 |
| 
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/22/2004 5:32 AM (GMT -6) |   |
John 6:37, 44 and 65 are classic proof texts for soteriological determinism and the case against open theism and the like (for example, see http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb007.html). I will argue that when these passages are interpreted in their broader contexts not only do they not argue against open theism, they actually support it. (Please forgive me if this has already been hashed out on these boards).
The three passages are as follows:
John 6:37: Whatever the Father gives me will come to me; and anyone who comes to me I will never drive out.
John 6:44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65: So he went on to say: “This is why I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.”
The deterministic interpretations of these passages fail to take into account the logic of Jesus’ statements. The first point to be made is that all three statements are preceded by comments by Jesus concerning unbelief:
John 6:36: But, as I told you, though you have seen [me], still you do not believe.
John 6:43: “Stop your murmuring,” Jesus told them. [The word “murmur” is the word the LXX uses for the murmuring of the Israelites during the Exodus (Ex. 16:2, 7 and 8), which is tantamount to unbelief.]
John 6:64: But among you there are some who do not believe.
The deterministic interpretations take Jesus’ comments in John 6:37, 44 and 65 as an explanation as to why certain persons fail to come to/believe in Jesus. The explanation is God chooses who is to believe.
However, I contend that Jesus is saying something totally different. To see why, consider the following:
(1) No one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father, that is, the Father simply chooses who is to be saved.
(2) (a) No one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father. (b) No one can be drawn by the Father unless they know/are rightly related to the Father. (Proof that “the Jews” fail to know the Father is that they do not come to/believe in Jesus.)
I contend that Jesus means (2) and not (1). Jesus is indicting the Jews for their poor relationship with the Father and not making a philosophical point about predestination. One must choose to be in a right relationship with the Father (James 4:8), and only then can one be drawn to Jesus.
I will marshal three arguments in my favor. First, I will show that there is evidence that Jesus holds (2) in the immediate context of one of the passages in question, namely John 6:41-46. Second, I will show that throughout the gospel of John, Jesus calls into question his audience’s relationship with the Father. Lastly, I will argue that there is vast evidence elsewhere in the gospel against soteriological determinism. Taken together, these three arguments refute the contention that John 6:37, 44 and 65 teach soteriological determinism.
Crucial evidence that Jesus’ subscribes to (2) is found in 6:41-46. John 6:44 is in response to doubts about Jesus’ heavenly origins:
John 6:42: And they kept saying, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? Don’t we know his father and mother? How can he claim to have come down from heaven?”
I contend that the gospel writer meant for this to be ironic and that Jesus’ audience did not truly know Jesus’ Father. There are many other examples of irony in John (3:2, 4:12, 7:35, 9:40-41, 11:50). If this is so, then Jesus’ response in 6:44-46 can be read as a comment on this irony: his audience does not know the Father, because if they did, then they would be drawn to Jesus. Furthermore, immediately following 6:44 is this verse:
John 6:45: It is written in the prophets: ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ [Isaiah 54:13]. Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to me.
This is crucial evidence because 6:45-46 amplifies 6:44. The point seems to be that anyone rightly related to the Father comes to Jesus. Notice that 6:46 is explicitly about relating to the Father. Notice also the universal ring of the 6:45: everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to Jesus. The point is not that there is a pool of persons who are related to the Father and that he simply chooses who will come to Jesus. The only issue to establish is that hearing and learning from the Father is a matter of human choice; I will argue below that it is and Jesus thought so.
My second argument that Jesus means (2) is that throughout the gospel of John Jesus calls into question his audience’s relationship with the Father. In chapter five, Jesus says:
John 5:37-38: And the Father who sent me has Himself given testimony on my behalf. His voice you have not heard; nor have you seen what he looks like; and his word you do not have abiding in your hearts, because you do not believe the one He sent.
This is clearly an indictment of Jesus’ audience’s relationship with the Father. This is further proved by what Jesus says in chapter 8:
John 8:42: Jesus told them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Not on my own have I come, but He sent me.”
John 8:47: The man who belongs to God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
[cf. 1 John 4:6]
This sounds like an indictment and at the very least Jesus does not say that the reason they do not hear is that they were not chosen by God.
Returning to chapter five, Jesus make two further indictments:
John 5: 41-42: Not that I accept human praise—it is simply that I know you people and in your hearts you do not possess the love of God.
John 5: 43-44: I have come in my Father’s name; yet you do not accept me. But let someone else come in his own name, and you will accept him. How can people like you believe, when you accept praise from one another, but do not seek that glory which is from the One [God]?
In these passages it certainly appears that Jesus is indicting his audience’s relationship with the Father and that these indictments would not make sense if God simply chooses who is to be saved.
In chapter seven, which has many similarities with chapter five, Jesus continues his indictments:
John 7:28: At that, Jesus, who was teaching in the temple area, cried out, “So you know me and you know where I am from? Yet I have not come on my own. No, there is truly One who sent me, and Him you do not know.”
[cf. John 8:55, 15:21]
Before this verse, Jesus had also noted:
John 7:16-17: So Jesus answered them: “My doctrine is not my own but comes from Him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do His will, he will know about this doctrine—whether it comes from God, or whether I am speaking on my own.”
Not only is this last passage an example of the importance of being in right relation with the Father to properly relate to Jesus but it also highlights the importance of human choice.
This parade of passages shows that Jesus does think that a right relationship with the Father has bearing on one’s relationship with Jesus. Therefore, this evidence supports the contention that Jesus means (2) and not soteriological determinism.
Finally I will argue that the rest of the gospel does not lend support to soteriological determinism. I will show that there are streams of passages which argue against determinism. (1) The stated purpose of the gospel is to elicit faith which presupposes choice. (2) The theme of accepting/believing presupposes choice. (3) The gospel’s universal themes argue against determinism. These arguments cast serious doubt on the contention that John 6:37, 44 and 65 teach determinism.
I will begin by noting what the gospel writer stated as his purpose in writing the gospel:
John 20:30-32: Of course, Jesus also performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, signs not recorded in this book. But these have been recorded so that you may have faith that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and through this faith you may have life in his name.
The purpose of the gospel is to elicit faith. The gospel is clear that Jesus’ signs did elicit faith (scholars have called John 1:19-12:50 the “Book of Signs”):
John 2:11: What Jesus did at Cana of Galilee marked the beginning of his signs; thus he revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him.
John 2:23: While he was in Jerusalem during the Passover Festival, many believed in his name, for they could see the signs he was performing.
Furthermore, Jesus expected his signs to elicit faith. These signs were to testify on his behalf (5:36, 10:25) and lead to faith:
John 14:11: Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise believe [me] because of the works.
The expectation to believe signs assumes human prerogative. [See John 10:38, 12:37, 15:24.]
Another stream in the gospel which argues against determinism is the theme of accepting and believing which presuppose human choice (see especially 5:40). The gospel’s prologue hints at this theme:
John 1:11: To his own he came; yet his own people did not accept him.
Some scholars believe that 1:11 is a summary of the Book of Signs (just as 1:12 is a summary of the Book of Glory, 13:1-20:31). It would make little sense if Jesus were to come to his own if it was predetermined that they would reject him. This theme is especially prevalent in chapter three (3:11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20-21, 32-33, 36).
At this juncture it could be argued that the rejection of Jesus was predetermined, and John 12:37-43, which is an evaluation of Jesus’ ministry to his own, is proof of this:
John 12:39-40: The reason they could not believe was that, as Isaiah said elsewhere [Isaiah 6:10], “He has blinded their eyes and numbed their minds, for fear they might see with their eyes and perceive with their minds and so be converted, and I shall heal them.” [cf. Isaiah 53:1 quoted in John 12:38]
Two quick comments about this argument will have to suffice. First, this divine act need only be seen as a response to an already present human corruption. (This could explain Judas’ case, since John describes him as a thief (12:6).) Second, the hardening of individuals is not at stake here since we are later told in this passage:
John 12:42: Nevertheless, there were many, even among the Sanhedrin [cf. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea], who believed in him.
It should not be forgotten that those who did believe in Jesus were “his own”.
The final stream of passages I will consider involves a universal theme which argues against determinism.
1:7: all men might believe
1:9: gives light to every man
3:15: everyone who believes may have eternal life in him
3:16: everyone who believes in him may not perish
3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned
3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life
6:40: Indeed, this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks upon the Son and believes in him should have eternal life
The tenor of these verses simply does not sit well with soteriological determinism.
In conclusion, I have tried to argue that John 6:37, 44 and 65 do not support the contention that God chooses who is to be saved. What Jesus was up to is to call into question the relationship of his audience with the Father and proof of this was that they were not drawn to Jesus. Jesus was not out to make a philosophical point about predestination or soteriological determinism.
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/22/2004 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
John 6:37: Whatever the Father gives me will come to me; and anyone who comes to me I will never drive out.
John 6:44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65: So he went on to say: “This is why I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.”
This question does come up a lot, here is a recent link:
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3242
And here is another!
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3243
Glad to discuss this in this here, too, though...
quote:
Jesus is indicting the Jews for their poor relationship with the Father and not making a philosophical point about predestination. One must choose to be in a right relationship with the Father (James 4:8), and only then can one be drawn to Jesus.
But I think the right relationship comes after the drawing, and not before:
ISA 27:5 Or else let them come to me for refuge; let them make peace with me, yes, let them make peace with me.
quote:
... his audience does not know the Father, because if they did, then they would be drawn to Jesus.
I agree that they weren't in a right relationship with God, and I agree that people in a right relationship to Christ are indeed drawn to Christ. But I don't think there is a necessary connection here between the need for a relationship, and the drawing. Jesus does refer to the lack of relationship (i.e. in verse 64), but I don't think that explains why they weren't drawn.
Also, if only those in a right relationship are drawn, doesn't this imply irresistible drawing? Won't all who are in a right relationship come to God? Just as in the verse that you quote next:
JN 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
So I think your view here actually implies that the drawing here is irresistible. Now you are also postulating a choice here, before the drawing, but again, I think the drawing comes first:
JN 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
"All men" here, I think means all men without exception, i.e. without regard to categories such as whether they are in a right relationship or not, or whether they are Jewish or Gentiles, etc.
JN 12:36 Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light.
And this was spoken in answer to a question to clarify what Jesus had just said about drawing, and the hearers were not, at that time, in a right relationship to Jesus. I think what Jesus said in verse 36 was part of drawing them, 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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/23/2004 1:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings Lee,
Thanks for your interest. Here are responses to some of your comments:
quote:
But I think the right relationship comes after the drawing, and not before
I tried to show that the drawing of John 6:44 involves the actions of John 6:45 (hearing and learning) and that in order to perform these action one needs to be rightly related to the Father. The determinist response that this is how God chooses to draw is unconvincing given the indictments Jesus levels (for example 5:40). If these indictments do not convince the determinist, then there is not much hope for progress on this issue.
quote:
I agree that they weren't in a right relationship with God, and I agree that people in a right relationship to Christ are indeed drawn to Christ. But I don't think there is a necessary connection here between the need for a relationship, and the drawing. Jesus does refer to the lack of relationship (i.e. in verse 64), but I don't think that explains why they weren't drawn
You get at the heart of my argument but you do not give a reason why you think it fails nor do you give a reason for any alternative. Also, my contention was that a right relationship with the Father was necessary to be drawn to Jesus--your comments seem to be confused on this point.
quote:
Also, if only those in a right relationship are drawn, doesn't this imply irresistible drawing?
The advantage of my interpretation is that not much weight needs to be placed on the word "draw". Make the drawing as irresisitible as you like and my argument stands--though I agree that this need be no more than a necessary condition and not a sufficient condition (see discussion in the posts you cite). The point is that Jesus holds a person responsible for their relationship with the Father and this presupposes choice (or else Jesus is just whistling Dixie when he levels indictiments).
Shalom
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/23/2004 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
The determinist response that this is how God chooses to draw is unconvincing given the indictments Jesus levels (for example 5:40). If these indictments do not convince the determinist, then there is not much hope for progress on this issue.
JN 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
JN 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him...
JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
I think the last two verses do explain the first one! They refuse, because they were not drawn, and because they were not enabled to come.
JN 12:39-40 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes..."
quote:
You get at the heart of my argument but you do not give a reason why you think it fails nor do you give a reason for any alternative.
OK, I will try again, and make some direct responses to your points...
quote:
First, I will show that there is evidence that Jesus holds (2) in the immediate context of one of the passages in question, namely John 6:41-46.
That was what I was addressing, yes, there is a reference to relationship in the context, but I think that does not establish a connection. There is a reference to something written in the Prophets there, too, there is mention of Jesus being the bread of life, etc. but none of these are necessarily connected with drawing, or are therefore a requirement for the drawing to occur.
quote:
I will show that throughout the gospel of John, Jesus calls into question his audience’s relationship with the Father.
Again, though, this is not establishing a connection, this is simply noticing a fact which is certainly there, but more is needed.
quote:
I will argue that there is vast evidence elsewhere in the gospel against soteriological determinism.
I kind of skipped that part.  It was a very long post, and I just chose to address the topic at hand. I will address the other points, too, though, if you want me too.
quote:
Also, my contention was that a right relationship with the Father was necessary to be drawn to Jesus--your comments seem to be confused on this point.
I did misunderstand, now I wonder how a person could have a right relation to the Father, and not also be rightly related to Jesus?
2JN 1:9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
"Does not have God" here is contrasted with "has the Father and the Son", apparently, it's one or the other.
quote:
The point is that Jesus holds a person responsible for their relationship with the Father and this presupposes choice (or else Jesus is just whistling Dixie when he levels indictments).
Men are responsible, because they are involved in their sin (Pharaoh hardened his heart). But God is in control, still (God hardened Pharaoh's heart).
Again, they "refused to come," but also "they could not believe," I think both are true, and the indictments point to their involvement, but you need to address the verses that speak of God's control, too. Those verses are why I believe that they did not come because they were not "enabled by the Father"...
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/23/2004 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
Yes, my post was long and my apologies.
quote:
JN 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
JN 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him...
JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
I think the last two verses do explain the first one! They refuse, because they were not drawn, and because they were not enabled to come
Right, they did not come to Jesus because they were not drawn, but why were they not drawn? Lee: because God did not choose them; kingsaint: because they were not rightly related to the Father. Let us look at 5:40 again. Jesus I think gives a reason they do not come and it is not because of God's choice. In chapter 5, Jesus, seemingly in answer to a tacit objection (8:13), presents four witnesses to himself and they all ultimately relate to the Father: (1)vs. 33-35, John the Baptist (sent by the Father (1:6)); (2) vs. 36, works given by the Father; (3) vs. 37-38, the Father himself; (4) vs. 39-40, Scripture (word of the Father). If Jesus' audience were rightly atuned to the Father, they would believe the Father's witness to Jesus. Read the following indictments:
John 5:38: His word you do not have abiding in your hearts [no mention of God's choice].
John 5:42: in your hearts you do not possess the love of God [no mention of God's choice].
John 5:44: [you] do not seek the glory which is from the One [no mention of God's choice].
These are the reason they fail to believe, and they all relate to being rightly related to the Father.
quote:
JN 12:39-40 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes..."
I cover this in my original post.
quote:
I did misunderstand, now I wonder how a person could have a right relation to the Father, and not also be rightly related to Jesus?
Yes, a person rightly related to the Father will be drawn to Jesus! The point is that being rightly related to the Father depends on human choice.
You question my arguments for (2) as not "necessarily" making the case that there are conditions for being drawn, but my arguments are inductive not deductive. You too cannot simply deduce "God chooses who is to come to Jesus" from "No one can come to Jesus unless drawn by the Father".
Shalom.
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/24/2004 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
Let us look at 5:40 again. Jesus I think gives a reason they do not come and it is not because of God's choice.
I think it is, though:
JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
This does refer to God's choice here...
quote:
If Jesus' audience were rightly atuned to the Father, they would believe the Father's witness to Jesus. Read the following indictments:
John 5:38: His word you do not have abiding in your hearts [no mention of God's choice].
John 5:42: in your hearts you do not possess the love of God [no mention of God's choice].
John 5:44: [you] do not seek the glory which is from the One [no mention of God's choice].
These are the reason they fail to believe, and they all relate to being rightly related to the Father.
I agree that those who did not come were not rightly related to the Father. And I believe that those who did come were making a transition, from not being related, to being related:
JN 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
This is God's choice, again.
JN 5:24 I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
Here we have "hears my word," then "believes," "crossed over," a transition is in view here, not drawing people who already are right with God.
JN 5:34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.
He is speaking to people who are not rightly related, as you mention, and the purpose is so that they will make the transition, and be saved.
quote:
Lee: I did misunderstand, now I wonder how a person could have a right relation to the Father, and not also be rightly related to Jesus?
Yes, a person rightly related to the Father will be drawn to Jesus! The point is that being rightly related to the Father depends on human choice.
No, that wasn't my question, how can a person be rightly related to the Father, and also at the same time, not be rightly related to Jesus?
2JN 1:9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Again, "does not have God" is contrasted with having both the Father and the Son.
JN 10:30 I and the Father are one.
We can't have the Father, and not have Jesus...
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/25/2004 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Shalom Lee,
quote:
I think it is, though:
JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
This does refer to God's choice here...
Remember, my argument is not concerned with whether God chooses to give humans to Jesus, my argument is that there are conditions as to who God will give and these conditions involve human responsibility. This is Jesus' point in 6:37, 44 and 65; he was not making a philosophical point about predestination--God does not simply choose who is to be saved. But let me discuss 6:65. The word "enabled" (given) is the same idea in 17:9: the ones given to Jesus are God's. Now, I contend that there are conditions as to who is God's--who belongs to God. Here, John 8:42-47 is helpful. Jesus does give conditions as to who is rightly related to God. The one who belongs to God hears the word of God (8:47), and since I take this whole section as an indictment, Jesus must mean that hearing is within the sphere of human responsibilty.
quote:
JN 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
This is God's choice, again.
You write as if there is nothing that pleases Jesus. "Jesus is pleased to give life to those who use their free will to choose to be rightly related to the Father" is consistent with 5:21.
quote:
No, that wasn't my question, how can a person be rightly related to the Father, and also at the same time, not be rightly related to Jesus?
Where do I say otherwise? This is grist for my mill. A person who is rightly related to the Father will come to Jesus, that is Jesus' point in 6:37, 44 and 65. Since his audience did not come to him, Jesus infers that they have a poor relationship with the Father, otherwise the Father would draw them to him.
Shalom,
kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/26/2004 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
Lee: This does refer to God's choice here...
Kingsaint: Remember, my argument is not concerned with whether God chooses to give humans to Jesus, my argument is that there are conditions as to who God will give and these conditions involve human responsibility.
But I think you are trying to skip the point of John 6:65, it says clearly that God's choice is required, for men to come to Jesus. What if, in your view, people choose to be in a right relationship with the Father? Can they come to Jesus if the Father has not enabled them? This verse says, no, they can't.
quote:
This is Jesus' point in 6:37, 44 and 65; he was not making a philosophical point about predestination--God does not simply choose who is to be saved.
I think he does!
JN 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me...
That implies that being given to Jesus means you will come!
quote:
The one who belongs to God hears the word of God (8:47), and since I take this whole section as an indictment, Jesus must mean that hearing is within the sphere of human responsibility.
People are responsible to repent and believe, but I think God has to give that, too:
AC 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message...
But people can hear God's word, and not be able to believe:
JN 12:39-40 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes..."
quote:
JN 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
Lee: This is God's choice, again.
Kingsaint: You write as if there is nothing that pleases Jesus. "Jesus is pleased to give life to those who use their free will to choose to be rightly related to the Father" is consistent with 5:21.
But the real choice is God's choice, not peoples' choice, people choose God because God intended that they do so:
AC 13:48 ... and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
quote:
Lee: how can a person be rightly related to the Father, and also at the same time, not be rightly related to Jesus?
Kingsaint: Where do I say otherwise? This is grist for my mill. ... Since his audience did not come to him, Jesus infers that they have a poor relationship with the Father
But coming to Jesus implies being apart from him before coming, i.e. not being in a right relationship to him. Are you saying that those who came to Jesus were already related to him? Therefore they had come to him previously. But then how could they come to him now?
And "Jesus is pleased to give life to those who use their free will to choose to be rightly related to the Father" implies they didn't have life, before Jesus gave it to them, i.e. that they weren't related to God at all, or else they would have had life already:
1JN 5:12 He who has the Son has life...
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/27/2004 2:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Shalom Lee,
quote:
But I think you are trying to skip the point of John 6:65, it says clearly that God's choice is required, for men to come to Jesus. What if, in your view, people choose to be in a right relationship with the Father? Can they come to Jesus if the Father has not enabled them? This verse says, no, they can't.
My argument is this: Jesus is indicting his audience in John 6:37, 44 and 65 for not being rightly related to the Father. Yes, God is required to draw people to Jesus, and since Jesus' audience was not being drawn, then they were not rightly related to the Father. But Jesus expects his audience to be rightly related to the Father and therefore, it is not simply God's choice. Lee, you continue to skip my main argument and focus instead on an issue that plays no real part in my argument (though even here I think you confuse sufficient and necessary conditions). So, no, a person cannot come to Jesus unless the Father is involved, but this only helps my argument, since Jesus' main point is to question his audience's relationship with the Father.
quote:
I think he does!
JN 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me...
That implies that being given to Jesus means you will come!
Again, you are skipping my main argument. Yes, let us say that being given by the Father implies you will come (though this is arguable), but this helps my argument, because if Jesus' audience was rightly related to the Father, then they would come to Jesus. This is why what Jesus says in John 6:37, 44 and 65 is an indictment. Given that Jesus' audience is not coming to Jesus, this proves that they are not rightly related to the Father. And if this is Jesus' point, then he is not making a point about predestination: a person is not simply chosen by God to come to Jesus. It might be that coming to Jesus is destined, but coming to the Father in order to be given to Jesus is not destined and that is Jesus' point.
quote:
People are responsible to repent and believe, but I think God has to give that, too:
This does not make sense to me. If God gives it then how are people responsible? Of course, God's grace is needed for salvation, but the question is whether that grace means that God simply chooses who is to believe. These are issues we can discuss, but my point was only that Jesus' point in John 6:37, 44 and 65 is not about predestination, he was indicting his audience and this implies freedom not destiny.
quote:
But coming to Jesus implies being apart from him before coming, i.e. not being in a right relationship to him. Are you saying that those who came to Jesus were already related to him? Therefore they had come to him previously. But then how could they come to him now?
You must be in a right relationship with the Father to believe in/come to Jesus. That is Jesus' point in John 6:37, 44 and 65. If your point is that there is no "time" between being rightly related to the Father and being drawn to Jesus, because the Father and Jesus are one, then your interpretation suffers from this problem too.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/27/2004 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
Yes, God is required to draw people to Jesus, and since Jesus' audience was not being drawn, then they were not rightly related to the Father. But Jesus expects his audience to be rightly related to the Father and therefore, it is not simply God's choice.
But these are separate issues, you are noting a rebuke, and making a connection. I think the connection is elsewhere, in God's choice, thus I keep pointing out "enabling is required." I think that is definitely part of drawing, but a right relationship, well, we might also note that the ones Jesus spoke to and didn't draw were all Jewish! Or that they were hungry! But that does not therefore make the opposite condition a connection to being drawn.
quote:
So, no, a person cannot come to Jesus unless the Father is involved, but this only helps my argument, since Jesus' main point is to question his audience's relationship with the Father.
But again, these are separate issues, a relationship is not necessarily connected with being enabled, the mention of both concepts in this passage does not establish that they are therefore connected. That still needs to be shown...
quote:
Yes, let us say that being given by the Father implies you will come (though this is arguable), but this helps my argument, because if Jesus' audience was rightly related to the Father, then they would come to Jesus.
But you are stating your conclusion as part of your argument. I need to know why a right relationship is a necessary prerequisite to coming.
quote:
Lee: People are responsible to repent and believe, but I think God has to give that, too...
Kingsaint: This does not make sense to me. If God gives it then how are people responsible?
Yes, this is a basic point of Calvinism. Jesus did indite people, too, for something God planned that they would do:
JN 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes."
JN 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you...
Men are involved in their sin, therefore they are responsible, but even their sin is also a part of God's plan:
ISA 63:17 Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?
quote:
Lee: But coming to Jesus implies being apart from him before coming, i.e. not being in a right relationship to him. Are you saying that those who came to Jesus were already related to him? Therefore they had come to him previously. But then how could they come to him now?
Kingsaint: If your point is that there is no "time" between being rightly related to the Father and being drawn to Jesus, because the Father and Jesus are one, then your interpretation suffers from this problem too.
No, I would place being drawn prior to being rightly related to God, and place becoming rightly related to God the Father as happening at the same time as becoming rightly related to Jesus:
RO 2:4 ... God's kindness leads you toward repentance ...
2CO 5:20 We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.
If your view is correct here, we should have instead, "We implore you on God's behalf: Be reconciled to Christ." But that is not what it says, I believe "God" here refers to all the Godhead, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/28/2004 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Shalom Lee,
quote:
I need to know why a right relationship is a necessary prerequisite to coming.
You continue to fault me for not making the connection between being rightly related to the Father and being drawn to Jesus. I have given arguments, but you have not addressed them. So, let me state my argument more rigorously and compare it to an argument you would have to give. I contend that what Jesus was up to in John 6:37, 44 and 66 was to indict his audience. Jesus was explaining his audience's failure to come to him (explanandum). Jesus offers as part of the explanans the premise: "No one comes to me, unless drawn by the Father". Now, this premise by itself does not give us a reason to believe in the conclusion. Something else is needed: let C=one comes to Jesus; D=one is drawn to Jesus by the Father. So, we can symbolize "No one can come to Jesus, unless drawn by the Father" as: C-->D. Since Jesus is explaining the fact his audience is not coming to him, we have as the conclusion (explanandum); ~C. So, your argument would be as follows:
Argument 1 (Lee)
Premise 1: C-->D
Premise 2: ?
Conclusion: ~C
Premise 2 must be infered (inference to the best explanation), and you infer that premise 2 is ~D (Jesus' audience was not drawn by the Father, which means that the Father did not choose to draw them). The conclusion would then follow by Modus Tollens.
My argument is similar, but I add an additional premise. Let R=one is rightly related to the Father. My additional premise is "No one can be drawn by the Father, unless one is rightly related to the Father (D-->R). So, my argument is:
Argument 2 (kingsaint)
Premise 1: C-->D (John 6:44)
Premise 2: D-->R (assumed)
Premise 3: ?
Conclusion: ~C
Premise 3 must be infered (inference to the best explanation). I contend that Jesus wanted ~R to be infered, that is, his audience was not rightly related to the Father. The conclusion follows by rules of logic.
Now, I have given reasons why I think Jesus' argument is argument 2 and not argument 1. I have argued that my premise 2 was part of Jesus' argument. You have failed to address these arguments. You must show why my premise 2 was not part of Jesus' argument. It does little good to criticize my argument on formal grounds, when it has the same basic form as yours.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/28/2004 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
My argument is similar, but I add an additional premise. Let R=one is rightly related to the Father. My additional premise is "No one can be drawn by the Father, unless one is rightly related to the Father (D-->R). So, my argument is:
Argument 2 (kingsaint)
Premise 1: C-->D (John 6:44)
Premise 2: D-->R (assumed)
Premise 3: ?
Conclusion: ~C
Premise 3 must be infered (inference to the best explanation). I contend that Jesus wanted ~R to be infered, that is, his audience was not rightly related to the Father. The conclusion follows by rules of logic.
Yes, your logic is fine, what I wonder about is why D-->R. I think you have noticed both D and R in the same passage, but that does not establish the necessary connection.
We could also say that no one can come to Jesus unless they are Jewish, because those who came were all Jewish. Or no one can come unless they weren't worried about daily bread, because those who didn't come were wanting Jesus to give them food every day.
That's what I am wondering about, why is there an additional connection with right relationship, and only right relationship, that comes from this passage...
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/28/2004 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Shalom Lee,
quote:
what I wonder about is why D-->R. I think you have noticed both D and R in the same passage, but that does not establish the necessary connection.
We could also say that no one can come to Jesus unless they are Jewish, because those who came were all Jewish. Or no one can come unless they weren't worried about daily bread, because those who didn't come were wanting Jesus to give them food every day.
(1) A simple answer (and one I already gave in a previous post) is that in order to be given by the Father one must belong to the Father (John 17:9) and I argued that there are conditions as to who can belong to God (John 8:42-47), which means that in order to be given to Jesus one must be rightly related to the Father (C-->R).
(2) I also argued that throughout the gospel, Jesus questions his audience's relationship with the Father. This increases the likelihood that in John 6, Jesus is also questioning his audience's relationship with the Father. This is especially true given that I quoted heavily from chapters 5, 7 and 8. Scholars have noted that chapters 5 (Sabbath), 6 (Passover), 7-8 (Tabernacles) all relate to Jewish institutions. So, if being rightly related to the Father is a theme in chapters 5, 7 and 8, then this increases the likelihood that the theme is in chapter 6.
(3) I argued that John 6:44ff. follows an ironic comment that Jesus' audience knows Jesus Father. So, it would not be surprising if Jesus would comment on this by noting that they do not know his Father (they are not rightly related to the Father).
(4) I also argued that John 6:45, which immediately follows verse 44 is about being rightly related to the Father. One must choose to hear and learn from the Father.
(5) I argued that John 5:40 concerns coming to Jesus in the midst of a series of witnesses that all ultimately relate to the Father. Jesus follows this with indictments about not being rightly related to the Father in 5:41-47.
(6) I argued that a competing explanation about Jesus' logic (your argument) goes beyond the evidence in the gospel entire. Now, you mention connections other than D-->R that could be set up. My retort to these is that they are irrelevant. Yes, we could argue that no one can come to Jesus unless they are Jewish etc., but why would we argue that? I have given you reason why D-->R makes sense.
I hope this helps.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/29/2004 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
Lee: what I wonder about is why D-->R. I think you have noticed both D and R in the same passage, but that does not establish the necessary connection.
(1) A simple answer (and one I already gave in a previous post) is that in order to be given by the Father one must belong to the Father (John 17:9) and I argued that there are conditions as to who can belong to God (John 8:42-47), which means that in order to be given to Jesus one must be rightly related to the Father (C-->R).
I agree that all who were rightly related to the Father indeed loved Jesus, and came to him. I think they had Jesus already, too!
2JN 1:9 ... whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Thus I think the drawing in John 12:32 was speaking primarily of drawing unbelievers. Are you saying that this verse refers to drawing believers? How can a person have the Father, and not the Son?
JN 10:30 I and the Father are one...
quote:
(2) I also argued that throughout the gospel, Jesus questions his audience's relationship with the Father. This increases the likelihood that in John 6, Jesus is also questioning his audience's relationship with the Father. This is especially true given that I quoted heavily from chapters 5, 7 and 8. Scholars have noted that chapters 5 (Sabbath), 6 (Passover), 7-8 (Tabernacles) all relate to Jewish institutions. So, if being rightly related to the Father is a theme in chapters 5, 7 and 8, then this increases the likelihood that the theme is in chapter 6.
That's fine, and may be true, but it does not therefore connect the themes, and I would respond similarly to the next three points.
quote:
(6) I argued that a competing explanation about Jesus' logic (your argument) goes beyond the evidence in the gospel entire. Now, you mention connections other than D-->R that could be set up. My retort to these is that they are irrelevant. Yes, we could argue that no one can come to Jesus unless they are Jewish etc., but why would we argue that?
I wasn't seriously proposing those connections, I was just trying to show that more work needs to be done, to show that a connection is there. Why can't I prove my view from the double mention of R and D in these passages, that R-->D?
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/29/2004 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Shalom Lee,
quote:
I agree that all who were rightly related to the Father indeed loved Jesus, and came to him. I think they had Jesus already, too!
2JN 1:9 ... whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Thus I think the drawing in John 12:32 was speaking primarily of drawing unbelievers. Are you saying that this verse refers to drawing believers? How can a person have the Father, and not the Son?
JN 10:30 I and the Father are one...
This argument is weak. How would you make sense of John 17:6: "They were yours and you gave them to me." Jesus seems to say that one can belong to the Father and still be in need of being given to Jesus. So, you would criticize Jesus too.
quote:
That's fine, and may be true, but it does not therefore connect the themes, and I would respond similarly to the next three points.
So, you simply dismiss my arguments (2)-(5) as not making the necessary connection. Remember, my arguments are not deductive (and neither is yours--you cannot simply deduce "God chooses who is to be saved" from John 6:44). If you do not think these arguments are strong, that's your opinion, but you have failed to show why they are weak. It does little good to chant the mantra that they are not deductive.
quote:
I wasn't seriously proposing those connections, I was just trying to show that more work needs to be done, to show that a connection is there.
Again, if you do not think the argument is strong, that is your opinion. However, if more work needs to be done, that might be more an indication that you are hardened in your Calvinism or whatever than that my arguments are weak.
Let us say that you have chosen to be a Calvinist or whatever, it would make perfect sense to say at a later time that God could harden your heart so that you cannot be an open theist. So, that you cannot become an open theist does not mean that you are not responsible for not being an open theist; God hardened your heart because you chose to be a Calvinist or whatever. This is what 12:39-40 is about, which is really the only evidence for your argument--the rest of the gospel argues against your argument.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/29/2004 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
Lee: Thus I think the drawing in John 12:32 was speaking primarily of drawing unbelievers. Are you saying that this verse refers to drawing believers? How can a person have the Father, and not the Son?
Kingsaint: How would you make sense of John 17:6: "They were yours and you gave them to me."
That's a good question! I would treat it like this verse:
EPH 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world...
I think this shows that belonging to the Father can be said to start before creation, and we are chosen "in him," that is, in Christ, so belonging to Christ starts back then, too. So "yours" may mean this choosing, and the actual relationship, with both the Father and the Son, starts at the moment of conversion, when "you gave them to me."
quote:
That's fine, and may be true, but it does not therefore connect the themes...
Remember, my arguments are not deductive (and neither is yours--you cannot simply deduce "God chooses who is to be saved" from John 6:44).
But the connection does need to be proved! If you cannot make a deduction here, then I think it is impossible to present a conclusion as well. Here is how I make my connection:
JN 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
Verse 44 says "drawing" is a requirement, verse 65 says "enabled" is a requirement, and I think enabled implied drawing, for if God enabled someone to come, but didn't draw them, then they can't come. Then I take verse 37 as making a similar, positive statement:
JN 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me.
Thus verse 37 says that coming is assured, and I take "drawing" and "enabled" to be part of "giving," and conclude that God chooses who will come.
That's the kind of work that I am hoping to see you present here, to work toward your conclusion.
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/29/2004 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Shalom Lee,
quote:
That's a good question! I would treat it like this verse:
EPH 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world...
I think this shows that belonging to the Father can be said to start before creation, and we are chosen "in him," that is, in Christ, so belonging to Christ starts back then, too. So "yours" may mean this choosing, and the actual relationship, with both the Father and the Son, starts at the moment of conversion, when "you gave them to me."
It is interesting that you are resorting to passages outside the gospel of John, but let me say that open theists have answers to passages such as Ephesians 1:4 (see Dr. Boyd's Satan and the Problem of Evil pp. 118-119). The "us" is the church as a corporate body which an individual is free to join or not. Also, you make the "giving" a logical sham. Besides, I think you are wrong as far as the gospel of John goes. Verse 1:11 seems to locate the moment of choice for Jesus as his coming to earth, not in the prexistence past--the giving happened when Jesus was on earth.
quote:
But the connection does need to be proved! If you cannot make a deduction here, then I think it is impossible to present a conclusion as well. Here is how I make my connection:
I think you fail to understand what I mean by deduction as opposed to induction and abduction. Few theological arguments of the sort we are engaging in are deductive (yours included).
quote:
Here is how I make my connection:
JN 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
Verse 44 says "drawing" is a requirement, verse 65 says "enabled" is a requirement, and I think enabled implied drawing, for if God enabled someone to come, but didn't draw them, then they can't come. Then I take verse 37 as making a similar, positive statement:
JN 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me.
Thus verse 37 says that coming is assured, and I take "drawing" and "enabled" to be part of "giving," and conclude that God chooses who will come.
I'm confused what your argument actually is, however, you cannot deduce "God chooses" from John 37, 44 and 65; my interpretations are proof of that. You only give necessary conditions for coming to Jesus (drawn by Father, enabled by Father, given by Father), however, I argue that choosing to be rightly related to the Father is also a necessary condition to come to Jesus and that means God does not simply choose who is saved. Your conclusion simply cannot be deduced from the evidence.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/30/2004 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
EPH 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world...
It is interesting that you are resorting to passages outside the gospel of John, but let me say that open theists have answers to passages such as Ephesians 1:4 (see Dr. Boyd's Satan and the Problem of Evil pp. 118-119). The "us" is the church as a corporate body which an individual is free to join or not.
Yes, I agree that's the Open View! You did ask for my view, though...
quote:
Also, you make the "giving" a logical sham.
Well, I think making the giving be at the moment of conversion is actually meaningful.
quote:
Besides, I think you are wrong as far as the gospel of John goes. Verse 1:11 seems to locate the moment of choice for Jesus as his coming to earth, not in the prexistence past--the giving happened when Jesus was on earth.
I would say that "his own" in John 1:11 refers to Jewish descent, though, and thus not to the question of salvation.
quote:
Lee: Here is how I make my connection...
Kingsaint: ... you cannot deduce "God chooses" from John 37, 44 and 65; my interpretations are proof of that.
I think I just did make a deduction, though. At least I tried to. I agree that your conclusion differs, but I need to hear similar reasons for your conclusion, so then we can examine how compelling your conclusion, or my conclusion, may be.
quote:
You only give necessary conditions for coming to Jesus (drawn by Father, enabled by Father, given by Father), however, I argue that choosing to be rightly related to the Father is also a necessary condition to come to Jesus and that means God does not simply choose who is saved.
No, I gave a sufficient condition, too, "All that the Father gives me will come to me" (Jn. 6:37). And I don't see why being rightly related must be a necessary condition, that is what I need to see the reason for. Again, why can I not note that D and R are both mentioned in the text, and conclude that R-->D?
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 5/30/2004 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Shalom Lee,
quote:
I would say that "his own" in John 1:11 refers to Jewish descent, though, and thus not to the question of salvation.
Yes, I agree, but the possibility of salvation was offered to his own (Jews) and the moment of choice was at Jesus visit on earth. The verse says his own did not accept him, not that God did not choose them. Besides, verse 1:12 mentions people who did accept him and this does relate to salvation.
quote:
I think I just did make a deduction, though.
No, you did not. What I mean by "deduction" is a technical logical term. I think you are using the term in a non-technical sense, which is o.k., but then you need to know that our arguments on par logically. You just simply think my arguments are weak, just as I think your arguments are weak.
quote:
No, I gave a sufficient condition, too, "All that the Father gives me will come to me" (Jn. 6:37). And I don't see why being rightly related must be a necessary condition, that is what I need to see the reason for
No, you did not give a sufficient condition. All that the Father gives me will come to me does not prove that God chooses, for the simple reason that there cound be conditions as to who God will give. John 6:37 just says that being given by the Father is a sufficient condition for coming to Jesus. But you cannot deduce the Father chooses from The Father giveth. I contend that your arguments for this move are weak. Think about this statement:
The Father gives only those who use their free-will and choose to be Godly people.
This proves that your argument fails as a deduction (technically or non-technically).
quote:
Again, why can I not note that D and R are both mentioned in the text, and conclude that R-->D?
In this case I think you could. Being rightly related to the Father and being drawn are probably biconditional. But generally it depends on what connection you are making and whether it is warranted. I gave six arguments for my connection. I agree that just because R and D are mentioned together that does not mean they are connected in the manner I contend, but I gave reason why I think they were connected. Fine, if you think the arguments are weak, that is your opinion.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:27 PM (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 |
|
|