a question for Calvinists

Yelsew,
Maybe it is your view which is "distorted?" How can you make such a claim?

You write:
Neither Calvin nor Armenius had the insight to understand that concept, and it has made of each of you, a factionary Christian.

Scott writes:
This is an opinion. Can I ask, have you read Calvin's works? If not, your accusation is unfounded.

 

IF you ask, it will be given; IF you seek, you will find; IF you knock, the door will be opened to you.

In each, the IF is implied, and means that God expects us to take action to gain knowledge of Him. Knowledge that bolsters our belief, faith, and trust in him. In another place we are told to "test these things" to determine their validity. In other words, we are not to simply accept the bible at its face value or memorize it so that we can blindly recite it in defense of weak faith.

In another place we are told that God does nothing without first telling his prophets? And then, the prophet's warnings came as from weeks to centuries before God actually acted.

 

Back to the original question,

For God to choose before creation those whom he would redeem is like a farmer with a bag of seed choosing which seeds would grow into a crop and which would not. Even though God is an eternal being he does not waste 'his time' in such effort, he simply scatters the seed and lets those that will, come to him.

 

Helen writes:
Why not just create those who would be redeemed? Why this dreadful waste of time itself, as a part of creation, and the decay and rot and death that go along with it when He could have simply created those He would redeem from the get-go and stop the rest of the suffering and pain and cruelty in this world?

Scott responds:
Gods elect are scattered over timelines. They do not all rest in the age of Christ. Gods allowing for pain and suffering are two-fold.

1) Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ?

2) Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

~"Treasuring up.......into the cup of HIS indignation"

Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation ; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Rev 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

So, to answer the question, God is patient, due to His elect being scattered all over time. He is patient as many of the reprobate are also scattered over time. The elect have been called unto righteouness, to bring Him alone glory, the reprobate are filling up a cup of wrath for themselves in end days. Both ideas take time.The elect for glory, the reprobate for wrath.

Yelsew also writes:
Even though God is an eternal being he does not waste 'his time' in such effort, he simply scatters the seed and lets those that will, come to him.

Scott answers:
As I have stated previously, based upon the above premise, if man were left to their own devices, their nature confirming and guaranteeing, Heaven would be empty!

But what does one do with these verses:
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day.

The word *draw* in the Greek is used in the book of Acts to describe the 'aggresive' dragging that happened to the Apostles when they were arrested and thrown into jail and when they were tossed out of the temple. This action, "the drawing" of God, is NOT to be seen as a wooing or a gentle breeze. It is not God whispering to an individual, "Please come to me...pretty please...". Jesus himself stated that no man can come to him unless the father "drag" him?

Notice the strongs: Helkuo' #1670
Act 16:19

Acts 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the marketplace unto the rulers,

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Acts 21:29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Acts 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and dragged him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

James 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and drag you before the judgment seats?

~I expect that this dragging James is speaking of is likened to "a gentle breeze of encouragement".

~I encourage everyone to do a word study on this Greek word. Get out a Strongs, compare it to the words, draw, draweth, drawn. See if it can be interpreted in any other manner. If it can be, prove it. Help us learn.

[ November 17, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

In another place we are told that God does nothing without first telling his prophets? And then, the prophet's warnings came as from weeks to centuries before God actually acted.ssuring one, at that. I wish I could keep it in mind at all times.</font>[/QUOTE]IF you ask, it will be given; IF you seek, you will find; IF you knock, the door will be opened to you.</font>[/QUOTE]You are adding to and changing scripture. There's no "if" in the english or greek. Ask, seek, knock are all present/active/imperative - none of them are conditional.

 

By the way, it is easy to illustrate that it is a reassuring promise by examining the quote in context in Luke. It is obvious that Jesus is saying (among other things) that when you pester a man, you'll probably eventually get what you need. But all you have to do is ask God and I guarantee you will get what you need. One can almost hear the "I promise" that follows...

 

In God's Free Will Universe - it would be a problem to "only create those that you knew would choose to obey". The entire system is based on the concept that God is right - NOT just because He can arbitrarily and capriciously do as He pleases - but because it IS right - because it stands up to objective investigation and can be SHOWN that God IS love and God IS just.

"Dicovering" that God had "rigged" the system - would result in the collapse of a free will model.

The 6000 years of sin and suffering then has 'meaning' instead of simply claiming that it is the arbitrary and capricious nature of a supreme being not to "waste his time" worrying about who gets run over in his whimsical moods.

In the free will model "God is not willing for any to perish" and oh by the way - He already figure out that He is all powerful. So He chooses to engage in a free will model instead of simply powerfully creating drones that do whatever He wishes.

The answer to the entire question - is free will. God is walking the universe through the solution to a free will problem after allowing Lucifer and Adam to choose rebellion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well Bob,
That solves the problem associated with John 3:3 and the Greek word used to describe how men are "born again". Just for the record, the term "anothen, from above" denotes something that occurs outside of the concept of mans will. Also, John 3:8 describes this miraculous event as something likened to the way the wind blows around arbitrarily, that no one is able to tell where it comes from (physically) or where it is (literally) going to. It being that the originating catalyst is God, and the liting of the spirit directed by God alone; not men whom choose.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

John 1:13 and Titus 3:5, eph 2:8,9 confirm that it is outside of a work or as you have implied, mans free will.

~Also, was Pauls salvific experience on the road to Demascus an exhibition of his free will or of Gods?

[ November 17, 2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

And if those Jesus is speaking to don't ask, seek, or knock?

These commands are up to us to obey, it is our choice to obey or not obey, so it is absolutely conditional! "If you do this you will receive this,..." The logical response if one does not do as commanded, is that You will not receive,...

So you see, if you do, you receive; if you don't, you won't receive. Conditions exist!

[ November 17, 2002, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Absolutely! And who will fulfill those conditions(knowing that Jesus has ultimately fulfilled all conditions on our behalf) but those to whom God has graciously given spiritual life and a new heart and a resurrected soul.

Ken

 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as HE CHOSE US IN HIM BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, that we should be holy and without blame before Him IN LOVE, HAVING PREDESTINED US to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, ACCORDING TO THE GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS WILL, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, ACCORDING TO HIS GOOD PLEASURE WHICH HE PURPOSED IN HIMSELF, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, BEING PREDESTINED ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE OF HIM WHO WORKS ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL, that we who first trusted in Christ should exist to the praise of His glory."
- Ephesians 1:3-12

"But God, who is rich in mercy, BECAUSE OF HIS GREAT LOVE WITH WHICH HE LOVED US, even when we were dead in trespasses, MADE US ALIVE together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)..."
- Ephesians 2:4-5

 

The Arminian position does not state "And so lost humanity sends the Holy Spirit and chooses what the Holy Spirit is doing"- as your statement above seems to suppose.

Instead - the Arminian position is that God sovereignly CHOOSES to send the Holy Spirit to "convict of sin and righteousness and judgment". God's Holy Spirit moves upon the heart of mankind as Christ said "I will Draw ALL MANKIND" unto Me. That drawing, that convicting that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is God CHOOSING to Act - to Draw -- ALL MANKIND -

The constant appeal of the Calvinist response to that part as "proof" that man is not choosing anything ever - is a non-sequiter.

Both groups agree that God is doing that CONVICTING and DRAWING - it is just that the Arminian view is that He "DRAWS ALL MANKIND" and the Calvinist view is that He "does not".

The act of RECEIVING is placed ahead of the response the "POWER to BECOME the sons of God".

The act of BELIEVING is placed ahead of the response of the New Birth.



John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

That is always the format for Belief in scripture. There is no model in scripture for going to bed an atheist and then waking up the next morning and "discovering that you became a believer just before waking". Rather it is always in the format of hearing - and accepting/recieving what is taught - that the "Belief" is chosen.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Texts that show that God sens the Holy Spirit - but man does not send the Holy Spirit - do nothing to make your case - except in the extent that it supports the common ground that both groups accept. God sends the Holy Spirit.

The crux of the issue to be proven rather than merely assumed - is the lack of choice or that God in fact does NOT "Convict the World" through the Holy Spirit - or that He in fact does NOT "Draw ALL mankind" unto Him.

That actually addresses the very point of difference.

What is NOT a difference is that God sends out that light, that Holy Spirit, to mankind as in


Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

The light is God's the Voice is God's the words are Gods - But the one responding is Paul. There were many on the road to Damascus that day but only one chose to spread the Gospel of Christ.

The notion that "IF God does anything at all in scripture - then God has given mankind no free will" has yet to be proven.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob writes:
Instead - the Arminian position is that God sovereignly CHOOSES to send the Holy Spirit to "convict of sin and righteousness and judgment". God's Holy Spirit moves upon the heart of mankind as Christ said "I will Draw ALL MANKIND" unto Me. That drawing, that convicting that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is God CHOOSING to Act - to Draw -- ALL MANKIND -

Scott asks:
You did not respond to my exegesis (above) of the word "draw"????

 

Regarding the exegesis of the word "draw."

From Kittel's TDNT -

"The basic meaning is "to draw," "tug," or, in the case of persons, "compel." It may be used for "to draw" to a place by magic, for demons being "drawn" to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227]."

• A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, says helkuo is used figuratively "of the pull on man’s inner life. . . . draw, attract J 6:44" [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p. 251].

• The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, states that helkuo is used metaphorically "to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32" [William Mounce, p. 180].

• The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament has, "met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44" [W.J. Hickie, p. 13].

• The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller says, "figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)" [p. 144].

• Calvinist Spiros Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, says, "Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)" [New Testament Lexical Aids, p. 1831].

(From the Arminian Magazine, Spring, 2001)

 

Scott:
And how does it compare to the texts I've posted or compare to the other usages of the Greek?
Sorry, but there is no way that this can be misinterpreted. Scripture defines scripture right?

Were the apostles gently tugged at when they were being ushered into jail?

Was it mental or moral in their scenario?

~Very interesting that none of the above exegetes utilize the 2 passages in Acts I use as balance and support??? They wont supply exegetes on these passages because IT DOES support the biblical example of irresistable grace!

[ November 18, 2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Not when you are guilty of "word-loading." This occurs when a person takes a meaning of a word in one context and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context. You both do this when they appeal to the use of helkuo in Acts 16:19 and Acts 21:30, as justification for understanding John 6:44 as meaning drag or force. It is important to note the use of helkuo also in extrabiblical usages, which Kitten points out in his use of Plato. When there is a specific context of force (as in the Acts verses), helkuo does have the "punch" of force. However, when there is no context of force or magic, the meaning of the word changes significantly. There is also a difference between the metaphorical use of helkuo and the literal use of helkuo as the other sources pointed out. I note that you didn't try to rebut the six sources I presented at all.

They were forced - however, again, we use helkuo with its context.

It was a physical act of force. In a metaphorical sense, all of the sources I present show that helkuo means something different. Now, do you have exegetical sources to the contrary, because I'd love to hear them. (Oh, and don't use R.C. Sproul - he actually misrepresents what Kittel's work actually says. That's very interesting, IMO)

Actually, they do use them. They strike the difference in metaphorical and literal usages of "helkuo."

 

Scott,
Since you took the liberty to use the lexicology from the *Arminian Magazine/ 2001, I will do as you did:
Taken from The Alpha and Omega website of James White, his *open letter* to Dave Hunt's attempt at the Greek Helkuo'..........

White speaking:
There is, of course, just one problem. The text defies your disjunction. First, we note that Jesus is charged to raise up to eternal life all of those who are given to Him (6:37-39). Being raised up on the last day is the same as receiving eternal life. They are used in parallel in this passage. But, those who are given to the Son are raised up, and those who are drawn are raised up. If the results are the same, obviously, the group is the same. But there is more. In John 6:44, the key passage regarding “drawing,” we read: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is a single sentence. In Greek we have, helkuse auton, kagw anastesw auton en te eschate hemera. The direct object of the action of the Father’s drawing is the first auton, “him.” A grand total of two words separate the first “him” from the second appearance of the same term, “and I will raise him up on the last day.” Now, you are telling us that this is a different “him,” a different group of people. That in fact there are many, many who are drawn who will not be raised up. You are telling us that the Father draws millions to Christ, but they do not experience the last phrase of this single sentence. And upon what basis? You don’t tell us. “Surely” you can do so! What is the basis, Mr. Hunt?

Dave, the only possible reason why you could not see why I join such scholars as Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware and R.C. Sproul and Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield and so many others is that you do not want to see it. You have been blinded by your traditions. It is not that the text is unclear. Your thinking is what is unclear here, not the text, and I do not say that with any malice toward you at all. Let’s look at the text again and see how your argumentation is flawed.
First, you are making a positive assertion, but you refuse to state it that way, hoping that by stating it negatively, you will not be forced to substantiate your claim. You are saying that Jesus is teaching that there are those who are drawn who are not raised up. You are saying the second “him” in verse 44 refers to a different person than the first. Now, you offer us no substantiation of your claim, anywhere, but you expect us to accept your claim, seemingly without any basis other than your own authority. I do not argue as you do, Dave. When I say those who are drawn are the same ones who are raised up, I provide exegetical basis. Here’s a summary:

1) There is no reason to insert a disjunction between the direct object of helkuse and the direct object of anastesw. In fact, when we consider the syntax of the passage, we note that while helkuse is found in a subjunctive clause, the main tense comes from oudeis dunatai elthein, “no one is able to come.” Note that the verb in the last clause is a future, “and I will raise him up.” The progression naturally flows into the last clause without interruption. That is, there is nothing indicated in the verbal structure to make kai disjunctive in any way (something you would need to find to be able to substantiate your assertion). The natural reading is to see auton in both clauses as synonymous in extent and meaning.

2) Those who come to Christ are those who were given to the Son by the Father (John 6:37). Again, verbally, the giving precedes the coming. This is why your entire explanation of the text is impossible: you turn it on its head, insert the foreign concept of foreknowledge (and using it in an unbiblical fashion), and make the result of being given the grounds of being given! We come to Christ as a result of the Father having given us to the Son. You say we come to Christ, the Father foresees this (how the free actions of autonomous creatures can be foreseen in this fashion you do not explain, nor, do I believe, can anyone really explain it outside of positing God’s sovereign decree in light of Ephesians 1:11), and on the basis of our foreseen faith, gives us to the Son. This completely reverses the order of Jesus’ own words. Those who come are those who are given; those who are given are raised up by Christ (6:38-39). Those who are drawn are raised up by Christ.

3) John 6:44 explains how it is that all those who are given by the Father to the Son will, without fail, come to him. It does not make the giving and the drawing the same action, as you errantly assume, but it does make it certain that all those who are given are, at the time decreed by God, drawn by the Father to the Son.

4) Besides all these issues, there is another reason I have not yet presented for rejecting your disjunction. John 6:45 states,

"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”

This verse is not discussing something different, but expressing the same truths in different words. The Lord did not all of a sudden insert some foreign idea here, but is now using hearing and teaching as another way of speaking of the divine work of God whereby He draws His elect unto the Son. Who is Jesus referring to? All who are given by the Father to the Son, of course, and all who are drawn by the Father to the Son. The ability to hear (or the lack of ability to do so) is a common theme in John’s gospel. Note the same theme in John 8:43, 47:

Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.

If we take your view, Dave, we would have to read those words differently, would we not? “Why do you choose to not understand what I am saying? It is because you choose not to hear My word. He who has chosen to be of God hears the words of God, just as the one who has not; for this reason you do not hear them, because you have not chosen to be of God.” That’s how you would have to rephrase such passages, is it not? Jesus spoke of an inability to hear (“cannot hear”) in John 8:43 just as He spoke of an inability to come in John 6:44. See the connection, Dave? John 6:45 says that those who hear and learn from the Father do what? Come. What do those who are given by the Father to the Son do? Come. John 6:45 parallels hearing and learning with drawing. If being given, hearing, and learning, all result in one coming to Christ, and yet hearing and learning is parallel to being drawn, then the only possible logical result is what? That all those who are drawn come to Christ and are raised up on the last day. So, graphically:

6:37 Action: Given by Father Result: All come to Christ
6:39 Action: Given by Father Result: None lost, all raised up
6:44 Action: Drawn by the Father Result: Come to Christ, raised up
6:45 Action: Hear from and Taught by Father: Result: Come to Christ

There is a strong, clear, irrefutable line that flows from 6:37 through 6:45, Dave. You may try to deny its existence. You may tell your readers it is not there. You may vociferously claim it contradicts other Scriptures (it only contradicts your misunderstandings of other Scriptures). Indeed, you wrote on page 336, “Moreover, to ‘draw’ someone in the ordinary sense of that word doesn’t mean they will necessarily come all the way, nor is there anything in either the Greek or the context to suggest, much less demand, that conclusion.” We have now seen that this statement is completely untrue. But the fact is, the teaching is there. It is consistent throughout the passage. It is consistent with every grammatical, lexical, and syntactical analysis available. And it tells us that God the Father gives the elect to the Son, who infallibly and perfectly saves each and every one; it says that the Father draws those same undeserving sinners in His grace to the Son, and the Son infallibly raises them up on the last day. These exegetical considerations are the death knell of your entire 20th chapter, Dave, a chapter in which you accuse myself and others of eisegesis and misinterpretation.
I should note, Dave, that the rest of your attempted response to John 6 is dependent upon this very point, and since your explanation here has failed, the rest of it, of course, is left without a foundation. I believe you have a responsibility to your readers, since you have published on this topic, to speak the truth to them. If you cannot provide a solid, reasoned, truthful response to the information I have presented to you here, you should withdraw your assertions. Indeed, you wrote on page 335,

The burden of proof is upon the Calvinist to show where the Bible clearly states his doctrine; yet even in this passage which White calls “the clearest exposition of Calvinism,” the theory is not plainly stated but must be read into it or it could not be found there at all.

Yet, as I have now shown, the Bible does clearly state the doctrine, and your every attempt to cast doubt upon the clarity of the revelation has failed upon the first examination of the text in a properly exegetical fashion. You allege we are reading into the text, yet, when we let the text speak for itself, it teaches these truths with great clarity. You are reading these truths out of the text so as to substantiate your tradition. Yes, I know you allege I am doing the same thing, but, as any formal debate between us would show, one of us can provide an exegetically consistent foundation for his position, one cannot.

Excerpt taken from J. Whites *open* letter to Dave Hunt.
http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html

[ November 18, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Scott E.
You state that the term helkuo', when used in the book of Acts is " metaphorical". If it is metaphorical, please enlighten us to what you believe was Lukes intent?

The apostle Luke, who wrote the book of Acts is a doctor and an historian. Why would he use metaphors here in the historic account of the church? Also, outside of the parables, can you cite an example in the gospel of Luke where the apostle uses metaphors?

The word Helkuo' is used a total of 8 times in the NT.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

How do you suppose Peter retrieved his sword from the sheath during this tense moment?

Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

Do you believe that the drawing of this net full of fish from the waters was done gently, tenderly......wooing them to the boat?

Joh 21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

And to the land.......I would suggest, vigourously!

Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

I suppose that the merchant who lost his wage because of the apostles casting out of the demon gently grabbed the apostles?

Ac 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the marketplace unto the rulers,

All the city was moved.......What do you think the term *moved* implies, that they moved their homes to another area? No, they were furious! This is known as a riot.

Ac 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the
people ran together: and they took Paul, and dragged him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

Does not this scripture epict being sued.....being brought to a judge? I suppose this is gentle also?

Jas 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

Scripture supports scripture. Scott show me how this can be interpreted wrong? Even setting aside the verses in John (6:44, 12:32)all the rest support a vigorous, agressive idea.

[ November 18, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

No, I didn't. Helkuo there is literal. The passages in question in John are metaphorical.

This coming from the perspective where world doesn't always mean world. Context supports context, and word usage supports word usage as well. Kitten shows that in extrabiblibal works, when helkuo is used in the metaphorical sense, it does not mean to drag by force. He uses Plato to support it. I have shown 6 scholarly sources that all agree that helkuo in the passages in John do not mean to drag or overcome with force. Even the letter you posted shows no scholarship that shows to the contrary. I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that.

Even if you have six verses that show that the term is drag (although I would maintain that the drawing related to the nets does not have the same forec as what happened to the apostles), the scholarly evidence denies your assertion that helkuo means drag in every single context. You have been unable to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

Scott E. writes:
when helkuo is used in the metaphorical sense, it does not mean to drag by force. He uses Plato to support it.

Scott, I disagree with Kittel (Thats Gerhard Kittel...not "Kitten") for a number of reasons. For 1, I will not acknowledge his contrast to Plato's work, and 2 his *misunderstanding* of Gods grace. He (Kittel) see's it as universal. (See your presentation from the Arminian paper)
Whenver the term "grace" is used either in OT or NT it is in the context of:
1) Someone who is of God
2) Spoken in regards to Israel; Gods chosen

Never is it used in the context of being applied to the reprobate or the unsaved.

So, I disagree with Kittel on these points.

Also, The scriptures and comparisons cannot be denied. The harmony is irrefutable......sorry!

Just because John (in your opinion) is using metaphors, the intent is there. The power of God dragging the person to himself. All of the lexicography that you presents support this idea. Check it out for yourself. It may not be a physical pulling, but it is on the spiritual level.........

Scott E. writes:
the scholarly evidence denies your assertion that helkuo means drag in every single context.

Okay Scott, take the bible, use every scripture using Helkuo'and show me how it is not intended to mean what I say. Even though I disagree with you, as I believe you have misinterpreted the lexicology, lets let the scriptures speak for themselves.

[ November 18, 2002, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]