Personal blog that will cover my personal interests. I write about Christian Theology and Apologetics, politics, culture, science, and literature.
Friday, November 6, 2009
John 6 from the Great Falls Conference
Here is more spectacular exegesis of a passage of scripture that plainly teaches that no one comes to God on their own. I'd really like to hear the Arminian viewpoint on John 6:44 in particular. How do they get that it's up to us to accept on our own without God? I see no way I was able to do it on my own. I read Chosen But Free(CBF) but I don't think Geisler can handle this particular passage at all from the "People have free will to choose to accept or reject Jesus" perspective. I really would like to read a better Arminian treatment on the subject. CBF doesn't cut it.
Okay, I have a little time now. We Arminians take John 6:44 at face value. We think God must draw anyone who comes to Him before anyone can come to Him. There is no inherent desire to seek God within man. God must proactively draw individuals to Himself because of our depraved nature. We think this is by God's prevenient grace, which leads to salvation and which appears to all men (Titus 2:11). There is small debate within Arminianism as to whether this is only through the hearing of God's word, or whether there is a universal prevenient grace that God shows to even those who don't hear (as William Lane Craig believes) that they can respond to.
This prevenient grace is not irresistible (Acts 7:51). Men must ceace resisting and accept the gift of God. We do nothing for our salvation in this respect. Our faith is a passive submission to God's grace. He convicts, He draws, He calls, and He enables. Once the sinner places their faith in God, He is the one who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies the sinner; just as He had predestined to do (Romans 8:29-30).
I must admit I have a confusion. How can both the following be true: "There is no inherent desire to seek God within man." and "Once the sinner places their faith in God, He is the one who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies the sinner; just as He had predestined to do."? How can a sinner place his/her faith in God if there is no inherent desire to seek God? I thought most Arminians, like Steve Gregg, say that it's within a person's ability to put their faith in God without God moving on him/her because it violates their free will. Norman Geisler suggested that it was "divine rape". It seems like you are saying that God enables a persons to come to him and without that a person cannot and will not be saved. IF that is what you are saying then its not Arminianism. That's Calvinisim.
PS Until God enables a person to come to him there is nothing a person can do but resist the Holy Spirit. But once God soveriegnly draws I can't see how anyone can say "no". Otherwise we are saying that God is subject to the free will of people.
How can a sinner place his/her faith in God if there is no inherent desire to seek God?
That's where prevenient grace comes in. It is the grace that leads to repentance. Without and before God reveals this grace to someone, they are unable and unwilling to seek God. After God acts on the person, they are enabled to seek and accept God, if they wish.
I thought most Arminians, like Steve Gregg, say that it's within a person's ability to put their faith in God without God moving on him/her because it violates their free will
I'm not familiar with Steve Gregg, but classical Arminians would disagree vehemetly with that. That is a semi-Pelagian position.
I think it's also a misunderstanding of the nature of libertarian free will. LFW is the ability to choose options that are actually available. Before God acts on a person, they cannot and do not want to come to Him.
IF that is what you are saying then its not Arminianism
The biggest difference is we don't think God makes His grace irresistible.
But once God soveriegnly draws I can't see how anyone can say "no". Otherwise we are saying that God is subject to the free will of people.
Well the people in Acts 7:51 did. Also, I don't think it is God's purpose to irresistibly draw people. I do think that would not allow people a free-will. I think God wants people to willingly accept Him, but He must make them able to do this because of our depravity.
William Lane Craig recently pointed out on his website, "God could produce certain chemical reactions in our brains that would issue in what we'd normally describe as loving behavior toward Him, but it would be a sham, a puppet-like response. To have a genuine love relationship with us, God must put up with the possibility of rebellion."
Also, Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell point out in "Why I am not a Calvinist", "The same freedom that makes it possible to enter a genuinely trusting and obedient relationship with God also makes it possible for us to go our own way and disobey him. God allows the latter in order to enable the former."
God is not subject to our wills by any inability on His part. He sovereignly allows us to have volition in order to cultivate genuine relationships with us.
IT does help a great deal! I can see how Arminianism is very varied. People like Steve Gregg and George Bryson would not fully agree with you and William Lane Craig.
I'd like to ask a little more about Acts 7:51 - What evidence in scripture shows you that the people had the people could have chosen different? Are there any scriptures that says that those who rejected the Gospel could have made a different choice? All I see are scriptures that say that they they rejected the gospel.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=854cc5f3-5856-4f5e-ab43-89859ad819b0)
Hey, Marcus. I'll answer your question after classes today. You do mean John 6:44 insteaf of 5:44, right?
ReplyDeleteYesm I'm sorry. I meant John 6:44
ReplyDeleteOkay, I have a little time now. We Arminians take John 6:44 at face value. We think God must draw anyone who comes to Him before anyone can come to Him. There is no inherent desire to seek God within man. God must proactively draw individuals to Himself because of our depraved nature. We think this is by God's prevenient grace, which leads to salvation and which appears to all men (Titus 2:11). There is small debate within Arminianism as to whether this is only through the hearing of God's word, or whether there is a universal prevenient grace that God shows to even those who don't hear (as William Lane Craig believes) that they can respond to.
ReplyDeleteThis prevenient grace is not irresistible (Acts 7:51). Men must ceace resisting and accept the gift of God. We do nothing for our salvation in this respect. Our faith is a passive submission to God's grace. He convicts, He draws, He calls, and He enables. Once the sinner places their faith in God, He is the one who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies the sinner; just as He had predestined to do (Romans 8:29-30).
I must admit I have a confusion. How can both the following be true: "There is no inherent desire to seek God within man." and "Once the sinner places their faith in God, He is the one who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies the sinner; just as He had predestined to do."? How can a sinner place his/her faith in God if there is no inherent desire to seek God? I thought most Arminians, like Steve Gregg, say that it's within a person's ability to put their faith in God without God moving on him/her because it violates their free will. Norman Geisler suggested that it was "divine rape". It seems like you are saying that God enables a persons to come to him and without that a person cannot and will not be saved. IF that is what you are saying then its not Arminianism. That's Calvinisim.
ReplyDeletePS Until God enables a person to come to him there is nothing a person can do but resist the Holy Spirit. But once God soveriegnly draws I can't see how anyone can say "no". Otherwise we are saying that God is subject to the free will of people.
How can a sinner place his/her faith in God if there is no inherent desire to seek God?
ReplyDeleteThat's where prevenient grace comes in. It is the grace that leads to repentance. Without and before God reveals this grace to someone, they are unable and unwilling to seek God. After God acts on the person, they are enabled to seek and accept God, if they wish.
I thought most Arminians, like Steve Gregg, say that it's within a person's ability to put their faith in God without God moving on him/her because it violates their free will
I'm not familiar with Steve Gregg, but classical Arminians would disagree vehemetly with that. That is a semi-Pelagian position.
I think it's also a misunderstanding of the nature of libertarian free will. LFW is the ability to choose options that are actually available. Before God acts on a person, they cannot and do not want to come to Him.
IF that is what you are saying then its not Arminianism
The biggest difference is we don't think God makes His grace irresistible.
But once God soveriegnly draws I can't see how anyone can say "no". Otherwise we are saying that God is subject to the free will of people.
Well the people in Acts 7:51 did. Also, I don't think it is God's purpose to irresistibly draw people. I do think that would not allow people a free-will. I think God wants people to willingly accept Him, but He must make them able to do this because of our depravity.
William Lane Craig recently pointed out on his website, "God could produce certain chemical reactions in our brains that would issue in what we'd normally describe as loving behavior toward Him, but it would be a sham, a puppet-like response. To have a genuine love relationship with us, God must put up with the possibility of rebellion."
Also, Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell point out in "Why I am not a Calvinist", "The same freedom that makes it possible to enter a genuinely trusting and obedient relationship with God also makes it possible for us to go our own way and disobey him. God allows the latter in order to enable the former."
God is not subject to our wills by any inability on His part. He sovereignly allows us to have volition in order to cultivate genuine relationships with us.
I hope that helps :)
IT does help a great deal! I can see how Arminianism is very varied. People like Steve Gregg and George Bryson would not fully agree with you and William Lane Craig.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to ask a little more about Acts 7:51 - What evidence in scripture shows you that the people had the people could have chosen different? Are there any scriptures that says that those who rejected the Gospel could have made a different choice? All I see are scriptures that say that they they rejected the gospel.
James White debated Steve Gregg last year. Here is are links
Day 1 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
Day 2 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
Day 3 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
Day 4 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
Day 5 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate