Replies

Jean, that is why there are 2 major contenders for the prize. I'm not going to write on this board that calvinism does not have its point.

Nor would I say that arminianism does not have its point.

To your credit, the verse "nor of the will of...man...but of God..." does provide some support for your position.

You must admit, though, that the arminians will be able to fit that scripture within their paradigm. They will emphasize the ordo: (1) received (choice) and then (2) "He gave power to BECOME..."

They will say that the choice inititates the "regeneration" and that that miraculous working of power is all of God.

That is what makes this an enduring controversy. There seems to be no verse that each camp cannot fit within their paradigm.

I'll be honest, though, I'm leaning strongly toward a syncretism of DrSteveJ's "unlimited atonement" and P-Marlowe's "God in eternity and outside of time."

The predestination issue no longer concerns me because there is little difference in the culpability that arises from a preplanned predestination and a foreknowledge-based predestination. You must see that if you accept any variety of "predestining" that you necessarily are going to affect the issue of "irresistibility" of the call. One is a preplanned irresistibility and the other a certainty-based irresistibility, but nonetheless, you have an element of irresistibility there.

I am clearly no longer any kind of pure arminian if they'd accept me as an arminian at all.

"You must admit, though, that the arminians will be able to fit that scripture within their paradigm. They will emphasize the ordo: (1) received (choice) and then (2) "He gave power to BECOME..." "

No I don't admit that. I have already pointed out to you that "received" does not mean "choice". That is not the point of the passage.

Furthermore, as I have also pointed out, the very next verse tells us that this has nothing to do with the "will" of the man.

For you to understand "received" as "choice" is pure eisegesis.

All we need to do is look at several of the other passages where John uses the term "recieved" (Lambono):

John 3
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

"A man can [choose] nothing except it be given him from heaven."??? I don't think so.

Joh 3
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

"...no man [chooseth] his testimony"??? I don't think so.

John 4
36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

"And he that reapeth [chooseth] wages..."??? I don't think so.

John 5
41 I receive not honour from men.

"I [choose] not honour from men."??? I don't think so.

John 19
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

"When Jesus therefore had [chosen] the vinegar..."??? I don't think so.

John 20
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

"...and saith unto them, [Choose] ye the Holy Ghost:"??? I don't think so.

It seems, xzins, rather than understanding "recieved" to be defined as "choose", that you instead want to add the words "choose to" in front of "received" in John 1:12.

Your rendering then would be:

John 1
12 But as many as [chose to] receive him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The problem is that there is no foundation to do so other than your eisegetical intentions.

Jean