John 3:16 Support for Arminianism?

Hi BillDayson

"Christians have preached at me all of my life. The style varies, but the one constant is that I am called on to do something. But no Christian has ever been willing to tell me precisely what I must do, let alone how to do it."

I think it's cool that you are searching for truth. I guess it's something we all will do at some point in our lives. The funny thing about all this that you read in these threads is that we're discussing issues that are fairly complex. Yet, the Gospel is so simple Have you read the Gospel of John? That's a good place to start. Jesus said that if you believe in Him you have eternal life. That's basically it. If we acknowledge that we need a savior because we have sinned, that Jesus came to die on the cross to be our substitute, and receive Him(open our hearts) He will save us. What is sin? It's breaking God's commands, but another way to explain it is "missing the mark." It's a term in archery meaning missing the bullseye. That's the New Testament meaning of what is translated "sin." Our lives have fallen short of the "bullseye" which is God's holiness and perfection. Yes, it's God working in our hearts to bring us to a point where we are able to acknowledge Him. If you are hungry and searching then I believe it's because God is working in your life. That's a good thing. You just need to surrender, give it up and say yes, then you will experience the "new life" that we talk about. I wasn't brought up in a Christian family. I sought fulfillment in many ways and places.
Ultimately, God showed up, so to speak, and saved me. He lifted the burdens off my heart, gave me hope, and put into my heart the assurance that I need not fear death. I have problems like any other man, the difference is that I have this unshakable hope that though I feel like crap sometimes, I still know it's all good; ultimately. I also need to say that God's not afraid to hear what's on your mind. Tell Him how you feel. Say, God if you're real then come and help me. I want to believe, I want to follow you and to know you. God will answer that sincere prayer. Anyway, if I can do anything to help you then just ask. The journey you're on is one all make.


Kevin

 

Ahhh, and this is my reason for not chiming in.

 

Bill Dayson: I don't want to get into a theological morass on this thread, but I want to say something to you in all seriousness. All of those Christians who insist that you must do something, and then left you in the lurch as to what that something is, have (unintentionally) destroyed the gospel. The good news of Jesus Christ is that God has already done 100% of what is necessary for human beings to be in right relationship with him. This right relationship is appropriated by faith, which is not an emotion or a psychological state, but a recognition which God creates--not us, 100% on his own, no matter how strongly or weakly we "feel" it, through what we call "means of grace": scripture and sacraments. All talk of surrenders, decisions for Christ, consciousness of dependence, non-resistance to grace, schemata of "steps" and "facts", joining this or that church, salvation by intellectual orthodoxy, liberation by conscious rejection of orthodox beliefs, rules, regulations, etc, etc: these are rebellions against God and involve, despite all the piety and fervency with which they are enjoined, critical human self-sufficiency and self-help as the sine qua non of "Christianity".

The case for that rebellion was honorably and eloquently put by William Ellery Channing, who called it "salvation by character"; the case against, by Martin Luther and his associates, using the technical term "divine monergism" for the alternative.

 

Hi Unk

I agree with you. I do want to clarify what I meant by "surrender." There are numerous scriptures pertaining to the laying down of self. Jesus did say lay down our lives and take up his cross. He even went so far as to say whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. He who loves his life will lose it and he who loses his life, for my sake, will find it. The word "life" in the Greek denoted the "will." So by surrender I simply meant to lay down our wills. This is, as you said, an act of faith which the Lord grants to us. He also talked of counting the cost and gave examples of armies and towers to illustrate His point. He challenged the rich young ruler to go and sell all that he had and come and follow Him. Again God does the drawing, we simply respond to the prompting. This is not self-suffiency. I just wanted to clarify that. I do agree it's not some magic formula or religeous rite, but the work of the Spirit of God convincing us of sin, righteousness, and the comming day of judgement. It's the goodness of God bringing us to repentance.

Peace

Kevin

ps. I did want to interject that if a man or woman is already "broken in spirit," then it's not so much of a surrender as a joyful acceptance, which is how it was in my case. I was in a bad state and the Gospel was really great news!!!

 

No. No. No. I nowhere spoke of laying down the will or of acts of faith. I will quite happily respect you and honor your opinion, but we do not agree.
I would also be hard put to describe the sacraments (baptism, the mass, absolution--if you wish to include it) as anything other than religious rites; the word is often presented in the context of religious rite as well, although it is a terrible error of certain high-church Missourians to confine the presentation of the word to the pastor preaching and to that event alone.
Remember, though, you must rely upon Bill Grover and others in the company of the prophets if you wish to climb to the theological empyrean. They have the sort of minds capable of grappling with high abstractions and rigorous, subtle exegetical matters. I do not, at least not any more. Best wishes, Janko.

 

It was predestined that I make a negative comment about predestination but I choose not to.

 

Bill

I thought you were busy working on your UZ dissertation?

I do want to restate that I'm not fully Arminian nor Calvinist. I think both views have something to contribute. I am Calvinist as far as the doctrine of eternal security goes, but I'm in the middle concerning the role of free-will, predestination, and foreknowledge. Since I'm still studying this area I'm only a student, as it were. I have the equivalent of a Bachelors(unaccredited of course) in Theology. So you've out schooled me and can hit me with a lot of heavy stuff. I also don't necessarily disagree with many of your points. I do as a caution want to be careful not to twist any meanings with dogma and I also remember that though it's good to be scholarly, it's the Spirit that gives light and our human understanding in these areas is truely limited. On that I think we both can most readily agree.

Therefore, each answer I give will be given with much thought to Scripture and references/helps ie. Vines, Strongs, and so forth. It will take time so please be patient with me, and please excuse my lack of knowledge in many areas!

I'm at work now so I can only give limited answers, but promise to study and answer more fully, soon.

Okay, I agree that Webster's definition doesn't necessarily contain the fullest degree of the possible meaning of free-will. I do, however, want to call you to an earlier point you were making concerning Abraham; and being "dead in sin." It's true we are dead in our tresspasses and sins. So was Abraham. Yet it was sufficent to God that Abraham believed. To him it was counted as righteousness. There was no Law of Sinai, no resurrection of Christ, just a man who believed God. Question, was Abraham forced to believe God, or did he choose to? What of Adam? He "knew" God and even walked with Him. He was completely blameless until the fall. Did God make him fall? God doesn't cause any to sin. James says that we sin when enticed by our own lusts/desires(a paraphrase) So If Adam could choose to sin and fall from "grace" (note: I don't believe that we can fall from grace and that this was a one time fall that affected all) Was it God's will that he fell, or did Adam choose to disobey and bring forth the penalty of sin? Was it foreknowledge with God as in forknew or forknowledge as in for chosen to fall?
I think this is a crucial element that we need to discuss.

Okay, I think I know where you'd want to take this line of reasoning. You may say, "Well Adam was unique in that he chose from a position of freedom from sin; to sin, while everyone else is a slave to sin and can't choose to walk in righteousness(origional sin). This could be debated, but it's not the point that I'm trying to make. The point is was Adam predestined to fall as an act of God's soverignty, or was it a forknowledge that God simply knew what his choice would be when the time came? This, of course, could be supported either way from either slant. I'm just asking what you think concerning this.

"Bill observes: As you know, the Arminian doctrine is that God predestinated or elected BECAUSE He foresaw the faith of some. So, if you would like to discuss the virtue of that position, then. "

As for the issue of faith it is a gift from God, "no man comes lest he is drawn." Jesus answered to Peter that, "flesh and blood didn't reveal this but my Father in heaven." I have no problem with these Scriptures as I feel they are self explanatory. I guess the million dollar question is: Can some one resist the grace of God as pertaining to salvation? Can a man or woman so "no"? Did the rich young ruler say no to Christ or was this just a big charade? Why would Jesus even bother with him or anyone if they are destined to damnation? I'm not saying that we are saved by faith alone, but by grace through faith. Nevertheless, can someone "just say no"? The Arminian response is "yes." The Calvinist response is "no." Again, I call your attention to an example cited earlier by myself concerning Jerusalem. What kind of game would Jesus be playing if His weeping over Jerusalem and crying, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem. How I long to gather you as a hen does her chicks, but you would not have me." if that was a hoax. Were they real tears? Did He long to gather them? Did they say no? You decide.

When I gave the definition of proginosko, I included and even keyed on the use of the word in Rom. 8:29. I off-hand don't know how it's used in other portions of Scripture. You know how complex Greek is. It depends what words are in the same sentence, what order the words are in, as well as verb endings and so forth. The reason I chose to key in on Rom. 8:29 is because that's a "proof text" given by most Calvinist ministers for their particular view of predestination/soverignty of God. I'm no Greek scholar, so I can only share what I look up in my books.

By the way, on a light note, I love collecting Reference books. Do you have an extensive library? I'm not usually much with getting into commentaries though. However, I have referenced Matthew Henry's Commentary. I like it. Do think it's a good commentary?

Okay, the last point I'll touch on now is God's choosing of Israel. You point out that God's choosing of Israel, a matter that they had no say so in, is proof positive predestination has nothing to do with Arminian views of foreknowledge. Good point! However, That's not the whole picture. God's choosing of Israel was to be a priesthood that would be a light to the gentiles. God's heart was still on saving many, not just Israel. They weren't chosen just to be chosen just to be chosen. They were chosen for a purpose, again that purpose,at least in part, was to minister to the world. That's what being a light is. So even in God's choice, others would see the light and repent. That's why, at least in part, He chastised them so strongly. They would get off the track which not only was disobedience, but it was muddying the waters for the gentile nations. There is much talk of how Israel was to embrace the strangers who sought to worship God, and not to hinder them. Paul said circumcision of the heart , is the key. Don't get me wrong, God will always remember His promises to Israel, yet true circumcision is of the heart. At least, that's what the Word says

Well, I'll end for now. I'm looking forward to your response. Seriously, though, I don't want to keep you distracted too long. I know you have a lot of work to do with your dissertation. So, I'll tone it down for now. I will continue to consider what you've said and study and pray about it. Have a nice day!!


Kevin

 

Good one Dennis


Kevin

 

Hi Unk Thanks for the response. I respect your opinion too. If you ever wish to elaborate in the future I'll pay close attention to what you've got to say. Take care & God Bless!!!

Kevin

 

T'anks.

 

Good evening Bill!

I'll study and touch on some of what you brought up at a later date. Thank you for helping me, and for your generous compliment. I know I still have so much to learn, and I'm hungry to do so. I love God's Word!!!!!

Sooooo, for now I'll leave you with Three Scriptures.
I just couldn't resist!

My three Scriptures are:

Luke 13:5 which states, " I tell you, Nay: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish."

2 Peter 3:9 states, " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

1 Timothy 2:1-4 " I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Take care Bill


Kevin

 

Please don't be condescending.

I'm not the sort of person who can just blindly will himself to believe something. My problem is in discovering which among the countless things that I might be believing, is actually true.

I think that I owe it to God as well as to myself to do that. It's part of avoiding idolotry, I think. While God judges us, we also judge God. Or more accurately, we judge the earthly representation of the divine presented before us, and only follow paths that deserve to be followed.

What does "receive Him (open our hearts)" mean? What kind of inner motion is that? How does one go about opening his or her heart? And what has this to do with belief?

I can imagine emotional affective responses similar to love. But I am incapable of turning my emotions on and off at will, of willing myself to emote when I don't believe. So we return to the epistemological problem.

If I give up intellectually and just start believing things because I want to believe them, what would prevent me from ending up in the Guyana jungle drinking coolaid?

Abraham raised his knife over Isaac's chest, knowing that murder is the worst of sins, knowing that killing his son would negate God's promises and knowing that the voices in his head demanding blood most likely were insane.

But he surrendered his mind and lifted the knife.

Unfortunately, it often seems that the most committed individuals, those completely without doubts, are often the most totally and utterly lost.

I'm not criticising you or anyone else by saying that. I'm just saying that what you suggest is something that I hope that I will never do. I really pray that the way to the divine doesn't pass that way.

How does one go about praying to God?

It's not as easy as it sounds. If someone isn't already a member of a particular religious tradition, can he or she possibly pray to its divinity? A prayer kind of presupposes belief, I think, at least if the prayer has any hope of being sincere. Could a Christian enter a Hindu temple and really truly pray to Shiva?

I think that the things that you suggest are great ways for a lapsed Christian to get back in touch with his or her childhood faith, something that still exists somewhere deep inside in abeyance.

But my question is why somebody who has never been a Christian should become one in the first place. I know the promises. I've been told about the inner movement of faith/surrender. But a huge piece of the puzzle is still missing, I think.

 

BillDayson,


"Please don't be condescending."

Bill, I'm sorry if I came across that way, but it wasn't my intention to belittle you in any way. I simply meant that I understand your struggles since I went through the same thing. Anyway, please accept my apology.

Since you want to do some examining of what is truth and have some basis to draw upon I can recomend a few good books that you may find intellectually stimulating.

1. "More than a Carpenter" by Josh MacDowell

2. "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

3. "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (there is a revised or "new" updated version) by Josh MacDowell

I hope you'll read these. They will answer many of your questions concerning Christianity.

Take Care!


Kevin

 

Bill,

I have indirectly tried to answer that question on this forum before, most recently here and here.

I have contacted you privately offering to lend you resources from my personal library, but you never responded. I hope this doesn't mean you have eschewed study of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ as you evaluate the truth claims of Christianity. If you have indeed studied the matter, I would welcome the opportunity to learn of your findings. I'm sure I could learn from them as well.

The New Testament inextricably links the veracity of the Christian message to the historical, bodily resurrection of Christ. Without the latter, the former is more than suspect.

For what it's worth, I admire your commitment to basing personal religious belief on sound external evidence.

Best regards,

Ed

P.S. Regarding the reading suggested by Kevin, I think someone of your learning would be underwhelmed by McDowell's More Than a Carpenter. The chapter on the resurrection in New Evidence That Demands a Verdict provides a good, solid entry point to the discussion, but you'll quickly want something more technical.

 

Why? Why couldn't the Christian message (or one of them, at least) remain true if something else actually happened? And even if we accept that a bodily resurrection actually happened, how does that guarantee the truth of the rest of the message?

I'll repeat what I wrote in my first post:

Blinding lights and voices aren't in themselves probitive. Miracles have little to do with the divine, I think.

One can take LSD and see visions far more fascinating than a blinding light. If a helicopter hovered over an ancient city, the citizens would interpret it as a supernatural visitation. Schizophrenia is noted for aural hallucinations, which can easily be confused with divine communications.

My point is that sensory experiences don't directly reveal the divine. The best they can do is to reveal something extraordinary. There needs to be... something else... that links an extraordinary event to a divine source, and not to an unknown natural cause, to a demonic source or to something else whose existence we have no inkling of.

So the problem is deeper than the historicity of the resurrection (something I am doubtful about). The problem is in linking this extraordinary event not only to some (the only?) divine source, but to a whole body of information about what the event meant.

I think that the ancients treated miracles as proofs, but proofs within a context of preexisting belief. Miracles are signs of God's power or verifications of the authority of a holy person. It's much less obvious how miracles can reveal the divine in the first place. That's doubly true in this less credulous modern age.

The alien spaceships in 'Independence Day' transcended previous human experience, but it would have been a serious error to worship them. This kind of mistake has actually been made repeatedly, as in the Tannaite religion that still worships the savior Jon Frum, "King of America". (His devotees still write the sacred letters "USA" on their chests.)

I'm not suggesting that Christianity is a cargo cult. What I'm suggesting is that signs and wonders are insufficient to guarantee that it isn't. There must be an additional element that guarantees that the miracle had a divine as opposed to an unknown source. But this requires that one distinguish between different grades of transcendence, which may well be impossible in principle.

My reason for making this point originally, in the context of this thread, was to suggest that if God wants to reveal himself, something more subtle and persuasive is needed, some kind of divine grace perhaps. And given the obvious diversity of religious belief in the world, God either doesn't care very much about the particular form his revelation takes, or else he reserves his grace for some chosen subset of mankind. Which observation is relevant to Arminius, I think.

While I personally agree with the idea that God wills all to be saved (any God that didn't would be morally suspect), I wonder if that kind of idea can be maintained without threatening Christian orthodoxy, now that we live in a wider world where people come from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Obviously similar concerns apply to a number of other religions as well.

 

Bill Dayson,

It's easy.

If there is a god, god will take into account each individuals' strengths and weaknesses. A god that didn't do so wouldn't be a god. If you feel the need to search, then you should. If you don't, then you shouldn't. This statement is not suggesting surface need, but real need. In other words, if one thinks there is something is out there, but represses it, they are being intellectually (and religiously) dishonest. If they don't think something is out there, and 'sign up' anyway, ...same thing. When discussing redemption, any other argument is ludicrous in the context of an omniscient higher being.

Tony

 

Bill, I am very pressed for time as I prepare to leave town this afternoon. My response will reflect that fact; please don't interpret my terseness as rudeness. That is not my intent.

How could it? The core of the Christian message is dependent upon the bodily resurrection of Christ. As the Apostle Paul said,

"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17, New English Translation).

For the early Christians, the bodily resurrection of Christ was as historically true as his crucifixion on a Roman cross. It was the basis for their faith. In fact, you can't explain the overnight rise of Christianity in a first century Jewish setting apart from the resurrection.

As for its ramifications, a nice summary of them can be found at www.bible.org/docs/pastor/seasonal/easter/christ's.htm.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the rest of the message," but that doesn't matter here. In the very least, if Jesus Christ was raised physically from the dead, it authenticates what he did and said (more on that below). As someone who has read the Gospels, you're already familiar with the things Jesus had to say about his resurrection, both before (!) and after it occurred. [N.B.: We do indeed have sound historical criteria for determining what Jesus actually did and said, so it does no good to claim, as some do, that such was invented by later theologians. The Jesus Seminar, whose colored beads and flaming deconstructionism are the laughingstock of academia, has been slapped around numerous times by both liberal and conservative scholarship.]

You're not even comparing apples and oranges, Bill. The resurrection of Christ stands in a class all by itself. It is a miracle without precedent or peer. Even an extraordinary event like Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead can't compare. The dead body of Lazarus was resuscitated to mortal life, but the body of Jesus was resurrected to immortal, supernatural, and eternal life. It was no longer bound by the physical laws of the universe. Surely this cannot be compared to the examples you cite above.

You have rights to your doubts, Bill. But the questions you've raised in this thread reveal that you have not taken the time to read the best literature on the subject (the questions you're asking here are indeed addressed in works exploring the historical veracity of the resurrection, most notably those by William Lane Craig). You almost seem to have made the a priori assumption that the historical resurrection would establish nothing regarding the credibility of Christianity and thus have chosen not to explore it as aggressively as possible. I think your doubts need to be held loosely until you do so.

The resurrection of Jesus was an act of God. This was believed to be the case by the early church (Acts 2:32), and the nature of the miracle (see above) demands it. What other cause could have effected such an event? It does no good to suggest that some other cause explains the event (assuming, for the moment, its historicity), since the event itself is beyond the power of anyone or anything except the Creator. Logically speaking, a divine miracle is the best explanation for the resurrection of Christ (again, assuming its historicity), and the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims otherwise. If God is not responsible for the resurrection of Christ, then the skeptic must identify a more probable cause and explain its mechanics in this most unique situation.

The resurrection as an act of God has huge implications for the authenticity of Jesus' claims about himself. Several things could be said here, but time and space prohibit a fair treatment. Suffice it to say that Jesus claimed a unique relationship to God and boldy claimed to be the only path to God. I mentioned John 14:6 in a previous thread; I'll add Matthew 11:27 here:

"All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son... (New English Translation)."

This is why Jesus is the only one who can reveal God to humankind (cf. John 1:18). Of course, that's a bold statement, and it needs strong backing. The resurrection provides just that.

On a final note, it's important to say something about Jesus' claim to stand in final judgment over all humanity:

"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before God's angels. But the one who denies me before men will be denied before God's angels (Luke 12:8-9, New English Translation)."

Again, this sort of statement needs some reinforcement. Only something as astonishing as the resurrection does it for me.

As Wolfhart Pannenberg has noted, Jesus' personal claim to authority was the crux of his teaching. That authority was based on the claim of a unique relationship to God, and that relationship would need to be demonstrated in the most compelling way. You can't get much more compelling than the resurrection. But what if the resurrection never happened? Then Jesus' claim to an exclusive partnership with God is dubious. That, in turn, leads to an undermining of his authority. If you undermine Jesus' authority, you undermine his teaching. Undermine his teaching, and you've undermined the core of the biblical Christian faith. So, returning to your question at the start of this post, it is not possible for Christianity to stand apart from the resurrection.

And why would we want it to? Christianity offers the substantive hope of an eternal relationship with God, because the resurrection of Jesus definitively conquered death. God chose to reveal this fact through an act in history, and the evidence is there for all to examine.