Howdy, All! It’s been a while.

I must apologize for starting a thread then being absent so long from it. The nature of my work and ministry keeps me away for extended periods.

It’s gratifying to see all the thoughtful responses here, and I thank everyone for dedicating a bit of the precious time you’ve been graced with towards edifying the saints. The tone of the debate is loving, and I see y’all honoring our LORD while contending for your convictions based on scripture. Makes me want to shout Hallelujah!

Let me attempt to clarify my position. I have never been concerned about “apparent contradictions” in my LORD’s Word. It’s all true. I will preach that with my dying breath, if the LORD tarries that long. I do not hold to the five points of what is commonly referred to as the TULIP, and after years of prayer and study, I doubt that anything posted here will change that, though I allow the possibility. What I have trouble understanding is how a brother or sister in Christ who is obviously led of the Spirit, and has a genuine God-given love for our Saviour, the brethren, and the lost can prayerfully read the same Bible as I and come to a conclusion at such variance with my own. I asked for an exegesis (graciously provided by Raymond, Jim, and now others as well) of certain Scripture in order to find insight into their understanding, and thus better understand how truly yielded men and women could so radically disagree about so foundational an issue.

Whew! All that simply to clarify a question! I should have just said “read my first couple of posts again” and left it at that. But then, I’m a Baptist preacher and we do have a reputation to uphold!

Anyway, the torch has been taken up and so I leap into the fray!

Pilgrim313 wrote:

“You stated in a post: "Brothers, I believe that my LORD draws all men to Himself."
Are you saying that you believe every single person that walks the earth will be drawn to Christ?
Or do you believe that 'all' that were 'given Him' by the Father will come to Him?
If you believe the first, there would be no point in Christ's life, sacrifice, and resurection for God could have just pardoned everyone with a word.
If you believe the second, there had to be an atonement, a life, a sacrifice, a perfection that would please God in order for filthy sinners to be allowed back into His Presence.

I believe what John 12:32 states, that Christ, if He be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Himself. Note the period at the end of that statement. All men are drawn, but not all will trust Christ as their Saviour. Luke affirms this in his gospel thus:

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Luke 1:9

The scripture is clear that men are called through our LORD’s provision by His creation (see Romans 1:19,20), and by their conscience (Romans 2:11-16) though they have not heard His Word, and so are without excuse. How does this negate the need for our Saviour’s vicarious sacrifice? Men go to hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Christ:

John 5:40 “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”

Whose will? Our will.

Love y’all! Praying we’ll all be edified by what is written here, and that our LORD will get the glory!

Razorbuck

Yes, but does that mean it is a free will? I guess I am playing "devils advocate" (please forgive the cliche) for both parties.

I do not believe that this means we have a free will, yet we have a will to choose.

And we love you too. I have been missing your input, it has been sorely missed!

Love in Christ,

Jim

I heard of a hyper-calvinistic situation recently that me smile and despair at the same time. In this situation a guy was convinced someone else was saved even though the other person did not know they were saved. The other person did not even have any interest in God.

I would assume that one thing we could agree on is not taking verses out of context. It is not good theology to pluck a verse here and there that proves your point (in your mind) and build your theology around it.
Jn.12:32 was correctly stated, yet the 'all' refers to those 'given Him' by His Father....corelating what other parts of the Bible has taught. Not what my puny pigmy mind wants it to say. There has never been 'all' that even heard Christ, much less believed in him. as you stated even His own (Jews) knew Him not. Why? Because it wasn't in God's Plan for them to beleive at that time. Period.
A few verses further the answer is given. HE! HE! HE! has decided that they should not believe.


12:40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Pilgrim

Your reference to Lk.1:9, is an error, it should be Jn.1:9.....I find it interesting as I stated in the post above (hopping and skipping thru the Scriptures to pull out what suits us) that you would pull out of this wonderful section of the Word, what suits your fancy to try to prove a point, and yet skip over those verses that totally refute your claim.
Why don't we deal with the Scripture as it is written?


4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Do you see it? Do you comprehend it? Is God wrong? NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN!!! HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN THE WORD OF GOD BE?
Pilgrim

Pilgrim,

I thank you for your concern in bringing the theology lesson, while confessing that I find it more than a bit presumptuous.

For the sake of brevity I used verses by themselves to reinforce what I believe to be the overall teaching of scripture on the subject of inability. I will now go more in-depth into the matter and hope you will recognize that my convictions are based on prayerful study of the Word and not, as you falsely claim:

Also, you correctly point out:

Sloppy copying and pasting, for which I sincerely apologize.

I beg to disagree. A careful examination of the text in context reveals nothing of the kind. “all” simply means “all”. Our LORD here communicates the manner of His death, and the effect it will have on man. (v.33) Then in verse 34 the Jews argue out of the law that Christ abides forever, so how can this be?

John 12:34The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?

The verse you quoted (verse 40) is part of the answer to that question, and so is not a commentary on who is drawn at all, rather it is confirming our Father’s foresight through the prophecy of Isaiah:

Isaiah 6:9-12

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

A prophecy that is declared fulfilled, as well.
So the topic here addressed is the unbelief of the Jews in Jesus as Christ, not whether or not man has the ability to come to Christ.

John 12:40-48He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

So you are correct, but the “they” you mention are the Jews at this time, and their unbelief is toward Jesus as the Christ! Looking at the scripture in context we cannot confuse the two points.

Would you agree that I have now done so? Now on to John chapter one:

John 1:1-13
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

OK, the Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world, am I correct?
The witness to that Light declared that all men might believe through Him, is this correct?
Though not all received Him, the ones who did were given power to become the sons of God, are we together thus far? All of this by the working of His power alone! This could not have happened if God had not willed to save His fallen creatures, and I’d venture to say that we agree on this as well. So if you allowed for the sake of argument, that the ability to choose is represented in the phrase “that all men through Him might believe”, does that necessarily negate the statement that those who received Him were born by the will of God?

Of course not, so my exegesis, you must admit is at least reasonable, regardless of what you believe. So perhaps in retrospect I’m not quite the scripture hopper you described in your post.

I hope the condescension I detect in this statement is my imagination.

Peace to you,

Razorbuck

Pilgrim,

You also didn't comment on this declaration:

Was this an oversight? Or did you not wish to pursue it?

Respectfully,

Razorbuck

Razor; in your explination of your beliefs on " that all men through him might believe." From Jn.12:32
At this point in the chapter, Christ is not only addressing the 'jew', but also the Greeks (heathen) that went to Phillip seeking to see Christ. It was after Andrew and Phillip told Christ that the Greeks wanted to 'see' Him that the narrative picks up....and typical to understanding at that time, God had been the 'God' of the Jews only. It is now coming to light that 'When' He is lifted up, he will draw all men to him.....the 'all' being those of His chosen (jew) family and those of the heathen, those from every nation tribe and country. Not every single human that will or has walked the earth. Yes, mankind is born with a sense of God, from your Rm. passage, but that passage is more dipicting His wrath and judgement because of their unbelief.

Razor posted: "OK, the Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world, am I correct?
Yes that is correct, mankind has some inner knowledge of God

The witness to that Light declared that all men might believe through Him, is this correct?

Yes, John was the witness, sent to the lost house of Israel

Though not all received Him, the ones who did were given power to become the sons of God, are we together thus far? All of this by the working of His power alone! This could not have happened if God had not willed to save His fallen creatures, and I’d venture to say that we agree on this as well.
Yes, I would venture to say 'agreed'

So if you allowed for the sake of argument, that the ability to choose is represented in the phrase “that all men through Him might believe”, does that necessarily negate the statement that those who received Him were born by the will of God?"

I don't agree that the ability to choose is contained in the phrase 'that all men through Him might believe', but rather since the Scripture teach
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
even our 'faith' (one could take this to mean 'our believing') is a gift from God.
Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that NOT of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

Pilgrim

Ah but the ability to choose is contained in that phrase. In order to understand you must look at the definition of the word, "might," as used in this verse.

Function: verbal auxiliary
Inflected Form(s): past might /'mIt/; present singular & plural may
Etymology: Middle English (1st & 3d sing. present indic.), from Old English mæg; akin to Old High German mag (1st & 3d singular present indicative) have power, am able (infinitive magan), and perhaps to Greek mEchos means, expedient
1 a archaic : have the ability to b : have permission to <you may go now> : be free to

Notice the archaic meaning of the word which means to be free to. The archaic use of the word is the use as seen in this verse of the Bible. It specifically means men have the freedom to accept and therefore means we also have the freedom to choose not to.

In Christ,
George

George: here is the Biblical definition of 'might' (believe)


Lexicon Results for pisteuo (Strong's 4100)
Greek for 4100

Pronunciation Guide
pisteuo {pist-yoo'-o}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 6:174,849 from 4102
Part of Speech
v
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in

a) of the thing believed

1) to credit, have confidence

b) in a moral or religious reference

1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul

2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith

3) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith

2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity

a) to be intrusted with a thing

What makes you say this is the biblical definition? It is the opinion of Augustus Strong. Augustus Strong had nothing to do with writing the Bible. The definition I gave also has a Biblical origin. It is the definition of another man and is supported by many others.

If you look at the sense and the context of the verse it definitely implies a freedom. We might accept Him and we might not.that is freedom of choice.

In Christ,
George

Incidentally in researching the King James Version + and the Strong's Exhaustive concordance I can find no Strong's number assigned to the word "might' in this particular verse. How did you arbitrarily assign the number of G 4100 to it?

In Christ,
George

George; I stand corrected, in back tracking I realized that the 'might' in the verse is one of those 'inserted for clarity' words and when I did the search on 'might' it included 'believe' and that was the definition given. Which I think further proves the point that 'might' was inserted, not a part of the original language. It was also interesting in the commentary on the verse that the 'him' is referring to John, not Christ.

Pilgrim

George: If you truly believe that 'man' has the final 'choice' in either choosing to accept or reject Christ, what happens to the verse a little further along in John that states:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

doesn't 'Nor of the will of man' negate that thinking?

here is the definition of 'will'

2307 // yelhma // thelema // thel'-ay-mah //

from the prolonged form of 2309 ; TDNT - 3:52,318; n n

AV - will 62, desire 1, pleasure 1; 64

1) what one wishes or has determined shall be done
1a) of the purpose of God to bless mankind through Christ
1b) of what God wishes to be done by us
1b1) commands, precepts
2) will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure

Pilgrim

Greetings Pilgrim, Jim, Razorbuck and all the rest!

Like Razorbuck, I also apologize for my absence from this message board. Pilgrim, you and I had quite a nice back-and-forth going by way of posts, which ended with your clippings from writing that attempts to explain God's workings "in" us. Thank you for taking the time to paste it here, and thanks to all of you who have responded to my questioning.

Forgive me if I neither resume my original line of questioning nor respond to what Pilgrim pasted for me. Since this is the only thread in which I ever posted during my short visit to these boards, I would like to quickly share here what God is doing in my life as it relates to this topic and respond to Razorbuck's clarified question regarding how truly yielded men and women can so radically disagree on scripture.

When I came here I had been delving off into Calvinistic doctrine with the intentions of disproving it in an atmosphere of determination to end the offense and hurt this teaching brought to me. Though I first wrote I wasn't here with these intentions, it seems I didn't know my own heart very well at all. I thought I was "truly yielded," yet I wasn't even close. It is amazing how we can be so convinced of something when it isn't even reality—a clue, perhaps, to part of the answer for Razorbuck's question.

Loosing Sight of Him:
You see, I had become proud of passion for God and for my pursuit of Him. I enjoyed that I suddenly loved researching scripture while reading theology and all the approval that ensued from this amongst church brethren. I was delighting in the fact that God delights in me rather than delighting in God, Himself. I was falling in love with being in love rather than with God. Consequently I began to know the pursuit rather than the one I'm trying to pursue. I began to incapacitate my ability to examine my relationship, because I was examining doctrine more than spending time in prayer. My relationship was a slave to doctrine when doctrine should be the servant to my relationship.

Suddenly I found myself in this place where Calvinism—or anything else that was foreign to my, at the time, known and comfortable belief system—was very threatening to my personhood. In other words, Calvinism rocked my faith in such a way that I wanted to curl up into a ball and cry. Anytime I tried to escape it, I became exhausted and hopeless; when I tried to embrace it, I became full of fear, because it seemed as though my relationship was beginning all over again. That is to say, the embrace caused me to feel as though I did not know how to pray anymore, that I had no idea what God's personality was like, and that I did not know what I should expect from Him. It was seemingly a God I did not know at all, and this was indescribable pain.

Now then, if every whim of doctrine was swaying me this much and causing me to feel as though the "reset" button on my relationship journey was being pushed each time, then what does this say about my relationship? God began to show me that I was slightly missing the point. I was getting lost in this paradox—sort of like lamenting over the fact that some people say an orange is round when its not quite round in an exacting, mathematical way. Yet this has nothing to do with enjoying the fruit. The truth of its sphericalness really has no bearing on the fact that I know that orange. I know what it tastes like, how it helps my body, and I could recognize one anywhere by any one of my 5 senses. I know this is a terribly imperfect illustration, but then it must be since it's comprised with human words, which are from human thoughts. I think one can understand what I'm trying to communicate, however.

His Saving Grace:
So God has taken me back to a place of rest in Him. He has reminded me that I know Him, and thus I rest in the fact that He IS love. He CAN be trusted. He IS good. I don't have to take offense and rise up in arms over doctrine; rather, I can simply look to God and trust. I can think great thoughts of The Almighty and warmly let my heart glow with passionate fire towards anything He pleases Himself to do—and such submission pleases me. It is a surrender that is like slipping into a hot bath. It painfully stings as my idea of God, which I have clutched onto so fiercely for so long, is violently and unapologetically stripped from me. It is also pleasurable as I fall helpless to a rest in His presence where I am prostrated in spirit, fully worshipful of the awful terror that is the reality of perfect holiness. I can now approach His Word as a student rather than a judge. I can come at His Sovereignty and what this has to do with my responsibility in a climate of faith. I can run towards these mysteries in that climate rather than in reason. Dr. Albert N. Martin so rightly says, "Faith swims where reason can only wade."

And so I am now more convinced of the darkness which skews all truth from my eyes, lest the Father reveals light, than I have ever been before. I am solidly certain of the fact that my self's vain reasoning cannot be trusted with any matter, though I can't be as certain that I will never try placing trust in it again—Father help me. In this humbleness, I have seen more revelation than, perhaps, ever before in my entire spiritual journey thus far.

What I see now is this:

Razorbuck stated

Pastor, my opinion is of small value considering my qualifications being nil by comparison. That said, perhaps you might find some value in these words.

It seems that an exegesis on any person's doctrine won't really satisfy. If that were possible, I believe your caring pastor's heart would have been satisfied long ago. Yet after years in ministry, you still concern yourself and are burdened with regards to people hearing truth. I think this will always be the case. I am reminded of Luke 8 and the different kinds of hearers Jesus spoke we would encounter.

In your statement, the words "who is obviously led of the Spirit" and "truly yielded men and women" seem to be what the whole struggle of your question is hinged upon. As a pastor, who must be somewhat political and careful at times, it is difficult to admonish brethren I'm betting. Surely it is difficult to "accuse" someone of not being led of the Spirit or not being totally yielded when they profess to be. Yet if this were truly the case, wouldn't that satisfy your question?

You might say that this is a difficult thing since there are so many wonderful Christians who hear from God and DO walk in mighty revelation, yet hold to different doctrines. True and I agree…it is a difficult thing. Yet is there any one of us who has it totally right? It is only difficult to think of one of your favorite ministers as being incorrect in places within his doctrine when you think that you are correct. On the other hand, if you know you are not all correct and that no one else is either, then can't it be possible that our sin-stained minds simply can't behold all of God's perfect truth to the richness and depth that would be possible without sin?

Is it not true that there is only one truth and that this truth stands forever, unapologetic and unmoving? It would seem that we all grasp pieces of this truth in partiality—perhaps some more than others. I'm not sure. What I DO know is this: I never want to understand enough, lest I should stop pursuing the great mystery of my supreme attraction—The Holy One. I can rest in not knowing enough, because my relationship still stands, and the Lord holds a banner over me, delighting in my delighting in Him, and this is all possible in spite of imperfect doctrine that only serves to aid me along the way.

Thanks for reading my ramble, beloved.

Pray for me, a sinner~
Christopher