I don't believe in Jesus Christ

[Brett85]

Threads like this actually bring me closer to God. I'd imagine He has a good laugh at the back and forth as long as no one's harmed and someone learns something.

Sola Fide will turn every thread into a debate about limited atonement. He posts here for the sole reason of debating that issue and that issue alone.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You didn't cite this verse.

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Yes TC, Jesus will draw ALL men to Himself, not just Jews, but Gentiles as well. ALL men.

In the Bible, ALL does not mean "every single one without exception".

 

[Brett85]

Yes TC, Jesus will draw ALL men to Himself, not just Jews, but Gentiles as well. ALL men.

In the Bible, ALL does not mean "every single one without exception".

It does mean every single person in the entire world when there's no context which indicates otherwise, and there certainly isn't in that verse. It means that God will draw all men to him, and some will still choose to reject him and reject Christ's free gift on the cross.

 

[erowe1]

I don't think I said that. I just said that he can't prove that he's right.

I think he's right about the meaning of helko. I just checked the Liddell-Scott-Jones and the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich lexicons. It doesn't look like "allure" or anything like that is within the range of meanings of that word. "Drag" is the normal meaning.

I don't see "draw" as a mistranslation, since "draw" means "drag." I notice that in the Oxford English Dictionary, it doesn't even mention a use of "draw" for "induce to come" until you get down to the 26th definition, and there it calls that usage figurative.

Also, what tends to happen in English translation is that certain ways of putting things that became established by the KJV just get kept by others. And since the KJV uses "draw" in John 6:44, it's not surprising that so many others do. In the OED's references for historic usage of the word, I do see that there are some instances of that figurative usage that you seem to be preferring that go back to before the time of the KJV, but in comparison to other uses of the word in older English, that one seems especially rare.

 

[erowe1]

It does mean every single person in the entire world when there's no context which indicates otherwise

What's your basis for saying this?

 

[Brett85]

What's your basis for saying this?

Because the verse is clear and explicit and says that he will draw all men to himself. It gives no exceptions. All men means exactly what it says, all men. There's no need to parse words.

 

[Miss Annie]

Thank you for being so kind and civil. Good night!

TER is such a beautiful soul! We don't always agree on everything,...... but he is civil and kind always!

 

[Brett85]

TER is such a beautiful soul! We don't always agree on everything,...... but he is civil and kind always!

Yeah, he's a great example of what a Christian should actually act like.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Because the verse is clear and explicit and says that he will draw all men to himself. It gives no exceptions. All men means exactly what it says, all men. There's no need to parse words.

Are you KIDDING me??? John 12 is one of the most explicitly predestinarian chapters in the Bible.

John 12:37-40 NIV

Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

“Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”

 

[erowe1]

Because the verse is clear and explicit and says that he will draw all men to himself. It gives no exceptions. All men means exactly what it says, all men. There's no need to parse words.

First of all, the verse doesn't need to give exceptions. You're trying to give the word "all" some absolute sense that I don't see any basis for giving it. You demand that there be a specific contextual reason to limit it, but you don't think you need a specific contextual reason to make it unlimited. I don't agree with your aversion to parsing words. If you want to understand a passage and study it in detail, that's what you have to do.

Second, the passage does not say "all men." It just says "all." So if you're going to use your rule, then you can't just limit it to people, it has to mean every single thing in existence.

Third, even if it did say "all men," in what possible way could it be absolutely all people? Not everybody knows about Jesus or his crucifixion. How do you understand that by being crucified he draws absolutely all people to himself? Do you apply that to the final judgment when all people will stand before him or something?

 

[Brett85]

I thought that you believed that people can't believe because they're totally depraved since birth and aren't capable of exercising free will to accept Christ? If that's the case, why would God have to "harden the hearts" of the Pharisees to keep them from believing?

 

[Jamesiv1]

You do realize you're paraphrasing Jesus, right?

And Buddha, and Krishna, and Mohammed, and Zarathustra, and Confucius, and....

 

[Sola_Fide]

First of all, the verse doesn't need to give exceptions. You're trying to give the word "all" some absolute sense that I don't see any basis for giving it. You demand that there be a specific contextual reason to limit it, but you don't think you need a specific contextual reason to make it unlimited. I don't agree with your aversion to parsing words. If you want to understand a passage and study it in detail, that's what you have to do.

Second, the passage does not say "all men." It just says "all." So if you're going to use your rule, then you can't just limit it to people, it has to mean every single thing in existence.

Third, even if it did say "all men," in what possible way could it be absolutely all people? Not everybody knows about Jesus or his crucifixion. How do you understand that by being crucified he draws absolutely all people to himself? Do you apply that to the final judgment when all people will stand before him or something?

TC, I think this post demands some answers from you. Why do you inject your atextual meaning into that verse.

 

[Brett85]

Second, the passage does not say "all men." It just says "all." So if you're going to use your rule, then you can't just limit it to people, it has to mean every single thing in existence.

Uh, no, the verse clearly says all men.

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

The verse means what it says, all men. God's commandments are written in the hearts of all men everywhere, even if they've never specifically heard the name "Jesus." There have been examples of people in remote parts of the world who have come to believe in Jesus, even though they didn't know his name and had a different name for him.

 

[Jamesiv1]

There must be a moral law that transcends us.

Why must it transcend us? Why can't it simply dwell within us?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I thought that you believed that people can't believe because they're totally depraved since birth and aren't capable of exercising free will to accept Christ? If that's the case, why would God have to "harden the hearts" of the Pharisees to keep them from believing?

John 12:37-40 NIV

Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

“Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”

"For this reason they could not believe", "to fulfill the word of Isaiah".

The hardening of the heart is according to the eternal plan and predestination of God. God has a good reason for predestinating hard hearts.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Why must it transcend us? Why can't it simply dwell within us?

Because what is in my brain is different than what is in your brain, so what is in your brain can't be a "law".

 

[Sola_Fide]

Uh, no, the verse clearly says all men.

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

The verse means what it says, all men. God's commandments are written in the hearts of all men everywhere, even if they've never specifically heard the name "Jesus." There have been examples of people in remote parts of the world who have come to believe in Jesus, even though they didn't know his name and had a different name for him.

What are you talking about? The law written on the heart in Romans 1 and 2 CONDEMNS man and renders him without excuse! That revelation doesn't drag men to Himself! It condemns them all.

 

[Brett85]

"For this reason they could not believe", "to fulfill the word of Isaiah".

The hardening of the heart is according to the eternal plan and predestination of God. God has a good reason for predestinating hard hearts.

But the verse says that he only blinded these specific people, in order to fulfill what had to come to pass, Christ's death and resurrection. The verse doesn't say that God blinds the eyes of all unbelievers, and it doesn't say that he permanently blinded these specific people. He blinded them long enough to make his death and resurrection come to pass.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But the verse says that he only blinded these specific people, in order to fulfill what had to come to pass, Christ's death and resurrection. The verse doesn't say that God blinds the eyes of all unbelievers, and it doesn't say that he permanently blinded them. He blinded them long enough to make his death and resurrection come to pass.

Even if it was just a blinding that only happened to them (it's not), it would completely contradict Arminianism.