Featured A passage in which many struggle

Folks, another Calvinist chimes in with more falsehood, misdirection and twaddle.

1) Who said sanctification does not mean set apart? Cal or non-Cal?

2) Who said "en" was used to show agency? Cal or non-Cal

3) Who said John 6:28-30 does not say whether belief is a work God does or a work God requires? Cal nor non-Cal

4) Who said Van expressing the views taught by Dr. Wallace do not exist? Cal or non-Cal

5) Who said the NET translation of John 6:29 does not exist in reality? Cal or non-Cal

6) Who said Dr. Wallace's translation had been publicly defeated, Cal or non-Cal.

Calvinism is defended by rewriting not only scripture, but the views expressed by opponents. Thus shuck and jive, change the subject, disparagement, and at last resort a presentation of absurd twaddle of Iconoclast. Good Golly Miss Molly.

Every assertion of Calvinism concerning John 6:29 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 has been demolished again and again, not by Van but by Dr. Wallace.

a) John 6:29 can be translated as deed (work) God requires.
b) en sanctification can be translated as through sanctification
c) Sanctification can be translated as being set apart ​

 

Van
here you are....
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...xnXUZvcDvGj4AOk4IGgDQ&ved=0CEcQ9QEwBw&dur=471

 

No need for you to throw in the towel, Sir, it was never a fight you were in. Calvinism has been shown to be mistaken doctrine once more, and no Calvinist will admit it once more.

Every assertion of Calvinism concerning John 6:29 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 has been demonstrated mistaken again and again, not by Van but by Dr. Wallace.

a) John 6:29 can be translated as deed (work) God requires.
b) en sanctification can be translated as through sanctification
c) Sanctification can be translated as being set apart ​

 

Yes and Amen Brother Mitchell... You have said it well, any of us who have studied the Bible for a length of time can make our opinion seem to be the only acceptable one "according to Scripture". But doing that in every case and right off does not help the discussion process, which is what I enjoy and relish, the brain function. Blessing fellows, may God bless you as you follow Him!
:jesus:

 

I spelled his name Archangle.........I guess I was being "obtuse"......I know, I know....--------> :laugh:

 

If you think of an arch as a arc, a segment of a circle, and you run perpendicular lines from both ends of the arch, they intersect and form an angle, the archangle.

 

Psalm 55:16-19
King James Version (KJV)
16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me.

17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.

18 He hath delivered my soul in peace from the battle that was against me: for there were many with me.

19 God shall hear, and afflict them, even he that abideth of old. Selah. Because they have no changes, therefore they fear not God.


Acts 17:30-31
King James Version (KJV)
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.




"Judgement ask for change so judgment is wasted on those who do not listen and learn, but judgement is necessary for change. It is not God who changes but we must change"
Psalms109:31 me not the verse

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches we are chosen for salvation through being set apart in Christ by the Spirit and on the basis of God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness. John 6:29 teaches God requires us to believe in Christ to be saved.

Unconditional election is thus demonstrated to conflict with the bluntly clear presentation in scripture. To be saved by [out of] faith clearly and bluntly teaches, Romans 10:6, is to be saved on the basis of faith.
God's revelatory grace, the message of redemption through faith in Christ, was preached by Paul, Romans 10:8. Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

there is a difference between what a verse CAN be translated (Jn. 6:29) and what it SHOULD be translated according to the immediate context.

His immediate audiance were asking what they could do, to do the works of God. The same audiance demanded a sign from heaven before they would believe demonstrating they did not believe in him. John 6:36 is declarative of their state and John 6:37-39 is explanatory of their state. Again, they respond the same way in unbelief in John 6:41-43 and again John 6:44-45 is explanatory why they respond in unbelief. Again, John 6:64 states the same condition of unbelief among his own disciples and John 6:65 is explanatory why they do not believe in him.

However, your explanations and translations simply ignore the overall repeated context which over and over again demonstrate that faith is God's Work and not man's. Being given to the Son is the CAUSE why all that are given come to him in faith. The "him" that is drawn is the same "him" that comes demonstrating again that the cause and consequence relationships. The fact that the same "him" drawn is the same "him" that comes and that is raised up demonstrates the series of cause and consequence events.

Contextually to "cometh unto me" means to "come to him in faith" and that is spelled out in John 6:35:

Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

no drink has been introduced yet in this context only eating of manna. To eat and drink are metaphors for PARTAKING OF CHRIST BY FAITH. Thus the phrase "cometh to me" and "believeth on me" are parallel truths just as "eating" and "drinking" are parallel metaphors of PARTAKING OF HIM BY FAITH. He that eateth never hungers, he that drinketh never thirsts in other words, both accomplish the same end and equal believing in Christ. Hence, to come to Christ means to come to him by faith or partake of him by faith. Coming is repeatedly stated to be the CONSEQUENCE of the Father giving and drawing rather than the cause for the Father giving or drawing. Your interpretation of John 6:29 reverses this and is directly repugnant to the whole context.

The "will" of the Father in verses 38-39 has nothing to do with conditons met by believers or man's choice or God's foreknowledge but refers solely to the responsibility of the Son to secure every single solitary one the Father gives to the Son.

Your choice interpretation of John 6:29 is a result of eisgesis instead of exegesis as you must ignore the entire framework of the immediate context which repeats the same scenario over and over again demonstrating that faith is the work of God giving and drawing as coming to Christ by faith is directly attributed to giving and drawing not to man's ability.

 

For man to come they must listen and learn we are responsible free agency if we do not do that God will not do the work in us.

We are responsible to eat to live if we do not do that we will die, physically.This is the same spiritually.

Peter listened and learned from the Father, the crowd that left did not listen and learn they were following the crowd.

What is this flesh and blood it is the life Jesus lived and the word He spoke.

 

Hi Biblicist,

1) I did not ignore the context, I understand the context differently than you apparently do.

2) We agree, John 6:29 should be translated in one of the ways it can be translated. We disagree on which one is the "should" selection.

3) John 6:35 presents comes to Me and believes in Me as two different things, not the same thing. Thus, both are required, to believe and for God to give that person to Christ.

4) Being given to Christ is the cause of all who arrive in Christ and are not cast out. Note transfer is in view.

5) I did not pour my view into the text.

6) Lets go over it one more time:

a) Jesus was answering the question, what must we do to be saved.
b) Jesus answered, this is the work for God, that you believe.
c) The audience understood Jesus to be saying they needed to believe, not God would cause them to believe, thus asking for a sign. ​

7) Now lets go over John 6:37 again.

a) The Father gives people to the Son by transferring them into the kingdom of His Son, Colossians 1:13
b) All that the Father gives to the Son arrive in Christ, because they cannot be cast out unless they have been put in.
c) All that are given to Christ, will not be cast out, but will be raised on the last day.​

8) Now lets look at the "larger framework"

a) The manna that came from God is a metaphor for Christ coming from God.
b) Manna was the bread of temporal life, Christ is the bread of eternal life.
c) Thus he who comes to Jesus refers to he who is given to Christ, not who comes to believe.
d) Verses 39 and 40 demonstrate the two actions, all that behold and believe will be given to Christ by the Father and Christ will not cast them out. ​

 

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 KJV

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim 1:13

Before what? Before believing? Before being called? Before what?

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, John 10:

Question?

Could Saul have become a believer before he did? Such as the day he heard Stephen's sermon?

 

Isaiah 5:21

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.[Or will direct your paths]
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the Lord and shun evil.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

To find out who is His sheep is to see who is not His sheep.

I was not His sheep, I was a dog who begged at His table and He included me and treats me as one of His own. Until you see who you truly are, you will not see the truth.

Romans 9:25
As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

 

Hi Van,

Your argument fails when it comes to John 6:35. Jesus is clearly using a parallelism just as you find quite often in Hebrew Scriptures. The absolute proof of this is that both eating and drinking are metaphors of the same thing - PARTAKING of Christ by Faith. Look at his consistent use of these metaphors from this point forward.

These are not metaphors of TWO different things but of ONE thing - PARTAKING OF HIM BY FAITH:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Note that coming to him satisfies the "hunger" which refers to eating the bread and note how eating this bread is consistently used by Christ from this point forward:

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Note also when Jesus uses the metaphors of eating and drinking again it is eating and drinking to obtain eternal life:

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

In other passages to "come" to Christ is metaphorical of beleiving in him as in Matthew 11 merely coming to Christ obtains rest from burdens and sins.

This must be the case because it is only coming to him in John 6:37,39 that obtains eternal life and secures them so they are never cast out or ever lost but raised up again at the last day. Hence, the metaphor of eating and drinking both equal one thing - believing in Christ.

There is no possible way that contextually coming to Christ can mean anything less than believing in him OR ELSE you have those in verse 37,39,44 only coming to him without faith and yet declared to be saved.

 

Hi Biblicist,
He who is given to me will not hunger either! Your assertion that they are the same thing (coming and believing) is eisegsis.

Note in verse 36, Jesus addresses not believing, without mention of coming. Then in 37 Jesus addresses all that are given to Him as those coming to Me. Therefore, contextually, comes to me refers to being given in verse 35, not believing. Two separate things.

Thus to "eat the bread" refers to God crediting a person's faith as righteousness and being given to Christ, thus obtaining eternal life.

Again, believing does not get a person in Christ, God must transfer the person. Your effort leaves this reality out of your equation.

You are conflating believing with being given, not how it reads.

 

This transfer is TWO parts (1) being given; (2) coming. Hence, if coming does not mean "COMING IN FAITH TO THE CHRIST" then you have Christ pronouncing their eternal security WITHOUT FAITH.

Likewise, in John 6:39 and Jn. 6:44 where again coming is the consequence of being given and being drawn by the Father and where again eternal security is the conclusion WITHOUT FAITH unless coming means COMING IN FAITH TO CHRIST.

You may not have intended to do so, you may be sincere, but nevertheless your explanation is not exegetically sound and misrepresents Christ's clear and explicit teaching.

The precise question he was answering is found in verse 28:

28 ¶ Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

You are drawing your conclusion too soon about the audiance and about Christ's intent. If the passage ended with verse 30 you might have a point but it does not end with verse 30. The fact that coming to him in faith is dependent upon only something the Father can do completley destroys your whole interpetation of verse 29. It is the work of God because none can come to the Son except they are given to the Son by the Father (vv. 36-39). It is the work of God becuase none can come to the Son except they are drawn by the Father (v. 44). It is the work of God because none can come to the Son except it is "given unto him" by the Father. Hence, the fuller context completely invalidates your whole line of reasoning and interpretation of Jhn 6:29.

You cannot read Colossians 1:13 into the John 6 context precisely becuase John 6 says NOTHING about entrance into His kingdom. This is READING INTO the text what is not stated. Let the context interpret itself without ADDING outside materials.

It is impossible to "arrive in Christ" apart from faith and thus coming to Christ must be inclusive of coming by faith to Christ.

This is wholly irrational as well as anti-context. Being given is the CAUSE for coming not vice versa, and coming must be inclusive of faith or else you have eternal secure persons without faith in Christ and thus saved OUTSIDE of Christ.

Note that the audiance "saw" but did not believe (v. 36) but those given to the Son both saw and believed (v. 40). Hence, the difference is not SEEING! The difference is COMING. Hence, seeing does not equal coming to Christ as your explanation demands in verse 35. If coming is not inclusive of faith in Christ then we have eternal secure people WITHOUT faith in verses 37-39, 44.​

 

Hi Biblcist, no need to try put words in my mouth, as in you are saying... followed by some un-biblcial nonsense. This is straight out of the Calvinist play book of canards.

1) The word translated coming (the first of two in the verse) means to arrive, thus all who are given arrive in Christ and shall not be cast out.
The second "coming" refers indeed to travel toward someone or something, thus transfer is the idea.

2) God only gives those to Christ whose faith He has credited as righteousness, therefore again, citing John 6:39 and 6:44 simply demonstrates a misrepresentation, knocking down a strawman, rather than addressing my view. Therefore the two items are (a) we must believe from the heart and wholeheartedly in Christ, and (b) God must credit that faith as righteousness and give us, transfer us, into Christ.

3) The Calvinist view is eisegsis, it ignores the spiritual transfer required for salvation.

4) Simply nullifying John 6:28-30 because it presents the opposite of what is claimed mistakenly by Calvinism is unsound, The passage says what it says, and does not conflict with John 6:36-39.

5) Next you seem to deny being placed in Christ is being placed into the Kingdom of His Son. LOL Take a peak folks at Ephesians 2:6 and see if you can determine if being "in Christ" means being "in His Kingdom."

6) Yes it is impossible to arrive in Christ unless a person is given to Christ, and it is impossible to be given to Christ unless God credits the person's faith as righteousness. Whew, hopefully we now have that settled. Folks, take a gander at 2 Thessalonians 2:13, were both things, being transferred, i.e. set apart, and faith in the truth are presented separately.

7) Note that the Calvinist view, being given is before believing, is taken truth, and then the truth as presented in scripture, is nullified.
And again, for what the fourth time, transfer rather than belief is in view because after being given the person has arrived in Christ and will not be cast out. The Calvinist view simply ignores this over and over and over. The Calvinist view is "wholly irrational as well as anti-contextual!"

8) Finally, the last strawman, "seeing" does not equate with coming to Me, being given to Christ equates with coming to Me, and being given is based on God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness. How many times will it take before this view is actually addressed rather than misrepresented????

 

Impossible to be "in Christ" without faith and therefore this is ARRIVAL BY FAITH. You are ignoring the contextual evidences I presented.

The immediate context is not about the Second Coming but about coming to Christ that obtains eternal life. This is ARRIVAL BY FAITH as it is IMPOSSIBLE to arrive "IN" Christ in unbelief.

You are now arguing that they have already believed and as a consequence of having already believed they are then given to the Son in order to come to Christ. Thus believers who have not yet come to Christ, who have not yet arrived in Christ. Hence, you are teaching one can be a true believer in Christ and yet have not ARRIVED IN CHRIST.

Giving precedes coming and if believing precedes being given then you have true believers OUTSIDE of Christ who need yet to come to Christ. If that is the kind of nonsense you must embrace to avoid the obvious truth then you are welcome to it.

Transferrence from the lost condition to the saved condition is "through faith" (Eph. 2:8) and if "cometh unto me" is this transferreence then it can only mean "ARRIVAL IN CHRIST BY FAITH."

First, you are assuming your interpetation is the true meaning of John 6:28-30 and it is your interpretation that is opposite to my interpretation. Second, your interpetation does conflict with John 6:36-39 as "cometh unto me" cannot mean anything less than ARRIVAL IN CHRIST THROUGH FAITH in this context.

1. Look at verse 36 in contrast to verse 40. There is no difference between those in verse 36 and verse 40 in regard to seeing the Son. The only differnce is the former beleived not and the latter believed.

2. Verses 37-39 are the explanation of this difference and the word "believe" is not found, yet the only response described in these verses is "cometh unto me".

3. Throughout this context "eating" which is equal to "cometh unto me" is synomymous with beleiving in me for eternal life. Both eating and drinking obtain the same thing - eternal life.

I deny no such thing. I only denied you can READ INTO this passage what it does not say. The "kingdom" is not even mentioned in this context. It is not the subject of this context. The subject is the origin and nature of faith - Jn. 6:29-68 not the kingdom or entrance into the kingdom.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:13 chosen TO salvation PRECEDES sanctification by the Spirit and belief of the truth. "you" is the direct object of "chosen" while "salvation" is the direct object of the preposition "eis" but "sanctification of the Spirt and belief of the truth" is the direct object of the preposition "dia." You are trying to reverse the order given in 2 Thes. 2:13 as you are in John 6:37-39, 44. However, the grammar will not allow you to do that.

You are reading into the text that believing occurred prior to the Father given them to ARRIVE IN CHRIST. Thus reading your theology into the text. If you took the text as it is stated you could not justify that interpetation. In the text "cometh unto me" is contextually defined as "coming through faith to me" and that is the consequence not the cause of being given. Look at John 17;2 a similar text. where being given eternal life is the consequence not the cause to "as many as" were given to the Son by the Father. Again you must REVERSE what the text actually says or READ INTO the text what it does not say.

What your saying does not make much sense. I don't care what "Calvinists" say or don't say. I care what the Scripture says and don't says. You are the one invoking Calvinists not I. I stick only to the scriptures, why can't you?

John 6:37,39, 44 says exactly what John 6:29 says "this is the work of the God that ye believe" except John 6:37-39,44 spell out what that work of God is - giving and drawing. That makes perfect sense and is perfectly logical. Indeed, John 6:45 contines to explain what God's work is - it is the work of divine revelation within the elect where by Christ is revealed to the heart of a man as in Matthew 16:17 - "flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee but MY FATHER WHICHS IS IN HEAVEN" or as in Gal. 1:15,16 "when it PLEASED GOD...to REVEAL IN ME His son......." or in 2 cor. 4:6 "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

That is correct! Seeing does not equate with coming to Christ. Both the unbelievers and believers saw Christ (vv. 36,40). The only difference between the two are the terms "beleived not" and "believeth." Verses 37-39 are explanatory why some believe and others do not. It is the WORK OF GOD in giving and drawing that makes the distinction between unbelief and believing.

In my next post, I will simply prove from the immediate context that "cometh unto me" means coming in faith to Christ.

 

Strawman argument number 1. I addressed this and you ignored it.

Strawman argument number 2, I did not mention nor imply anything about the second coming of Christ. I was referring to the second time in John 6:37, a word is translated as coming, i.e. the one who comes to Me I will not cast out.

Strawman argument #3. No one arrives in Christ unless given and no one is given unless their faith is credited as righteousness.

Strawman argument #4. Believers whose faith God credits are given to Christ. Thus either you are saying someone could be a "true believer" and God not know it, or some other absurdity.

Strawman argument #5. The first "comes to Me" in John 6:37 refers to those given arriving in Me. Those given are given on the basis of God crediting their faith as righteousness. Folks to you see a pattern of denial and stonewalling?

Strawman argument #6. Note the nullification effort to conflate believing with coming and omitting God's action. Again and again the same mistaken view is repeated and repeated.

Strawman argument #7. The issue is not that both 36 and 40 refer to believing, the issue is 37 and 39 refer to being given and therefore arriving in Christ. Two actions, believing and being given are in view.

Strawman argument #8, the difference is 37 and 39 address being given. Putting them together we get believing and then being given. This is not rocket science. When we are put in Christ, we are born again and sealed with the Holy Spirit, thus becoming a spiritual child of God. So when are we given the right to become a child of God? When we are put in Christ and born again. And what do we believe before we are given that right? Perhaps John 1:12-13 might give us a clue!

You can conflate till the cows come home, no one partakes of the blessings in Christ until God puts them in Christ. No one!!!!!!!!!!

Strawman argument #9, being transferred into Christ such that you will not be cast back out is about entrance to the kingdom. Outside of Christ, not in the kingdom, in Christ equals in the kingdom.

Yet another Calvinist making an argument from grammar. My translation, the NASB95 says chosen for salvation, i.e. for the purpose of salvation. You can say the grammar does not allow that translation till the cows come home. You are wrong. Here are the translations that translate it correctly, NASB, HCSB, NET, and WEB. If you want to debate it, take it up with Dr. Daniel Wallace, senior editor of the NET. BTW, the preposition between salvation and sanctification is "en" not "dia".

For the fifth time, at least, believing occurs before being given, we are given on the basis of faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Now we get wholesale eisgesis. Contextually coming to me is defines as a separate action from believing in Me. We have been all through this. Your view omits being placed in Christ such that you will not be cast out. Conflation, not exegesis.

Strawman argument #10. Eternal life is a consequence of being given to Christ. Duh!!!!!

Because you Sir are citing chapter and verse the bogus, out of context Calvinist view of the text.

Bottom line, John 6:28-30 teaches the work God requires is to believe in Him. John 6:35-40 teaches two actions, one we must believe in Him and two, God must credit that faith as righteousness and give us to Christ. If He does, then Christ will not cast us out, and will raise us up on the last day.

Note the length of this post, folks, because rather than discussing my position, I had to address 10 bogus arguments.
Calvinism 101

 

Lets summarize a little.

The context of John 6:28-30 drives the decision as to whether the "work of God" is a subjective genitive (work God does)or an objective genitive (work God requires) to the conclusion it is work God requires, thus answering the question, what must we do.

John 6:31-35 present Christ as the bread of [eternal] life, and compares Him to the manna from God providing temporal life.

John 6:36-40 present the work God requires, believe in Him and then what God does, gives the person to Christ.

No amount of strawman arguments will alter this obvious truth.