Featured No Man Can Come Unto Me, Except [John 6:65]

Friend they were already blind. Blind is blind. This idea that He had to blind them more to make room is no place supported in scripture.
He is not blinding them. They are blind because of their own free will. They are in fact willfully ignorantly blind. (2Peter 3:5)
What is happening is that they have chosen not to believe, had no love for the truth, and He is locking them in their own free will choice. (2Thess 2:10) Thye had received all the light that could be given and they could have been saved if they would have chosen to but because they did not want the truth God locked them in hardness.
Election and free will both working together.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
That would be nice if that is what it said, but it does not. Not coming is a freewill choice that whosoever can make. You have God making robots, not free will disciples.

 

OldRegular: "Gentiles in general do not listen..."
The Apostle Paul: "God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28:28)

Sorry, but I have to go with Paul on this one. :wavey:

 

Election and free will is the whole counsel.

 

True the elect listen but it is because of free will. They want to know the truth by willful choice. 2 Peter 3:5

 

Skan, I'm glad you mentioned this because it brings up something that many people think has nothing to do with soteriology: eschatology. Dispensationalism is basically and eschatological theology, much like covenant theology. Dispensationalism sees a disconnect between Israel and the Church. Classical dispensationalism sees that disconnect continuing even in the eternal state (separate "heaven" for Christians and believing Jews). Covenant theology sees an end to national Israel but a continuing of spiritual Israel (children of Abraham). That difference greatly effects how one view John 6.

 

We are not far apart on this, I also agree that God leaves some in their willing blindness. The disciples did not understand Jesus's parables much better than the scribes and Pharisees, but the difference was they would always seek and ask Jesus later to explain them. They chose to listen and learn from the Father (John 6:45)

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Election is not a mystery to me, I believe God elected those he knew would believe on Christ. The scriptures say we are elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father. The scriptures clearly say Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not, therefore he also knew from the beginning who would believe.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Seems very plain to me, no mystery at all. When a person understands this view it explains a lot of difficult scripture, such as John 10:26.

Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Jesus knows these persons will not believe, because he knew from the beginning who would believe and who would not (foreknowledge). Because it is known they will not believe, they were not elected and are not Jesus's sheep.

The next verse confirms this view.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Note the order, very important. First, Jesus's sheep hear his voice, and then afterwards he knows them. This is speaking of foreknowledge.

Jesus could declare who his sheep were and who were not, because in God's foreknowledge he always knew who would believe and chose or elected them.

This is the foreknowledge view of election.

This gets a little confusing, but God does not know any person in an intimate way until they actually believe.

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

God does not know a person in an intimate way until they actually believe in time as this verse shows, but in his foreknowledge he knows these persons from the beginning as also shown in scripture.

This is not easy to comprehend, but this is what the scriptures show.

 

There is self-hardening when one is just being stubborn and has refused to listen, but then there is judicial hardening when God actively 'sends the them a spirit of stupor' or 'speaks to them in parables lest they repent.' Those are both quotes in scripture btw. (Rm 11; Mark 4; Matt 13; John 12)

Human stubbornness is not the same as judicial hardening. Hardening is when God keeps someone from seeing the clearly revealed truth so as to accomplish a greater work of redemption through their rebellion. ( i.e. Pharaoh and Israel, whose hardening both accomplish the Passover.)

Again, I agree, but you are describing stubbornness or 'self-hardening' which is not to be confused with God's judicial work of hardening.

We agree. That is what he is doing to Israel at that time. They have rebelled for years and now he is 'cutting them off' or 'hardening them.' IN doing so they may be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14).

 

Exactly! Now, why were only a few chosen? Read the analogy and it actually tells you.

 

Iconoclast...

Freeatlast posted...

And you, still sticking to your fairytale theology, responded with...

But you then posted this.....

...which clearly implies that the person in question could have made the correct freewill choice...but made the wrong choice instead.

You might be coming around around, Iconoclast.

There might be hope for you after all.

 

That would present a problem for you AIC....you would not know if you should try and ban me like a few days ago...or read what I post:laugh::wavey:

The text is descriptive of the natural man...Jesus said...Ye will not.....they always resist the Holy Ghost acts7:51

for you aic...just in case you still have the idea that I was considering apostasy from the truth:
for your reading pleasure.....jn 5:40
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm

Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is "Alpha and Omega" in the salvation of men.

 

Yes and it also means by free will they chose not to be saved.

 

Spurgeon and Luther may have said there is no such thing as free will, but God said men have free will.

Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

God himself said that ANY MAN of the children of Israel could give an offering, and that it was to be given of HIS OWN VOLUNTARY WILL.

It doesn't get any clearer than that, all men have free will.

And note God said his offering would be ACCEPTED to make atonement for him.

You believe what Spurgeon and Luther taught, I will believe what God himself said.

 

impuned???????????

Don't words like "asinine" and "pathetic" fall into that category? Perhaps "asinine" and "pathetic" have some theological significance of which I am unaware.

 

Yes and in this we see free will and election working.

 

It was important to point out that Romans 8:9 was excluded from Old Regular's proof texts, because this verse shows when a person becomes "spiritual" as opposed to fleshly or natural.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Until the Holy Spirit DWELLS IN YOU, you are not spiritual, you are not "in the Spirit" you are still "in the flesh". Now this presents a big problem for Calvinism, because MANY scriptures show that a person receives the indwelling Holy Spirit AFTER they believe. I showed Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13, Acts 19:2 and Acts 2:37-38 as just some (there are more) scriptural proofs that a man receives the Spirit AFTER first believing. This proves that a person "in the flesh" can believe on Jesus. Of course, this destroys Total Inability as Calvinism understands it.

So, most Calvinists will stop short quoting Romans 8 at verse 8 and not include verse 9, because when a person understands verse 9, it refutes Calvinism, showing that faith precedes regeneration or being made spiritually alive.

I do not know if Old Regular left it out on purpose or not, he might simply be parroting well known proof texts that Calvinists commonly use. But there is a real reason Calvinists stop short at Rom 8:8, as verse 9 refutes Calvinism if understood.