John 20:31 as a prooftext for Arminianism

[kvanlaan]

Is this one commonly used? I had it dropped in my lap today with great conviction by someone who seemed to really hang their hat on this verse (and maybe I'm too dense to see why...) I've always seen it as perfectly integrated with a Calvinistic approach, but this guy can't seem to see why. Has anyone else seen this verse used in this way and if so, what is the basis that gives it its 'punch'?

 

[A5pointer]

The Purpose of This Book

30 (AR)Now Jesus did many other signs (AS)in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 (AT)but these are written so that you may (AU)believe that Jesus is the Christ, (AV)the Son of God, and that by believing (AW)you may have life (AX)in his name.

Hard to figure. What does he think it means?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I would simply walk this person through the entire gospel of John and show him that, 1. The concept of "belief" in John goes much deeper than mere intellectual assent, and 2. What does Jesus teach about how one comes to "believe."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

...not written in this book...

This is where he's getting his support for an Arminian notion of salvation.

 

[A5pointer]

...not written in this book...

This is where he's getting his support for an Arminian notion of salvation.

I am not getting it Rich. PS if your friend likes to mine for nuggets a walk through the park of John would be a mine field.

 

[JP Wallace]

I think he seems to seeing the 'believing' as the ground of salvation whereas we see it as the means by which we receive Christ unto justification.

If that is the case then he ought to be pointed to verses like Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, which show that both faith and salvation as a whole are by grace, and that faith is not a ground, but a conduit 'through'.

 

[A5pointer]

I think he seems to seeing the 'believing' as the ground of salvation whereas we see it as the means by which we receive Christ unto justification.

If that is the case then he ought to be pointed to verses like Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, which show that both faith and salvation as a whole are by grace, and that faith is not a ground, but a conduit 'through'.

Oh got it now, loosing my touch

 

[JoannaV]

Yeah I think he is saying that we choose to believe because we are provided with the necessary written stories in order to make that choice.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Giving a serious answer, he's probably drawing a few conclusions:

1. The common canard is that Calvinism teaches that God does the believing for us. Here, the purpose of John's Gospel is that the reader would believe in Christ. If Calvinism teaches that God does the believing for a person and this verse says that "...these are written that you may believe..." then he may be thinking that this is a defeater. It never ceases to amaze me how even professors of theology characterize Calvinism as if the will of the creature is no involved in believing.

2. The second inference he may be drawing from verse 31 is that "...by believing you may have life...." This implies to him that life comes after belief.

 

[A5pointer]

Na

Yeah I think he is saying that we choose to believe because we are provided with the necessary written stories in order to make that choice.

na he is seeing the belief that precedes and obligates God to reward with life. Always looks desperate from our view doesn't it?

 

[kvanlaan]

Well, he says that since the signs were done ''so you may believe'', that it included a choice (maybe the Holy Ghost was involved, maybe not, he says scripture is not clear) and so since it is a call to believe, those who do believe aren't necessarily elect, but they are foreknown. He doesn't like the idea of "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" since he has no way of refuting it, but he's still staunchly of the opinion that both the idea of the elect and of free will are both present and co-exist side by side. And since the Holy Ghost is not specifically mentioned in many cases, it may or may not be by the power of God, it may just be me making a good choice. (He also doesn't like Romans 7:15!)

 

[kvanlaan]

Part 2 which follows on this argument is that if we're elect, what's the point of it all? He used to be CRC but has 'seen the light' now and is no longer reformed...

 

[A5pointer]

Well, he says that since the signs were done ''so you may believe'', that it included a choice (maybe the Holy Ghost was involved, maybe not, he says scripture is not clear) and so since it is a call to believe, those who do believe aren't necessarily elect, but they are foreknown. He doesn't like the idea of "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" since he has no way of refuting it, but he's still staunchly of the opinion that both the idea of the elect and of free will are both present and co-exist side by side. And since the Holy Ghost is not specifically mentioned in many cases, it may or may not be by the power of God, it may just be me making a good choice. (He also doesn't like Romans 7:15!)

Like Rich said is amazing to have to acknowledge that we get that a choice must be made.