Doesn't God force people to believe in Christ?

[shnarkle]

No man can come to me, unless the father which has sent me draw him:and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44

This isn't a call to all men to listen to the gospel, but how one attains to eternal life.

If God refuses to draw someone to Christ, can they attain salvation?

It seems that the bible says "No".

no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father John 6:65

This act of free will doesn't appear to be man's at all, but God's alone. If Jesus says that he is the one who does the choosing, and men do not choose him, then the free agent is God who elects who he will, and no one else.

[polonius]

No man can come to me, unless the father which has sent me draw him:and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44

This isn't a call to all men to listen to the gospel, but how one attains to eternal life.

If God refuses to draw someone to Christ, can they attain salvation?

It seems that the bible says "No".

no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father John 6:65

This act of free will doesn't appear to be man's at all, but God's alone. If Jesus says that he is the one who does the choosing, and men do not choose him, then the free agent is God who elects who he will, and no one else.

RESPONSE: Ah yes! The only Christians in heaven claim! Are you saying Jews and Muslims are damned then?

What about unbelievers?

Once upon a time the Catholic Church taught that only baptized Catholic could be saved.

But now (especially since Vatican II) it is recognized that even those without a religious faith can be saved. The only requirement is that they live a good life in accordance with their conscience.


DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

[polonius]

No man can come to me, unless the father which has sent me draw him:and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44

This isn't a call to all men to listen to the gospel, but how one attains to eternal life.

If God refuses to draw someone to Christ, can they attain salvation?

It seems that the bible says "No".

no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father John 6:65

This act of free will doesn't appear to be man's at all, but God's alone. If Jesus says that he is the one who does the choosing, and men do not choose him, then the free agent is God who elects who he will, and no one else.

RESPONSE: Ah yes! The only Christians in heaven claim! Are you saying Jews and Muslims are damned then?

What about unbelievers?

Once upon a time the Catholic Church taught that only baptized Catholics could be saved.

But now (especially since Vatican II) it is recognized that even those without a religious faith can be saved. The only requirement is that they live a good life in accordance with their conscience.


DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

[Anomaly]

If God refuses to draw someone to Christ, can they attain salvation?

It seems that the bible says "No".

no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father John 6:65

This act of free will doesn't appear to be man's at all, but God's alone. If Jesus says that he is the one who does the choosing, and men do not choose him, then the free agent is God who elects who he will, and no one else.

But Jn 6:65 doesn't say who will or will not be drawn to Christ, simply that only those drawn are given Him of the Father, with no reference to the number drawn. You're forcing this meaning on the text without justification.

1Cor 15:22, on the other hand, is decidedly direct in its declaration: For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

[ttruscott]

But now you’ve created a new problem. If no amount of will or effort on God’s part can turn the apostate into a saint, then Mat 19:26 (and other verses) that claim with God all things are possible creates a contradiction.

If all things means absolutely anything is possible then our high school retorts "Can GOD make 1+1=8" becomes a real challenge. I think pas as referring to all kinds of things out of the possible all, every, all all kinds etc. is the best option in this verse, ie, yes, sinners can be redeemed but not all sinners, only some kinds of sinner.

GOD has condemned some already for their unfaith, Jn 3:18, they cannot be saved any more than the tares who are burnt can be unburnt. Too much scripture must take a hit for universalism to be true.

[ttruscott]

1Cor 15:22, on the other hand, is decidedly direct in its declaration: For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

PAS again: pas: all, every

Usage: all, the whole, every kind of.

[Anomaly]

But now you’ve created a new problem. If no amount of will or effort on God’s part can turn the apostate into a saint, then Mat 19:26 (and other verses) that claim with God all things are possible creates a contradiction.

If all things means absolutely anything is possible then our high school retorts "Can GOD make 1+1=8" becomes a real challenge.

Definitely a challenge for human thinking. Do you suppose that because we humans run into a dead end with a logical problem that God is stumped as well? Doesn't this kind of thinking essentially place you and your high school friends on an even keel intellectually with God?

I think pas as referring to all kinds of things out of the possible all, every, all all kinds etc. is the best option in this verse, ie, yes, sinners can be redeemed but not all sinners, only some kinds of sinner.

Yes, I've heard this argument many times. It's typically posited by those who sift through the meanings of pas, blind to the definitions that support literally all to pick out the one that fits their doctrine. Different senses of a word are related to context. To insert your version of all creates dissonance in what Paul wrote, especially since he makes this same distinction of literally all people a number of times:
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." (2Tim 4:10)

"...I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men...This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1Tim 2:1-4)

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Rom 5:18)

"Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1Tim 2:6)
and Paul is in accord with Jesus' own words: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (Jn 12:32)

GOD has condemned some already for their unfaith, Jn 3:18, they cannot be saved any more than the tares who are burnt can be unburnt. Too much scripture must take a hit for universalism to be true.

First, if you take an honest look at krinw you'll see the NASB corrects the awkward translation of "condemned" in the AV to a more appropriate "judged".
Second, I agree with you that tares--or goats (Mat 25) or rotten figs (Jer 24)--cannot be unburnt. You've unfortunately been taught to understand the Bible according to manmade, corrupt historical-grammatical literalism and, like many Christians, are confined in your thinking to the constraints it imposes.

I won't defend the salvation of all any further in this thread as we're taking it off course. To get back on track, I would be very interested to hear you answer the questions I asked in the last couple posts, ttruscott.

In the meantime, if you want to debate me on the topic of universalism I'm willing, but my arguments are not those of the literalist universalists. I'll only debate from this specific approach:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... m.8094741/

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 19 by shnarkle]

I’m a universalist, so I believe God draws all to Christ.

So if I'm reading you correctly, then those who God has fitted for destruction are drawn to crucify Christ, no? Don't we all have our parts to play in fulfilling God's purpose?

I believe God creates vessels fitted to destruction. If you hold, as my literalist brethren do, that destruction is identical to either annihilation or an eternity in hellfire, then I understand the conundrum. I maintain that all destruction in the temporal leads to (and is part of the process of) salvation in the eternal. Thus, wrath and destruction can be used on the one hand to demonstrate God’s power while simultaneously being used to cleanse the ‘vessels of destruction’ of the stuff that causes their rebellion so they may be made whole.

I've seen this idea posted before. There are a few books out dealing with it by Fr. Crossen, and others who make a case for Judas simply doing what God and Christ both have chosen him to do. Woe to Judas is simply a condemnation on his physical body for being able to carry out such a horrid part in God's drama. It's not a bad argument. The problem is as you've already pointed out in finding some other definition of "eternal"

Destruction is relevant to the literal understanding. Cleansing relates to the symbolic understanding. If both take place concurrently, this disentangles the conflict, doesn’t it?

How?

If no amount of will or effort on God’s part

I never claimed it was on God's part, and neither is Paul. God creates the sheep and God creates the wolves so he's not going to change his mind or his purpose for them.

Your appeal to the texts to “indicate otherwise� is ambiguous. If you hold, as many do, that only a literal interpretation of the Bible is valid, then like them you are stuck in your contradictions without escape. I take historical-grammatical literalism to be a man-made corruption.

I'm not holding to a fundamentalist interpretation, but if you're going to use figurative speech, you will need to supply which figures are being utilized. Simply assering that a text is figurative will never cut it.

Question: does what I presented above remove the contradiction you implied in the OP?

No.

I understand that there are a number of areas in what I presented that need evidence to support presuppositions. But setting that aside, all things being equal [I.e., assuming I’ll be able to provide adequate warrant for those presuppositions], is the contradiction not removed by the idea of simultaneous cleansing within the destruction itself of the apostate?

Not without showing which figure is being employed, and why.

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 27 by shnarkle]

Hello shnarkle,

Didn’t realize you were the author of the op till today. Since it’s your thread you obviously have the right to discuss whatever you want and I don’t have to worry about taking another’s thread off-topic.

So if I'm reading you correctly, then those who God has fitted for destruction are drawn to crucify Christ, no? Don't we all have our parts to play in fulfilling God's purpose?

No. I see nowhere in the Bible Christ “draws� people to destruction, only that He will draw all men to Himself (Jn 12:32) I don’t think those they’re “drawn� by Christ specifically, but resist Him of their own volition. Every sinner is "fitted to destruction" by virtue of our inherent sinfulness. He allows some to continue in their sinfulness in time to serve various puposes...these are "fitted" by God to serve a purpose in His overall plan for humanity, as I see it.

I've seen this idea posted before. There are a few books out dealing with it by Fr. Crossen, and others who make a case for Judas simply doing what God and Christ both have chosen him to do. Woe to Judas is simply a condemnation on his physical body for being able to carry out such a horrid part in God's drama. It's not a bad argument. The problem is as you've already pointed out in finding some other definition of "eternal"

Words can have layered meanings, or have more than one application. For example, in Mark 3:29 when Jesus said “….whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin", I hold that the eternality of the sin applies not to the individual, but is a reference to a specific qualitative state which causes sin. In this understanding, Jesus could make the same claim of any sin. This can be boiled down to a simple equation. Imagine that all things exist in either a TRUE state or FALSE state. God is Truth (Jn 14:6), so it follows that only TRUE things can exist in His presence, be they people, propositions, beliefs, etc. Indeed, I suggest all things FALSE—the very quality of falseness or falsity—is what God’s decrees of destruction are aimed at, in part for the reasons just presented.

So Jesus telling us a certain sin is an eternal one is one of what I call His “hints� [there are many, I suspect] to dig deeper into the essential doctrine of sin where we find His reference is to that feature or cause of all sin that requires eternal eradication: falsity. I claim this because,
1) it’s based on the logical T-F premise that precedes and defines what is good/evil, acceptable/unacceptable, etc. and,
2) there is a whole/parts structure that God has formed within not only the reality we exist in, but structured in His word as well which leads to this conclusion.

The foundation of this interpretive scheme can be found in posts #5, 9, 14 and 15 of the link I provided in last post. If you’ll perform the courtesy of reading (or copy/paste those posts to a doc for later reading) just those posts, you’ll have the basis of where I’m coming from and it can save a lot of repetitive posting on my part.

The essence of my previous posts is simple: if one assumes that wholes (i.e., whole persons for example) are the bearers of truth and falsity as the literal rendering of the Bible leads us to suppose, then whole people are true or false and doomed to either eternal bliss or annihilation/eternal suffering and/or separation from God.

But reduce those wholes to their constituent parts—i.e., if each part of the whole contains its own value denomination, some true some false—then the sheep/goats of Mat 25, the wheat/tares of Mat 13 and good and bad figs of Jer 24 (plus those in a lot of comparable passages) show the blueprint God has hidden in allegoric fashion that’s been hidden right before our eyes in plain sight for centuries, detailing His plan to save every human. His wrath is not directed to individuals but to those elements within each individual which cause sin.

To sum, reading Scripture through the whole/parts structure He placed in His word overcomes a specific contradiction in traditional views of salvation, from which point other contradictions are discovered and resolved as well.

Quote:
Destruction is relevant to the literal understanding. Cleansing relates to the symbolic understanding. If both take place concurrently, this disentangles the conflict, doesn’t it?


How?

See the above.

I'm not holding to a fundamentalist interpretation, but if you're going to use figurative speech, you will need to supply which figures are being utilized. Simply assering that a text is figurative will never cut it.

Quote:
I understand that there are a number of areas in what I presented that need evidence to support presuppositions. But setting that aside, all things being equal [I.e., assuming I’ll be able to provide adequate warrant for those presuppositions], is the contradiction not removed by the idea of simultaneous cleansing within the destruction itself of the apostate?


Not without showing which figure is being employed, and why.

If you’ll read just those posts noted above these questions should be answered.

You’re correct that what I presented does not remove the contradiction in the op because I got confused; the contradiction referred to was not in the op but in a subsequent post. If you’ll read post # 9 [I think the post titled “The Standard� is #9] in the aforementioned link it will establish why the salvation of all is the only tenable doctrine of salvation, and indicate why and where the contradictions exist in both the Annihilationist and eternal torment/separation doctrines. If you prefer to not read, fine, but understanding the basics of where I’m coming from drastically reduces the necessity of having to type out all the same ideas ad infinitum. I’ve been posting on various sites for years and have practically worn the prints off my fingertips explaining the basics repeatedly.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 28 by Anomaly]

detailing His plan to save every human. His wrath is not directed to individuals but to those elements within each individual which cause sin. [/quote]


This seems to agree with what Paul says regarding sending those who are unrepentant to the devil to let him deal with them that their soul/ spirit (I can't remember the exact terminology off hand) be saved on the day of judgement. So effectively it is the body that is consigned to the grave while the spirit is saved.

This is also a pervasive idea throughout other religions as well. It's nothing new, but effectively points out that none of this is real. It's just an illusion, or a deception.

There is only Christ, and these separate identities we all hold onto are nothing but silly ideas.

It works, but it doesn't negate that God does in fact fit vessels (i.e. physical bodies) for destruction. I think we can see this as early as God repenting of ever making man in the flesh I Genesis.

It also does away with one's own free will as a factor in salvation which is what these OP's are all pointing out.

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 29 by shnarkle]

This seems to agree with what Paul says regarding sending those who are unrepentant to the devil to let him deal with them that their soul/ spirit (I can't remember the exact terminology off hand) be saved on the day of judgement. So effectively it is the body that is consigned to the grave while the spirit is saved.

This is a fair, though somewhat cursory, assessment. Fleshed out, the theology goes considerably deeper.

This is also a pervasive idea throughout other religions as well. It's nothing new, but effectively points out that none of this is real. It's just an illusion, or a deception.

First, I’m surprised that you find this idea pervasive. Have never heard of this before. Could you provide some sources? Not that I don’t believe you, just that virtually everyone else I’ve run into the last 20 years has treated the idea of the symbolic representation of salvation as a "parts and whole" metaphysic as some new heresy.

Second, can you elaborate what you mean by the allegorical system “ effectively points out that none of this is real. It's just an illusion, or a deception�? Seems to me you either don’t understand the implications of the theology or entertain some metaphysical notions unusual to Christian thinking, or maybe some of each.

There is only Christ, and these separate identities we all hold onto are nothing but silly ideas.

Again, I’m unsure of your meaning. What sort of “separate identities� do you mean that are silly ideas? As to one Christ, I also don’t understand how or why this fits with the rest of the sentence. Do you suppose I somehow divide Christ into parts, or see more than one Christ?

It works, but it doesn't negate that God does in fact fit vessels (i.e. physical bodies) for destruction. I think we can see this as early as God repenting of ever making man in the flesh I Genesis.

We may be talking past one another here, shnarkle. I don’t disagree with the idea that God allows or even pre-plans to allow certain individuals in history to follow their natural path toward evil in accordance with an overall plan. Not sure where the hiccup is, but I don’t think we’re in any serious disagreement here.

It also does away with one's own free will as a factor in salvation which is what these OP's are all pointing out.

By “it� I assume you mean the symbolic organization I contend for? This is an astute observation about free will, though, as on the surface the idea of a true-false value mechanism operating in a whole-parts structure in the soul is, left to its own devices, decidedly static and deterministic. The problem is I think reasonably addressed by an ontology wherein the deterministic feature is interrupted in some measure by volition as a natural non-empirical causative force by which one is able to make what might be called “degrees of infringement� on the resolute nature of value forces. In short, I hold to the traditional view that the intellect with its limited power of volition impedes the deterministic process that inorganic matter is subject to.

This is a compatibilist view, the mutable operating under the supervision and within the constraints of the immutable. I.e., man has limited freedom to make moral choices in time, but is ultimately and inexorably being drawn to the spiritual cleansing of salvation.

But the process of a value-fragmented soul being cleansed plays a crucial role in salvation that you may have missed. It replaces the common definition of free will as “The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies“ with the concept that having falsity fragmentally removed from the soul changes the will to being freed of hindrance to move in the only logical, reasonable direction one would ever want to go: toward the perfection of restoration to a wholly true state.

As the soul is being restored to an increasingly true state, existence in this superior state of ‘truth-bearingness’ produces dispositions, motives, reasons, etc. and the actions peculiar to them that are ever more truth-oriented. The fractional removal of falsity eradicates tension that prevents adherence to truth.

When Jesus told His apostles, "…I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth…for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee…� (Jn 17:19-21) We are sanctified literally in and by the power of truth, so that all may, in being made wholly true in essence ourselves, be brought to unity with Truth [God] Himself. As we’re being cleansed, our resistance to God is being melted away and replaced with the power of adherence to His will. (To the extent this happens in time, we refer to it as “sanctification�.) In the end, we find that the dictionary definition of free will is really just an explication of our desire for anonymity as per Isa 14:1-20, whose metaphoric truth most Christians are unable to face: we are individually the morning star, satan, wallowing in sin created by falsity in our essence. As falsity rises from static pathology to active evil capacity in the animation of the intellect, it produces the "bad" part of us. The entire 14th chapter of Isa (and many others in the OT prophets) is metaphor dedicated, methinks to the explication of this principle. It identifies the two natures of man, the true (good) and false (bad). Most can’t look the “horrible thing� in the eye and have to remain chained in the literal, where Satan takes on the more comforting feature of “otherness� as a fallen angel we can blame our evil on.

Sorry, I digress. True freedom of the will isn’t in being able to choose as we wish from among alternatives, it’s having the hindrance to choosing the only way one would reasonably and rationally choose removed. One only stands against absolute Truth because our falsified souls cause us to rebel. Who in their right mind rejects perfection?—and perfection is just the wholeness of truth.

Thoughts?