Featured None can come but those "given" - Jn. 6:36-40

It is working and has worked becasue it has driven you from the context to FLEE the context and JUMP to other contexts in order to pervert them.

 

Immediate context always comes first and in the final analysis when we get down to the nit grit of that context YOU COULD NOT RESPOND by pointing out any contextual basis to overturn my contextual based argument but had to jump out and flee from the context.

In another thread you have conceded my point! You admitted John 6:44 does teach universal inability. The nature of that inability is another subject for another thread but universal inability has been fully conceded by you.

In this thread you have been unable to respond to the contextual based reasons I provided to prove that what you claim was "given" to them in John 6:63 is precisely what Christ denies the Father gave them in John 6:65. Hence, your interpretation of John 6:44-45 is contrary to Christ's understanding of those verses because He denies in verse 65 what you claim in verse 63 was given. Period end of story! Your interpretation of John 6:44-45 you propose in verse 63 is directly contradicted by Christ in verse 65.

 

Again, Bob attempts to distract, avoid and confuse the readers instead of dealing directly with the dilemma set before him. Of this is his only recourse available other than concede his interpetation of John 6:44-45,64-65 is totally erroneous. Hence, he will not directly address the arguments of my post.

 

Here is the issue that our Arminian friends are avoiding and refuse to directly address:

1. Both John 6:44 and 65 EQUALLY state the problem is "no man can come to me"

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

2. John 6:44 provides "draw" as the solution to this problem and verse 65 provides "it were given unto him" as the solution to the very same problem.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

3. The words "therefore said I unto you" in verse 65 is a direct reference to what he already said in verse 44 and therefore "it were given unto him" must be regarded as synonmous with "draw him" in verse 44.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

4. The Arminians interpret both "draw him" and "it were given unto him" equally to refer to the EXTERNAL preaching of the gospel whereby they are taught and whereby they hear and learn of the Father.


5. They claim this intepretation is what John 6:63 is teaching by "my words are spirit and they are life."

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

6. They also claim that these words in verse 63 are the antecedent for the pronoun "it" in verse 65 and thus this was "given" unto the "disciples" in verses 62-66 and they must interpret "given" as such because if not then here are "some" never drawn, never given by the Father but their interpretation of John 12:32 demands this interpertation or they must give up their interpreation of "all" in John 12:32 as false.


65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.




7. However, Jesus is denying in verse 65 that such (draw, taught, heard, learned - vv. 44-45) was "given" by the Father to those in verse 64. Indeed, the "therefore I said unto you " is in direct reference to the fact those in verse 64 "beleive not" presently and that has been their state "from the beginning" and that is the case because the Father has not "given" it to them.

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.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.



8. Moreover, the immediate antecedent for "it" in verse 65 is not anything stated in verse 63 but the words "come unto me" in verse 65 as being "given it" is the solution for "no man can come unto me EXCEPT". Moreover, that is the problem presented in verse 64 "believe not....believed not" which is the very opposite of "come unto me" and for which there is but only one exception "except it were given unto him of my Father" to come to me - "believe in me"

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father

9. Finally, the interpretation of "all me without exception" cannot possibly be the correct interpetation of John 12:32 for the simple reason that we can document two generations of tribes in New Guinea within our own generation that died never hearing about the cross or Christ or the gospel until missionaries in our own generation brought it for the first time to them. They had elders whose grandfathers and fathers died NEVER HAVING HEARD such and thus never able to tell them until these missionaries came.

Here is absolute irrefutable evidence that those who will be honest and objective with John 6:44-65 cannot possible refute making the Arminian interpretation impossible. Instead the Calvinist interpetation of John 6:44-45, 63-65 is the only possible interpretation as those "disciples" had EXTERNALLY been taught the gospel, heard and learned it so they could publicly profess it in baptism as that is the ONLY KIND OF DISCIPLES JESUS CLAIMED TO BE HIS DISCIPLES. However, that PUBLIC taught, heard, learned, and professed gospel is not the meaning of John 6:44-45 or 63-65 BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN THAT AND YET CHRIST DENIED THAT WAS WHAT HE MEANT AND HOW HE UNDERSTOOD JOHN 6:44-45 AS WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD BY IT HAD NOT NEVER BEEN GIVEN UNTO THEM IN VERSE 64.

 

First, are you denying that "learn" is included in "draw"?? John 6:44 and 6:65 present the very same problem "no man can come to me" and John 6:44 does not give TWO solutions to that problem "draw AND...." Furthermore, Jon 6:65 is simply recalling what was stated in verse 44 and Christ states the very same problem "no man can come to me" and he does not give TWO solutions to that problem "it given unto him AND..." Hence, to have "learned" of the Father must be inclusive of both "draw" and "given it". Therfore are you denying those in verse 64 had "learned" which is inclusive of "draw" which is inclusive of having "it given" to them? If so, they you are conceding that the Father does not draw all men without exception. However, even if you are not, Jesus is denying that such had been drawn by the Father and that does include having both heard and learned and so here are "some" that contradict your interpetation.

Second, you have not interpreted "draw" to mean only "learned" of the Father but rather have interpreted to include having "HEARD" and "learned" by the EXTERNAL PREACHING of the gospel and the evidence you and every Arminian on this forum has claimed as EVIDENCE is a PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE GOSPEL. However, all of these EXTERNALS are true of "his disciples" because He did not accept or claim as "his disicples" anyone who did not profess all of these things. Indeed, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 literally reads "make disciples" and it includes preaching the gospel (Mk. 16:15) and baptizing those who profess the gospel. The claim of all Arminians on this forum is that verse 63 and the words "my words are spirit and they are life" refer to the EXTERNAL PREACHING of the gospel as you believe faith cometh by the EXTERNAL PREACHING of the gospel rather than by internal revelation as my interpretation consistently states.

Third, we have rock solid evidence in the twentieth century that head hunters in New Gunea had grandfather's and father's who never heard of Christ, the cross or the gospel as that generation killed the missionaries sent them and those later saved confessed that no such cross, Christ or gospel had been taught them or known among them in the generations of their father's and grandfathers. Hence, your interpetation of John 12:32 contradicts the facts of History.

 

However, the text does not say that and that conclusion is a matter of logic not a matter of explicit statement. Likewise, my conclusion that all drawn do in fact come is a matter of logic even though the text does not say that.

Indeed, the very fact that one cannot come unless they are drawn demands that "gives" in verse 37-39 and "given" in verse 65 equal "draw" in verse 44BECAUSE all given "shall" come and none can come except drawn and NOTHING GIVEN shall be lost and therefore being given must include being drawn. In contrast those in verse 64 EXTERNALLY heard, learned and came to Christ by PUBLIC PROFESSION and baptism as there is no other way to be publicly recognized as "his disciples" and yet according to Christ they were NEVER "given" or drawn by the Father according to Christ(v. 65) and therefore Christ does not interpret "give" or "draw" or "it given" as Arminians do. If you deny those in verse 64 had "heard....AND....learned" of the Father you are agree with me that they never were drawn by the Father and thus your intperetation of "all" in John 12:32 is proven false by your own interpretation.

 

Where is the Arminian response to the above points??????

 

False! Jesus plainly states that "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME EXCEPT" the Father draw them and "OF ALL" given "shall come to me" therefore being given by the Father must be equal to being drawn by the Father as the SAME CONSEQUENCE occurs - coming to Christ which NO MAN CAN but those drawn.

Note that "give" and "draw" are both present tense verbs and the consequence of both is EQUAL - all given come and thus given must equal draw or none could come.

In contrast, those who do not believe (v. 64) are said to never been drawn in verse 65 and thus the Father did not "give" them either to the Son or they would come as "of all" given NONE fail to come. Hence, all drawn and all given do in fact come and thus "he" that is drawn is "he" that is raised up to life eternal (v. 44b) just as "he" that is given is "he" that is raised up to life eternal (v. 39b)

This is an admission of defeat by you, because if the only way that any man can "come to me" is by being drawn of the Father and to "draw" and if this is not inclusive of both having "heard.....and learned" of the Father then you have made coming to Christ possible without having been drawn and thus a direct contradiction of Christ's words "no man can come to me except the Father draw him." So which is it? Is "heard....and learned" inclusive of draw or can one come to Christ without being drawn????

Same dilemma as above. Either "heard...and learned" are inclusive in "draw" or else man can come to the Father without being drawn - which is it?

Last, historical facts deny your interpetation of John 12:32 as does John 6:65. Two generations of headhunters in New Guinea had never heard of Christ, the cross or the gospel and thus your interpetation of John 12;32 is historically proven to be false.

 

This is nothing but a ruse, a distraction BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE DILEMMAS PLACED BEFORE YOU IN MY POST.

Your "historical" framework makes not difference in regard to the mechanics of drawing and giving but only deals with the subjects of application. Hence, your post is a but a distraction in order to change the subject. Deal first with the mechanics and then I will gladly deal with the contextual subjects.

 

Again, I place this dillemma before the Arminians to face and answer directly.

It will do you no good to argue that "heard....and learned" is not inclusive in "draw" as that only produces another flat contradiction because you are adding another qualification in addition to "draw" when Christ has no other qualification than "draw" - "no man can come unto me EXCEPT the Father draw him."