Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ddomingo@orion.cf.uci.edu (Douglas Domingo-Foraste) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He... Message-ID:Date: 14 Aug 89 04:11:25 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, Irvine Lines: 63 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This is a response to article by bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke). Dave is looking at the consequences of the assumption that God loves everyone. (1) based on Jn 6:44, if God loves everyone he will surely draw everyone to Christ, and the only reason anyone would end up in hell would be rejecting God. He proposes to assume this and test it. (2) based on Jn 6:39 the only ones who might end up in hell are those not given to Christ by the Father. But if God draws everyone this implies that some are drawn but not given. Does this make sense? (3) based in Is 55:10-11, if God sends forth his word to draw someone it will succeed. So all who are drawn have been given. In conclusion, if he draws everyone, everyone will be saved and no one is in danger of hell. --clh] I am going to summarize Dave's syllogisms for the sake of clarity: First syllogism: (1) John 6.44--only those drawn by the Father come to Christ (2) John 6.39--Jesus will not lose any given by the Father ergo: only those "drawn" but not "given" risk hell Second syllogism: (1) only those "drawn" but not "given" risk hell (2) Isaiah 55.10--God's word does not return void (i.e. all who are drawn are also given [drawn=given]) ergo: no one "drawn" risks hell since drawn=given Third syllogism: (1) no one "drawn" risks hell (2) God does send people to hell ergo: all are not "drawn" I hope I've done his argument justice. I think there are two problems with the set of syllogisms. First, I believe the logic of the second is faulty, especially point (2), and the key is his rhetorical question. >it.". With a declaration like this, would God ever send forth His Word >to draw someone and not succeed? I would like to suggest that the Yes, it seems to me that that is exactly what happens. Dave has equated God's word "returning void" with its failure to provoke a positive response from its hearer. But it is a point he neglects to demonstrate. I suggest an alternative: God's word does not return void when it provokes any response in the hearer, either positive or negative. I realize that my suggestion is equally unproven. The second problem with Dave's argumentation is that is relies on literalism. The difference between Dave and his detractors is not one of inerrancy. From what I can tell after three months or so, most people in the group take the Bible as authoritative in some measure. But Dave takes his various passages from the Psalms about God hating sinners, not as the psalmists' emotive literary expressions, but God's dictated theological treatise. If you believe that God made Eve out of Adam's rib, that God has an arm that is not too short, and that Jesus wanted to sit on the city of Jerusalem, then Dave's approach makes consistent sense. But if you believe that the Bible is everything God wanted to tell man and only what God wanted to tell man, yet imbued with the literary style of its various authors, then Dave's approach obscures God's intentions rather than clarifies them. Doug Domingo-Foraste Thesaurus Linguae Graecae