Kyle said...1. The phrase translated "No one can come" is literally "No one is able to come" (oudeis dunatai elthein). Hence, the infinitive. Strictly speaking, the subject of the sentence isn't the coming one, but the one who is unable to come apart from the drawing of the Father.
saint and sinner 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." (John 6:44)
The "him" in both parts of the sentence refer to the same person (since there is no other "him" other than the Father to refer to). Thus, all that are drawn by the Father will come to Christ and be risen to eternal life on the last day.
>>I am an undecided Christian about election, predestination, and the mechanics of salvation. I read Geisler's Chosen But Free and found that it mischaracterized Calvinism in many places. I am in the process of reading the Potter's Freedom by James White. I am a regular Dividing Line listener and I have carefully read and heard James' exegesis of John 6 many times. I called his program to ask about the 'him' in John 6:44. When I read it I can see how the 'coming one' could be the subject and then both 'hims' refer back to the one who comes. James said that it is not possible in Greek because the phrase "No one can come" is an infinitive and can't be the subject of the sentence. This went over my head since I have no Greek training besides some personal study of beginning material. Can anyone here shed light on this?
When I read John 6:44 this is how it appears to me: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him (the coming one); and I will raise him (the coming one) up on the last day," Thus the ones who come are raised. We know that if anyone comes God first drew them and if they come God will raise them up (eternal security). God gets all the glory in salvation because men are helpless without God's drawing. The next verses explain that the Father draws men through the Word and therefore it seems sensible to conclude that all who hear the Word are subject to drawing though many reject the message.
2. However, of course, it isn't in dispute that the one who comes has been drawn and will be raised. The question is the extent of the Father's drawing. Henry had made the statement, "No where in the text of John 6 or anywhere else for that matter does it state that only the elect are drawn." Therefore, Saint and Sinner pointed out that verse 44 contains a double parallel singular accusative autos ("...Father who sent me draws him, him I will raise..."). In other words, the text knows no disjunction between the one who is drawn and the one who is raised. In synergistic theology, however, one can be drawn but not come and not be raised. But such a scenario is foreign to this verse.
3. Most important, however, is the over-arching context. Jesus is explaining unbelief. Verse 36 sets this up when he says "But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe." The synergistic interpretation of verse 44 turns the passage on its head because it transforms Jesus' explanation of unbelief into a teaching on the possibility of belief. Rather than Jesus telling his hearers that some do not believe because they are unable to do so, he is saying that all are able to believe (because all have been drawn). This hardly fits the thrust of the context of this passage.
In verse 65 it is even more clear:
64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Jesus says This is why I told you. In other words, Christ is saying that those who do not believe remain in disbelief because they are unable to do otherwise (i.e., they haven't been drawn by the Father). The synergistic explanation of this text simply cannot make sense out of this statement.
It is here where we simply must be honest with what Scripture is saying. What is the reason why Jesus says what he does in verse 65? He says "This is why I told you." Well, what is the reason? Is Jesus attempting to draw a portrait of ability? Is he saying that, while all men are unable to believe apart from being drawn, all men have in fact been drawn and are therefore able? Is that what he is trying to convey? Then it must be asked how this interpretation makes any sense out of the context of unbelief and Christ's explanations initiated in verses 37 and 65.
Nevertheless, It is clear, I believe, that Jesus is not portraying a situation of ability but that of inability. No one is able to come, which is why some still do not believe. But the one who is able to come, he has been drawn by the Father and will be raised up on the last day.
So it isn't simply the grammar and syntax of verse 44 that demands a limited scope of the drawing of the Father, but the context of the entire passage in general. And this is even without taking into consideration the limited scope of verse 37, where clearly only those who come are the ones who are given to Son by the Father. Thus, the synergist must either radically reinterpret verse 37, or completely disconnect the actions of the Father's giving and the Father's drawing, resulting in two completely different groups that are the objects of these actions. This, needless to say, tears the passage in half.
I hope that helps to clarify some things concerning the Reformed exegesis of this passage. If you have any more questions, just let me know.
When exegesis forces a level of pedanticism that one would never accept in real life, all in the name of proving something not otherwise defensible, something has gone terribly wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to say "no one is able to go to the ball game unless his Father gives him a ticket, and I will let him in on the grand final day", one would not automatically assume that receipt of a ticket results in irresistable compulsion to attend the ball game. I suppose a pedanticist of the kind of word games that children like to play might lead one there, but it fails the test of common usage, assuming something that isn't really there with an argument of the most subtle kind.
Of course, so-called synergism does not demand that everyone is "drawn", nor that everyone is drawn at the same time in the same circumstances. Jesus can be explaining why people are not believing at that time and place without setting up some system of irresistable grace.
Nice way to avoid the argument, Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteOrthodox:
ReplyDeleteSo is that your positive exegesis of the text, or just a flippant denial of what has been offered?
Why does Jesus say This is why I told you?
Why does he state it in the negative "No one is able" rather than simply saying, "Everyone is able to come, because everyone has been drawn by the Father"?
Who are the ones given to the Son by the Father? Are they equal to the ones who are drawn by the Father?
Please, don't just make assertions. Let's see the argument.
O-dox,
ReplyDeleteThe text says nothing of those who actually *do* come. So, you're reading into the text.
If you want to know who are the ones who come, well,
John 6:37
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
>Why does he state it in the negative "No one is able"
ReplyDelete>rather than simply saying, "Everyone is able to
>come, because everyone has been drawn by the
>Father"?
Apparently people here have a hard time reading what I wrote. Let me repeat word for word what I said:
"Of course, so-called synergism does not demand that everyone is "drawn", nor that everyone is drawn at the same time in the same circumstances."
Just because some weren't coming then because they weren't drawn, doesn't mean they will never be drawn, nor that those drawn will all come.
The text plainly says that no is is able to come unless the Father draws that person, and Jesus will raise that person up on the last day. Well, that is, if the two hims are the same him.
ReplyDeleteApparently Orhtodox has a hard time comprehending the text., The text says *nothing* about those who actually come. It talks about *able* to come.
So,
One is *able to come* to Jesus unless that Father draws the one. If the Father does not draw, then the one will not come.
Then Jesus says, *and* I will raise the one up.
So, if "the one" is "all men" then Jesus must raise "all men."
The Arminian wants to make this passage about those who actually do come, but unfortunately for them, the passage doesn't even get into that!
>Who are the ones given to the Son by the Father?
ReplyDelete>Are they equal to the ones who are drawn by the
>Father?
I would say not, but this is not my blog to be making some positive presentation. I'm just pointing out that the case isn't proven.
>If you want to know who are the ones who come, >well,
>
>John 6:37
>
>37 All that the Father gives me will come to me,
>and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
And how does the Father decide who to give to the Son?
40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life
Those are the ones the Father gives to the Son.
The Father decides who to give the son those who already came to the son????
ReplyDeleteStop, please. Your position is getting weirder and weirder as we progress. Please, by all means, believe your synergism, but le's stop with the pretenses that it's based on any sound exegesis.
On your view the coming is before the giving, but that's not what the text says,
"37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."
Those given come.
Now, since all men don't come, the Father must have chosen who would come, since we've established, both common sensically and textually, that the giving is prior to the coming, then it is God who chooses who will be saved.
God chooses a group, and that group necessarily comes.
On your view, God peers into his crystal ball and then "gives" to Christ those who already came to Christ. I mean, c'mon, you have to agree that that's kind of stupid. Like "predestining" people to do what they did without the "predestining." And you say that Calvinist "exegesis forces a level of pedanticism that one would never accept in real life, all in the name of proving something not otherwise defensible, something has gone terribly wrong."
Give it up already. Eastern Orthodox aren't really know for caring to much about the "intellectual" side of things anyway. Just say it's a mystery and don't bother with us.
Apparently people here have a hard time reading what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that the context of this discussion was Henry's assertion that "No where in the text of John 6 or anywhere else for that matter does it state that only the elect are drawn."
Of course, so-called synergism does not demand that everyone is "drawn"
What is your position, then? Who is drawn?
Just because some weren't coming then because they weren't drawn, doesn't mean they will never be drawn, nor that those drawn will all come.
This statement is inconsistent with libertarian free will. Libertarian free will demands that everyone be able, at all times, to make a decision for Christ. If there were some present who were unable to come to Christ, because they have not yet been drawn, then in what sense did they, at that moment, have the free will to choose whether or not they would come to Christ?
In any case, your assertion simply does not fit the context of this passage. There is a definitive number of people who are given to the Son. These people will come to the Son because they have been drawn by the Father. Is it your view that the group that is drawn is larger than the group that is given?
And how does the Father decide who to give to the Son?
40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life
Those are the ones the Father gives to the Son.
This is a reverse reading of the text. You're ripping verse 40 out of its immediate context and eisegeting it back into verse 37. The order of presentation is "Given --> Come --> Raised", not "Come --> Given --> Raised." Never does Jesus give any hint that the basis of the Father's giving is the coming of those who believe. That is the direct opposite of what he says. Those who come do so because they have been given.
I would say not, but this is not my blog to be making some positive presentation. I'm just pointing out that the case isn't proven.
You've made assertions and I'm just asking you to back them up.
>The Father decides who to give the son those who
ReplyDelete>already came to the son?
No they didn't already come to the Son. Those events have yet to take place.
>On your view the coming is before the giving,
>but that's not what the text says,
>37 All that the Father gives me will come to me,
>and whoever comes to me I will never drive
>away."
No one is denying that the Father gives the elect to the Son from eternity past. But you are assuming, based on human chronology, that the starting trigger for this sequence of events is the Father giving the elect to the Son. However the text says different that there is a different starting point which is the Father's purpose that all who look to the Son have eternal life.
>Now, since all men don't come, the Father must
>have chosen who would come, since we've
>established, both common sensically and
>textually, that the giving is prior to the coming,
>then it is God who chooses who will be saved.
God chooses, but it is based on v40, his will that all who believe have eternal life. You are assuming everything must proceed according to human chronology, but God is bigger than that.
>In your view, God peers into his crystal ball and
>then "gives" to Christ those who already came to
>Christ.
No, they didn't already come to Christ, they are yet to come to Christ in the chronology of history.
>On your view, God peers into his crystal ball and
>then "gives" to Christ those who already came to
>Christ. I mean, c'mon, you have to agree that
>that's kind of stupid. Like "predestining" people
>to do what they did without the "predestining."
I don't see anything stupid about the Father giving to the Son those who will come. The Father is the origin of all. The elect are His to give, and he gives them in the eternal present of the eternal existence of God. This is a picture of the internal workings of the Trinity, i's nothing to do with predestining without predestining whatever that is.
>What is your position, then? Who is drawn?
ReplyDeleteI would say everyone is drawn, but not at all times. It is God's choice when to call and draw.
Heb 4:7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."
>This statement is inconsistent with libertarian
>free will. Libertarian free will demands that
>everyone be able, at all times, to make a decision
>for Christ. If there were some present who were
>unable to come to Christ, because they have not
>yet been drawn, then in what sense did they, at
>that moment, have the free will to choose
>whether or not they would come to Christ?
The world is captive to the god of this world (Satan). What you are talking about is a full blown Pelagian free will, not a biblical free will which is tainted by the problems of sin and Satan. Men are not a neutral moral agent, but we are a moral agent. God helps us to overcome these obstacles in his drawing, but it doesn't mean we have no option to refuse.
>In any case, your assertion simply does not fit
>the context of this passage. There is a definitive
>number of people who are given to the Son.
Of course, the number is definitive, in that only those who believe are given.
>These people will come to the Son because they
>have been drawn by the Father.
These people have the opportunity to come because they are drawn.
> Is it your view that the group that is drawn is >larger than the group that is given?
Yes.
>This is a reverse reading of the text. You're
>ripping verse 40 out of its immediate context
>and eisegeting it back into verse 37. The order
>of presentation is "Given --> Come --> Raised",
>not "Come --> Given --> Raised." Never does
>Jesus give any hint that the basis of the Father's
>giving is the coming of those who believe. That
>is the direct opposite of what he says. Those who
>come do so because they have been given.
What order are we talking about? Logical or chronological? I agree the order is Given, Come, Raised, if we are talking chronology. If you want to talk about the logical order and the immediate context in the actual text it starts off from v35 "he who believes in me will never be thirsty." and the paragraph ends in v40 with "everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life". Believing is both first and last, depending on your viewpoint. But v40 states the actual basis because it talks of the Father's "will", which is the foundation for whatever God does. It doesn't say that the Father's will is to choose some people arbitrarily and make them believe.
I agree that Henry is obviously ignorant of what the Bible says.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it seems fairly clear that this verse in no way 'proves Calvinism'. I've read quite a lot of Calvinistic literature now and it would appear that they use a questionable interpretation of Romans 9, then look all over the Bible for something that appears to back up their view, and then pretend that these other verses ALONE constitute proof when, I'm sorry, they don't.
Orthodox,
ReplyDeleteYou're getting weirder and weirder:
"No they didn't already come to the Son. Those events have yet to take place."
Well, since that's the basis of the Father's giving, then you must say he hasn't given yet, either. If you say he gives who he foresaw would come, then he gives who he foresaw would come without giving. When he hits play on the button and starts history, why "give?" They were going to come anyway, as he saw, without the giving.
"No one is denying that the Father gives the elect to the Son from eternity past. But you are assuming, based on human chronology, that the starting trigger for this sequence of events is the Father giving the elect to the Son. However the text says different that there is a different starting point which is the Father's purpose that all who look to the Son have eternal life."
Wait, the Father gives the son the elect from eternity past, but his basis for giving is those who come to the son??? But "those events haven't happened yet." That's what you said, not me, you.
"God chooses, but it is based on v40, his will that all who believe have eternal life. You are assuming everything must proceed according to human chronology, but God is bigger than that."
God "chooses" who will be on his winning team those who chose him first? If the "basis" of his choosing is people "who have comne to Jesus," then since "this hasn't already happened yet," he chooses people after they choose him. Wow, I feel special.
"No, they didn't already come to Christ, they are yet to come to Christ in the chronology of history."
That doesn't matter. If the "basis" of his giving are "those who come to Jesus" then he "gives" people to Jesus who came (whether while he was watching the directors cut, or whether he pushed play on his cosmic VCR) to Jesus *without* a giving.
It's pretty easy. If the Father looks into his Easter Orthodox crystalball and sees into the future people who come to Christ, then did those people who came to Christ while he was watching the events in the crystal ball, come to Christ *without* his giving?
Furthermore, since the Father gives a group he foresaw would come to Christ, the text says that *in time* they all *will* come. But, how does this square with indetermism? When it comes time for them to choose, in history, at that moment can they decide against Christ? Do the have the genuine ability to actuate another alternative reality, i.e., not coming? If not, then how did they, at that time, make "a choice?" If so, then it's possible that some "given" might not "come" to Jesus.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou are right, this verse doesn't prove Calvinism. When taken in conjuction with the rest of John 6, it does. This verse proves *either* Calvinism or Universalism.
If the two hims are the same, then all drawn are raised. The text says *nothing* about the ones who actually come. That woiuld be reading into the text what isn't there. The one drawn is the able one. if all men are able, then all will be drawn on the4 last day.
Anyway, you might like to check out this logical analysis of John 6:44
http://www.geocities.com/elenctictheology/John-644.pdf
Let's substititue some things for "him." Substitution 1 is the Arminain version, 2 is the Calvinist version, and three is a version which says the hims are different.
ReplyDeleteS1: No man man is able to come to Jesus unless the father who sent me draws everyone, and I will raise everyone up on the last day.
S2: No man is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws Tim, Harry, Jenny, and Heather, and I will raise Tim, Harry, Jenny, and Heather up on the last day.
S3: No man is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws Michael and I will raise Anthony up on the last day.
S3 makes no sense, S1 is heretical, S2 is the only one that does justice to the verse.
The *only* way for the Arminian to resist the logic is for them to say that the one raised is the one who comes, but the text in question never has "the one who actually comes" included in it, rather it only speaks of "the one unable who is no made able to come" in it.
Let's look at it again.
S4. No one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me enables him, and I will raise the enabled him on the last day.
That's how the text goes. If all men are able, then, according to Jesus, all men are raised, sicne he raises all the one who the Father mad able.
Oh and btw, the Arminian may want to give this interpretation:
ReplyDeleteS5: "No one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws the one who comes, and I will raise the one who comes on the last day.
The Arminian may try this out, but unfortunatley, he now can't show that the drawing is universal. All we would know now is that the father draws *only* those who come and not everyone. And, since the drawing is required to come (unless some can come *without* drawing), we're back at a God choosing who will be saved and not allowing others the opportunity.
So, this eisogetical maneuver still wouldn't save the Arminian. he needs to save the universality of the dawing, but, as we saw above in (S1), everyone is then raised to everlasting life.
>When he hits play on the button and starts history,
ReplyDelete>why "give?" They were going to come anyway, as he
>saw, without the giving.
Giving and coming aren't the same thing. The whole world and everything in it is by rights belonging to the Father, but is taken hostage by Satan. But those who believe in Christ are given to him rightfully by the Father to be his people and taken off Satan. You assume that just because you believe in Christ, he can just "take" you, but no, the Father gives you if you believe.
>Furthermore, since the Father gives a group he
>foresaw would come to Christ, the text says that
>*in time* they all *will* come. But, how does this
>square with indetermism? When it comes time
>for them to choose, in history, at that moment
>can they decide against Christ? Do the have the
>genuine ability to actuate another alternative
>reality, i.e., not coming? If not, then how did
>they, at that time, make "a choice?" If so, then it's
>possible that some "given" might not "come" to
>Jesus.
Let's posit the existance of a time machine. If I went forward in time and witnessed something that God decided to do in the world, then went back in time before it happened, does God now have no choice in what he is going to do because I have witnessed the future? Of course, this is a silly argument
>The *only* way for the Arminian to resist the logic
ReplyDelete>is for them to say that the one raised is the one
>who comes, but the text in question never has "the
>one who actually comes" included in it, rather it
>only speaks of "the one unable who is no made able
>to come" in it.
As I already demonstrated, this exegesis doesn't stand up to every day conversation and understanding.
>S5: "No one is able to come to me unless the father
ReplyDelete>who sent me draws the one who comes, and I will
>raise the one who comes on the last day.
>
>The Arminian may try this out, but unfortunatley, >he now can't show that the drawing is universal. All
>we would know now is that the father draws *only*
>those who come and not everyone.
There's no "only" in the text. Just because he draws those who come doesn't prove he doesn't draw others. There's other verses saying he draws all men, we don't need John 6 for this purpose. We've got our verses saying God draws all men, and Calvinists have to resort to extreme measure to try and weasel around them.
Anytime you have a refutation for the above just let us know. Otherwise, just admit you hold to syngerism by blind faith.
ReplyDeleteI had made the claim that: “No where in the text of John 6 or anywhere else for that matter does it state that only the elect are drawn.” My point is very simple but damaging for Calvinism: for the Calvinistic construct to be true they need to show not that people who end up being believers are drawn (what Jn.6:44 states and what they call the “elect”), but that ****ONLY**** THE ELECT ARE DRAWN. That is their position, so the burden of proof is on them making the assertion that ONLY THE ELECT ARE DRAWN. Non-Calvinists claim otherwise, that God can and does draw people who then reject Christ and Him as the only way of salvation. Evan May provoked by my assertion wrote: “The question is the extent of the Father’s drawing. Henry had made the statement . . .” When I have a bit more time I want to show problems with Evan May’s presentation: I will take it line by line and show the problems with it.
ReplyDeleteFor now I have to say I really appreciated Orthodox’s statements:
“There's no "only" in the text. Just because he draws those who come doesn't prove he doesn't draw others. There's other verses saying he draws all men, we don't need John 6 for this purpose. We've got our verses saying God draws all men, and Calvinists have to resort to extreme measure to try and weasel around them.”
Orthodox has nailed the problem down perfectly: “THERE IS NO ***ONLY*** IN THE TEXT”. And: Just because the Lord **does** in fact draw those who eventually become believers, “DOESN’T PROVE THAT HE DOESN’T DRAW OTHERS”. Or as I put it: no where in the text of John 6 or anywhere else for that matter does it state that only the elect are drawn.
Orthodox you also wrote that: “We’ve got our verses saying God draws all men”. Could you share some (or all) of the verses that you believe suggest that all are drawn? That would further the discussion by reinforcing your points.
Orthodox also says that because of such verses the Calvinists have to resort to extreme measure to try and weasel around them. This could be called “exegetical gymnastics”. :-) A great example of this is to look at the Calvinistic attempts to deal with John 3:16 (for them it can mean anything but what it does mean, that God has a redemptive love for all people including those who will reject the gospel and continue to reject the gospel for their whole lives).
When I post again in this thread I would like to deal with Evan May’s post which originated this thread.
Henry
Evan May made comments that I want to carefully consider here. I believe that it can be shown that he misrepresents the position of noncalvinists as well as presenting a weak case for his own view,Calvinism, by prooftexting from a few verses. Here I will quote him and then show the problems.
ReplyDelete“1. The phrase translated "No one can come" is literally "No one is able to come" (oudeis dunatai elthein). Hence, the infinitive. Strictly speaking, the subject of the sentence isn't the coming one, but the one who is unable to come apart from the drawing of the Father.”
Ok, the text says of the persons being described in verse 44 that they are/were/will be unable to come to Jesus **unless they are drawn**. A question to be asked here is: and to whom does this verse refer? What set of persons are described in verse 44? Is it all human persons? Have all human persons been drawn and have come to Jesus? NO, the surrounding verses show these persons to **be** believers, those who come to faith in Jesus Christ.
“2. However, of course, it isn't in dispute that the one who comes has been drawn and will be raised.”
Agreed.
“The question is the extent of the Father's drawing.”
And the verse says (if it is referring to the set of all believers) that they ***must have been drawn*** in order for them to be able to come to Jesus (a phrase in John 6 which means to have faith in Him). This verse is talking about the **necessity** of the “drawing” in order for someone to be saved (i.e. no one who **is** a believer has **not been drawn**).
“Henry had made the statement, "No where in the text of John 6 or anywhere else for that matter does it state that only the elect are drawn."
And I stick with that statement, as it is true.
“Therefore, Saint and Sinner pointed out that verse 44 contains a double parallel singular accusative autos ("...Father who sent me draws him, him I will raise...").”
Right, the verse is clearly talking about the same group of people, believers. It needs to be carefully noted that while the verse says no one can come unless drawn, it is specifically speaking of **believers**, those who **have** come to Jesus. This is important to note in light of Evan’s comments.
“In other words, the text knows no disjunction between the one who is drawn and the one who is raised.”
There is no “”disjunction” between being drawn and being raised IN REFERENCE TO BELIEVERS. This is true because believers are both drawn and will be raised. One of the key themes in John 6 is the security of our salvation. That if someone comes to Jesus/responds to Him with faith, they will never lose their salvation, they can be absolutely certain of the security of their salvation because of what Jesus says here in John 6 (as well as in other places as well). In the case of **believers** there is no disjunction in reference to them as they will both be drawn, they will respond with faith, and they will be raised.
On the other hand, in the case of nonbelievers the “disjunction” applies (i.e., they may be drawn but may reject Jesus and salvation by faith Him alone). So for such a person, an unbeliever, they may be drawn but then they may not come to Jesus (the phrase “come to Jesus” in this context refers to responding by faith to the gospel message). Since the verse ***is*** talking about believers (those who have come to Jesus, been drawn and responded with faith, whom Jesus will personally raise up) and not unbelievers (those who do not come to Jesus, do not respond with faith). We should not expect a disjunction here in this verse, and we do not find reference to a disjunction in this particular verse. Throughout John 6 the phrase "and I will raise him up" is referring to believers who had to have responded in faith to the gospel message. The phrase is present in v. 44 so those person being referred to here are people who have been drawn, have responded with faith, and so **are** believers.
“In synergistic theology, however, one can be drawn but not come and not be raised. But such a scenario is foreign to this verse.”
First, this statement is partially true, for non-calvinists believe that one can be drawn but not come because one choooses to reject the gospel message. Parenthetically, the nonbelievers will also be raised because other scriptures teach that all who die will be raised to face final judgment. But again it must be kept in mind that the phrase "and I will raise Him" in John 6 is strictly speaking of believers not unbelievers.
Second, note especially the second line of Evan here: “But such a scenario is foreign to this verse.” Why is the disjunction (“such a scenario”), not present in this ***specific verse***? BECAUSE THE VERSE IS REFERRING TO BELIEVERS who do come to Jesus. That being true, it is not going to be referring to the possible disjunction between being drawn and coming to Jesus with faith. Since the verse is talking about believers who **do** come to Jesus, no such disjunction could be, or would be present here. And yet Evan is attempting to use this verse against the noncalvinist. It doesn’t work if the passage is properly understood as referring to believers not unbelievers. The first part of the verse speaks of the universal fact that no one can come to Jesus (have faith) unless they have in fact been drawn. No drawing = No coming to Jesus. Drawing then is a precondition that is necessary in order for someone to be saved. But drawing alone is not sufficient for salvation because the surrounding verses make it clear that a person **must** have faith in Jesus in order to be saved.
“3. Most important, however, is the over-arching context. Jesus is explaining unbelief.”
Wrong.
The **over-arching context of John 6 is not the explanation of unbelief. While a few verses in John 6 speak of unbelief, this is not one of the major themes of the chapter. When I have taught on this passage in the past, the key themes that I have brought out included: (1) the necessity of faith in Jesus alone for salvation; (2) the absolute security of salvation; (3) the Incarnation (the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us . . .); (4) the Identity of Jesus (the Son of God come down from Heaven); and (5) glimpses into the trinity. These are the key themes referred to by most of the verses in John 6.
The Calvinist, seeking a prooftext for his position, ignores the context and tries to ***frame*** the chapter as a discussion of the nature of unbelief and specifically as an argument for total depravity (or as it is also referred to “total inability”) and unconditional election (that God preselects and predetermines who will believe, rather than God foreknowing who will believe). They are looking for some verse(s) to establish their view so they attempt to prooftext from verses such as Jn. 6:44 and 6:65 and 6:37.
“Verse 36 sets this up when he says "But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe."
And in verse 28 the people had asked: “what shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” This is similar to when the Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:30) asks Paul: “what must I do to be saved”. Paul answers: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” Jesus answers the people with: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” The answer both times is faith in Jesus saves you. Throughout John 6 Jesus keeps hammering on this point. One more example is verse 53: “So Jesus said to them: ‘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’.” Paraphrased: unless you have faith in Jesus alone for salvation you cannot be saved, it is impossible to be saved apart from faith in Jesus the one whom the Father has sent.
Note also v. 40 “For this is the will of the 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.” So one must **both** behold and **believe** according to this verse. But we know that many **did** behold but did not believe: “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.” (v. 36). There is the disjunction by the way: a person who beholds but does not believe. Noncalvinists would say that this can be put another way as well: a person who may be drawn but then responds with unbelief (e.g. the rich young ruler walked up to Jesus, was drawn to Him even knowing that Jesus knew the way to eternal life, and asking Him about how to be saved, and yet He walked away an unbeliever because his possessions were more important to him, than a personal relationship with God). A careful reading of John 6 will show that it says a lot about the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation and also about the security of those who do come to Jesus, but very little is said about unbelief.
“The synergistic interpretation of verse 44 turns the passage on its head because it transforms Jesus' explanation of unbelief into a teaching on the possibility of belief.”
This is not true verse 44 according to noncalvinists is not talking about the “possibility of belief”. Rather, it is saying that no one can possibly be a believer unless that person has been drawn by God. Left in our sinful state before conversion, left to our own efforts alone, we have no chance to be saved. It is only as the Holy Spirit draws us to Christ by illuminating scripture for us, convicting us of our sin and our need for Jesus as our savior, showing us what Jesus did in His ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, showing us of our need for forgiveness for our sins, etc. Etc. Only after all that are we ever in a place where we could even possibly have faith in Christ for salvation. Talk to Christians about their conversion experience and while individual circumstances may be different depending on the sovereignty of God, some clear patterns repeat themselves (e.g. God showed me that I was a sinner and that I could not save myself by any works, that my only hope was Jesus, etc. Etc.). I believe in the inability of people to come to Jesus in faith apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. But I also believe that He does this work with more than just those who eventually come to Jesus with faith. Verse 44 then speaks of the necessity of the drawing in order for anyone to be saved. And verse 44 properly interpreted is talking about believers (who necessarily had to have been drawn)not unbelievers who may be drawn but then respond in unbelief. Verse 44 talks about the necessity of drawing for a person to become a believer, but it does not talk about the necessity of a person having a faith response in order to be saved, because other verses in the chapter make this clear.
“Rather than Jesus telling his hearers that some do not believe because they are unable to do so, he is saying that all are able to believe (because all have been drawn). This hardly fits the thrust of the context of this passage.”
First, the verse says no one can be a believer (i.e., come to Me) unless they have been drawn. It does imply that apart from the work of the Spirit, no one is able to have faith in Jesus. Second, the verse does not say “he is saying that all are able to believe”. Nor is the verse saying they can all believe “(because all have been drawn).” Third, the verse does not say that all have been drawn AND it also does not say that **only** the elect have been drawn. In fact it says neither, so this specific verse does not settle whether or not all are drawn or not. The verse is not supporting Calvinism, nor is it supporting noncalvinism. But Calvinists attempt to use it as a prooftext for their view. Yes it says that if you are a believer you had to have been drawn, but it does not say that ONLY THE ELECT HAVE BEEN DRAWN.
Evan brings up the context again. If people realized the context is not an explanation of the nature of unbelief (v. 44 is referring to the necessity of believers having to be drawn). It is not explaining the nature of unbelievers’ unbelief. Rather, the real themes of John 6 are what I referred to earlier. But what gives away somone who is prooftexting is that they do in fact ignore the real context and try to reframe the text and context to be something different than what it really is.
“In verse 65 it is even more clear:
64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Jesus says This is why I told you. In other words, Christ is saying that those who do not believe remain in disbelief because they are unable to do otherwise (i.e., they haven't been drawn by the Father).”
Now Evan is attempting to prooftext from v. 64-65. Is the context here an explanation of the nature of unbelief? No, Jesus is making a comment that even among his own apostles, there is one who has not responded in faith to the drawing work of the Spirit. The point of these verses is not to discuss the nature of unbelief in general but to point out that Judas in particular was not a believer. Judas clearly had beheld the Son of God, seen miracles, been close to Jesus, was intimately involved in Jesus’ ministry, and yet had not believed. Judas is in fact a perfect example of the “disjunction”, someone who may have been drawn but who resisted the work of the Spirit and remained in unbelief. Regarding it being “granted”, as Orthodox pointed out in another post, the sovereignty of God determines when and under what circumstances a person will experience the work of the Spirit in drawing that person to Jesus. Again, real Christians can testify about the drawing process that resulted in them responding in faith. They know that ***unless*** this work of the Spirit in leading them to Jesus had been sovereignly granted by God, they never could have believed.
Note especially that Evan says that the verse says: “those who do not believe remain in disbelief because they are unable to do otherwise.” This verse is not discussing libertarian versus compatibilist notions of free will, and claiming that unbelievers are not able to do otherwise, that is not the context nor is that the intended meaning to be derived here.
Evan also adds “they haven’t been drawn by the Father”. Where in these verses, vv. 64-65 does it say that NONBELIEVERS ARE NEVER DRAWN BY THE FATHER, or that ONLY THE ELECT ARE DRAWN BY THE FATHER??? Neither of these propositions are stated in these verses (or anywhere in John 6). The only thing that it does say is that a person cannot come to Jesus unless it has been granted by the Father. And how does scripture uniformly present the coming of people to Jesus in a way that results in them being saved? It says over and over that in response to the work of the Spirit using the Word of God as the instrument, **they respond in faith** to the gospel message. Those who respond in faith to the work of the Spirit are saved. Those who respond in unbelief, and persist in that unbelief are not saved.
“The synergistic explanation of this text simply cannot make sense out of this statement.”
Evan says that noncalvinists cannot make sense of this verse, from a noncalvinist perspective. We can and I just did so. Now that does not mean the Calvinist will like or accept the noncalvinist way of handling these texts, but to say that we cannot make sense of these verses is simply false.
“It is here where we simply must be honest with what Scripture is saying. What is the reason why Jesus says what he does in verse 65? He says "This is why I told you." Well, what is the reason?”
The reason that He says what He says here is to talk about Judas and predict his betrayal.
“Is Jesus attempting to draw a portrait of ability?”
NO, ability or inability is not the issue in these verses the unbelief of Judas is the issue here.
“Is he saying that, while all men are unable to believe apart from being drawn, all men have in fact been drawn and are therefore able?”
He does not say in vv. 64-65 that **all** men have in fact been drawn. But he also does not say in these verses that only the elect have been drawn, or that unbelievers are never drawn.
“Is that what he is trying to convey?”
No, I have explained what He was trying to convey.
“Then it must be asked how this interpretation makes any sense out of the context of unbelief and Christ's explanations initiated in verses 37 and 65.”
I think I have explained that clearly. Regarding “this interpretation” it is not my interpretation that these specific verses are saying that all men have been drawn. That is a straw man misrepresentation of my position.
“Nevertheless, It is clear, I believe, that Jesus is not portraying a situation of ability but that of inability.”
He is neither portraying a situation of ability nor is He portraying a situation of inability. That is not the concern in these verses. His point is that He chose His apostles and even one of them is a nonbeliever.
“No one is able to come, which is why some still do not believe.”
No one is able to come unless they have been drawn (which is stated by the text of v. 44). But Jesus is not explaining “why some still do not believe.” The reasons why some may still not believe is that they have not yet been drawn and/or they have been drawn but have rejected the gospel message when it was revealed to them.
“But the one who is able to come, he has been drawn by the Father and will be raised up on the last day.”
The text states that only if you have been drawn can you come to Jesus/have faith in Him). The ideas that only the elect are drawn (is not stated by the text) and that those drawn will always become believers (is also not stated in the text). What you leave out here, is the possibility that someone is drawn, and made able to have faith(make that choice), but then that person may choose not to have faith in Jesus (i.e. he is led to a place where He can choose to have faith in Jesus, this leading is done by the Spirit and yet he chooses unbelief instead of faith). That being true, the noncalvinist takes the position that a person may be enabled to come by the work of the Spirit who shows the person who Jesus is and his need for Jesus as his savior, etc. Etc. And yet that person may **still** reject the work of the Spirit (e.g. the Pharisees saw lots of miracles, heard the very words of Jesus, knew the miracles were from God and yet attributed them to the devil and committed the unpardonable sin which is continuous and repeated rejection of the work of the Spirit testifying about Jesus). When Stephen speaks of the crowd resisting the Spirit, this occurs after they have heard an evangelistic message and rejected it. The Spirit can draw you, but if your response is unbelief then you will not “come to Jesus” (the meaning in John 6 of “come to Jesus” being to respond with faith). V. 44 speaks of those who had been drawn, had responded in faith and so were going to be raised by Jesus. These believers had responded with faith to the work of the Spirit.
“So it isn't simply the grammar and syntax of verse 44 that demands a limited scope of the drawing of the Father, but the context of the entire passage in general.”
The grammar and syntax of verse 44 do not establish Calvinism (remember the missing ***only***?). Your argument is an exegetical claim with no exegetical substance behind it. Regarding the “limited scope of the drawing of the Father” in v. 44. Of course it is limited as it is only describing the set of persons who **do** in fact respond to the drawing of the Spirit and **do** come to faith in Jesus (in other words it is **only** referring to believers; nonbelievers do not “come to Jesus” in John 6). The fact that v. 44 tells us that believers **had to have been drawn** does not tell us whether or not nonbelievers who remain nonbelievers are ever drawn by the Spirit. Regarding the “context of the entire passage in general”, again, the context is not an explanation of the nature of unbelief. Unbelief is barely mentioned in John 6. Instead the emphasis over and over throughout the passage is the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation and the security of salvation of those who **do** come to faith in Jesus.
“And this is even without taking into consideration the limited scope of verse 37, where clearly only those who come are the ones who are given to Son by the Father.”
Now if only those who have faith are said to come to Christ, and if those given by the Father to the Son are **believers**, then why should we be surprised by the “limited scope” found in verse 37? Look at verse 37:
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”
Who are these “all” of verse 37? Believers.
What will they all do? They will all “come to Me” (which throughout John 6 refers to a faith response to the gospel message; those who respond with faith to the work of the Spirit **will come** to Jesus). And if these come in faith to Jesus is there any possibility that they will lose their salvation? No. Jesus says He will never cast them out and He says in v. 38-40:
“For I have come down from heaven [Incarnation theme, identify of Jesus as Son of God], not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me [unified purpose of members of the Trinity]. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me, I lose nothing [eternal security of those who are genuine believers], but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son AND BELIEVES IN HIM [necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, without faith in Christ a person cannot be saved] will have eternal life [all live forever but only believers have the eternal life of Union with Christ], and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” In these verses we see the real themes of John 6, and the major themes are not an explanation of the nature of unbelief.
“Thus, the synergist must either radically reinterpret verse 37, or completely disconnect the actions of the Father's giving and the Father's drawing, resulting in two completely different groups that are the objects of these actions. This, needless to say, tears the passage in half.”
I have not “radically reinterpreted” verse 37. God has absolute foreknowledge and so He knows who will respond in faith to the gospel message. He is never mistaken about this, nor can He be. The fact that certain people will have faith in Jesus is known to God before they come to faith in Jesus. Those whom the Father knows will respond to the gospel message are those given by the Father to the Son, believers. They, like everyone else are incapable of having faith in Jesus ***apart from the work of the Spirit***. They **do** respond in faith to Jesus, respond in faith to the work of the Spirit, so they **do** “come to Jesus”. And they come to Jesus and receive a salvation that is absolutely secure and can never be lost, taken away, or forfeited. This interpretation may be different than Evan’s Calvinistic interpretation, but it is neither radical nor wrong. Regarding the noncalvinist view resulting in “two completely different groups (presumably those given by the Father and those coming to the Son) that are the objects of these actions. This is once again a straw man, a misrepresentation of my noncalvinist view. In v. 37 all that are given, and all that come, are one and the same group, believers. But acknowledging this truth does not amount to endorsing Calvinism. Again, Calvinism needs to show that ***only*** the elect are drawn, and this cannot be established by any of the verses in John 6 (or anywhere else for that matter).
“I hope that helps to clarify some things concerning the Reformed exegesis of this passage. If you have any more questions, just let me know.”
I hope that I have shown that the reformed exegesis of John 6 is prooftexting from a couple of verses attempting to read in the Calvinistic notions that only the elect are drawn to Christ. The reformed “exegesis” by Evan May presents not exegesis according to the context of the passage and its actual themes but a Calvinistic attempt at prooftexting by isolating a few verses and “establishing” Calvinism from them. That is not what John 6 is about. It **is** about the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, about the security of our salvation, about the Incarnation, about the identity of Jesus, about the unified purpose of the members of the trinity . . .
And noncalvinists are well aware of these facts.
Henry
Henry,
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to let you know that I've read your comment.
If my schedule allows, I'll try to post a response (but, if you notice, I don't actually post often on the blog, due to time constraints).
Hello Evan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
“If my schedule allows, I'll try to post a response (but, if you notice, I don't actually post often on the blog, due to time constraints).”
I fully understand what you are saying. I know all about “time constraints”. Your spouse wants to spend time with you, your kids want to spend time with you, you have various local church responsibilities, you have family and friends that want your time, other Christians want your time, etc. Etc. Etc. And then in contrast to all of **that** you try to post on some blog! Again, I wish I had some clones, it would make things a whole lot easier. Take your time there is no rush, while these things are interesting to discuss, there are much more important “constraints” that we both have to deal with. Now back to that pesky chess problem that I was dealing with! :-)
Henry
I think Henry is essentially right here; there's no reason to unnecessarily read John 6 as a Calvinist prooftext.
ReplyDeleteI would go even further though and deny the necessity of any notion of perseverance of the saints in the text. Henry states:
[begin quote]
What will they all do? They will all “come to Me” (which throughout John 6 refers to a faith response to the gospel message; those who respond with faith to the work of the Spirit **will come** to Jesus). And if these come in faith to Jesus is there any possibility that they will lose their salvation? No. Jesus says He will never cast them out and He says in v. 38-40:
“For I have come down from heaven [Incarnation theme, identify of Jesus as Son of God], not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me [unified purpose of members of the Trinity]. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me, I lose nothing [eternal security of those who are genuine believers], but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son AND BELIEVES IN HIM [necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, without faith in Christ a person cannot be saved] will have eternal life [all live forever but only believers have the eternal life of Union with Christ], and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” In these verses we see the real themes of John 6, and the major themes are not an explanation of the nature of unbelief.
[endquote]
The three places where I see argument for eternal security are verses 37, 39, and 40.
The first very easy way to question the eternal security argument from these verses is
1. Regarding verse 37, I would question whether the fact that Jesus drives none away necessitates that we can't leave of our own volition. Perhaps Jesus doesn't drive us away, but we can walk away of our own sinful and unbelieving choice. Just because Jesus won't drive us away doesn't require that it be impossible for us to leave for some other reason.
2. Second, I would question whether God's will is always accomplished. Verse 39 says that the Father's will is that Jesus lose nothing, and verse 40 says that it is the Father's will that those who see the Son and believe have eternal life. But it seems that the supporter of eternal security, in order to prove his case, must demonstrate that God's will cannot be resisted. Until this assumption is proven, it seems that there is no necessary inference from the fact of the Father's will being the eternal perseverence of the elect to that perseverence actually, necessarily being accomplished.
That's one way of addressing the alleged prooftexts for eternal security. Any criticisms?
Hello MG,
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you see that John 6 does not lead to the Calvinist position when properly seen in its context and not **framed** as an explanation as to why the people did not believe. The emphases in the text are the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation; the incarnation, glimpses into the trinity, and eternal security, not an explanation of why some were not believing in Jesus.
You wrote:
“I think Henry is essentially right here; there's no reason to unnecessarily read John 6 as a Calvinist prooftext.”
So we agree here. John 6 fails to prove the Calvinist position. You continued:
”I would go even further though and deny the necessity of any notion of perseverance of the saints in the text. Henry states: [quotation of my words and the scriptures quoted]”
And then you said:
”The three places where I see argument for eternal security are verses 37, 39, and 40.”
Verses 37 and 39 appear to teach eternal security, but you then question this with:
”The first very easy way to question the eternal security argument from these verses is
1. Regarding verse 37, I would question whether the fact that Jesus drives none away necessitates that we can't leave of our own volition. Perhaps Jesus doesn't drive us away, but we can walk away of our own sinful and unbelieving choice. Just because Jesus won't drive us away doesn't require that it be impossible for us to leave for some other reason.”
MG two important questions for you:
(1) (You appear to not believe in eternal security) so in your opinion what is the **basis** upon which someone can lose their salvation?
(2) Is **this basis** for losing salvation an action that is a sin committed by the person who can lose their salvation?
You continued:
”2. Second, I would question whether God's will is always accomplished. Verse 39 says that the Father's will is that Jesus lose nothing, and verse 40 says that it is the Father's will that those who see the Son and believe have eternal life. But it seems that the supporter of eternal security, in order to prove his case, must demonstrate that God's will cannot be resisted. Until this assumption is proven, it seems that there is no necessary inference from the fact of the Father's will being the eternal perseverence of the elect to that perseverence actually, necessarily being accomplished.”
I believe that God’s will is sometimes resisted: when we sin. However, God’s **purposes** can never be thwarted. A question to consider is whether or not **security of salvation** falls within the Lord’s purposes (if it is one of God’s purposes that believers never lose their salvation, then this purpose will never be thwarted)? If it does fall within His purposes then eternal security could be true and **simultaneously** it could also be the case that sometimes God’s will is resisted. I **do** believe that both of these things are true: sometimes we resist God’s will and those who are genuine Christians will never lose their salvation. So I do not assume “that God’s will cannot be resisted” (for example Christians continue to sin, and yet their sin is resisting God’s will so that scripture speaks of Christians grieving the Spirit by their sins). Since I do not hold this assumption I feel no need to prove this assumption. And proving this assumption is not part of my case for eternal security.
You ended with:
“That's one way of addressing the alleged prooftexts for eternal security. Any criticisms?”
MG please answer my two questions as that will better allow me to interact with you on this issue. I will say this up front, even if we disagree on the issue of eternal security, we can still discuss these things in a rational and biblical way without the sarcasm and personal put downs that some must include in their interactions.
Henry
Henry--
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the civility of your response and your willingness to dialogue.
"MG two important questions for you:
(1) (You appear to not believe in eternal security) so in your opinion what is the **basis** upon which someone can lose their salvation?"
I would say sin and unbelief can both be damning and can void someone's salvation.
"(2) Is **this basis** for losing salvation an action that is a sin committed by the person who can lose their salvation?"
Sure, that's at least one possible basis.
"I believe that God’s will is sometimes resisted: when we sin. However, God’s **purposes** can never be thwarted. A question to consider is whether or not **security of salvation** falls within the Lord’s purposes (if it is one of God’s purposes that believers never lose their salvation, then this purpose will never be thwarted)? If it does fall within His purposes then eternal security could be true and **simultaneously** it could also be the case that sometimes God’s will is resisted. I **do** believe that both of these things are true: sometimes we resist God’s will and those who are genuine Christians will never lose their salvation. So I do not assume “that God’s will cannot be resisted” (for example Christians continue to sin, and yet their sin is resisting God’s will so that scripture speaks of Christians grieving the Spirit by their sins). Since I do not hold this assumption I feel no need to prove this assumption. And proving this assumption is not part of my case for eternal security."
Here is how I would respond to your paragraph:
1. Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to prove that eternal security was false, I was responding to objections to my position (namely that certain biblical texts prove eternal security). I figure you realize this... but I thought it would be good to just say that anyway.
2. It seems that your distinction between God's will and purposes is interesting. However, in order for me to be convinced that it is a real distinction, I would like to see argument for it.
3. How would Luke 7:30 harmonize with your position about the purpose of God being impossible to reject? "The Pharisees and teachers of the law rejected for themselves God's purpose..."
"MG please answer my two questions as that will better allow me to interact with you on this issue. I will say this up front, even if we disagree on the issue of eternal security, we can still discuss these things in a rational and biblical way without the sarcasm and personal put downs that some must include in their interactions."
Hopefully my answers will be sufficiently clear so as to explain my position. And again, I appreciate being able to talk to a person who has an agreeable tone.
MG,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
”I appreciate the civility of your response and your willingness to dialogue.”
Perhaps we can model appropriate behavior for the sake of certain other persons.
I had asked:
"MG two important questions for you:
(1) (You appear to not believe in eternal security) so in your opinion what is the **basis** upon which someone can lose their salvation?"
You responded:
”I would say sin and unbelief can both be damning and can void someone's salvation.”
Here you appear to be saying that that someone **can** lose their salvation.
And yet later you write:
“1. Just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to prove that eternal security was false, I was responding to objections to my position (namely that certain biblical texts prove eternal security). I figure you realize this . . . but I thought it would be good to just say that anyway.”
MG so what **is**your position? Do you believe that we can lose our salvation or not? I am not sure exactly what your position is, could you clarify it a bit?
You went on to write:
”Here is how I would respond to your paragraph:
1. Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to prove that eternal security was false, I was responding to objections to my position (namely that certain biblical texts prove eternal security). I figure you realize this... but I thought it would be good to just say that anyway.
2. It seems that your distinction between God's will and purposes is interesting. However, in order for me to be convinced that it is a real distinction, I would like to see argument for it.
3. How would Luke 7:30 harmonize with your position about the purpose of God being impossible to reject? "The Pharisees and teachers of the law rejected for themselves God's purpose..."”
I have already commented on (1). In regards to (2) there are scriptures that speak of God doing something or intending to do something and it is said that no one, nothing, will thwart God’s action. Let’s call these types of events: **sovereign interventions** by God. Sovereign because He decides to do them, He does as He pleases and no one will stop Him from doing what He pleases to do. On the other hand, there are situations and events in which God has a plan for something to be done, but that plan can be, and is sometimes, resisted.
Your appeal to Luke 7:30 presents a good example of this second type of event. God had a plan for the Pharisees and they resisted the plan, they chose not to do it.
In Luke 7 Jesus is discussing John the Baptist and in this context, consider what the texts (verses 29-30) then present:
“And when all the people and the tax gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.”
According to these verses then, God’s “plan” or “purpose” was for the people to undergo John the Baptist’s water baptism. The common folk responded with obedience to this “plan”/”purpose” and **were baptized** by John. And the Pharisees who also knew God’s will in this situation, understood the “plan” and knew they should have been baptized by John. Nevertheless, the Pharisees and lawyers chose not to be baptized by John: so they rejected God’s purpose for themselves.
Another common example. God’s purpose for men and women who are married is for complete fidelity and faithfulness to one’s spouse. And while those who are obedient to God follow God’s plan, may even defend it verbally and in writing, and also preach about it. Yet some others reject God’s purpose/plan, and commit adultery.
From an inductive study of scripture then, I believe that we need to conclude that when a “sovereign intervention’ occurs God’s purposes are never thwarted. And yet on other occasions, God’s purposes or plans for human persons, are rejected when people sin by not following God’s purpose or plan. Perhaps you may want to suggest other terminology for this distinction (the words for it, are not that important in my opinion). But in light of scripture, we do need to make this distinction between purposes of God that cannot be thwarted and those that can be.
You ended with:
”Hopefully my answers will be sufficiently clear so as to explain my position. And again, I appreciate being able to talk to a person who has an agreeable tone.”
Well your position is not sufficiently clear, at least to me, at this point, so I await further clarification.
Henry
Henry--
ReplyDeleteRegarding my position on the possibility of loss of salvation: what I was arguing was that specifically in John 6 I cannot prove from that text that salvation can be lost. I was not asserting disbelief in the possibility of losing salvation being a biblical teaching; I actually do believe salvation can be lost. All I was saying is that John 6 doesn’t seem to teach it either way; you could legitimately believe in either the loss-of-salvation or the perseverance of the saints view based on it. John 6 doesn’t seem to require either one in my opinion.
Regarding the distinction between “thwartable purposes” and “non-thwartable purposes”, I think you are correct that this distinction exists. It also seems that using the will vs. purpose language misled me. So it seems there’s agreement in essence between us.
Of course I would see the continual salvation (perseverance) of a person under the “thwartable purposes” category in Scripture; so I guess that’s where to go next. What arguments do you think there are for perseverance being an unthwartable purpose of God?
Thanks Henry; is that a bit more clear?
MG wrote:
ReplyDelete“Regarding my position on the possibility of loss of salvation: what I was arguing was that specifically in John 6 I cannot prove from that text that salvation can be lost.”
Well I agree with you there, John 6 does not provide arguments for losing our salvation. It presents the opposite: arguments for not losing our salvation.
“ I was not asserting disbelief in the possibility of losing salvation being a biblical teaching; I actually do believe salvation can be lost.”
Well we disagree on that.
“All I was saying is that John 6 doesn’t seem to teach it either way; you could legitimately believe in either the loss-of-salvation or the perseverance of the saints view based on it. John 6 doesn’t seem to require either one in my opinion.”
Actually I have to disagree with you again. It seems to me that John 6 presents arguments for us not losing our salvation. But I am sure you have probably heard this already so I won’t spend any time demonstrating this.
“Regarding the distinction between “thwartable purposes” and “non-thwartable purposes”, I think you are correct that this distinction exists. It also seems that using the will vs. purpose language misled me. So it seems there’s agreement in essence between us.”
No intention to mislead on my part, that is why I suggested that you use whatever terminology you prefer when referring to this biblical distinction. Now that you agree that this distinction is present, I no longer need to spend time showing it to be true. We can agree that the Bible does indeed present this distinction.
“Of course I would see the continual salvation (perseverance) of a person under the “thwartable purposes” category in Scripture; so I guess that’s where to go next.”
Well I would fully expect that, from someone who holds that we can lose our salvation.
“What arguments do you think there are for perseverance being an unthwartable purpose of God?”
Well a big one for me personally is the nature of the atonement in regards to genuine believers. From my understanding of the biblical texts which discuss our salvation, our atonement through the blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins through the cross if we are believers, it does not seem possible to me that we could lose our salvation.
You will recall that I asked you questions about what is the basis of our losing our salvation, if we **could** lose it? What I wanted to see is if you believe that when someone comes to Christ: ALL OF THEIR SINS ARE FORGIVEN (WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THOSE SINS COMMITTED AS AN UNBELIEVER **AND** THOSE SINS COMMITTED AS A BELIEVER)? I believe that the bible teaches that for those who come to Christ, those who are born again believers, the atonement of Christ is applied to them and so ALL OF THEIR SINS ARE COVERED. All of their sins are forgiven. So this appears to be a purpose of God (that all of the sins of every genuine believer would be forgiven by Jesus’ death on the cross for them) which can never be thwarted.
If this is true, then I do not believe that a genuine born again Christian can lose his/her salvation. From the things I have read by those who advocate that you can lose your salvation, they will say things like: “well God would never let you out of his hand, God would never leave you, but **you** could leave him and if you did so then you would lose your salvation.” My problem with this is that this “leaving” or “walking away from” or “departing” or “falling away” from Christ would be a sin. And yet if ***all*** of our sins are covered, atoned for, paid for, forgiven, as Christians. Then even those actions would be covered as well. Put another way, we are saved when our sins are covered by the atonement of Christ (which happens when our saving relationship with Jesus begins). To be saved is to have your sins covered, atoned for by Jesus’ death on the cross. To be **unsaved** then would require for you to somehow have your atonement taken away or removed. If your atonement were taken away, then you would have no covering for your sin and you’d be in the same place as the unbeliever who never had his sins covered or forgiven by the death of Christ.
To suggest that we can be “uncovered” become nonchristians by our sin then (whether it is willful rebellion against God, falling away, walking away from God, etc. Etc.) is to forget that ***all*** of our sins are forgiven, atoned for, covered by the cross of Christ. If all of our sins are covered and forgiven then how could we become unatoned for, not forgiven, by any sinful act we do as a Christian? So that is my problem with the view that you can lose your salvation: it claims that your sin causes you to lose your salvation, but in making this claim it forgets the nature of atonement, that all of the sins of the genuine believer are atoned for, covered, forgiven.
When I asked you what you believed the basis for losing our salvation was, I was looking to see if you were going to point to **any** sin on the part of the believer. If you did so, then I was going to bring up the nature of the atonement in regards to genuine believers. Put another way: all of the versions of the belief that you can lose your salvation, that I have read or encountered, always seem to point to some sort of sin as the basis of us losing our salvation. And if you make that claim then my argument from the nature of the atonement will handle your claim. And if it is **not** that some particular sin could be the basis of our losing our salvation, **then what other possibility is there**?
“Thanks Henry; is that a bit more clear?”
Thanks for your clarification, I believe that I better understand where you are coming from. Perhaps in your reply you could explain how as genuine Christians we have had all of our sins forgiven and atoned for on the cross, and yet we still can lose our salvation?
Henry
Henry—
ReplyDelete“Actually I have to disagree with you again. It seems to me that John 6 presents arguments for us not losing our salvation. But I am sure you have probably heard this already so I won’t spend any time demonstrating this.”
Actually, I would like to hear your arguments regarding John 6 demonstrating absolute perseverance.
“No intention to mislead on my part, that is why I suggested that you use whatever terminology you prefer when referring to this biblical distinction. Now that you agree that this distinction is present, I no longer need to spend time showing it to be true. We can agree that the Bible does indeed present this distinction.”
Definitely agreed. And I know you weren't trying to mislead, of course.
“Well a big one for me personally is the nature of the atonement in regards to genuine believers. From my understanding of the biblical texts which discuss our salvation, our atonement through the blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins through the cross if we are believers, it does not seem possible to me that we could lose our salvation.
“You will recall that I asked you questions about what is the basis of our losing our salvation, if we **could** lose it? What I wanted to see is if you believe that when someone comes to Christ: ALL OF THEIR SINS ARE FORGIVEN (WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THOSE SINS COMMITTED AS AN UNBELIEVER **AND** THOSE SINS COMMITTED AS A BELIEVER)? I believe that the bible teaches that for those who come to Christ, those who are born again believers, the atonement of Christ is applied to them and so ALL OF THEIR SINS ARE COVERED. All of their sins are forgiven. So this appears to be a purpose of God (that all of the sins of every genuine believer would be forgiven by Jesus’ death on the cross for them) which can never be thwarted.
“If this is true, then I do not believe that a genuine born again Christian can lose his/her salvation. From the things I have read by those who advocate that you can lose your salvation, they will say things like: “well God would never let you out of his hand, God would never leave you, but **you** could leave him and if you did so then you would lose your salvation.” My problem with this is that this “leaving” or “walking away from” or “departing” or “falling away” from Christ would be a sin. And yet if ***all*** of our sins are covered, atoned for, paid for, forgiven, as Christians. Then even those actions would be covered as well. Put another way, we are saved when our sins are covered by the atonement of Christ (which happens when our saving relationship with Jesus begins). To be saved is to have your sins covered, atoned for by Jesus’ death on the cross. To be **unsaved** then would require for you to somehow have your atonement taken away or removed. If your atonement were taken away, then you would have no covering for your sin and you’d be in the same place as the unbeliever who never had his sins covered or forgiven by the death of Christ.
“To suggest that we can be “uncovered” become nonchristians by our sin then (whether it is willful rebellion against God, falling away, walking away from God, etc. Etc.) is to forget that ***all*** of our sins are forgiven, atoned for, covered by the cross of Christ. If all of our sins are covered and forgiven then how could we become unatoned for, not forgiven, by any sinful act we do as a Christian? So that is my problem with the view that you can lose your salvation: it claims that your sin causes you to lose your salvation, but in making this claim it forgets the nature of atonement, that all of the sins of the genuine believer are atoned for, covered, forgiven.
“When I asked you what you believed the basis for losing our salvation was, I was looking to see if you were going to point to **any** sin on the part of the believer. If you did so, then I was going to bring up the nature of the atonement in regards to genuine believers. Put another way: all of the versions of the belief that you can lose your salvation, that I have read or encountered, always seem to point to some sort of sin as the basis of us losing our salvation. And if you make that claim then my argument from the nature of the atonement will handle your claim. And if it is **not** that some particular sin could be the basis of our losing our salvation, **then what other possibility is there**?”
Because I don’t accept the traditional formulation of penal substitution and I don’t have a Protestant understanding of justification, I will definitely need to hear some arguments for this idea.
I agree that we are forgiven all our past sins when we become Christians. But as for future sins, I would deny that we are instantly forgiven all of those as well.
My reasoning for questioning this is that it seems that Christians continually ask for forgiveness after they are initially saved. Matthew 18:35 seems to imply that Christians are supposed to forgive everyone when they trespass against us, otherwise God will not forgive us. God will continue to hold sins against those who do not forgive. It seems that people who are saved can indeed fall into this category if they do not continually forgive those who sin against them. I don’t see any reason to apply this only to people who have not converted yet, as though they don’t have to continue to do this after they become Christians. So I think this implies a continual possibility that we will not be forgiven all of our sins, conditioned upon our failure to forgive others.
Also it seems to me that in the Lord’s prayer we are actually asking for forgiveness of sins. Because of this, I have trouble seeing how this is compatible with us being forgiven all our past, present, and future sins at the moment of conversion. It seems like only past sins are forgiven.
As a parting question, what do you think the scope of the atonement is? Do you hold to unlimited atonement?
Thanks :)
MG wrote:
ReplyDelete”Actually, I would like to hear your arguments regarding John 6 demonstrating absolute perseverance.”
Go to a website called monergism.com (then search under “perseverance”). Look in that section and you will find plenty of arguments that we cannot lose our salvation for you to consider.
”Because I don’t accept the traditional formulation of penal substitution and I don’t have a Protestant understanding of justification, I will definitely need to hear some arguments for this idea.”
What are your problems with “penal substitution”?
And what is the “Protestant understanding of justification”?
It seems to me that the book of Romans presents a very basic notion: we are justified by faith alone when we put our trust in Jesus for salvation.
”I agree that we are forgiven all our past sins when we become Christians. But as for future sins, I would deny that we are instantly forgiven all of those as well.”
I believe the bible when it speaks of atonement speaks not of a **partial atonement** (of those sins you commit before you become a Christian but not the sins you commit when you are a Christian), but of **complete atonement** (all of your sins, past, present and future are covered by the one final atonement of Christ on the cross). Especially in the New Testament, the verses that touch upon the atonement seem to be saying that **all** of our sins are included in that atonement on the cross.
I also wonder **if** you are going to claim that the cross only atones for our sins as nonchristians: then what atones for our sins as Christians???
”My reasoning for questioning this is that it seems that Christians continually ask for forgiveness after they are initially saved. Matthew 18:35 seems to imply that Christians are supposed to forgive everyone when they trespass against us, otherwise God will not forgive us. God will continue to hold sins against those who do not forgive. It seems that people who are saved can indeed fall into this category if they do not continually forgive those who sin against them. I don’t see any reason to apply this only to people who have not converted yet, as though they don’t have to continue to do this after they become Christians. So I think this implies a continual possibility that we will not be forgiven all of our sins, conditioned upon our failure to forgive others.
Also it seems to me that in the Lord’s prayer we are actually asking for forgiveness of sins. Because of this, I have trouble seeing how this is compatible with us being forgiven all our past, present, and future sins at the moment of conversion. It seems like only past sins are forgiven.”
I make a distinction between forgiveness with respect to the penalty of sin in relation to our relation with God, and forgiveness with respect to the quality of our relationships God and other persons. What I mean by this is that in order to be in a saving and personal relationship with God we have to have all of our sins atoned for (atonement means covering). If these sins are not covered we cannot be in a saving relationship with a holy and righteous God. The atonement of Christ on the cross deals with this necessity of atonement for all of our sins.
If we have had the cross of Christ cover all of our sins, then we can be in a relationship with God (and we will not go to hell which is the consequence of uncovered sins). Now while this is true, we also need to deal with sin in our daily lives. And the major reason for this is because of relationships. God desires for us to be in healthy relationships with other persons and with Himself.
Perhaps you have heard the illustration (first used by Barnhouse,it was first told me by Walter Martin),that goes like this: imagine a father who truly loves his son and looks forward to seeing his son when he gets home from work. Upon coming home from work the father meets his child who has just been playing in the mud and has mud all over him. The father is wearing a nice suit and cannot allow the child to sit in his lap until he cleans off the dirt first.
Now does the father not allow the child to sit in his lap because the child is no longer the child of the father? No. The child’s status and position as a son of his father is unaffected by the mud.
On the other hand, for the father to be in intimate relationship with the child by having the child sit in his lap, while he has his nice suit on, is that precluded by the mud? Yes. So the father wants his child to get rid of the mud, not because he was no longer the child of the father when he had the mud on himself, but for purposes of intimacy/relationship, the mud needs to be dealt with.
Similarly, when we sin on a daily basis, we ask for forgiveness (remove the dirt the mud) not so that we can become a child of our Heavenly father again. But for the purposes of intimacy and relationship. The daily removal of sin by confession, forgiveness and repentance is not in order to be saved again, but in order to restore intimacy and quality of relationship with our Heavenly father.
Likewise, in our relationships with other human persons, in order to have the kind of relationships that God wants us to have, we have to deal with the mud/sin in those relationships. If a husband never forgives his wife of things and is always holding onto slights and offenses, they may be legally married but what will the quality of their relationship be like? And God does not just want us to be in relationships with Him and others, but to be in QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS.
So we need the atonement of Christ to remove the penalty of sin, the consequences of sin, to make a relationship with God possible. We also need the daily forgiveness of sins to deal with the mud of sin that gets in the way of our having intimate and healthy relationships with God and others.
Jesus also spoke of forgiveness as something that characterizes Christians. If we are not forgiving persons we do not display the family resemblance to our Heavenly Father in the way he forgives us and others. We should resemble our Heavenly Father in the way we love and forgive. How can we be his children and then act completely different than the way he does? We will not perfectly model our Heavenly Father, but there ought to be a strong resemblance. And that strong resemblance will show in the way we love and forgive.
”As a parting question, what do you think the scope of the atonement is? Do you hold to unlimited atonement?”
The biblical texts clearly reveal that not every person will be saved, some will be eternally separated from the Lord (i.e., hell is a real destiny for those who reject the Lord). The biblical texts in regards to the atonement suggest that Jesus is given as a provision sufficient for all human persons. The biblical texts also suggest that while the atonement is sufficient for all it will only be efficient for those who are believers. God’s design is to provide an atonement that has the potential to save all persons (sufficient for all), and yet is only applied to those who trust Him (efficient for some). So while God loves the world, and so sends His Son Jesus for the world, and provides an atonement sufficient for the world. Only those who are believers will have their sins covered. So I do not hold to universalism (all are saved) or to calvinism (Jesus died only for the elect, only those preselected can possibly be saved), I hold to what is commonly referred to as “unlimited atonement.”
Henry
Henry--
ReplyDelete“Go to a website called monergism.com (then search under ‘perseverance’). Look in that section and you will find plenty of arguments that we cannot lose our salvation for you to consider.”
I’ll get on it.
“What are your problems with ‘penal substitution’?”
I have archived some of the problems on my blog; feel free to take a look.
“And what is the ‘Protestant understanding of justification’?”
Sola Fide: no works are instrumental to salvation in any sense.
Imputation: human beings are regarded as legally righteous on the basis of a divine declaration of legal status that results from their having Jesus’ legal status transferred to them.
“It seems to me that the book of Romans presents a very basic notion: we are justified by faith alone when we put our trust in Jesus for salvation.”
I disagree with this interpretation of Romans. The crucial words that I would contest are “alone” and “when”. It seems to me that justification is a process that happens in several steps. Your sentence is correct regarding initial justification, but it seems to me that eschatological justification is not by faith alone at all, but includes good works. This seems to be Paul’s meaning in Romans 2:4-16.
“I believe the bible when it speaks of atonement speaks not of a **partial atonement** (of those sins you commit before you become a Christian but not the sins you commit when you are a Christian), but of **complete atonement** (all of your sins, past, present and future are covered by the one final atonement of Christ on the cross). Especially in the New Testament, the verses that touch upon the atonement seem to be saying that **all** of our sins are included in that atonement on the cross.”
Because I don’t believe that the traditional understanding of penal substitution is correct, I don’t view those statements in that way. I do not personally know any good reason to agree with this interpretation.
“I also wonder **if** you are going to claim that the cross only atones for our sins as nonchristians: then what atones for our sins as Christians???”
I would say that we continually ask for God to forgive us our sins; they don’t have to all be atoned for.
“I make a distinction between forgiveness with respect to the penalty of sin in relation to our relation with God, and forgiveness with respect to the quality of our relationships God and other persons. What I mean by this is that in order to be in a saving and personal relationship with God we have to have all of our sins atoned for (atonement means covering). If these sins are not covered we cannot be in a saving relationship with a holy and righteous God. The atonement of Christ on the cross deals with this necessity of atonement for all of our sins.
…
“Jesus also spoke of forgiveness as something that characterizes Christians. If we are not forgiving persons we do not display the family resemblance to our Heavenly Father in the way he forgives us and others. We should resemble our Heavenly Father in the way we love and forgive. How can we be his children and then act completely different than the way he does? We will not perfectly model our Heavenly Father, but there ought to be a strong resemblance. And that strong resemblance will show in the way we love and forgive.”
I can understand why this distinction between forgiveness-for-salvation and forgiveness-for-relationship is invoked, but I do not agree with it. I find it implausible to say that these two sharply distinct meanings are being used of forgiveness like that. It seems to me that forgiveness is always a condition for salvation and that forgiveness can be lost if we perform sins such as refusing to forgive others.
“The biblical texts clearly reveal that not every person will be saved, some will be eternally separated from the Lord (i.e., hell is a real destiny for those who reject the Lord). The biblical texts in regards to the atonement suggest that Jesus is given as a provision sufficient for all human persons. The biblical texts also suggest that while the atonement is sufficient for all it will only be efficient for those who are believers. God’s design is to provide an atonement that has the potential to save all persons (sufficient for all), and yet is only applied to those who trust Him (efficient for some). So while God loves the world, and so sends His Son Jesus for the world, and provides an atonement sufficient for the world. Only those who are believers will have their sins covered. So I do not hold to universalism (all are saved) or to calvinism (Jesus died only for the elect, only those preselected can possibly be saved), I hold to what is commonly referred to as ‘unlimited atonement.’”
If you believe atonement is unlimited, then would you agree that all men’s sins are forgiven? If all men’s sins are forgiven, then can they be punished in hell for not believing in Jesus? It seems to me that to affirm penal substitution in the sense you do, and then to assert unlimited atonement, entails that all persons’ penalties have been paid for all of their sins, and therefore no one can be punished for anything they do by God. Would you agree with this non-penal view of hell, or do you have a way of affirming unlimited atonement, penal substitution, and a penal view of hell at the same time?
--MG
I had asked MG:
ReplyDeleteWhat are your problems with ‘penal substitution’?
And MG responded:
”I have archived some of the problems on my blog; feel free to take a look.”
What blog is that? Could you give some more information about that,thanks.
I had also asked:
And what is the ‘Protestant understanding of justification’?
And MG responded:
”Sola Fide: no works are instrumental to salvation in any sense.
Imputation: human beings are regarded as legally righteous on the basis of a divine declaration of legal status that results from their having Jesus’ legal status transferred to them.”
I believe that we need to distinguish justification from sanctification. Justification is done by God alone apart from our works while sanctification does involve our works. The works of sanctification are closely connected to justification however. As one person put it: “faith is pregnant with good works.” Genuine faith will result in works that glorify God. This is why the apostle James can say show me your faith by your works. Meaning that a real or genuine faith will inevitably produce works.
”I disagree with this interpretation of Romans. The crucial words that I would contest are “alone” and “when”. It seems to me that justification is a process that happens in several steps. Your sentence is correct regarding initial justification, but it seems to me that eschatological justification is not by faith alone at all, but includes good works. This seems to be Paul’s meaning in Romans 2:4-16.”
Justification seems to be instantaneous while sanctification is a process. MG you seem to make a similar distinction when you speak of “initial justification” and “eschatological justification.” This may or may not correlate with my distinction between justification and sanctification.
”Because I don’t believe that the traditional understanding of penal substitution is correct, I don’t view those statements in that way. I do not personally know any good reason to agree with this interpretation.”
Do a Google search under (J. I. Packer the logic of penal substitution), and you will find a helpful article which presents my view well. I may not be discussing this much more here as my intent here is not to be discussing the “protestant understanding of justification.”
I had asked:
I also wonder **if** you are going to claim that the cross only atones for our sins as nonchristians: then what atones for our sins as Christians???
MG responded:
”I would say that we continually ask for God to forgive us our sins; they don’t have to all be atoned for.”
My understanding is that in both the OT and the NT, God taught the people over and over that all of men’s sins had to be atoned for or they could not relate to Him. Scripture knows no such thing as a partial atonement or the idea that not all sins must be atoned for. In the NT the message becomes that Jesus is the final and perfect sacrifice for **all sins** of believers.
”I can understand why this distinction between forgiveness-for-salvation and forgiveness-for-relationship is invoked, but I do not agree with it. I find it implausible to say that these two sharply distinct meanings are being used of forgiveness like that. It seems to me that forgiveness is always a condition for salvation and that forgiveness can be lost if we perform sins such as refusing to forgive others.”
My understanding is that the condition for salvation (i.e., justification) is faith. Faith begins the process (we are justified by faith alone which is when our salvation begins), then as we develop our relationship with God we continue to live by faith (we live by faith, a faith that results in works that glorify God and bless others). The apostle Paul argues this throughout the book of Romans.
I was not talking about two different meanings for forgiveness, but two different contexts. The one context is the forgiveness we need for all of our sins in order to enter into a saving relationship with God. The other context is in our daily living, our relationships with God and others. In both contexts forgiveness has the same meaning. We seem to be operating from different understandings of the nature of the atonement in relation to the believer.
”If you believe atonement is unlimited, then would you agree that all men’s sins are forgiven? If all men’s sins are forgiven, then can they be punished in hell for not believing in Jesus? It seems to me that to affirm penal substitution in the sense you do, and then to assert unlimited atonement, entails that all persons’ penalties have been paid for all of their sins, and therefore no one can be punished for anything they do by God. Would you agree with this non-penal view of hell, or do you have a way of affirming unlimited atonement, penal substitution, and a penal view of hell at the same time?”
I prefer to use the language of Jesus being a provision of atonement sufficient for all people’s sins, but that that provision has application only to believers. People often call this “unlimited atonement” to contrast it with the view of the Calvinists that Jesus died only for the elect (while “unlimited atonement” refers to the idea that the atonement is offered to more persons than just those who end up as believers).
In the NT it is clear that some people do not believe and end up eternally separated from God. This shows that not all people’s sins are atoned for by the cross. So while the provision of atonement is **sufficient for all** it is only **efficient for, or applied to, some**. This message is present in both testaments. In the OT they had a sacrificial system that provided atonement for them, but not all of the Israelites were saved persons (e.g. the Day of Atonement was for all of them, though all of them did not believe). The OT system was also preparation for the final and perfect sacrifice for sin, Jesus. So the atonement of Christ while sufficient for all, and offered to more than just the elect (contrary to the Calvinists), is only applied to some (i.e., believers). So **only** those who are believers have their sins forgiven and atoned for, and all of their sins are atoned for by the cross of Christ.
Henry
What blog is that? Could you give some more information about that,thanks.
ReplyDeleteSee my entry here: http://woq.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-philosophical-objections-to.html
"I believe that we need to distinguish justification from sanctification. Justification is done by God alone apart from our works while sanctification does involve our works. The works of sanctification are closely connected to justification however. As one person put it: “faith is pregnant with good works.” Genuine faith will result in works that glorify God. This is why the apostle James can say show me your faith by your works. Meaning that a real or genuine faith will inevitably produce works."
I am aware of this understanding of justification, and I was trying to articulate it. Unfortunately, I failed to state the first principle correctly. What I actually meant regarding works is that they are in no sense instrumental to *justification*. I am very aware of the Protestant idea that faith inevitably leads to good works. This doesn't seem to capture the whole picture biblically, at least according to the interpretations I find most plausible.
"Justification seems to be instantaneous while sanctification is a process. MG you seem to make a similar distinction when you speak of “initial justification” and “eschatological justification.” This may or may not correlate with my distinction between justification and sanctification."
The citation that I gave of Romans 2 has material that (or so I would argue) goes beyond the traditional Protestant idea of justification as leading to good works which exemplify salvation. Rather, it seems in Romans 2 that good works are instrumental to being judged righteous at the end of time. How do you interpret Romans 2?
Another question: where do you see the idea of sanctification as a process in the New Testament?
"Do a Google search under (J. I. Packer the logic of penal substitution), and you will find a helpful article which presents my view well. I may not be discussing this much more here as my intent here is not to be discussing the “protestant understanding of justification.”"
I will take a look. And that's a good point that we might be going off topic if we kept talking about justification here.
"My understanding is that in both the OT and the NT, God taught the people over and over that all of men’s sins had to be atoned for or they could not relate to Him. Scripture knows no such thing as a partial atonement or the idea that not all sins must be atoned for. In the NT the message becomes that Jesus is the final and perfect sacrifice for **all sins** of believers."
How do you fit the idea of a year of Jubilee into your idea that men's sins absolutely *must* be atoned for?
"My understanding is that the condition for salvation (i.e., justification) is faith. Faith begins the process (we are justified by faith alone which is when our salvation begins), then as we develop our relationship with God we continue to live by faith (we live by faith, a faith that results in works that glorify God and bless others). The apostle Paul argues this throughout the book of Romans."
As you implied above, this is not necessarily the place to get into great detail about justification. I agree that justification begins with faith. But it seems to be a process, culminating in a judgment by God conditioned on our response to divine grace by either performing good works or not (Romans 2).
"I was not talking about two different meanings for forgiveness, but two different contexts. The one context is the forgiveness we need for all of our sins in order to enter into a saving relationship with God. The other context is in our daily living, our relationships with God and others. In both contexts forgiveness has the same meaning. We seem to be operating from different understandings of the nature of the atonement in relation to the believer."
If forgiveness can mean relational reconciliation, and that can be done without the act of taking away a debt, then
a. How is this not 2 meanings? One of them is distinct from the other, because one involves the act of eliminating a debt and the other (while perhaps presupposing the debt has been eliminated) involves the action of reconciling yourself to another person relationally and socially.
b. Why can't forgiveness just mean relational reconciliation without the act of taking away a debt in all the passages in Scripture that talk about forgiveness?
"I prefer to use the language of Jesus being a provision of atonement sufficient for all people’s sins, but that that provision has application only to believers. People often call this “unlimited atonement” to contrast it with the view of the Calvinists that Jesus died only for the elect (while “unlimited atonement” refers to the idea that the atonement is offered to more persons than just those who end up as believers).
In the NT it is clear that some people do not believe and end up eternally separated from God. This shows that not all people’s sins are atoned for by the cross. So while the provision of atonement is **sufficient for all** it is only **efficient for, or applied to, some**. This message is present in both testaments. In the OT they had a sacrificial system that provided atonement for them, but not all of the Israelites were saved persons (e.g. the Day of Atonement was for all of them, though all of them did not believe). The OT system was also preparation for the final and perfect sacrifice for sin, Jesus. So the atonement of Christ while sufficient for all, and offered to more than just the elect (contrary to the Calvinists), is only applied to some (i.e., believers). So **only** those who are believers have their sins forgiven and atoned for, and all of their sins are atoned for by the cross of Christ."
This view of the atonement does seem to reconcile both the penal element of atonement and the universal salvific will of God. It does entail, however, that after the atonement occurs there is no possibility of forgiveness being extended to anyone but the elect Christ died for. I suppose God would have hypothetically exacted more punishment on the Messiah if there would have been more people who responded to God's offer of grace.
Im definately understanding why it is most consistent on your views of grace, atonement, and salvation for there to be perserverance of the saints. Given my disagreement with many of your assumptions on what I think are sound biblical and logical grounds, I do not consider your arguments to be convincing. However, I would be glad to continue dialoguing here or on my own blog because we are moving toward greater clarity about our assumptions and the content of our ideas. Thanks Henry :)
--MG
MG you wrote:
ReplyDelete”See my entry here: . . .”
I checked out your blog and you have some really interesting stuff on there. I especially appreciated your comments on the free will issue.
”I am aware of this understanding of justification, and I was trying to articulate it. Unfortunately, I failed to state the first principle correctly. What I actually meant regarding works is that they are in no sense instrumental to *justification*. I am very aware of the Protestant idea that faith inevitably leads to good works. This doesn't seem to capture the whole picture biblically, at least according to the interpretations I find most plausible.”
Well considering that you’ve got an article about the problems with penal substitution theory of the atonement, we will have to agree to disagree agreeably about this.
”The citation that I gave of Romans 2 has material that (or so I would argue) goes beyond the traditional Protestant idea of justification as leading to good works which exemplify salvation. Rather, it seems in Romans 2 that good works are instrumental to being judged righteous at the end of time. How do you interpret Romans 2?”
Romans 2 presents the reality that a living faith will evidence itself with good works. So if a person gets to the final judgment as a believer, the Lord will be able to use their good works as proof of their living faith. The apostle James makes the same point (i.e., a living faith will justify itself with good works; no works means no living faith!). If someone gets to the final judgment with no good works, then this will be evidence that they never had a living faith in the first place.
”Another question: where do you see the idea of sanctification as a process in the New Testament?”
In the NT passages that speak of believers being at different levels of maturity. Different levels means that they are at various degrees of sanctification. It would be nice if the minute we became Christians we were instantly perfected. But that is not how it works (pun intended)!
”I will take a look. And that's a good point that we might be going off topic if we kept talking about justification here.”
Right, I would rather talk about the issues related to free will and God’s sovereignty. For example, in your discussion with “David” about free will you made some good points and I believe you could have made additional points against his Calvinistic position. You also could have made some more points in support of synergism (e.g. if salvation is a relationship not a thing, then a healthy relationship is going to involve mutual actions by both persons involved in the relationship; monergism is particularly weak in regard to **relationship** and salvation is a relationship so . . .).
”As you implied above, this is not necessarily the place to get into great detail about justification. I agree that justification begins with faith. But it seems to be a process, culminating in a judgment by God conditioned on our response to divine grace by either performing good works or not (Romans 2).”
Again, a living faith will produce good works: no works equals a dead faith.
”This view of the atonement does seem to reconcile both the penal element of atonement and the universal salvific will of God. It does entail, however, that after the atonement occurs there is no possibility of forgiveness being extended to anyone but the elect Christ died for. I suppose God would have hypothetically exacted more punishment on the Messiah if there would have been more people who responded to God's offer of grace.”
Well if it “does seem to reconcile both the penal element of atonement and the universal salvific will of God” then I have succeeded! Not much more work to be done then in regards to that issue.
Henry