individuals of natural Isreal could "proselytize" or
>convert into spiritual Isreal).
>
>v. 14. The rhetorical question is raised, Is God
>unjust? The moderner may miss the supposition behind it,
>but the Jew of Paul's time certainly wouldn't: Esau was born
>first! By the legal particulars of the day (as well as most
>ancient cultures-- even most today), the firstborn male was
>legally the primary heir to his father's estate. That is, the
>promises to Abe (in the eyes of man) rightfully belonged to
>Esau! Yet, God is not unjust for rejecting the natural order
>because...
>
>v. 15: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will
>have compassion on whom I have compassion." Is it, or is
>it not, God's right to dispense his grace as He pleases? Heck,
>I think no one will disagree with that. In this case, He has
>made His decision: God will have mercy on the children of
>Abe's faith, not the children in the flesh (though again, the
>children of natural Isreal could become citizens of spiritual
>Isreal). Just like it was up to Him, not Esau or Jacob, which
>one would be the progenitor of his people (of the Old
>Covenant).
>
>v. 16. This is the capstone of Paul's point. As much as Esau
>and the natural children beg and plead, how much they work,
>trying to satisfy a Law that cannot save, but only convict,
>they will never, NEVER be saved, apart from God's mercy.
>Salvation comes from God, and God alone. Only He may dispense
>his mercy as He sees fit.
>
>v. 17,18. Paul brings up a second example of this-- Pharaoh.
>This is probably the closest we will get to what seems to be
>individual unconditional election in the chapter. Yet, it has
>to be understood in context. What is it about Pharaoh that has
>Paul interested in him? Arminians come up with all sorts of
>crazy ideas of how to fit this into corporate election, but is
>that necessary? I have no problem with God lifting up Pharaoh
>to glorify Himself. Paul is using Pharaoh as an example of how
>God has every right to do what He sees fit with his grace and
>His hardening. If the nonbelieving Jews (those of natural
>Isreal) are going to be rejected because of their disbelief,
>that is God's right to do so, regardless of whatever rights
>they think they have.
>
>v. 19. Calvinists often put this question on the lips of the
>Arminian. "Then why does God still blame us? For who
>resists his will?" They see an Arminian who is challenging
>Paul's clear teaching of unconditional election. But, by doing
>so, the passage is ripped out of its context. This, folks, is
>a Jew arguing back at Paul, not Wesley or Arminius. Quite
>frankly, the fictional Jew Paul is arguing against doesn't
>care about any Calvinist doctrine, but is offended by the fact
>that God is doing to the nonbelieving Jews what He did to
>Pharaoh: lifting them up to smash them for the sake of his
>glory. It is the same kind of objection we saw earlier in 3:5:
>But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness
>more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in
>bringing his wrath on us? Paul's response, which would be
>a nonsequitor if he were responding to a pre-arminian, makes
>perfect sense if we interpret the question in this fashion.
>
>vv. 20-23. Enter Pauls harsh rebuke. Does God not have the
>right to do as He sees fit with the pots he has made? What if
>He bore with great patience Abe's natural descendants,
>destined to destruction, to make His wrath known? What if He
>did this to make the riches of glory known to the children in
>the faith of Abraham?
>
>v. 24 caps off whole discourse from 19 to 24. The believing
>Jews and Gentiles are are the objects of mercy.
>
>vv. 25,26. Continuing on, Paul further builds this idea,
>focusing on the entry of the Gentile Christians. They are the
>ones through whom the Promise to Abe will have been fulfilled.
>They are the many nations that descend from Abraham, Isaac,
>and Jacob. They are God's people, His loved one, who weren't
>His people nor His loved one.
>
>vv. 27-29. Likewise, the marred pot, the physical descendants
>of Abraham, the natural Isreal, is destined for destruction,
>with exception to a mere remnant.
>
>v. 30-33. I find it ironic that where we expect Paul to speak
>further about personal election (if that were his purpose), he
>instead speaks of the entry of the Gentiles through their
>faith, to the exclusion of the Jews who tried so hard in their
>works. They didn't obtain the righteousness the sought because
>the didn't seek it by faith.
>
>No, this whole discourse is not about individual election, but
>about this. The promise has never failed. The Jews failed, but
>God didn't. Nor will He, with the Gentiles being brought into
>Abraham's family.


i'll be going on Christmas break soon, and will be away from the internet for a while (it'll do me some good). i'll be back about a week or so after New Years, so we can continue on. I hope to hit on grace next, and i'll probably cover Libertarian Free Will in the same post. i'm not sure how keen you are on getting philosophical, but there are some issues that come up between both topics which can be dealt with in one blow.

for the record, i don't believe one has to be a Libertarian to be an Arminian, nor vice versa.

[AVmetro]

This seems to be a very good presentation of Romans 9 from the Arminian view. Of course, given my lack of experience, this is probably the only presentation I've seen from the Arminian position. ;-)

What is the main thrust of the argument? To refute "individual" election in this verse or to merely switch emphasis from individual election to corporate election?

I can see a corporate subject in view in Rom 9 but at the same time, even a corporal election is composed of individuals. That is, I don't see how this excludes "manipulation" (for lack of a better term!) of wills. In fact, it would almost seem necessary to me to employ individual election in order to result in corporate election. Moreover, the examples Paul uses in Rom 9 are individuals. That is, Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh and anyone I missed. The word "promise" used in vs 8 is used in chpts 4 and 5 is also used of personal salvation in regards to individuals. Also, in vs 11 I can't see the significance of noting the fact concerning Jacob and Esau "..for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works BUT of Him who calls.." unless there are individual and unconditional factors involved. "Good" and "evil" as well as "works" are actions we find being performed by individuals. As we see in Jn 6, the "calling" in vs 11 is performed on individuals. Lastly, in vs 16 ("So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.") which is an explanation of vs 15 and I think finds it's demonstration in vss 17-18, we find that this too is something which is most appropriately, IMHO, speaking of individuals. Even Paul's point from vss 1-6, although speaking of general Israel, point to elsewhere where we see that the Jews as individual, have been "blinded", "hardened" against the gospel LEST they repent.

Soooo.... 1.] I believe a corporate election is in view, but that this election is carried out 2.] through the means of electing individuals (1.] emphasized 2.] not so emphasized but necessitated). Not simply a "concept" into which people may enter freely, but the formation of a corporate body through the means of calling out those who He chooses beforehand (Acts 13:48). The individual aspect may not be what is being emphasized, but I think it's necessitated or at least highly implied. If you take it that God is raising up the Gentiles while hardening Israel, then this is evidence in and of itself. I think Paul answers the question of "why" with God's doctrine of election. My own problem is seeing where the emphasis lies, although I think it may be on corporate. I'll have to do more study on this chapter to comment any further than I can now.

One thing I wanted to point out:


>v. 11-13. Because of God's purpose, not because of works, God
>chose Jacob over Esau. "Look! It is proof of unconditional
>election!" Is it, in the sense that Calvinists think? Look at
>it in context. First off what was the choice about? Salvation?
>Noooo, 12 tells us what they were elected to: "The older
>will serve the younger." Jacob, to the exclusion of Esau,
>was chosen to be the Patriarch of national Isreal, that it was
>his family line that received the promises of the Old
>Covenant. Verse 13 buttresses this by quoting Malachi:

But wouldn't you think that Paul's words "not of works" along with the application of "love" in regards to Jacob and "hate" in regards to Esau carry this implication? At least as a demonstration of how election-salvation works out? Secondly, do you not see a connection between this and it's "answer" in vs 16?

I'll give you and Arminian's posts a re-read but I still don't think I can comment much further.

God bless--AV

[Sheepdog]

dang. you had to hit all the hard questions right before i leave for break. :lol: if you don't mind the grueling wait, do you mind if i don't give a full response until i get back? probably won't be until a week or so after New Year-- i'll PM you.

in brief, try to think of it this way: it isn't so much that Jacob was elected over Esau, but what he was elected to. likewise read the Malachi quote in context: Esau and Jacob are being used there as "federal heads" for Isreal and Edom (if JP doesn't mind jumping in, maybe he could explain the federal head business further). furthermore, it isn't so much a corporate election as a blob of people (though many unconvincing Arminian agruments reduce to that)... try to think of it more of God electing one class of people over another; or more well articulated, electing what group a person must be in in order to be saved.

i would agree that individuals are elected, but i'd argue that from other passages. i'll fill out my comments here when i return.

[jpholding]

Sheepdog:


in brief, try to think of it this way: it isn't so much that Jacob was elected over Esau, but what he was elected to. likewise read the Malachi quote in context: Esau and Jacob are being used there as "federal heads" for Isreal and Edom (if JP doesn't mind jumping in, maybe he could explain the federal head business further).


Well, I reject the "federal head" view on original sin, but I don't mind seeing Esau and Jacob representative here in a similar way. Needless to say the election of one means election of their descendants to SOME extent naturally follows.

[Sheepdog]

Holding, hrm... i guess i'll have to re-read your article on original sin. it's been a while since i had.

AV, i apologize for the severe wait. i'm changing my approach a bit from that of the last post...


12-12-2003 @ 03:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=335532#post335532)
AVmetro:

This seems to be a very good presentation of Romans 9 from the Arminian view. Of course, given my lack of experience, this is probably the only presentation I've seen from the Arminian position. ;-)

suprizingly enough, it is along the same lines as the interpretation Arminius himself took (or so i've been told).


What is the main thrust of the argument? To refute &quot;individual&quot; election in this verse or to merely switch emphasis from individual election to corporate election?

in a way. the intention here is to seek to understand (specifically) how the Jacob-Esau illustration applies to Paul's case and (generally) how the chapter fits together as an ongoing argument.* the thrust of the argument is to take a different perspective from the usual, "reformedesque" interpretation. personally, i believe the "corporate" interpretation makes more sense here than the "individual."

*(as you may have noticed, Paul usually doesn't write chaotically, but each argument tends to flow from one to another, and he often devotes entire chapters to one argument. one gripe i have with other Christians is that some often quote one or two Pauline verses at a time, when entire passages should be analyzed as a whole)


I can see a corporate subject in view in Rom 9 but at the same time, even a corporal election is composed of individuals. That is, I don't see how this excludes &quot;manipulation&quot; (for lack of a better term!) of wills. In fact, it would almost seem necessary to me to employ individual election in order to result in corporate election.

i think i see how you are interpreting this. i think the disagreement here is in the fact that you are taking a bottom-up perspective of corporate election, while i think it is best to view it from the top down.

consider this hypothetical situation: America is the chosen people. All Americans are saved, and concurrently all nonAmericans are not (some nonAmericans may chuckle at the irony). now, if America as a corporate people is elected, what is there to say of the individual American? that is, is he unconditionally elected? well, what makes Americans... Americans? to become an American, one must either be born an American or become a nationalized citizen.

so, what we see here in Americianism is conditional election: i am elected because i became an American at one point. for those who don't think the analogy is very good, let me remind you that this was how God dealt with Isreal at one time.

you think individual election is necessary for corporate election; to the contrary, we are elected individually as a result of being God's chosen people, the spiritual children of Abraham (believers, or Christendom if you wish). yet, if nonAmericans can freely be naturalized into US citizens, how much more can sinners naturalize into the Kingdom of God?

does that make sense? let me know if i need to elaborate anything.

now point by point:


Moreover, the examples Paul uses in Rom 9 are individuals. That is, Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh and anyone I missed.

Calvinists often make a big fuss over Paul's use of individuals as examples. really, i think this misses the point. our hermeneutics shouldn't focus on the fact that they are individuals, but what significance do these individuals have to Paul's argument? i explained before that in the ancient's mind it was unthinkable to choose the one born second over the firstborn in the inheritance (the firstborn usually got the larger portion of the estate as well as headship over it in place of his father). yet God chose Jacob over the one born first, Esau. but if God can do this and not be unjust, how much more can he choose the believers over the nonbelieving Jews, despite the claims the latter make over the promise? but, i think the key here is the section of text that prompted Paul's discussion of the twins:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Romams 9:6-8, emphasis NASB's.

if we really want to know what is going on here, we ask what sigificance Paul finds in Jacob and Esau for him to use them as an illustration of what is happening here. that is what my interpretation seeks to do, and this is where Calvinists usually get it wrong from the starting line. Paul here is mainly interested in God's choice of the chidren of the promise over the children of the flesh. though this does lead to some form of individual election, that is not what Paul is interested in here.


The word &quot;promise&quot; used in vs 8 is used in chpts 4 and 5 is also used of personal salvation in regards to individuals.

is that so? For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13 (though the KJV translates it differently here). For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham... Romans 4:16. Etc. while it is a promise to Abraham, it also applies to his descendants as a whole. and, it might be helpful to actually look up what the promise actually was in the Bible-- personal salvation? it does entail personal salvation (i'll probably revise this point in my exegesis in the near future), but specifically that Abe would be the father of many nations and that he would have many descedants (Rom. 4:17-18). i don't see the promise being spoken of in 5, so we'll move on.


Also, in vs 11 I can't see the significance of noting the fact concerning Jacob and Esau &quot;..for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works BUT of Him who calls..&quot; unless there are individual and unconditional factors involved.

what is it that made the Jews distinct from other people? the Mosaic Law! to keep with the context as set by 9:6-8, the significance would be, the Jew "of the flesh" could not be saved, despite their works of the Law, but God has chosen for Himself a people, despite their works whether good or bad, of faith.

or, another way to view this is, anyone familiar to the story of Jacob and Esau will note that the things they did indeed led to Jacob getting the inheritance, or so it seemed. In this view, "having done good or evil" may allude to what they did (Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew, and Jacob dedecieving his father to obtain Esau's blessing). thus, Paul is making it a point to focus on the fact that it was because God made His choice, not because of their actions, that the promise went to Jacob. nevertheless, this would still fit in the interpretation that God has chosen "unconditionally" to saved the believers over the unbelieving Jews.


&quot;Good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot; as well as &quot;works&quot; are actions we find being performed by individuals.

which defeats the Jews claim to the promise by their works of the law, no?


As we see in Jn 6, the &quot;calling&quot; in vs 11 is performed on individuals.

for the purpose of Paul's illustration, yes. though, God has certainly called many individuals to Him to be saved. if you want to go back to the Gospels, i'd like you to reflect on Matt. 22:1-14.


Lastly, in vs 16 (&quot;So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.&quot;) which is an explanation of vs 15 and I think finds it's demonstration in vss 17-18, we find that this too is something which is most appropriately, IMHO, speaking of individuals.

note that i didn't dispute, per se, that 16 applied to individuals:

>v. 16. This is the capstone of Paul's point. As much as Esau
>and the natural children beg and plead, how much they work,
>trying to satisfy a Law that cannot save, but only convict,
>they will never, NEVER be saved, apart from God's mercy.
>Salvation comes from God, and God alone. Only He may dispense
>his mercy as He sees fit.
but the issue here is, who is God choosing to have mercy on? i think we've settled that question back at vv. 6-8. :wink:

for 17-18, we must try to understand how Pharoah fits in Paul's argument as a whole. i've already covered this in my exegesis above, so in regards to the hardening...


Even Paul's point from vss 1-6, although speaking of general Israel, point to elsewhere where we see that the Jews as individual, have been &quot;blinded&quot;, &quot;hardened&quot; against the gospel LEST they repent.

are you sure? in the Gospels, Is. 6:9 is used in reference to the people in general, so i think you are committing the fallacy of division here. indeed, John offers evidence that you are:
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah also said, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not perceive with their eyes, and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them." Isaiah said this when he saw his glory and spoke about him. Yet many people, even some of the authorities, believed in him, ... John 12:39-42, ISV.

notice that John says that the Jews didn't believe because they have been hardened, a la Isaiah (you should read the context of the original prophecy, IMO), yet some believed anyway.


Soooo.... 1.] I believe a corporate election is in view, but that this election is carried out 2.] through the means of electing individuals (1.] emphasized 2.] not so emphasized but necessitated). Not simply a &quot;concept&quot; into which people may enter freely, but the formation of a corporate body through the means of calling out those who He chooses beforehand (Acts 13:48). The individual aspect may not be what is being emphasized, but I think it's necessitated or at least highly implied. If you take it that God is raising up the Gentiles while hardening Israel, then this is evidence in and of itself. I think Paul answers the question of &quot;why&quot; with God's doctrine of election. My own problem is seeing where the emphasis lies, although I think it may be on corporate. I'll have to do more study on this chapter to comment any further than I can now.

corporate election does lead to individual election (something Act9_12Out wouldn't realize when i debated him on Open Theism), but as i explained eariler, not in the way you think. the raising up of Gentiles and hardening of Isreal is actually evidence in favor of a corporate election, since some Jews were Christians and many are today, and many Gentiles have been hardened (the latter may not be according to Scirpture, AFAIK, but from my personal experience with people).



>v. 11-13. Because of God's purpose, not because of works, God
>chose Jacob over Esau. "Look! It is proof of unconditional
>election!" Is it, in the sense that Calvinists think? Look at
>it in context. First off what was the choice about? Salvation?
>Noooo, 12 tells us what they were elected to: "The older
>will serve the younger." Jacob, to the exclusion of Esau,
>was chosen to be the Patriarch of national Isreal, that it was
>his family line that received the promises of the Old
>Covenant. Verse 13 buttresses this by quoting Malachi:
But wouldn't you think that Paul's words &quot;not of works&quot; along with the application of &quot;love&quot; in regards to Jacob and &quot;hate&quot; in regards to Esau carry this implication? At least as a demonstration of how election-salvation works out? Secondly, do you not see a connection between this and it's &quot;answer&quot; in vs 16?

i recommend you follow the Malachi passage back to its context. it might not help, but couldn't hurt. :smile: the phrase "not of works" may be in contrast to election, but often in Scripture and especially in Paul "works" is in contrast to faith. Paul follows up with a discourse on why the Jews have not obtained the promise while Gentiles have:
That shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. Romans 9:30-32.
I believe this explains up Paul's phrase "not of works" (and if nothing else convinces you that Rom. 9 is not speaking of unconditional election, may Paul's answer to that question "why" do so.)

on love and hate, there is no Hebrew expression for "to love less" or our concept of "to like." but more importantly, they are indicators of election, but of whose election? Jacob's of course. yet, let's not take Paul's illustration beyond its purpose, ok?

[Sheepdog]

Since Grace is probably as much of an important topic as Election -- if not more -- i'm going to deal with it next. Here we find agreement among to two popular Protestant traditions, as well as disagreement. First off, the notion of previent grace comes to mind.

You stated in your article something along the lines that Previent Grace is an Arminian doctrine, yet isn't exclusively Arminianism. in fact many theologies, including Calvinism, hold to a form of previent grace, since the phrase literally means "grace that goes before." That is, grace is necessary for one to come to faith, and even for someone to want to be saved. So, to the exclusion of Pelagians and Semipelagians (the latter of which, historically, held that man could take the first steps in salvation), Arminians and Calvinists actually agree on the necessity and sufficiency of grace, and that grace must come before faith.

So to start, what is grace? To start, it is a gift by which we are saved (Eph. 2:8-10, Rom. 3:24), one don't receive it by works (Rom. 4:4, 11:6), one receives it by faith (Eph. 2:8-10, ROm. 5:2), it is granted at God's sole discresion (Rom. 9:16, though it might be a stretch because "mercy" carries a slightly different idea than "grace"), and one must be drawn by grace before one could even come (John 6:44). There is quite a bit more that can be written about God's grace, but that covers the basic points for this inquiry.

So, it grace resistable? I believe that, Biblically speaking, it is. Of course, the Calvinist may rebut, "if it is described as being resisted in Scripture, it is not not really the irresistable work of the Holy Spirit inside the individual, but some other type of grace." It's a so-called common grace, as I have heard it called. However, this is such an ad hoc rationalization to protect a theology, that I wonder how such intelligent people could be persuaded by it. Is this not just a No True Scotsman fallacy, that we set up a belief we want to hold to, then when a case comes along that contradicts that belief, we redefine that case so that we don't have to revise our belief? I respect the Calvinst's desire to defend God's sovereingty, but this looks like a dishonest strategy.

But, perhaps it isn't a No True Scotsman, and they have a case. What i want to do in this light is: (1) show that grace that would otherwise be salvific can be resisted, according to Scripture, and (2) show that traditional proof-texts for Irresistable Grace aren't sufficient to make the Calvinist's case. On the latter, i must admit that i haven't seen too many arguments for I, so i may miss some passages that Calvinists think are significant. (3) There are also a couple of philosophical issues that will indubitably be raised in my presentation, so i will deal with them at the end of this post.

I'll start by appealing to the invitationary nature of the good news, as presented in the Gospels. While this certainly could be reconciled with Calvinism, in that the contradiction may be superficial, the question must be raised, shall we always be reconciling Scripture to our theologies? (and note that antiTrinitarians also go to great lengths to reconcile "Trinitarian" passages with their view.) Or, should we actually reconcile our theologies to the written Word? Wisdom is proven right by her children.

I've discussed Matthew 11:28-30 and John 15:1-8 already, but their meaning also applies here. Recall that the Matt. passage is Christ's invitation into rest, and John 15:1-8 is his call to abide in Him. But, why is it that Jesus makes these calls if the Saved irresistably drawn into salvation? The reasoning here seems to make Jesus' commands superfluous, unnecessary to the gospel-- the same people will be saved and the same will be damned no matter what Jesus says, since the former are irresistably drawn into salvation and the latter just happen to not fit in God's plan.

John 6 has been ripe ground for theological analysis. So, it is little suprize that we return there once again: After Jesus fed the five thousand, the crowds met up with Him again. We read, Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"

Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." vv. 26-29.

Again, we see an invitation for the people to come toe Christ in beleif (on the "work of God," I think that Jesus is using the term as a farce, in a way showing the people their misconception about what basis God's blessings and salvation come. But, I am interested in your thoughts on it). We see another in 7:37-38: Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." John 8:12.

Now this is all fine and dandy, but as I said, it could be reconciled to Calvinst theology. So, beyond this, are there any passages that give us a stronger case against Irresistable Grace? i think so.

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."'

"But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.

"But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.'

"Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

"For many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:1-14.

Interestingly, there is no indication that the king utilized a lesser call to those who were originally invited than those who he had brought in from the streets. But what is important here is the last section about the man without the wedding clothes. Apparently for feasts in the Middleast, kings may provide appropriate garments for those who couldn't afford them. (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, on Matt. 22:11) The man had no excuse for not having wedding clothes on, as evidenced by his speechlessness. Now if the wedding clothes represent "putting on Christ" (cf. Rom. 13:14), then we our presented with something that should be most troublesome to Calvinists. The man received the same invitation, and indeed the same calling, as everyone else in the parable, and is even provided the necessary garment, yet insults the king by choosing not to wear it. What we have here is representing a person who is drawn (called) by God, is granted the necesary provision of grace (the wedding garment), yet finds himself speechless in his own culpability for rejecting God's (the king's) grace. The last statement, "For many are called, but few are chosen", is also appropriate for our assessment of election, since the man is not chosen for salvation precisely because of his failure to be in Christ.

But is there any Biblical justification for Irresistable Grace? I haven't seen very many arguments on the Calvinist view, so there might be some very important passages that I miss. Nevertheless, i know quite a few that are relevant. I've already dealt with John 6:44 and 65,as well as Romans 9:16 (...it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.).

There are also passages where faith itself or repentance are described as gifts from God. (Eph 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29, 1Tim. 2:25). Some Arminians have no problem with this. Eph. 2:8-9 is actually being misused, since it is the grace that is being described as a gift, not the faith (Jaltus has shown this somewhere from the Greek, but also grace is always the gift in the Pauline writings). I tend to interpret Phil. 1:29 to be saying that belief is granted to us in the sense that apart from God's grace, I would never believe. This would be in contrast to the Isrealites who were hardened so they would not believe (see below). I view the 1st Timothy passage along the same lines.

Often, passages like John 12:38-40 that cite Is. 6:9-10 are presented as though anyone who rejects Christ does so because they have been hardened by God Himself. "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn -- and I would heal them." However, when we look at Is. 6 in context, we see that this hardening has been dealt as the result of the Isrealites rejecting God's ways. That is, it is a punishment against already unbelieving Isrealites (and every instance in the NT is applied to the Jews, and a couple of variants have the Jews hardening themselves! cf. Acts 28:26-27).

The idiomatic language of death is often used in Scripture to describe our state. It is argued that we are spiritually dead, and cannot simply be given an option to be saved, but must be made alive and regenerated before on is saved. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, ... Ephesians 2:4-6. But this case is way overstated. First, the death language is by its nature is metaphorical, so some moderation should be taken in how literal we make it. Second, even if we are so dead in our sins, is God not sovereign enough to, despite our dead state, draw us to a point where we could come to Him in faith? Ironically the very thing Reformed folks hold so dear (God's sovereigty) seems to unravel their case here. Finally, this passage itself doesn't tell us anything of where faith comes in the logical sequence. Does faith come after being made alive or before? We are left to draw the same conclusion as the Calvinist that it is after.

The last pillar of I i'd like to tear down is the new birth language used in the New Testament, which is a related argument to that of the death language. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13. Just like how a dead man can't choose to be made alive, Calvinists argue, an infant can't choose to be born. But again, here we see metaphorical language too literalized and stretched beyond its intended meaning. Beyond the same objections as i express above, John 1:13 says something of particular interest. We are given a paraphrased version of v. 13, "we are born not of our fleshly desires of our choice, but we are born of the will of God." The key here is, what does "blood," the "will of flesh," "the will of man," and "of God" represent respectively? Since John is intending to contrast natural birth with spiritual birth (as we see Jesus do later in 3), we are compelled to interpret that the blood represents the idea of a bloodline or family relationship, the will of the flesh is the innate desire to procreate, and the will of man represents the choice of parents to have a child (i read somewhere that the term there for "man" can also mean "husband"-- AFAICT, it is not the same word that's equivalent to "human" or "mankind" in general). Notice that it doesn't actually say we are born of the will of God, but born of God. The former is an eisegesis that warps the text into a Calvinistic framework, while the latter is a beautiful metaphore for our new relationship with God as believers.

So another Tulip pedal has been plucked, there are some last points to wrap up.

One objection to the Arminian view that from time to time comes up is, if we choose to be saved, then there must have been something inherent of us that made us deserve it. I.e. we are saved because we were smarter or better or more humble than the next guy, who isn't saved.

the problem with this reasoning is, it stems from a strictly deterministic or compatibilist view of the human will. that is, that we choose to do things because we desired to or because we were caused to... there is a line of causality that isn't broken, so some think. this stands is stark contrast to libertarianism, which most Arminians adhere to. i suppose it is technically possible for an Arminian to be a compatibilist, but if you see one, by all means employ this objection.

Libertarianism rejects the notion that our choices are caused solely by our preconditions. While i recognize real limitations and real influences on the will, i do not believe that we choose to have faith based on any meritous aspect of self, at all. if we did choose because we were smarter or whatever, then that would mean our choices were caused by something other than will, which libertarians flatly reject.

Finally, many Calvinists get offended by the notion that man can resist God's grace. This is the result of a desire to defend and honor God's sovereingty in all things, which is a trait i deeply respect among Reformed believers. Nevertheless, in this case the zeal is misplaced.

To reason by analogy, consider two kingdoms, Canukistan and Usalonia. They are about equivalent in land size, coastal area, money in the treasury, number of subjects/citizens, etc. Each is ruled by a king. In each the king may decree any law they see fit.

There was a great war. The King of Canukistan compiled a list of all the men of fighting age. Of that list, he separated it into two lists. Men in the first list were drafted to fight in battle, while the men in the second list were executed. The King of Usalonia decreed that any men of fighting age are to go to battle, and any who resisted were to be executed.

Question: Which king is more sovereign?

Answer: It is a trick question because, assuming the info given is exhustive, both are equal in sovereignty over their respective lands. It is tricky though, as one chose to be more meticulous in how he acted in his sovereignty. But, notice that the question doesn't as how they act out there sovereignty, but which is more sovereign.

One common mistake is the idea that God in Calvinism is more sovereign than in Arminianism. But, is this really the case? Is the extent of God's sovereignty is contingent on how He chooses to express it? Couldn't a all-sovereign God choose to do nothing, if that were His perogative? Why not? Or, can't an all-sovereign God choose to allow man the freedom to resist Him? Why does God have to be meticulous in order to be sovereign?

In light of all the Scripture references presented here and what they say (and what the don't), as well as other passages that may be relevant when interpreted in context, it is little wonder that i find this view, that man is free to resist grace, compelling :wink:

[OneFollowingHim]

You guys have a great thread here. I hate to even but in, but I will. I am very much enjoying the exchange! The discussion is very affable. And I like a lot of your explanations Sheepdog.

Maybe you guys agree on much or you just exchange thoughts without all the name calling and persaonal attacks. In any event, I am going to enjoy reading the rest (outta time for now).

[Sheepdog]

thank you for the kind comments, OneFollowing. :smile: i personally enjoy the non-hostile, more laid back nature of this thread as well. i've been needing an opportunity to more formally articulate my view, and the debate threads tend to draw out a more quick-shot strategy from myself.


You guys have a great thread here. I hate to even but in, but I will. I am very much enjoying the exchange! The discussion is very affable. And I like a lot of your explanations Sheepdog.

Maybe you guys agree on much or you just exchange thoughts without all the name calling and persaonal attacks. In any event, I am going to enjoy reading the rest (outta time for now).

[Sheepdog]

... in threaded/hybrid view, my Grace post ended up in the middle of the thread, which might make it harder to find. here is a link to it for those not using the linear view:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=409249&postcount=1

[jpholding]

Ya know I'd have a lot more I could say if you just disagreed with me somewhere! :smile:

For me the stake in the heart of the I petal was how grace was understood in the client-patron relationship. I don't know if you considered what I wrote below, but I think you can see how it fits in:
--------------
Our commentary on irresistible grace is derived from what you might suppose to be an unlikely source -- David deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity. deSilva shows quite clearly that the relationship between God and men is described in the NT in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship. What this means simply is that rich people give gifts and favor to the poor. God is the rich one (hence phrases referring to the "riches of his glory" [Rom. 9:23] have more meaning than we realize) and we are the poor folk... the key is that the specific term at issue, grace, carried within the context of the client-patron relationship a certain meaning that is antithetical to Calvinist doctrine.

...The word grace was used "to refer to the willingness of a patron to grant some benefit to another person or group." Aristotle defined grace as "helpfulness toward someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped." So far, nothing unusual. Grace, all agree, is God's free gift. But there is more. "Grace" can also be used "of the response to a benefactor and his or her gifts, namely, 'gratitude'..." And this reveals a key point: one of the chief morals of this day was that "grace must be met with grace; favor must always give birth to favor; gift must always be met with gratitude." What this shows us is that, first of all and on a different topic, that of the relation of faith and works, our good behavior is an expected result of grace and not required for it. Second, related to our topic at hand, "there is no such thing as an isolated act of grace. An act of favor and its manifestation (the gift) initiate a circle dance in which the recipients of favor and its manifestations must 'return the favor,' that is, give again to the giver...To fail to return favor for favor is, in effect, to break off the dance and destroy the beauty of the gracious act." [106] Finally: "Neglecting to return a kindness, forgetfulness of kindnesses already received in the past, and, most horrendous of all, repaying favor with insult or injury -- these were courses of action to be avoided by an honorable person at all costs." [111]

From these insights it seems more likely that the paradigm of prevenient grace fits much better what the ancients would have understood to be the nature of the relationship between God and man. God gives grace; man responds -- if favorably, more grace is bestowed; if unfavorably, less is received. And therefore, Sproul's observation that "if grace is obligated it no longer becomes grace" becomes essentially of no relevance once we are beyond the first round of "gracing". The question of whether regeneration precedes faith would be answered, "Yes, it does, and faith is followed by more regeneration if accepted; then by more faith, and on it goes." And oddly enough, this is the picture we have always been given of sanctification in the life of the believer.

And there is more yet. The word "faith" in client-patron contexts [115] referred both to the dependability of the patron to do what he was entrusted to do, and the trust placed by the client in the patron. In this light, the familiar passage in Eph. 2:8-9 -- "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -- takes on a meaning that is not very amenable to Calvinism. A key question is what "that" refers to -- what is the gift of God? Just grace? Or grace and faith? Calvinists conclude that "that" refers to both items, grace and faith, and there is nothing wrong with that grammatically (it is one option, not the only one), but in terms of the client-patron relationship, it simply doesn't wash. A patron gave a client grace; the patron did not give the client faith. Faith was the client's response to the patron's grace -- or, it referred to the "fidelity" and trust held by the client in his patrons. Thus Eph. 2:8-9 contextually cannot support the Calvinist position, unless we assume that Paul used these words in a way that would not have made sense to his readers. The "faith" is either our response, or else, if it is a gift of God, it means it is His "faith" in us -- or rather, using the word as the ancients would use it, it is the gift of fidelity God has given, His own fidelity in saving us as He has promised. The problem is that commentators on both sides view "faith" in terms of the modern defintion which includes cognitive assent. But that is not what is in view in the client-patron template.

[Sheepdog]

sup Holding?

I'll have to wait until i come back monday or so to digest and respond to your post. i don't have much time now and am leaving for the weekend. but, i bet i'll enjoy what you said.

incidentally, i had a revelation this morning -- one where you cannot be sure it was from God, yet can't imagine it was not from Him -- which shook the epistemic foundations for my position on free will and God's sovereignty. My theological view itself hasn't changed, but i think i understand more about the reason why i am involved in this debate. (because, up until now i thought of systematics as a side issue, second to more critical aspects of faith, living, and theology; yet i felt compelled to really devote myself to this study) also and more importantly, it covered why it is important to the Christian faith and life to talk about this stuff.

needless to say, i got a lot to think about over the weekend :smile:

[Sheepdog]

Ya know I'd have a lot more I could say if you just disagreed with me somewhere! :smile:

For me the stake in the heart of the I petal was how grace was understood in the client-patron relationship. I don't know if you considered what I wrote below, but I think you can see how it fits in:

yeah, i'm certain i've read you paper before. a very good approach to the issue. (i may borrow some concepts for my own material-- i'll cite as appropriate of course).

[Sheepdog]

Holding, since we are having a hard time finding things to disagree on, :lol: are there any passages you think i dealt with illicitly or could have developed better? i could have dealt with the context more for the "pro-Calvinist" verses last round, though it looks like i didn't need to. movin right along...

Of the major points here (yes, sort of a word play here), atonement is probably the least understood-- at least in the dimensions we are going to look at, if not as a whole. There are some so-called 3- or 4-point Calvinists who deny L, though if they understood it, they'd probably realize they believed it all along. Likewise I have observed a bit of a divergence on the "free will" Christian side of the debate. I know a couple of Arminian brethern who hold the same view as myself, and a few who hold to a more "universal" view of atonement. The Arminian Articles themselves are ambiguious on this point (although it seems i diverge from the opinion of the original Remonstrants on this point; but i only skimmed the info on them so i'm not saying for sure).

So in following the style of my last post, what is atonement? According to the ISBE,1 the original Hebrew terms carried a connotation of to cover, offer, appease, "effect reconciliation," etc., depending on context and word used. The Greek words would mean to restore, to render holy, or to set apart for, etc. The idea we see is that to atone for sins, as Christ's sacrifice does for us (cf. 1Jn. 2:1-2), would be to cover over them, to appease the wrath of God, and restore a right standing with Him as well as to render us holy or set apart. Though there are many theories about the nature of this atonement (e.g. how it atones), the basic idea important to this survey is the notion that the Christian's sins are atoned for so that one may be saved as well as live in a Father/child relationship with God (e.g. Rom. 8:16-17).

There are some questions the follow from this definition. For instance, what is the purpose of Christ's sacrifice, exactly? Could the atonement cover all sins, or only some? Does it actually atone for all sin, or just for some people? The Christ's sacrifice actually save, or does it only make salvation possible?

Due to a common misconception, I'll tackle the last question first: the Bible clearly describes the relationship of atonement to salvation: But Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:24-25. Isaiah, in one of the most beautiful descriptions of the coming Messiah, stated, Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12. You'll notice in each of these passages it is Christ himself who actually saves. Indeed, I believe the definition of atonement itself as applied to Christ's work strongly implies that it is He who reconciles us to God.

To be honest, I have yet to meet a well thought out Arminian who denies this. I only see the notion that the atonement only makes salvation possible for people in two sources: free will theists who aren't very developed in their theologies, and Calvinists who use it as a straw man of General Atonement (the Arminian doctrine of Atonement).

To the contrary, Calvinists tend to misconstrue the above point into support for TULIP. "If we have anything to do in our own salvation," they argue, "then Christ didn't save us: He merely made salvation possible." I'm not so sure, however, that the logic follows. First, I'd respond by noting that the Bible does describe Jesus as saving us and we having to draw near to him (cf. the above, and John 15:4, Matt. 11:28). Thus the Calvinist's argument here must be flawed, somehow. Indeed, the client-patron relationship renders the Calvinist's objection false (not to steal your fire, Holding :wink:). The patron, interested in starting a relationship with the client, offers some sort of grace to him (e.g. gives him bread to feed his family). Though the client has done nothing to deserve the free gift, nevertheless he may receive it with joy or push back into the patron's face. Now, if the client received the gift, what does that mean? Does that mean the client deserved the bread, and that it was the result of the client's good response that his family is fed? no one in there right mind (definitely today, and i am betting in the ANE as well) would say so! It is because of the patron's generousity that the client got the bread; it is only because of the patron that he even had the choice to make.

For the second question, "Could the atonement cover all sins, or only some?" I don't think there will be much debate. Clearly, anyone who believes that God is sovereign would infer that Jesus could save anyone. (I can't think of any verses that really make this point, though). That leaves us with the purpose and the actual application of atonement.

The application side of this is where I diverge from some fellow Arminians. There is a view that holds that Christ actually atoned and paid in full for all sins. Period. From what i have been able to gather, i think they believe that whether or not you are condemned-- or saved-- is no longer based on whether one is in sin, but whether one believes. (and before someone misunderstands: they hold to a very stong view that a Christian ought to shun one's past life of sin). Ironically, these Arminians draw from the same passages that i will later to argue their case. yet, this view seems flawed both Biblically and from the nature of forgiveness/atonement.

From Scripture, Jesus told those who did not believe him: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. John 6:53. The life refered to here is eternal life (John 6:50-51). I believe that here Jesus intends to make a correlation between his blood and flesh and the atoning sacrifice He will later make. Indeed, we have a very strong correlation of this type in the synoptic Gospels: at the "Lord's Supper," Jesus said, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28. Thus, one necessarily must be "covered" by Jesus' blood to be saved. The picture here doesn't seem to be that of already being covered only to be left to freely believe, but that one is actually atoned for when they believe. Furthermore, Jesus said "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." John 8:24. To die in your sins, in Hebrew thought, meant to die unrepentant and unatoned for, and thus subject to condemnation.2 Thus, unbelievers are clearly not atoned for!

Hence there is a sense where atonement is limited. But when we consider the nature of forgiveness, this comes out clear. Oops! I'm sorry JP, I just broke your vase. I can apologize, and you can forgive me, yet you are still left with a broken vase. Surely you want this vase replaced (hopefully it wasn't an heirloom, or i'm in deep trouble :tongue:), yet if you forgave me, i am not going to pay to have it replaced. So who has to pay the cost? You do. But if everyone's sins are atoned for, there is no real need to be forgiven-- there is no vase to replace anymore. Hence, one who argues a universal nature of atonement (there is a sense in which it is universal, as i'll show) is going to be inconsistent, unless they concede to universal salvation (universalism).

On the purpose of atonement, I am going to diverge from the Calvinist. Nevertheless, they're not too far from the truth on this point. Perhaps i'm a 2-point Calvinist ........... but then again, probably not. :wink:

First, it is clear from scripture that Christ died specifically so that the church (and the people in it, of course) maybe redeemed. For the grace of God has appeared, ... instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, ... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:11-14. Also, Paul gives us in his instructions to husbands an awesome example to follow: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:25-27. Christ purposely gave Himself for us, His people!

Now, we could just leave it at that, and hand this round over to the Calvinist. But, what would be the fun in that!? In addition to this purpose, we see another, more general (even universal) purpose behind Christ's sacrifice. This is the one Calvinists tend to miss, since it pretty much destroys the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement (which states that Christ died for the elect and for them only). I earlier quoted Titus 2:11-14 to support the more specific purpose. Now, let me quote v. 11 again, but with the omitted part: For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. But if the atonement is limited, how can Christ bring salvation to all men? the Calvinist will indubitably evade by saying that "all men" really means "many from all nations," and if left at this passage, they may have a case. However, we see elsewhere speaking of Christ, He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:2. Here the Calvinist cannot wiggle out, as John includes not only us (Christians), but the whole world (everyone else). (Note, however, John doesn't say that Christ propitiated all sin [active verb], but that he is the propitiation for sin. this subtle distinction is important as we earlier denied that Christ atoned for all sin; instead we see here intention or purpose behind the atonement. Christ is the one everyone must go to in order to be saved.)

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19. Here, we see that Christ's act at the cross resulted in justifiaction for all, though in the next verse Paul is careful not to say all "will be made righteous." Again the Calvinist has no way to squirm out, as they adamantly declare that Adam's fall resulted in condemnation for each and every person. But, condemnation to all men is made parallel here to justification to all men. So what shall we make of this?

Drawing from notions addressed in the discussion on Previent Grace, with some additonal Scripture, we have a reasonable resolution to what seems to be contention within Scripture. If all (or many) are drawn by grace so that some may be saved, is it not unreasonable that Christ died not only for the elect, but for the sake of all, so that anyone may be saved. In Calvinism, this view is untenable since under no circumstances may the nonelect be saved (hence Limited Atonement is ... umm... truly limited). Under the Arminian view of election, however, anyone may be atoned for since election is dependant on one's response to Christ's sacrifice on their behalf.

Indeed, the Bible is also clear that, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." John 3:14-15. Here we see an indisputable statement about the purpose behind the atonement. The allusion is to where God cursed the Isrealites by sending poisonous snakes into the Isrealite camp (Num. 21:5-9). The people pleaded for the snakes to be removed from them, but instead God had Moses raise a bronze snake on a pole. If anyone was bitten by a snake, they could look to the bronze snake and be saved from death. Likewise Christ will be lifted up (figuratively pointing to his death, as more clearly shown in John 12:32-34). The point here is that Christ went to the cross so that anyone-- any person whatsoever-- who look to Him for salvation would be saved. If there is no better refutation of Calvinism, this is it!

Thus, we actually find a two pronged reason for the cross, for the death of Jesus Christ, and subsequent Resurrection (Rom. 4:25(?)). Jesus suffered and died on the cross so that (1) out of every person, anyone may look to him and be saved, out of whom (2) God may build a church of disciples, who are sancified, justified, and saved.

What is particularly helpful about this dual purpose approach is that there is a compelling Calvinist objection: if Christ died for everyone, then has He not failed, since not everyone is saved? But the objection is rendered irrelevant when the second half of this is taken into account. that is, on the foundation of Christ God may build His church of believers, and He surely has not and will not fail.

Citations

1. "Atonement." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1915. Feb. 9, 2004. <http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T942>

2. Clinton E. Arnold, ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 2. p.84. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.

[jpholding]

Sorry, still no disagreement. :teeth: I of course share the idea that the patronage model causes some problems for Calvinism. I would love to get comments from a scholar who knows both aspects well, but Richard Rohrbaugh told me he didn't know enough about Calvinism, etc to comment. David deSilva may know, but he was too busy to reply to me.

[Reader]

Sorry, still no disagreement. :teeth: I of course share the idea that the patronage model causes some problems for Calvinism. I would love to get comments from a scholar who knows both aspects well, but Richard Rohrbaugh told me he didn't know enough about Calvinism, etc to comment. David deSilva may know, but he was too busy to reply to me.

I am not a scholar, but I will ask . . .what about a positional model?


Sheepdog
Likewise Christ will be lifted up (figuratively pointing to his death, as more clearly shown in John 12:32-34). The point here is that Christ went to the cross so that anyone-- any person whatsoever-- who look to Him for salvation would be saved. If there is no better refutation of Calvinism, this is it!

Sorry, it isn't. I have given argument to this, but apparently you choose to resist it or ignore it.

[jpholding]

I am not a scholar, but I will ask . . .what about a positional model?



I do not know of that, at least not by that particular name. Can you elaborate?

[Reader]

I do not know of that, at least not by that particular name. Can you elaborate?


Positional theology = being found positioned in Jesus Christ.

One learns the truth and one knows the grace of God, only by being known by God IN the Person of Christ, who is "full of grace and truth." (John 1:14&17)

Those who have been "created IN Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10) are the souls who come to know the grace of God.


There are two federal headships taught in Scripture. Humans represented by God's two "Adams." (I Cor. 15:41-49) I noticed in another post, you reject this concept. Why?

All humanity was created and issue forth from the first man made of dust, but an elect spiritual people were created and named in the second "Adam," Jesus Christ. These issue forth from Him and these alone will come to know His saving grace.

[Sheepdog]

I am not a scholar, but I will ask . . .what about a positional model?

i believe you mean the patronage model. it's the client-patron relationship we've talked about (Holding covers it from time to time on his site). Holding goes into detail on it here:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=412348#post412348


Sorry, it isn't. I have given argument to this, but apparently you choose to resist it or ignore it. hrmph... i may have neglected to respond, or i might not have actually seen it. my participation here tends to get sporadic. as far as i am aware, my interpretation of John 3:14-15 is cogent. but if you can, please link me to the argument you made, i'll look at it and respond if i have time for it.

[Sheepdog]

Sorry, still no disagreement. :teeth:
ok this is getting scary :eek: :smile:


I of course share the idea that the patronage model causes some problems for Calvinism. I would love to get comments from a scholar who knows both aspects well, but Richard Rohrbaugh told me he didn't know enough about Calvinism, etc to comment. David deSilva may know, but he was too busy to reply to me.
that would definitely be good. i get the impression, though, that there isn't a great deal of scholarly cross-talk. then again, i'm not sure if Dave Hunt, James White, et. al are considered scholars.

[Sheepdog]

Alrighty, we now get to the final doctrine on the subject of Arminianism (i'd cover foreknowledge and free will, but a specific position on either is not essential nor unique to Arminianism). Perseverence is an important topic to Christianity, espeically in this day in age in where in many areas, the church is either dead or filled to the balconies with complacency; where a mere one 1 out of 10 people in full time ministry are still running the race at the age of 60 (not to suggest those who leave ministry actually aposticize-- most likely just get burned out). This is a time where the Christian community is challenged in every conceivable direction, from carnal sin to hypocracy to heretical or contrachristian religious groups.

Needless to say, it is crucial to know exactly what the commands, promises, and conditions are for continuing on in faith.

For this analysis, there is no better place to start than Romans 8:

v. 1: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

To set the contextual stage, this continues on from Pauls expression of his inability to serve God under the law (some commentators think he is representing the state of the Jewish people under the Law). Chapter 7 wraps up by alluding to the hope we have in Christ, that He sets us free from slavery to sin (crossreference John 8:34-36). Paul goes on to say that we have been set from from the law of sin (v. 2-4. "have been" in the past perfect tense, meaning this is a complete freedom; though no one disputes that we still sin).

Paul continues, then we see this:

vv. 12-17a: So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, ...

Here is the second major promise for our analysis. If we have the Spirit, we are children of God, not pointing to some distant peity (as some moderners think Christianity is about), but to a close familial relationship with the Father. Also, as children, we are heirs to salvation. However...

V. 17b: ...if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

We now see an important qualification. We are heirs if an only if we suffer with Christ for the sake of being glorified. The idea here is that being in Christ will bring strife rom the culture, and even our very own family (see Matt. 10:34-39). Thus, one cannot be a disciple of Christ and hope to make it through life without "rocking the boat;" the world is diametrically opposed to God and His people, and thus one must expect suffering if one holds to hope in Christ. Notice, the action verb here, "to suffer" is present tense, suggesting a continual condition. We must continue to suffer, implying we are to continue to go against the world. To aposticize, give in, and conform to the world, assuming for the moment it is possible (we'll get to that), will end the suffering, but it will also nullify the promise.

Paul goes on to describe the glory promised above, which isn't even comparible to the sufferings in Christ (vv. 18-25). Next, we see that the Spirit will help us in our times of need (26-27). Also, ...

vv. 28-30: And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

We've looked at this text before, but it is noteworthy for our analysis. It is worth asking, who are foreknown here? The knee jerk response is to say, "the believer;" however, in light of v. 17 above, we should qualify that as, "the believer who perseveres to the end." This passage in and of itself isn't clear enough to assert that Christians will persevere; only that some who were "foreknown" will be predestined, called, justified, and glorified. It could be that all believers will be saved; that isn't aparent here.

vv. 35-39: Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written,

"For your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here, we are assured that through Christ, we conquer all trials and persecutions. This doesn't state that we necessarily will always have Christ, however. Notice that it doesn't say nothing will separate us from God, but from His love. I would argue from a high view of God's love that we will be loved even if we were to fall away. Nevertheless, this promise is vital in that those who persevere through Christ have the love of Christ to sustain them.

Of course, no discussion of the topic of salvational security would be complete without covering the famous passage from 1 John:

And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:11-13.

This passage is always worth citing against those who don't believe we can know whether we are saved (I've seen Catholics say this, though I don't know if the RCC officially teaches this). Indeed, usually those who dispute any form of security do so because they believe that works are critical to salvation (or, at least that a sin in a Christian's life is sufficient for one to be condemned). However, in the context John draws a sharp line, that it is by belief or disbelief one is saved. As long as you have faith, you are saved. Now, works and repentance of sin is important to the Christian life, but in light of John 15-- as well as the Semitic Totality Concept-- they are the result of faith and God's grace. For this reason, I reject another view within Arminianism which holds that backslidden Christians "lose" salvation until (or unless) they return to right standing in God. (I believe that a backslide can eventually become final, but that issue will be addressed shortly.) Regardless, it is important that John draws the line, because in doing so, he presents our assurance of salvation as being conditional on whether we believe in Christ or not.

But in light of that, it is natural to raise the question, can an authentic Christian stop believing, nullifying the assurance they had in salvation? We have assurance, if we believe, but can we stop believing? Calvinists say no, sense it is logical that if God unconditionally elects Christians, why would He "unelect" someone? There are a few noteworthy passages that Calvinists think make their case:

Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." John 10:27-28. First it is noted that the sheep will "never perish," as though if one is a "sheep," they can never lose salvation. There is a sense where this is indeed true; however, the question must be raised, what is a "sheep," here? Jesus' language is intentionally elusive. May a person "start" being a sheep, or "cease" being a sheep? Jesus doesn't clarify, nor does he seem to intend to in context. So at the very least, the "never perish" phrase of the verse in inconclusive. This leaves us with the statement, "and no one will snatch them out of my hand." That is, Jesus will ensure that no false Christ will deceive us, nor that any attempt to force us to reject Christ will be successful. However, Calvinists assume that this means we also cannot "snatch" ourselves out if Jesus' hand. This cannot be so, because the term "snatch" implies something from "outside" grabbing something "inside" and taking it away. We cannot assert that this passage means we cannot intentionally walk away from Christ, and remain honest to how Jesus intentionally worded his statement.

It is also argued by Calvinists that, if one "falls away" from faith, it really means that they were never Christians to begin with. That is, they are nominal or self-professed Christians who never really committed to Christ in faith. There are indeed some people who this applies to; we see it often in modern Christian churches where "pew warmers" last year are now not even attending church, or some are even followers of a nonChristian religion or atheism. We find one popular prooftext in the Parable of the Sower:

And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow; ... [some seeds] fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away." Matthew 13:3,5-6. Jesus explains, "The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away." Matthew 13:20-21. Calvinists often argue that the fact that the word couldn't take root implies these people (soils) didn't have real faith. Arminians often argue that the fact the word was received with joy implies they did have faith! I believe both are using the passage illicitely, and Jesus doesn't tell us enough to really say either way. (In fact, I believe the rocky soil could represent both possibilities). Jesus' point is, whatever the nature of this falling away is, these people (1) originally showed a joyous acceptance of Jesus' word, but (2) due to trials and persecutions no longer show interest in the Gospel.

So, what about passages that suggest that one can fall away from saving faith? I'm going to start with a favorite in theology debates: Hebrews 6. The context starts in 5:11-14, where the writer chastises his readers for still being on the elementary teachings. Unlike Paul in 1Cor., the writer seeks to press on to the meatier teachings in 6:1-3. We then see the warning:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. Hebrews 6:5-9.

Does this refer to actual Christians? Does this mean one can fall away from faith? By extension, does one lose salvation? There is a lot of contextual baggage to consider, so I'll break this down point-by-point.

v. 4a: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened...

What does it mean to be enlightened? Elsewhere in Hebrews, we see: But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings... Hebrews 10:32. Here the term is applied to the Christians the Hebrews writer is addressing. At the very least, the people refered to in 6:4 had been "enlightened," or taught the truth, in the same way as Christians are.

There is, also, an implication here that this isn't hypothetical, but the writer has in mind specific people in mind (i.e., "in the case of those who" rather than "if...")

v. 4b: ...and have tasted of the heavenly gift...

"Heavenly gift" could refer to a number of things, though it most likely refers saving grace (cf. JOhn 3:27 in context, Eph. 2:8... though I'd be cautious about applying Johnine or Pauline concepts to Hebrews). To taste in Hebrews, however, doesn't carry a connotation of merely testing the flavor and spitting without swallowing, as some suggest; In Heb. 2:9, we are told Jesus "tasted" death. Certainly, Jesus didn't just sample death and not actually die.

v. 4c: ...and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, ...

In Heb. 3:17, we are told that we are "partakers" in Christ, refering to Christians (the writer includes himself in "we"). Thus, this doesn't refer just to seeing the work of the Spirit, or merely being drawn by Him, but were indwelt by the Spirit as Christians are, just as Christians are partakers in Christ. Hebrwes 6:4-6 refers to Chrsitians.

v. 5: ...and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, ...

On "tasted," see above. The word of God refers to the salvation message (though some may receive the gospel yet not believe, so this is by no means conclusive). The the age could refer to either the Messianic age (the one we are in now), or the Age after Judgement. I take the latter view, but there is room to take the former. I don't consider this conclusive either.

V. 6a: ...and then have fallen away, ...

To fall away from something implies that one used to be "in something" but isn't anymore. Following the flow of the passage so far, it is likely that falling away from Christ or faith is in view. I believe the next clauses make this clear...

v. 6b: ...it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, ...

Some may argue that this doesn't mean to fall from faith or salvation, but only that one cannot repent again. This has led some to believe this isn't speaking of losing salvation, but losing any rewards at Judgement (they draw a parallel from 1Cor. 3:10-15). However, in light of John 15:1-8 and the Semitic Totality Concept, such a person might as well not be saved, since reprentance and faith go hand in hand (like how works and faith go hand in hand). Indeed, in the Gospels and Acts, repentance is often linked or else treated as equivalent to belief: Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:4-5. Jesus, answering why He was hanging out with "sinners," said, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." Paul, mentioning his teaching to elders of the Ephesian church, said that he had been "solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." And in light of the Greek, this makes sense, because "to repent" literally means "to change one's mind." To come to saving belief in the gospel, one must change their minds about past beliefs and actions which conflict with the gospel message.

v. 6c: ... since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

This is probably the clearest indication that these people are no longer saved. Hebrews makes the same point over and over, that Christ died only once for our sins. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. Christ, now are high priest, died once and for all, so that further sacrifices for sin no longer necessary. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. Hebrews 9:27-28. Christ was offered once, so there is now only one sacrifice for sin.

Therefore, there is no longer atonement for sin for those who crucify Christ to themselves again, because only the One Sacrifice of Christ actually saves. Instead of being atoned for by Jesus' blood, these people become as though they were responsible for Christ's death and shame themselves! Personally, I can see no way to reconcile this clause with the idea -- which some hold -- that these fallen Christians are simply saved without rewards. Can those who crucified Christ be saved, if they don't repent?

vv. 7-8: For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

The imagery here is parallel to imagery in the Gospels of fruitbearing and burning "the chaff." In John 15:1-8, Jesus warns that those who don't abide in him (and don't bear fruit) will be taken away and burnt. "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; ... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned." John 15:1-2,6. Similar to here, the imagery of burning the field above points to eternal condemnation. (Some may respond by citing 1Cor. 3:10-15; however note that the work itself is being burned in 1Cor. 3. Here, the grammar suggests the field itself is being burned. This is considerably more parallel to the hellfire imagery in the Gospels than the purification flames in 1Cor.)

v. 6:9: But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.

I've seen this cited as a reason to believe that 4-6 do not apply to real Christians, because the writer showed confidence in regards to the Christians he is now writing to. However, according to Zondervan, "Expressing confidence in an audience or recipients of a letter was a rhetorical device used to create a sense of obligation or to persuade those addressed to take a course of action."1 Hence, it was more of a challenge to persevere. It would be like sending an email to all the residents in a college dorm, saying, "Now, we know none of you download mp3's illegally..."

Now then, after dredging through that mess of an exegesis, I'm going to move on to an easier text. But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith,... 1 Timothy 4:1. You may be thinking, "by golly! Why didn't you just quote that before?" I don't know, I guess I like to do everything the hard way. Here, Paul makes a clear, unambiguous statement that some will fall away, and not just fall away, but from "the faith." The fact he starts with the phrase, "the Spirit explicitely says..." indicates that Paul here is not trying to be elusive, but stating something that should be clear and obvious. Thus, attempts to explain away the passage should be consider dubious (well, any attempt to explain away a trouble passage without really addressing what it says should be dubious, but this case especially). These people will fall away (again, implying that the set aside something the used to have), from "the faith" (the definite article, "the," may color the interpretation a bit, but the meaning is more or less clear, that they were faithful, authentic adherents to Christianity, but not anymore). To set aside the faith, though which we are saved, is to set aside potential salvation.

With all these concers sorted out, a good summary of the Arminian position on perseverence is this: (1) One must have faith, and remain in faith, to be saved; (2) God has given us sufficent blessings, that one may not fall away except by an obstinate, intentional choice of the will, (3) that it is possible to fall away from faith and thus salvation, (4) if one falls away, they cannot be returned to salvation, and (5) some will fall away from faith and salvation.


1. Clinton E. Arnold, ed. "Further Encouragement." Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary. vol. 4. p. 39. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.

[jpholding]

I have no disagreement. You even brought out a couple of new social points that only increase the force of the argument.

In light of the article I wrote at http://www.tektonics.org/2muchshame.html there is perhaps also a connection to those who disgrace Jesus by "crucifying him again" -- if Jesus' disgrace paid for our sins, then piling more on him seems equivalent to rejecting his grace. It's not hard to imagine a shamed patron letting a client leave his patronage.

[Sheepdog]

I have no disagreement. You even brought out a couple of new social points that only increase the force of the argument. thank you. i'm learning more about the background of the Bible, and as i learn, i am finding how useful this knowledge is in apologetics, theology, and even everyday Scripture reading.


In light of the article I wrote at http://www.tektonics.org/2muchshame.html there is perhaps also a connection to those who disgrace Jesus by "crucifying him again" -- if Jesus' disgrace paid for our sins, then piling more on him seems equivalent to rejecting his grace. It's not hard to imagine a shamed patron letting a client leave his patronage. huh, that's good. i didn't think of that.

interestingly, this reminded me of how i once interpreted Heb. 6. Rather than focus on being a Christian as an individual disciple of Christ (which isn't necessarily unbiblical, though isn't as emphasized in the Bible as we do today), i focused on being a Christian as being part of a group, sort of like a fraternity or the Society of Professional Engineers. Here, Baptism would be like an initiation ceremony, meaning those who are baptized are now part of the Christian Church. Thus, to fall away would mean to leave the group for another. And not just any group, but Christianity's arch rival, "The World." It would be like a Mafia croony becoming an FBI informant, or an MSU Spartan becoming a UofM Wolverine (*shivers at the thought*). In the case of Christianity vs. the dominian of Satan, they are so diametrically opposed to one another, that for a Christian to join the ranks of Satan would be the most heinous betrayal conceivable. that is why i originally took Heb. 6 to mean one could apostisize, and do so finally and irrevocably. it isn't that no one would want the apostate back, but how would he even build up the gall to come back!

the strange thing is, at the time i wasn't even aware of the group orientation of the Bible writers!


well, i guess we are done with this thread. i thank you, Holding, for hearing me out, even though we couldn't find anything to disagree on. oh off topic, i was thinking of writing an essay on shame and the Gospel; which would address why American Christians have such a hard time witnessing, and what to do about it. i'd borrow concepts from your site, of course. if i get around to actually write it, i'll offer it to you to post on tekton.