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