 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/22/2004 1:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | can anyone in here (again regarding debating calvinism) help with the calvinist proof text John 6, the whole "no one can come unless the father draws him." Greg Boyd, could really use your help here, too. I think too many people are getting away with using this as a proof text, especially James White. Another thing is, I would love to see an open theist (namely Boyd) debate James White on calvinism. Also Romans 8 and 9, I've seen good non calvinist interpretations of Romans 9, but is there just an awesome drop dead convnicing explanation of Rom 9 and 8? And can anyone else help me with what "exegesis" really means, and why it's proclaimed so much by calvinists, and why they charge that their opponets never exegete the text? I personally come to drastically different conclusions than the calvinist on many verses and texts but do not understand their claims of lack of exegesis (which is James White's #1 claim. I have to believe that well educated theologians and teachers who believe contrary to calvinism, must differ on these key verses for good reasons' I'd just love to know what those are. It seems like men like James White are walking away from arguments as if they've just won on every point, (because of claimed lack of exegesis). I have very good personal reason to despise calvinism and it's effects on those I've known, so any help would be great.Thankyou
God bless
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/22/2004 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Open Theists, along with classical Arminians, see no need to deny that "no one comes to [Christ] except the Father draw him." The free will tradition has seen this as supporting the Arminian concept of prevenient (drawing) grace. What we deny (that the Calvinists affirm) is that this prevenient grace is irresistible. I believe Dr. Boyd refers to this in Satan & The Problem of Evil.
P.S.: Doc is currently on a kind of self-imposed sabbatical from this board, and says he will only be able to check in sporadically.
Also, just a suggestion, but you might want to just post your question one time in the appropriate category (Theological Discussion, Open View, The Problem of Evil, etc.). When we come here and log in, we are able to see new posts and new topics, and having your questions in more than one place isn't really necessary. (Just a suggestion).
For a good online resource for free will theism, I recommend the following website:
http://twtministries.com/articles/index2.shtml
God bless you, and I if I haven't said it before, welcome to the board.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/22/2004 1:47 PM (GMT -6) | | In the following thread from a year or so ago, Dr. Boyd was kind enough to post an excerpt from Is God to Blame, containing his interpretation of Romans 9:
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1725
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/23/2004 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | joneames-
Just to second John Earp's comments. The verse means no one can come to God independent of God’s invitation, independent of God’s drawing. God must take the initiative. It doesn’t mean that all who are drawn end up coming to the Father, nor does it mean that only some are drawn because only some come to the Father. That only those drawn by God actually come to the Father is perfectly consistent with its being the case that God draws everybody and that some come and others refuse to come. Those who are drawn and come prove the point: no one comes to the Father except they are drawn.
Consider something similar: “No one comes to Tom’s party unless Tom invites him.” All this means is that nobody makes it to the party without an invitation. Nobody invites himself. But it's also the case that some whom Tom invited refuse the invitation and don’t show up. You can’t argue from the mere fact that a particular person is not at Tom’s party that that person was therefore not invited. They might have been invited and refused to come. What you can conclude is that anybody at the party is there because Tom decided to take the initiative and invite them.
What Arminians argue is that nobody is uninvited to the party. WHOSOEVER WILL may come.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/23/2004 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Joneames:
can anyone in here (again regarding debating calvinism) help with the calvinist proof text John 6, the whole "no one can come unless the father draws him."
Johnmd
Consider the same author who in the same gospel also says "IF I be lifted up I will DRAW ALL men unto me." He was "lifted up. Hence, He is drawing ALL men. Any man ceratinly must be drawn by God before he comes to God. And ALL men certainly are being drawn by God by virtue of Calvary.
Nothing exclusive here. The Calvinistic proof text is a dead end. The way the Calvinist attempts to circumvent the intent of inspired Scripture is by redefining "all" to mean their version of "the elect," which, of course, ignores the context and only begs the question further.
Re: White. He is just blowing smoke. He is in the minor league (?PEE Wee) when it comes to Romans. There are some Arminians with on par responses, Dave Hunt and Greg Boyd. I would consider both of them minor leaugers (like White) too relative to exegesis of Romans. Boyd however is obviously our star MAJOR league player when it comes to OT. Read Hunt's "What Love is This" Also Boyd deals with your question in "Is God to Blame."
Now for a major league exegesis of Romans read N.T. Wright. Just do a search on Amazon. The key to Romans is that Romans first and foremost is about Israel (and not about individual experience) and any interpretation (of any verse) that is true to the text must launch from that founadation. Romans is Paul's writing about the nation of Israel from a perspective similar to that of an Old Testament prophet.
Blessings,
John
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/23/2004 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
- ok, I see what you guys are saying, and I whole heartedly agree.
But as far as this verse goes, what do arminians/open theists/free will theists think as far as this goes. The calvinist argues that the Father is giving the son these certain elect people "alll that the father gives me", and to further their case, they say that the giving caused the comeing, "all that the gather gives WILL come." This is one of their most used "proof texts" for unconditiona election, and irresistable grace. Any thoughts on this?
39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day
- Again Christ losing none of all that GOd has given him. What is the widely used non calvinist reading of this? And "no one can come to me unless the father draws him". I very much agree with your analogy of this "tom inviting people to a party." And yes, obviously no one can come without God drawing, but the calvinist seems to get out of this verse that those that are raised up are the ones drawn. That being drawn is just one step in an inseperable proccess. ie( being drawn always ends up with being "raised up at the last day." The calvinist says this clearly teaches that therefore only some are drawn, because only some will be "raised up at the last day." , and that this drawing is irresistable. This is their chain of logic, and as James White claims is the result of clearly exegeting the passage. To me the verses in between like ..." 35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty" and "40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day", seem to clearly go against this rresistable grace, unconditional election idea, but this is not enough for calvinists. Can anyone here help as to what the context of this passage is, what it means, what the "all that the father gives me" means. I for one, seriously doubt that the Jewish audience who was listening would think anything like a calvinist, but still...I need to be more convincing than that.
Anyone's help would again be much apperciated.
Jon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
msekee
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 4/23/2004 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Jon
I was wondering if you are looking for this information so that you yourself can more fully understand and back up what you believe or if you are trying to convince a Calvinist that he/she is wrong. It's just my personal opinion that the latter is pretty futile, but the former is essential to your relationship with God. It's hard to be loving and humble when you are telling a fellow believer that they are WRONG. It has to happen sometimes (like if they tell you God doesn't love everyone etc.) but you have to be really sure that it's essential to their faith that they know the truth. It needs to come out of concern for them. Is it really that important to be right? If you believe it and you can back it up with scripture, don't worry if other people say you're crazy. People have tried to tell me that believing what Greg Boyd says is akin to believing someone like Joseph Smith. But if you read your Bible and you pray and you read different opinions (Boyd's books, Geissler's books, Sproul's books) you'll come to some conclusion that you can accept and back up. I have very good friends that are 5-point Calvinists. They don't agree with my view but neither of us tries to convince the other that we are wrong. We find the other's view "interesting" and we can debate it but no one accuses the other. I wish more Christians could be that way. Anyway - just a few thoughts.
By the way - have you read Boyd's books? Because it seems like he answers some of your questions in them. I haven't read "God at War" but from the sheer size of that book there has got to be a lot of answers in it 
msekee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/23/2004 8:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Jon: Verse: 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
But as far as this verse goes, what do arminians/open theists/free will theists think as far as this goes. The calvinist argues that the Father is giving the son these certain elect people "all that the father gives me", and to further their case, they say that the giving caused the coming, "all that the gather gives WILL come." This is one of their most used "proof texts" for unconditional election, and irresistible grace. Any thoughts on this?
Tom: You can still agree that God “gives” us to Christ. But the same limitations apply as before. It doesn’t follow that simply because we are given by the Father that we can’t refuse to be given should the Father want to give us.
You can even agree that God “causes” our faith and coming to Christ so long as you distinguish between two well-known sorts of “cause” (Aristotle talked about four different kinds of “cause,” but two are important for this discussion): sufficient causes and efficient causes. Only the efficient cause necessitates its effect. A sufficient cause is a cause that is required (thus a necessary cause) if the desired effect is to happen but it doesn’t necessary follow that the desired effect will happen (like, eh, swinging the bat is a cause of hitting a home run—if you want a home run, you must swing the bat, but swinging the bat doesn’t guarantee a home run, although it does cause a home run—or like having sex is a cause of conceiving a child—you can't have conception without sex [or artificial insemination] but you can have sex without conceiving; sex is a sufficient/necessary cause of conception but NOT an effecient cause of conception). The point is that with sufficient causes is you can do what’s necessary to achieve the outcome and still not achieve it.
With effecient causes, on the other hand, you get the outcome without fail. An efficient cause necessitates its effect (like, say, my putting a loaded 45 magnum into my mouth and pulling the trigger is a cause of my death—if I shoot a loaded 45 magnum into my mouth, I not only might die, I will die). See the difference? I’m sure there are other better examples. But you get the idea. Sufficient causes are REQUIRED by their effects but don’t NECESSITATE their effects (you can’t get the effect without the sufficient cause but you don’t necessarily get the effect with the cause). But efficient causes actually NECESSITATE their effects (you cannot but get the effect following the cause).
Your Calvinist friends see God’s drawing and grace as an efficient cause of our salvation. Arminians see God’s grace as a sufficient cause of salvation.
Jon, check this out, it might help a bit: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/calvanistPredestination.htm
Don’t get into detailed exegesis until you’ve surveyed all the issues and passage. Buy former Calvinist Robert Shank’s two books Life in the Son and Elect in the Son. They’ll help you out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556610912/qid%3D905560316/sr%3D1-2/104-7925001-7644706.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/23/2004 11:50 PM (GMT -6) | | msekee -
Good question. I am not wanting to know this so I can come out on top and be a great debater. I want to know this because calvinism has had bad effects on my parents and others I love in my life (very badeffects) I've been working on my parents for years, and my dad is finally starting to budge. No it wasn't my persuasivenes that changed Him, it was God's awesome love, but I think that my words and my "offering him alternative interpretations to calvinist verses" planted a seed , and God used that. I am quite aware of sometimes the downright futility of changing a calvinist...but if I can at least plant something with them, that they can think about or consider, then well to me that's good. I also sometimes get carried away, because I am passionate about it( I believe it taints God's awesome loving charachter. I do know my limits, and I know when I'm not reaching anyone, and it is often futile. But for the most part I try to be as loving and calm, even in in the face of downright attack and rudness (which to me seems all to common with calvinism) In short, I feel this is my time to really learn myself and know what I believe and why I believe it , and try to help others out of calvinism, this won't last long, and yes relationship with Christ is the most important, but for me mine healed and expanded when I changed from Calvinism, and I would love that for others too, but I'm aware I can't argue them into that, somethinge else has to happen. So thanks for your words, well taken.
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/30/2004 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jon,
quote:
But efficient causes actually NECESSITATE their effects (you cannot but get the effect following the cause).
One point here that needs to be made is that "draw" is a strong word, and implies success. It's not an invitation or an attraction! Here are all the uses of this word:
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 12:32 and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me.
Joh 18:10 Simon Peter therefore, having a sword, drew it, and smote the bondman of the high priest and cut off his right ear; and the bondman’s name was Malchus.
Joh 21:6 And he said to them, Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find. They cast therefore, and they could no longer draw it, from the multitude of fishes.
Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to the land full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty-three; and though there were so many, the net was not rent.
Ac 16:19 And her masters, seeing that the hope of their gains was gone, having seized Paul and Silas, dragged them into the market before the magistrates;
Ac 21:30 And the whole city was moved, and there was a concourse of the people; and having laid hold on Paul they drew him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.
Jas 2:6 But you have despised the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and do not they drag you before the tribunals?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/30/2004 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Yes, the drawing grace of God is VERY strong, even compelling at times. But that is not the same thing as saying it is irresistible.
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi Jon,
quote:
But efficient causes actually NECESSITATE their effects (you cannot but get the effect following the cause).
One point here that needs to be made is that "draw" is a strong word, and implies success. It's not an invitation or an attraction! Here are all the uses of this word:
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 12:32 and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me.
Joh 18:10 Simon Peter therefore, having a sword, drew it, and smote the bondman of the high priest and cut off his right ear; and the bondman’s name was Malchus.
Joh 21:6 And he said to them, Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find. They cast therefore, and they could no longer draw it, from the multitude of fishes.
Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to the land full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty-three; and though there were so many, the net was not rent.
Ac 16:19 And her masters, seeing that the hope of their gains was gone, having seized Paul and Silas, dragged them into the market before the magistrates;
Ac 21:30 And the whole city was moved, and there was a concourse of the people; and having laid hold on Paul they drew him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.
Jas 2:6 But you have despised the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and do not they drag you before the tribunals?
Blessings,
Lee
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/1/2004 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
quote:
Yes, the drawing grace of God is VERY strong, even compelling at times. But that is not the same thing as saying it is irresistible.
I think it is, though:
Joh 21:6 And he said to them, Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find. They cast therefore, and they could no longer draw it, from the multitude of fishes.
This attempt failed, so they didn't draw the net, this verse says. If drawing can fail, then we would have "they drew the net, but the net remained in the sea."
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/1/2004 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi John,
quote:
Yes, the drawing grace of God is VERY strong, even compelling at times. But that is not the same thing as saying it is irresistible.
I think it is, though:
Joh 21:6 And he said to them, Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find. They cast therefore, and they could no longer draw it, from the multitude of fishes.
This attempt failed, so they didn't draw the net, this verse says. If drawing can fail, then we would have "they drew the net, but the net remained in the sea."
But the verse says, "they could no longer draw it...", which means they at one point were drawing it, and were hindered by the multitude of the fishes. Rather than present an irresistible drawing, this verse demonstrates that drawing something (at least in this case), is not a guarantee that one will land something, any more than hooking a fish guarantees one will land it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/2/2004 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
quote:
Joh 21:6 And he said to them, Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find. They cast therefore, and they could no longer draw it, from the multitude of fishes.
But the verse says, "they could no longer draw it...", which means they at one point were drawing it, and were hindered by the multitude of the fishes. Rather than present an irresistible drawing, this verse demonstrates that drawing something (at least in this case), is not a guarantee that one will land something, any more than hooking a fish guarantees one will land it.
That's a good point! Here's the NASB on this verse:
JN 21:6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you will find a catch." They cast therefore, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish."
So I think I may maintain that "draw" implies success, here. But I did some more checking! And I found out that "draw" in the secular literature was used of magic spells, and I don't think anyone maintains that such spells always work.
So I have to backtrack, and say it doesn't always imply success. I will state my thoughts about this more cautiously in the future, and check some more, too...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:17 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|