Featured The Archilles heel of Arminianism - Jn. 6:64-65

Nothing in vs 65 says they were not "Drawn" rather they are not "given" by the Father.

The "Given of the Father" statement in John 6 is highly qualified - applying to those who believe AND who come to Christ and who are given eternal life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Calvinism vs Arminan in John 6:

• Nothing in John 6 says “All Drawn” are the same as “those given by the Father to Christ”.
• Noting in John 6 says “All drawn” will come to Christ, or “All drawn” will be saved.
• Nothing in John 12:32 says “all drawn” will be saved or will come to Christ or that they are the same as those who are “Given by the Father”.

But we do have this
John 12:32 “I will draw ALL MANKIND unto Me”
John 6:44 ""No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Obviously those who “come to Christ” are within that larger group of “all mankind” who are first drawn to Christ.


Big Problem for Calvinists.

• They “need” a text that says “God does NOT Draw ALL mankind unto Him” – and there is not ONE such text in all of scripture.
• Arminians HAVE a text that says God “will DRAW ALL mankind to Him” John 12:32.
• So Calvinists have to sort of make up the text “they need” via inferences and taking liberties with the text.

Classic bait-and-switch "drawn by the Father" being substituted in where the text says "given by the Father"

Caveat: Arminians never claim that “The Father has given ALL mankind to Christ as saints” nor does the Bible say it. And Arminians do not say that all Drawn are also Given by the Father to Christ as those who will be saved.

 

So true! :thumbs:

And one need only read the context of John 12 to see beyond all reasonable doubt that the idea of God only irresistibly drawing a relative few from the Jews and Gentiles is completely off base.

The fact that after his death he commissions the spreading of the Gospel to ALL CREATION should be a clear indication as to what MEANS Christ is referencing as what will be 'drawing' all men to himself after he is raised up. Yet, they have to make it about some irresistible inward supernatural means that affects a relatively few number of people. Such a meaning could hardly be defended in view of the universal term employed by Christ ('all men')....as if Christ, if he wanted to communicate that meaning, just couldn't have used the word 'some.'

Spurgeon addressed this gross misrepresentation of scripture when he said:

 

Sorry your felt so insulted by my post.

Perhaps if you think the English is so strong you might express why:

1) Uncountable number of preaching and teaching sessions in which the presenter is explaining the nuance of the original in comparison to the weakness of the English.

2) The current translations of the Scriptures have to work from either a word for word or thought for thought or some blend of the two. Even the most word for word translation, is not completely nor exhaustively accurate to the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic... Here are three various charts showing just a bit of what I mean.
1. here
2. here
3. here

3) Why the common use of English words change with each generation and often more frequently. Example: "whosoever" as used in John 3 in comparison to how the folks of King James used it.
​

English is a relatively weak language compared to that in which the Scriptures were originally and to the Latin.

Perhaps you didn't know that. I don't know.

But, it nevertheless is true.

 

1. Lack of the presence of the Holy Guide, in the presenter. Unbelief on his part, as well. Poor training.
2. Faithlessness. One must believe that He is, before they can come to Him. If one truly believes that the author of languages is in control, that one would believe that said author could express Himself well in any such language, which He had drafted.
3.Go to school for law, and you will hear the words of our English unchanged. Suffer still means 'allow'. Pray still means 'make a formal request to the judge', and etc.

English is made up, mostly, of 8 major language groups. 25% being Germanic, 18% Latin, and so on.
It has a bridge to most of the languages spoken on the planet, either through shared root words, or transliterated words.

English has 250,000 words, or so.
It also has the strength of allowing for transliterated words from the major language groups. Any word, not found in English, can be made into an English word, like the Chinese word trans :"junk".
English has descriptive words galore, so that things can be expressed more thoroughly in it, than any other language.
Germanic Toungues are wordy, and English is no exception.
If you are looking to say something in one word, look to a different language. If you want to fill your 1,000 word quota, for an essay, English is your friend.

No, the problem isn't English, it is "scholars"

 

R. G. Lee, Chuck Swindol, W. A. Criswell, Hyman Appleman, Bob Jones, John R. Rice, Adrian Rogers ... (I could go on with the list, but these are given to show).

I suggest before you make such statements that you consider the above ALL had to bring greater understanding as to what the original language was bringing to a passage in comparison to the weakness of the English.

Using your view, the question would be which "version" is the most accurate to the originals?

The NASB and the "interlinear" are the closest "word for word" translation.

Some on the board exalt the NIV or the KJV as more authoritative.

If there is a "preserved word" then it must remain as close to the original as possible.

That would be the NASB.

But then one must ask, which is more important the thought behind the original or is it more important that actual word definition for word definition be used without much regard for sentence construction.

Strange that you would pick the word "suffer." If you ask anyone - be it lawyer or farmer - they would say "suffer" means to be in need and hurt. This is just ONE word that older English is defined differently than what it is currently held. I do not know of one lawyer that uses "suffer" to mean "allow" in any legal brief in this "modern age;" however, I know more than one that would use "suffer" to support class action for "pain and suffering."

None of the above is other than showing proof for what I have stated. Cookie is dutch. Love has three variations in Greek. And the list could go on and on.

Prophet, again, I had no wish to insult, nor demean you in the post(s).

The English is weak because it is a blend of many, and beholding to none - that is why definitions become archaic, and changed by the influence of culture and education.

For instance, Davy Crockett claimed he was a "screamer." That didn't mean that he went around shouting; rather, the word was used in his time to indicate one who was a star or notable - one who possessed powerful political alliances and could call the rich and famous as friends and partners.

 

Ever heard of women's suffrage? It wasn't an act passed, so we could beat our wives, was it? Nope. They are "allowed" to vote now.

 

Spurgeon also edited/expanded the "Baptist Confession of Faith" - I particularly like Section 19.

I have to admit I find a number of things in Spurgeon's writings that are insightful on his part. Calvinist or not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The problem in not actually quoting the text when comparing it to John 12:32 is that one misses the "not so subtle detail" that there is no place in John 6 where it is said that someone "Was not drawn to Christ".

No not one verse.

So then just giving the verse numbers "as if" there was something there to that affect - is the substitution that is necessary.

Clearly there are some not "given to Christ" by the Father - but that is because the "Given" context is highly qualified and is not mentioned at all in John 12 - because that is not the focus of John 12.

The outreach is "I will draw all" the - degree to which that outreach is received by the lost and the lost willingly choose to accept it - is the "Given of the Father" to Christ because it includes the qualified list of those who see, who learn, who come to Christ according to John 6.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I do not know of anyone who has denied this. When did this denial happen?

It was John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that called these men disciples. And it is certain that many did superficially hear and learn, but they did not believe.

And I have no idea how you know who was baptized and who was not.

Yes, Jesus did say that some did not believe, and we are told that Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not, and who should betray him. I believe this is an example of God's foreknowledge clearly being shown to us.

But the reason they did not come is because they did not receive and believe what was given them, which is Jesus's words shown in verse 63. This is also confirmed in chapter 17 where again Jesus speaks of those given by the Father to him, and Jesus clearly tells us what was "given" to his disciples, "the words the Father gave to me".

Jhn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Note the repeated emphasis on the word of God. This is what Jesus was speaking of in John 6:65, he was saying that no man can come to him unless "it" which is the word of God were given them. But still, a man must receive and believe God's word, God does not believe for you. Note that Jesus credits his disciples with receiving and believing. Jesus does not say he gave his disciples faith as Biblicist would try to falsely teach.

The work was that Jesus gave these men the words his Father gave him. Jesus does not say he gave them faith. Jesus said he gave these men his "words"

But the man is responsible to hear and learn (vs. 45) and to believe (vs. 65). Therefore a man must receive what was "given" to him to come to Jesus.

Note also that those whom the Father gave to Jesus "kept thy word". Note that Jesus knew who would believe and who would not. I believe this shows that God the Father gave those persons in his foreknowledge whom he knew would believe his words to Jesus. Foreknowledge is clearly shown in Jhn 6:64.

Again, the work is clearly described by Jesus in John chapter 17. It does not say Jesus gave his disciples faith, it says he gave them the words his Father gave to him, and then Jesus clearly credits his disciples with both receiving and believing his words.

 

And who among our Calvinist friends can deny that the statement Christ makes about those fall back into unbelief - is based on his foreknowledge of what they would do??

For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,

No doubt. But Jesus never says of those who fall away "they were never drawn".

One may conclude they were "never given to me of the Father" in that fully qualified see, believe, come to Christ, learn of the Father... sequence - but one may not conclude that "they were never drawn".

And unfortunately for Calvinism the point that IT needs is the one that is not "in the text" but must be drawn outside of the text via inference and taking liberties with the text.

Too much "bait-and-switch" there.

John 12:32 specifically speaks of the outreach in the form of "Drawing ALL mankind unto Me" -- it does not address the more qualified statements in John 6 regarding "Those the Father has given to Christ" who see, who believe, who come to Christ, who Learn and are taught by the Father and whom Christ will raise up on the last day. You are grossly equivocating between almost every term used in John 6 -- with that of the single focus of John 12:32 regarding the outreach of God in "Drawing all unto Him". And subject in one or two verses in john 6 but it is not all of John 6 - thus you are not free to swap out anything you wish from John 6 and use it to downsize John 12:32.

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

They have to be given to jesus by the father, thru the workingof the Spirit unto their behalf, for NONE call jesus their Lord a;aert from the Holy Spirit enabling them to say that, as NONE seek God apart from the drawing of the Father, and the work of the Spirit to permit them to see jesus and receive Him thru God granted faith!