1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Atonement: Appeasing the Wrath of God

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Skandelon, Aug 4, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    NASB --

    John 12:32 ""And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.''


    NIV --
    John 12
    32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

    MSG --
    John 12
    32And I, as I am lifted up from the earth, will attract everyone to me and gather them around me."

    NLT
    John 12
    32And when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw everyone to myself."

    KJV --
    John 12
    32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    ESV --
    John 12
    32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

    KJ21 --
    John 12
    32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me."


    ASV --
    John 12
    32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

    YLT --
    John 12
    32 and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'

    Hopefully - you see that ALL are drawn and that the terms these translators us is "mankind" (Man NOT meant as no-women or no women and children, but MANKIND).

    This is usualy obvious but when comparing notes with Calvinists - take nothing for granted.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #41 BobRyan, Aug 7, 2004
  2. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Bob,

    My point is simple. If it were clearly ALL MANKIND then all translations would read ALL MANKIND. But they don't.

    It simply says "all". All of what/whom is left to the translator and interpreter, and obviously such reputable translations such as NKJV and Wycliffe disagree with your personal interpretation.

    And I say personal because even when the Amplified Bible says "all men" (which you would interpret to mean ALL MANKIND), it qualifies that to mean [Gentiles as well as Jews]. So even in cases where it is translated "all men", it can still mean "all peoples", such as both Gentiles and Jews.

    You can insist you have the only right interpretation until you're blue in the face. Clearly "all" is not qualified in the text, and must be interpreted from the text, and not everyone interprets it YOUR way, believe it or not.
     
    #42 npetreley, Aug 8, 2004
  3. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bob,

    I have to say that Nick is right here. It can be interpreted either way. I wouldn't base an entire theology upon one verse.

    Yes, I do believe that no one could have come to Jesus unless they were enabled or drawn to him. Meaning that God had to want them to come before they could come. In the context of John 6 God did not want all peoples to come to Christ. It wasn't time. He was hardening the Jews; and the Gentiles, for the most part, were still in darkness because the apostles (Peter and Paul) hadn't been sent to them yet. He was hiding the gospel in parables and telling people to keep things quite. That is not a God wanting the word to get out....YET.

    John 12:32 is refering to after God's purposes were accomplished and it marks the time in which God's purpose shifts from wanting to keep the message secret to wanting the world to hear, thus the statement, "I will draw all men to myself."

    First, Christ drew the remnant of Israel to his side, next his plan was to draw the nations, or all peoples, or both Gentiles and Jews, or everyone...whatever, the point is the same.
     
    #43 Skandelon, Aug 8, 2004
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    My point is that the "unqualified ALL" is not a "restrictive limit that means SOME Jews and SOME Gentiles" as Calvinism "needs it to be redone".

    AND as I have shown the term 'man' is used as in "mankind" by ALL the translations I listed -- never do they cary the scence of "men but NOT women" nor of "men but NOT women and children" so when THEY say "ALL men" it is proper to say "ALL mankind" - that is not even debatable.

    The UNQUALIFIED ALL - means that it is AS LARGE as John's context makes it.

    So here I ask for the opening context of John - John 1.

    Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified.
    "Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.
    "so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.
    In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result and in the Greek the reception is in the "active voice". It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God and then merely note that they also "received Christ". (Analytical Greek NT - "indicative mood" and "active voice" used for receive in John 1:12)

    Notice "children of A God" just does not work here.
    Notice "Nor of the will of man, but of A God" is not workable. No justification for such abuse of the text.

    Born of blood - refering to natural birth.

    God's part: Sending His Son as light into the world - the same world that was made through him - (global unqualified non-restrictive context.)
    not only into the world but also to his own (those he chose for himself) -

    Man's part - history (those chosen as "his own" failed - they did not receive HIM).
    - standing offer - BUT To as many as RECEIVED Him (by contrast to HIS CHOSEN "OWN" - who did NOT receive Him)

    God's part - to them he gave the right to become children of God.

    God's part - to cause those that receive him to be born again.

    Calvinism "hope" of course is to ignore the sequence - to lift God's part out - and delete man's part so that NO sequence appears - JUST God causing man to be born again - arbitrarily selecting prior to any reference of man receiving anything. Calvinism's attempt to ignore the complete text fails.

    The Arminian principle of
    -God first acting to supernaturally bring salvation to all,
    - then calling for man to respond and receive,
    - then subsequently
    providing that those who act and receive - shall then have the right to become children of god following their act of receiving.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #44 BobRyan, Aug 8, 2004
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Possibly if we ignore the context John gives us starting with chapter one for the ministry and scope of Christ's work we could make such a focused argument for 12:32. However the term Gentile is not mentioned in the text and IF it is Christ's point to show explicitly that (SOME )Gentiles ARE to be included with SOME Jews as "The saints" or the saved .. the unqualified "ALL" is not the way to do it. Rather the formula Paul uses in Romans 2 would be expected "to the Jew first and THEN to the Gentile" a phrase that was used for both the succeeding scenarios as well as the failing scenrios (SOME Jews and SOME Gentiles) in each.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #45 BobRyan, Aug 8, 2004
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with your interpretation Bob. It is first given to the Jews and then the Gentiles, but my only point is that if Calvinism were true then these verses "could" mean only the elect of each group, that's all.

    We should be objective and admit when a passage could be supporting the other view and move on to the passages that could not (as you now have). People who lose their objectivity often stop learning from the text and just keep reading their own views into it. We must all beware of such tendencies.

    I'm sorry, I don't mean to distract you, please continue on with your discussion.

    BTW, your last post on John 1 was superb. [​IMG]
     
    #46 Skandelon, Aug 8, 2004
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I agree.

    But the case for John 12:32 goes beyond establishing exegetical context from John chapter 1. It is also an example of a phrase NEVER used by Calvinists as part of their normal dialoge. They NEVER say "Hey - God is drawing ALL unto Him". Nor do they frequently claim "Calvinism's main point is that God draws ALL men unto HIM".

    The fact is - they never use the language of John 12:32 EXCEPT to try and co-opt it, insert qualifiers into it and soften its impact on their views.

    What a clear indication that the language itself is not native Calvinism NOR will it ever be found as a major pillar of Calvinism without the inserted qualifiers that they "need".

    I have seen them insert "God draws ALL TYPES of mankind - drawing both Jews and Gentiles". They have many such imaginative ways of softening the text. But the very fact that they "need" to make those changes is the clear indicator that the text itself is stated in "Arminian" terms.

    Certainly we all have to admit Arminians are more than happy to say "God Draws ALL unto HIM" and "God draws ALL men" (as many translators have put it) AND ALSO "God draws ALL mankind".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #47 BobRyan, Aug 8, 2004
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I totally agree, but to be fair I don't see Arminians on this board talking a lot about predestination or election except when it comes to discrediting Calvinistic claims. We all have the tendency to focus upon those texts that best support our view. But I do see your point. It does seem that this is the type of language a Calvinist wouldn't ever use. Imagine a Calvinist saying God draws all people to himself without qualifing it.
     
    #48 Skandelon, Aug 8, 2004
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I agree fully. There certainly are areas like Ephesians 1 for example where certain verses are not "Quoted verbatim" by Arminians in making our points because the text is not as favorable "unchanged" to our views.

    I am simply pointing out that this John 12:32 is "one of those" for Calvinism. It uses language that Calvinists "never use".

    So when they come to it they see it as "needing a little work".

    You make a good point that we too need to be careful when we come to those Romans 9 and Eph 1 texts that we are not "reworking" them the same as our Calvinist bretheren do to theirs. It is a hard thing to avoid.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #49 BobRyan, Aug 8, 2004
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not so much so when you understand the context in which these text were written. When you know that Paul in Romans 9 is not talking about elect individuals (those God shows mercy) and non-elect individuals (those he hardens); but instead that he is speaking of the Gentiles (those to whom He is showing mercy) and the Jews (those who He is hardening) then the entire passage (ch. 9-11) make much more sense. At least it did for me when I came to understand that truth.

    Also when I realized that Paul never says men are predestined to believe or to become Christians things got much clearer. Paul only speaks of what believers are predestined to become. He says they are predestined to be conformed to Christ imagine and to be adopted as his sons, both of which we all as believers have a hope for in our future because we have been predestined to it.

    I think more Arminian preachers should discuss that. Their silence on the issue is what has lead to the Calvinistic resurgance of late. Most are just ignorant of the real issues at hand. :(
     
    #50 Skandelon, Aug 8, 2004
  11. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding Jn.12:32 -
    Twice I have asked for some sort of explantaion as to how you (Arminian) people deal with the fact that reality contradicts your interpretation of this verse, yet so far, there has not been one intelligible reply. One more time:

    If Christ draws all men to Himself without exception, how do you explain the reality that all men are not drawn to Him? We may argue about what we imagine is going on in the minds of Christ-rejecters, but it is undeniably true that the millions who die without ever once hearing the Gospel are NOT drawn in any sense to the Lord Jesus Christ.

    What are you going to say in the face of this reality? That That Jn.12:23 is just an apparent nonsense that you choose to live with, rather than give an inch to those awful Calvinists? I am becoming convinced that this is the primary motive of Arminian theology.

    - Paul
     
    #51 Tumbleweed, Aug 9, 2004
  12. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Amen, Paul.
     
    #52 npetreley, Aug 9, 2004
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Paul, it depends on how you interpret the word "draw." If its irresistable dragging its one thing and if its more of the idea of persuasive wooing its another. I see it as an enabling as the word makes known the truth to which men can respond. People can't respond to a truth they are not aware of. Drawing is truth telling and the word of truth is powerful. Just because it can be resisted does not mean its not sufficient to give men what they need to respond. So, don't presume that to draw someone is irresistable in nature unless the text specifically teaches that.
     
    #53 Skandelon, Aug 9, 2004
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    What part of "reality" contradicts the fact that John 12:32 "I will DRAW ALL MANKIND unto Me"??

    What part of "reality" contradicts the fact that John 16 "The Holy Spirit CONVICTS THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"?

    Are you claiming to TAKE an Arminian view and SHOW that it is contradicted by real life?

    If so -- please show what part of the Arminian texts above is contradicted.

    ALL ARE drawn to Him. But no one is FORCED to Him. That "Drawing" ENABLES the choice that TD DISABLES. (Even Calvinists admit this).


    Not according to Romans 1 and John 16. God DOES draw them - but the Calvinist idea of "ALL drawn MUST irresistably be Christians" is not there - I would agree 100%.

    So -- either give up Calvinism - or change the text.

    I pick... Give up Calvinism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #54 BobRyan, Aug 10, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...