John 3:16 Support for Arminianism?

Bill Dayson: "you have not taken the time to read the best literature" Cripes! Since when is it a requirement to have read what someone else says is the "best literature", or to have searched exhaustively every possible prior thread, or to allocate one's own time in the manner demanded so peremptorily, before posing a question or hazarding an opinion?

 

I'd just like to clarify that the words being commented on here aren't mine.

 

Bill Dayson: Of course the words aren't yours; they were directed against you by another poster, and I found them objectionable, condescending, discouraging to free inquiry, and utterly ill-suited to an attempt to present the Christian message.
Please accept my apologies for finding the tenor of your statements on this thread more winsome than that of many of the Christian arguers. In the future, I will try to avoid giving offense--let alone presuming that my posts are read before being answered.

 

Let's apply a little perspective.

If Bill had never raised such questions, it would have indeed been insensitive to simply suggest he do more research. But Bill has publicly cast his doubts about the claims of Christianity quite regularly.

In May of last year I publicly urged Bill to evaluate Christianity on the basis of evidence for the resurrection. I publicly offered to direct him to the best sources, both pro and con. [BTW, identifying the best sources is not as subjective as some might suppose. There is a general consensus regarding the most important works in the field, and that consensus is shared by evangelicals, Lutherans, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, and any other credible group interested in the matter.]

Since that time I have continued to publicly and privately urge Bill to consider the evidence for the resurrection. As I noted earlier in this thread, I even offered to send personal items from my library. Such an offer demonstrates my motives to be more altruistic (and trusting!) than antagonistic. Bill has chosen to ignore my urges and offers, yet continues to cast doubt on the core claims of Christianity. Given the clear link between biblical Christianity and the resurrection, I think it's intellectually questionable to continue casting doubt on the former without careful attention to the latter. If Bill is not interested in studying the resurrection further, that's obviously his prerogative. But I think it also blunts his persistently skeptical comments regarding the truthfulness of Christianity.

In light of the above, my recent comments to Bill were hardly insensitive. In fact, I earlier noted that some book recommendations were beneath Bill. That's complimentary--not condescending. Unlike many on this board, I have never resorted to name calling, profanity, ad hominem attacks, or other such uncharitable tactics. Claims that my approach is somehow unchristian because I desire to uphold the highest standards of intellectual integrity are difficult to take seriously.

 

Well, I did not say "unchristian." That particular canard, beloved of fundamentalists and other rationalistic liberals, is not part of my vocabulary. What I did say was "less winsome." The array of boasting about motive in the post above illustrates my point better than I could have done, so I'll stick by that "less winsome" now more than ever. And I'll stick by my belief (whether Bill Dayson likes it or not!) that Bill Dayson is the best judge of what Bill Dayson has time or inclination to read or research.

 

My question remains the same and it is very simple: How does one proceed from extraordinary events, which is what miracles are, to the divine?

If an event resists our ordinary methods of explanation, it becomes a mystery. The category of 'the mysterious' includes an awful lot of territory: from various kinds of unknown errors, to unknown natural causes, then on to magical, demonic or diabolical sources, or the actions of various divinities (should any of those things exist), and finally to a necessarily uncountable number of alternatives that are beyond our imagination entirely.

My point is that the category of 'the transcendent' is a very broad category. So how do we distinguish among different varieties of things that by definition we have no knowledge of?

I don't know. That's precisely my point.

You on the other hand seem to simply be asserting your conclusion, rather than arguing for it.

How can we possibly know that? By definition, the class of possible causes (assuming that a cause is even required in these kinds of cases) is unbounded. It's the unknown that we are talking about here, and there may be an infinite variety of unknown things out there. Not all of them are Yahweh.

There are two issues there, both important:

First, the burden of proof. I'm not trying to disprove the claims of Christianity or to convince any Christian that their religion is false. If that were my intention, the burden of proof would clearly be on me.

What I am inquiring into is, broadly speaking, how the finite earthly events of human experience can orient us to the divine. And more narrowly speaking, why a non-Christian should accept the truth of that particular faith. (Similar questions could be asked about any religion, obviously.)

In this latter situation, the burden of proof is on the Christian, I think. Certainly it would be ridiculous to insist that all non-Christians adopt Christianity unless they can disprove it.

Second, the best explanation, "logically speaking". I would follow David Hume at this point and suggest that if a miracle represents a totally unique violation of the natural order, then it is extremely improbable by definition. That suggests that there will be alternative explanations whose truth is more likely. If other ancient resurrection reports can be written off as error, myth or imagination, then probably the same can be done with this one as well.

Why would a skeptic have to do that? Why not adopt an agnostic approach to the matter and simply admit that the matter remains mysterious. Lots of things remain mysterious.

My point is that not all mysterious things point to the divine. If they did, then all forms of superstition would have a license and an awful lot of religions would be true. But if all mysterious things don't point to the divine, then how do we pick and choose among things that, by definition, transcend human understanding?

I'm arguing that the intellectual problem of choice between competing religious faiths is currently unsolved, and may well be unsolvable in principle.

All of this makes the idea that God wills the salvation of all but nevertheless judges us on our Christian belief (or lack of it) very problematic. And this brings us back to Jacobus Arminius, I think.

 

A question I have always wanted to ask

What exactly is John 3.16, why are you discussing it, and why is it a slogan used by 'Stone Cold Austin', the 'wrestler' on WWE?

 

Thanks for the interaction, Bill. You raised two primary issues in your last post, namely, the adequacy of agnosticism and the identification of a miracle as a divine act.

Regarding the first, the reason that I long for people to move beyond agnosticism about the resurrection is because of my belief that it's a matter of life and death. I believe the resurrection authenticates Jesus' words and works, and as I noted previously, Jesus claimed to be the final judge of all humankind. If this is indeed true, then there's a certain danger in remaining agnostic about Jesus since he demands our belief. It's the only reason I've urged you to explore the resurrection more fully. If I believed in universal salvation, the idea that all sincere religions lead to God, or the notion that there is no God, it wouldn't be an issue for me.

Regarding the second, I think you would be very interested in a book entitled, In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History. It was edited by Douglas R. Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, and published by InterVarsity Press (1997). The opening section contains a fresh statement of objections to divine miracles by Antony Flew and a reprint of David Hume's essay "Of Miracles" (with modernized and Americanized vocabulary). Subsequent sections contain chapters on things like history and miracles, miracles and conceptual systems, recognizing a miracle, God's actions, the evidential value of miracles, miracles in world religions, and the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. The questions you've raised in this thread are addressed in the book, and they're simply too involved to address adequately in this forum.

Best regards,

Ed

 

Re: A question I have always wanted to ask

===



hi Prof Kennedy:

Good question! Religion oft is discussed here.

John 3:16 is a verse in the New Testament, " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."(NAS)

North cast the question out into this thread as to whether the perfect tense (in the Greek) indicates that one might lose his salvation . North knows how hard it is for some old bottom feeder like I am to not go after such bait. I am an exegetical theologian of sorts-not a philosopher- and enjoy such issues.

From there the discussion proceeded with my help to the question of what is the source of faith: man, as in Arminianism , or God as in Calvinism and whether were God the source of faith why all do not believe unless God choses some. This discussion was Biblical. Somewhere in here miracles were referenced as related to faith. Kevin and I shared some thoughts. We were able to, as far as I know, do so with no hard feelings though we disagree. Neither one of us feel the need to convince the other. Frankly, this was just a light discussion and not done in earnest( at least by me) . I have no wish to argue with anyone about religion or lack of it. This was similar to when a while back my pal Tony Pina and I on this forum discussed (not argued) the teachings of his church, Latter Day Saints, or "Mormons", and Tony and I did so with much mutual respect. Others came in saying I was wrong to ask Tony questions about this even though Tony himself offered the discussion. Surely if I then boldly said "I doubt that the book of Mormon is historical" some might say I spoke improperly to Tony. Tony then probably would have referred my doubt to some information on the subject on the web or in a book and suggest I look at it; in fact as I recall , he did just that! .

This is what Ed did when he arrived to point out that there were evidences for that resurrection miracle and that literature was abundant on that subject. But the wording of his observation was taken by some , NOT by me, as being improper. I personally saw nothing wrong in it. And I really see nothing wrong in Bill Dayson's questions either, I'm just not the one to respond;my interest is in discussing theology with those who share with me some basic assumptions. I don't wish to defend Scripture but to interpret it.


Hopefully, therefore, the burden is not on me to "prove" my religion as I'm poorly equipped and motivated to perform in this manner. There are websites and books available on all sides on the question of Jesus' resurrection to investigate. I suppose if someone is really interested, one can access these.

As for me, John 3:16 is loaded enough with issues: what does "begotten mean", how is Christ "Son", what does "world" mean, what does "gave" mean , what is ""belief" , what does "perish" mean, what is "life." This is suffient to occupy my mind for a lifetime as I research this verse using the Protestant method of historical-grammatical exegesis. In fact , most of my UZ thesis is on the implications of "begotten Son". Others can start with their questions as "is there a God" or "Did Jesus really live" good questions true, hope they get answers. But I begin with the text.

And back to that text, my response to North's question is: why should the perfect tense ,more than any other tense, in 3:16 indicate that salvation can be lost?

Sorry, know nothing about the wrestler.

 

I'm so stupid...and 10 minutes is so fast

ie, "believe" is PRESENT not perfect tense.

 

Re: Re: A question I have always wanted to ask

When you post here in a general DL discussion group, you run the risk of drawing the interest and even the responses of a whole variety of people.

But if some interpretations require that individuals make judgements that it might be impossible for mortals to make, then problems are raised for that family of interpretations, right?

Isn't all of this stuff precisely about the obligation of Christian belief?

 

Hi Bill G.

Just to say it again, I have thouroghly enjoyed our discussions!
I've just been busy researching some things, doing yard & house work and haven't had time to continue. Also, I know I've got a problem because I'm always wondering if I've gotten a response on degreeinfo.com
You know, my biggest problem about our discussions isn't the exegetical study of the scriptures in their origional tongues, but my bad typing skills! I'm a two to four finger bandit. Talk about slow..... It was a nightmare having to type out Greek definitions from the lexicon I need to invest in that voice recognition software.lol Have a great day!!

Kevin

 

Re: Re: Re: A question I have always wanted to ask

 

===

Nothing to worry about Kevin. No response is required as I've said all along. I type with one finger.

 

Methodological question: how would you characterize flaming people in private messages but refusing to receive replies?

 

I've cracked a bottle of rye with a Lutheran minister. I've heard one fart. I've heard one swear. They're human. You've got all the tools Janko, go for it.

 

===


I don't know, UNK. I don't do this. It doesn't seem right. Wrong method! But speaking of methodology:


It neither seems right to me that if Kevin and I are talking about what the Bible teaches on God's predestination in a thread which originated with the question how should a verb in a Bible verse be interpreted ,and we are using Scriptural arguments , ie, the meaning of original words, the nuances of tenses employed, or examples in Scripture of God choosing to suggest ways of interpreting that verb in John 3:16 [ie, this is methodology] ,then should someone enter the thread saying, "Well prove God's existence", or, "tell me why I should believe your Bible" , or , "Maybe Jesus was not resurrected" or "Buddhism is better than Christianity",(ALL of these were not asked here) then I am not obliged to debate those issues just because this a general forum{ this is a different methodology}. I only wish to discuss areas in my interest. Is there a forum rule which says I must discuss a question if someone asks me to?

If so, then the other day that rule was broken, more severly as in this occasion a challenge was issued . In a different thread someone said that as two Gospels have geneologies of Jesus, but Paul in the Pastorals said to avoid geneologies, [ie. this poster was interpretng Scripture], therefore this was a contradiction and the Bible could not then be inerrant. I felt I could show that conclusion to be wrong . So I asked this poster to by using those texts and propositions [ie, his own methodology] evidence his own conclusion. No response! He felt no obligation. But no one came and said to him, "Look Mark if you say that ,you should be willing to argue your position."

I will discuss with anyone the meaning of a text of Scripture if that one will use the accepted methodolgy of the Reformers which is grammatico-historical exegesis, that is, more simply and generally put, "use the Bible to interpret the Bible." If that one wishes to apply rather philosophy instead to judge the events or teachings in Scripture ,as "the resurrection of Jesus may not be essential to Christianity", or to interpret the Bible by how he himself feels about things, as "there can be no predestination because no God would do that," then that is his right. But then it is my right to encourage him, should he ask me to debate, to find someone else , more interested in such argumentation with whom to express his points.

This too has to do with method!

---

The most substantial Scriptural representation of the centrality of the resurrection of Jesus to the Christian faith is found in First Corinthians 15. Of this I claim ,

"This chapter makes the resurrection of Jesus crucial to the Gospel."

Now if someone wishes to show me my error in my interpretation of WHAT THAT CHAPTER SAYS (*not* whether that chapter is correct or not but whether my interpretation of it is), then I will respond.

 

===

Unk is a fav of mine too. And I like you too Dennis, well, sort of

 

Don't go all misty on me.

 

Here are the facts folks:

Janko suggested in this thread that I was arrogant because I noted the intent behind my offer to send personal research material to Bill Dayson. I addressed the matter privately by telling Janko that judging another's motive for self-disclosure is in fact arrogant. Unless he's omniscient, how can he possibly ascribe motive to my words and actions? Thus, I told him the pot was calling the kettle black in this situation.

In an earlier private message Janko denied that I knew anything about or had any ties to confessional Lutheranism because I went to DTS. I corrected that misconception by telling a little about my history, family background, and current beliefs.

Those are the only two things I addressed in my last note to Janko. Not once did I swear, type with capital letters, call him names, or say anything that was not of direct relevance to our previous correspondence. My private message could hardly be described as flaming.

As for choosing to disable private messaging, that was simply a move to short-circuit communication of Janko's characterized by loud noise and a faint signal. It is also reflective of my decision to spend less time frequenting this board and thus checking private messages. I shared this latter fact privately with Bill Grover. If Janko really wanted to get in touch with me, he could have sent me an e-mail through the board.