Return
to Question and Answers Page
Hey:
Sorry to be so late in writing. It truly has been non-stop,
end-to-end for a while here. I'm going to try to respond fairly
succinctly:
Arthur:
I was listening to Hank Hanegraaff online. John 6:44,
which says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent
me draws him...," was mentioned. I don't remember the exact
question Hank was asked and I don't remember all of the details
of his answers, I just remember Hank said that God woo's us
and that we either accept or reject God's woo-ing.
I understand that when we reject God, it is our responsibility
for rejecting Him, leading to us deserving of God's wrath.
When I think of God woo'ing, however, I guess I think of it
as God "calling" us to salvation. If God leads us to salvation,
then it will always lead to salvation. My question is, can
we reject God's woo-ing? I guess it would all be dependent
on the definition of the "woo" of God. If it encompasses every
time the gospel is preached to someone, then obviously people
can reject it. In my mind, however, God's woo-ing would mean
that God actively works to bring his children to faith. I
already understand (as best as I can) salvation/God's sovereignty/man's
free will/etc. My confusion comes from what Hank meant. What
do you think he meant when he said we can reject God's woo-ing?
Well, I agree with you, if woo-ing means the "outer call"
or the call from preaching the gospel, it certainly can be
rejected. However, for the elect, that outer call is the means
by which God exacts what is known as the "inner call" which
leads to regeneration or the spiritual awakening of a once
spiritually dead heart.
Since Hank is more Arminian in his theology, I would assume
he meant "woo-ing" in the traditional, Arminian way. That
is, God is trying to attract people to Himself not by unilaterally
turning hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, or by making
spiritually dead people (Eph. 2:1) come to life, but by trying
to entice spiritually sick people to come to Him.
The problem I have with Hank saying that God woos us and
that we either reject or accept His wooing, is that unless
God first unilaterally opens our blind hearts to be receptive
to the gospel, we will all reject His wooing: "There is none
righteous, no not one (Rom. 3:10)" - I can think of no more
righteous act than to recognize Jesus as Lord and to submit
my life to Him; "There is none that understands, none that
seeks for God " (Rom. 3:11)- in the flesh, we do not seek
God; "...unless one is born again (literally, born from above),
he cannot (even) see the kingdom of God" - unless God gives
us new birth, we don't see, recognize, or respond to God's
kingdom. Why? Because we're spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) -
not sick, dead. You can "woo" a gravely sick person into taking
the medicine that cures and he make take it. You can "woo"
a dead man all you want but he isn't going to take it because
he's dead. Unless an outside person unilaterally resuscitates
him back to life, he isn't going to respond to wooing of any
sort.
Now, to the verse, John 6:44. The classical Greek definition
of the word "draw" (helkuo in Greek) means "to compel by irresistible
authority; to drag". Now, you'll remember that when we interpret
Scripture, it's often helpful to look to other Scripture where
the same word and/or concept is being used - Scripture crystallizes
Scripture. We see the same word, helkuo, being used in Acts
8:3; 16:9; and James 2:6, where each time the word is translated
"drag." They speak of dragging one into prison and dragging
one into court, not a wooing of them (I'm sorry, but you couldn't
woo me into court or prison). Thus, I believe this verse clearly
speaks to the irresistible "drawing" of people to Himself
(like water is drawn from a well) rather than a mere "wooing."
Romans 8 is clear that the flesh begets flesh, and the flesh
profits nothing. If we were to respond to God, while still
in our flesh, it would profit everything.
Another question has to do with the "L" in "TULIP."
Did Jesus die for everyone's sins or just for the sins of
the elect? I've heard you (or someone else) say before that
if Jesus died for everyone's sins, then it would lead to everyone's
salvation. So, Jesus died for the sins of the elect. If that
is true, then are we lying when we tell people that Jesus
died for their sins? When we share the gospel with a non-believer,
we always say, "Jesus died for your sins."
Yes, I believe that Jesus died to ensure the salvation of
the elect and not merely to make an offer.
I think it's ok to say that "Jesus died for your sins" in
a qualified way. We could say that to mean, "If you surrender
you life to Jesus, you will not go to hell and pay for your
sins because Jesus already paid the price and died for your
sins." So, I think we can make that statement in a way that
proclaims that Jesus already has died for sins, and now we
don't have to. That's really our calling, to share the gospel
and throw the seeds. However, we cannot convert people and
speak to them in ways that is reserved for God.
So, if we say to an unbeliever, "Jesus died for your sins",
and mean that in a specific, personal way - as if we are saying
we know that he is elect and that Jesus died for HIS sin,
in particular - then I think we've gone out of bounds and
proclaimed more than we're entrusted with.
I hope that helps somewhat. Let me know.
Thanks,
Arthur
Return to Question and Answers
Page 
