On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is a question from a woman named Sally followed by Ben’s answer:
Question: I was reading a devotional (written by Dennis Kinlaw, founder of the Francis Asbury Society). He said that God’s desires cannot be bought and that God will never compel us to be part of his team. I am wondering how he can say that in light of verses such as Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23, and Revelation 5:9 & 14:4, which all speak of the fact that God purchased or bought His church/his people. As far as never compelling us – isn’t that what is meant by his drawing us in John 6:44? I know some people say that He “woos” us – but the original Greek uses the same word as drawing water from a well – one does not woo water from a well – one actually decisively pulls/takes it out. Can you comment on this? Thank you.
Answer: On drawing, I am afraid you are mistaken, though that is a common Calvinist claim. John 12:32 alone really creates problems for that view (and the Calvinist claim that Jesus really means He will draw “some” among “all” is baseless). Below is part fo a post I wrote responding to a similar question. The link to the post is at the end, if you want to read the whole thing.
Surely, you understand the difference between using a word [like “draw”] to describe purely physical interactions with inanimate objects (as in most of your examples) like swords or nets (or even people who are being physically overpowered), and interactions between persons in reference to their emotions, wills, and other spiritual components? You can see this in normal English usage just as well as in Greek. In English, if I say that water was “drawn” from the well, it would be obvious that this would be in the sense of forceful pulling with the bucket having no power to resist that pulling force. However, if I said that someone was “drawn” to strong drink, that would not mean that the person could not possibly resist that drawing. It would be nonsense for me to use the example of drawing water to argue that if someone is drawn to alcohol it must likewise mean that the drawing is irresistible. People immediately and quite naturally understand the difference based simply on the fact that the first example deals with purely physical interactions, while the second takes into account the human element that goes far beyond just physical components. That is why no translation has “drag” in John 6 or 12, since “drag” does not fit the context. L. Leroy Forlines makes this point well when he writes,
“I have no problem with the idea that the drawing spoken of in John 6:44 is a “strong drawing.” But I do have a problem with speaking of it as a “forceful attraction” [quoting Calvinist Robert Yarbrough]. A word used literally may have a causal force when dealing with physical relationships. However, we cannot require that that word have the same causal force when it is used metaphorically with reference to an influence and response relationship. John 6:44 [and 12:32] speaks of a personal influence and response relationship.
For John 6:44 to aid the cause of unconditional election, it must be understood in terms of cause and effect. The verse plainly says that no one can come to Christ without being drawn by the Father. But there is nothing in the word helkou that would require that it be interpreted with a causal force. In fact, if we keep in mind that the relationship between God and man is a personal relationship, the use of helkou in this verse is better understood in terms of influence and response rather than cause and effect.” (Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson)
It is especially important to note that the LXX uses the same Greek word in Nehemiah in the context of God working to bring Israel back to Him, and Israel resisting that work (drawing),
“And many times You rescued them according to Your compassion,
29 And admonished them in order to turn them back to Your law. Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to Your commandments but sinned against Your ordinances, By which if a man observes them he shall live. And they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck, and would not listen.
30 “However, You bore with them (literally, “drew” them, the same Greek word used in John 6 and 12) for many years, And admonished them by Your Spirit through Your prophets, Yet they would not give ear (which proves that this drawing was not irresistible). Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.
31 “Nevertheless, in Your great compassion You did not make an end of them or forsake them, For You are a gracious and compassionate God.
This really destroys your entire argument as it is clear from this passage that the Greek word for “draw” does not always convey the idea of irresistible drawing or dragging (I am indebted to a New Testament scholar for pointing this out to me).
And here is another post that addresses the Calvinist claim based on Greek language:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/does-john-644-teach-irresistible-grace/
As for the other passages, . . . when you understand the provisional nature of the atonement, passages about being bought are not a problem at all. Here are a few posts that address the provisional nature of the atonement:
And here is a lighthearted look at where this Calvinist argument can lead if followed through to its logical conclusion:
http://seekadoo.blogspot.com/2008/08/atonement-for-paul.html
