Featured John:6:38-39

-

Stick with the entire text given which the thread defines as verses 38-38. It does not simply say "My Father gave them me" as you are jerking that statement out of a specific context. This is stated as a reason for His coming, as this is the specific will of the Father which he came to fulfill.

You are right that the text does not use the term "chosen" but the text does demand a pre-coming act of having been "given" and that is simple to show if the context is not ignored as you did above. It does not take too much common sense to realize that "ALL" who come because of a pre-coming act of having been "given" were the objects of a pre-coming choosing as this is a limited "all" rather than a universal all. Think about it.

That is simply not true to the context. He approaches it the very same way first by positive denial (vv. 36-39) and then by direct explicit denial (vv. 44,65). This is a total repudiation of your whole "overall contextual" argument

Stick with the text! In verse 28 they claim to be able to do the PLURAL "works" of God. In verse 29 Jesus responds with the SINGULAR "work" and claims it is God's "work" rather than their "works." In verse 30 they again claim ability but this time specifically in regard to BELIEVING but required that he provide something tangible to base their faith upon. He responds that they already had tangible evidence and yet remained in unbelief and then defined why they remained in unbelief first positively - only "ALL" given come to Christ - they did not come hence they were not part of that "ALL". Then negatively and specific to their claim that had ability to believe in verse 44 - "no man can come" -If you theory and interpretation were correct he would have never restricted coming to just those given and he would have never directly denied that they had ability to come. Your interpretation is completely repudiated by the overall context.

They are called his "disciples" and there is no such thing as an unbaptized among those called "his disciples". The very definition on making disciples necessarily includes baptism (Mt. 28:19-20). The very requirement to be an apostle includes baptism (Acts 1:21-22).

Remember, you are the one that made the charge about ignoring the overall context! This is part of the overall context. The line of development is simple to see. First he explains why the do not believe even though they saw the very things they required of him to believe - they were not "given" and hence they did not come. Then he addresses the problem directly - their belief (and yours) that coming to Christ by faith is a natural ability he bluntly repudiates and says "no man can come to me" or else there is no need of an exception clause. So it is about being drawn in addition to being given.

He that is drawn is also raised up (vv. 44b) showing affinity between those given and those drawn as verses 39-40 both end with the same clause.

Again, you are jerking a statement out of context. They were told to labour not FOR FOOD that perishes - as that was the motivation for continuing to follow him. Hence, they were not told simply to "labor not" in a comprehensive manner as you suggest. They are told to labor for an immaterial kind of food that does not perish and they responded enthusiastically in verse 30 claiming they were capable of laboring for that kind of food. However, Jesus proves they had no such capability as that capability is restricted within the boundaries "OF ALL" previously given and in regard to natural man "NO MAN can come" thus repudiating your whole interpretational argument in one blow.

You are describing yourself to a tee! I have shown that my interpretation is based precisely upon the text and grammar of the text as well as the overall context. In response you have taken a verse here and there and tried to read in this context the very opposite of what the text and context actually states.

That is simply not true at all! In context they enthusiastically claim they do have ability to believe and only require of him substance to base their faith upon, just as the rich young ruler enthusiastically claimed he was sufficiently "good" as God and enthusiastically claimed to have kept the law. Both were deceived - the rich young ruler was not inherently good (agathos) and these people did not have ability to believe and jesus plainly tells them so - v. 44

Again, it is you that brings the name of Calvin into this discussion not I. I don't like Calvin, and I don't gain my theology from reading Calvin and don't believe most of what Calvin teaches or stands for. I am not a Reformed theologian. Why resort to names when we are discussing scripture, grammar and context???????

Why the inflammatory language with a term and person I have never once mentioned, used, or claimed?

I suggest your hatred of Calvin influences your view of scripture so that you are unable to look at the text objectively and purely from unbiased perspective and follow the consequences regardless of labels.

Look at the usage of term outside of the two debates texts (Jn. 6; 12). The object is always passive and never active in the drawing process. However, your view demands cooperative efforts for which there IS NOTHING in Scripture to warrant that idea.

The words "no man can" are as explicit as the Bible can get. He did not say "SOME men" can't but "NO MAN" - that is an explicit expression of universality as it can be. The term "can" translates the term "dunamis" and refers to ABILITY. This universal inability is directly assoicated with the very thing you claim universal abilty "COME TO ME. " inability. Stick to the terms of the text instead of reading into the text what it clearly not only does not say but actually repudiates.

 

As we have agreed before regeneration and conversion are simletaneous in action. The gospel is first preached to the EXTERNAL man, but it is the Holy Spirit that makes the gospel INTERNALLY the creative word that produces faith just as Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:6. It is this creative WORD OF COMMAND that produces the sustance and hope of faith just as Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:6.

Read hebrews 11:1 if you want to know "what is faith"! "The Faith" is the objective faith contained within the 66 books not the subjective faith that comes from the heart - "for with the heart man believeth".

Sure, general faith is innate but not saving faith, as Jesus explicitly denies saving faith is universal - "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME". Your simplistic view of faith disregards the fact that natural man is ruled over by the law of sin which is in a STATE of enmity against God and WILL NOT subject itself to God. The problem is not the will or power of choice, the problem is the heart of man which is at enmity with God and as long as enmity exists it is IMPOSSIBLE for faith to exist toward the object of enmity.

We agree on this. We simply disagree concerning its source.

What happened to simultaneous action???????? The term "after" is not demanded by the Greek text in Ephesians 1:13.

The Greek text uses the term "rhema" which MAY refer to a COMMAND and in this context and in this case that is precisely what it refers to just as Paul uses the very term "COMMANDED" in 2 Cor. 4:6 in regard to how the gospel comes to the INTERNAL heart of a lost person. Just as 1 Thes. 1:5 denies the gospel comes to the elect "IN WORD ONLY" but rather in "POWER" or as a CREATIVE COMMAND just as Ephesians 2:10 bluntly states concerning the production of faith in Christ that it is "his workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus."

The gospel does not produce anything by itself. I have gone door to door witnessing for years and have passed out thousands of tracts and talked to hundreds of people one on one at their door and I can tell you from experience the gospel has no power to save anyone in and of itself. God must empower it and it is that empowering of the gospel that saves and that is a CREATIVE work of God.

 

What Arminians do not understand is that there is both a experiential and judicial or legal condition of condemnation to death.

That is, you are dead SPIRITUALLY by nature, in addition to being dead LEGALLY by the law. When a child is born they are not conscious of either their spiritually dead nature or their legally dead position before God. It is through experiential interaction between the law of indwelling sin and the Law of God that both are consciously made known to them. They are legally dead BECAUSE they are first spiritually dead. Only consicous interaction with the law reveals the knowledge of their spiriutal state and legal condition to them (Rom. 7:7-11). The law does not make them spiritually dead but only REVEALS they are spiritually dead and thus as a consequence reveals they are under the LEGAL condemnation of death.

Initial salvation regenerates the condition of fallen man whereas justification reverses LEGAL condemnation to death unto justification of life. These both occur simultaneously in connection with the preaching of the gospel, but logically regenerative life precedes judicial life.

Hence, wherever faith is mentioned as the cause of life it is in the context of judicial life. Wherever, the actual condition of man is mention as being "quickened" (made alive) it is in the context of new birth. Man receives Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:12) because he has been born again (Jn. 1:13).

The new birth counters the experiential condition of SPIRITUAL death, while justification by faith counters the legal or judicial POSITIONAL or LEGAL death They are both simultaneous in action but logically the experiential life (new birth) precedes the judicial life (Justification).

So yes, faith precedes judicial life but faith is the product of regenerative life. So the logical and Biblical order is regeneration - faith- justification. Regeneration is the creation of a believing heart, and it is "with the heart man believeth." It is not the OLD heart that believes as that heart is in a state of enmity against God and it is impossible for a heart in a state of enmity against God to submit to that God by faith. That is why the New covenant is giving a NEW HEART, thus beginning with an INTERNAL change (Ezek. 36:26) before their can be an EXTERNAL change (Ezek. 36:27).

Now, DHK and others are not going to like or agree with what I have said, but their dislike and disagreement does not change the facts at all.

 

Hebrew 8:10-15 and 10:12-17 make it clear that the New Covenant promised Israel in Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 is the same and only covenant for individual salvation before and after Pentecost.

 

How is that so? I dealt precisely with the context you presented and in more detail than you presented. For example, the plural "works" versus the singular "work". For example, the prohibiition to labor for food whereas you attempted to make it a generalized prohibition of all works. For example, where you quoted merely a portion of the text while demonstrated the fuller text repudiated your application. I agreed with those parts that did not conflict with my interpretation of the two texts.

That is simply not true! I dealt with the overall context far more than you did and demonstrated that my interpretation of those two verses was far more consistent with the preceding and following context. I think you need to reread what I said.

Are you referring to this by Dave Hunt?

Hunt divorces John 6:37-40 from John 6:44-45 when in fact they are directly connected by the very same subject - COMING TO CHRIST and directly connected by the very same conclusion "raise him up at the last day" Moreover, the term "all" in verse 45 is EQUAL to the word "all" in verses 37-39 because it is a quotation from the PLURAL prophets Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 where "ALL" leaves no exceptions outside those who effectually are made to know God in the New Covenant salvation. So Hunt's arguments are simply false. The same facts completely repudiate your following arguments:

The can't come without both and that is the self-evident truth of both texts why they are interconnected about the same subject - coming to Christ. The "he" that is drawn is the same "he" comes as "no man" can but "he" and that "he" is "raised up which again directly connects him to the very same "he" raised up in verses 38-39.

First, foreknowledge is based upon "purpose" as Romans 8:28 precedes Romans 8:29-30 as Romans 8:29-30 is the outworking of "his purpose." Just as a archetect foreknows where every door is located before it is built because he has purpose it before hand.

Second, you are now inserting something into the text that is not stated and so you have no right to condemn me for drawing the necessary inferrence that a pre-coming act of having been given necessarily demands a pre-coming act of having been given.

Never ever stated such a thing! That is no my view and I think you know that as I do not believe in election to damnation as election is ALWAYS unto salvation (2 Thes. 2:13).


Why is your conclusion so different than mine. It is based on unwarranted conclusions that are being read into the text. Your own words fit your interpretation so I just repeated them.

 

That is the only portion of the text you quoted! That quoted portion was jerked out from its contextual relationship with coming to do the will of the Father and it can only be rightly interpreted in that relationship. Your interpretation repudiate precisely what its relationship demanded. The relationship demanded and it is not merely about losing them. The point of verses 37-38a is the CAUSE for the Son's coming is explicitly stated to be that the Father had already given (perfect tense) them to him and it is for that CAUSE He came into the world to secure their salvation. They were not given to him AFTER he came into the world but BEFORE he came into the world because that is the stated CAUSE for him coming into the world. The Father's will that he came to fulfill IS the salvation of those already given (perfect tense) to him by the Father.

You are dealing with the CONSEQUENCE of his coming where the text is pointing out the CAUSE of his coming which is in regard to an already "GIVEN" people that "SHALL" come to him.

You are ignoring the CONTENT of the Father's will that had to be already presented to the Son BEFORE He came as it is the CAUSE for his coming. The CONTENT is that the Father had willed that some were "GIVEN" to him to save after he came. Their coming to Christ in the FUTURE ("shall" verse. 37) is a CONSEQUENCE of already having been given (perfect tense verse 38) before the Son came to earth as that is part and parcel of His will for coming.

I just answered this question.

I have done no such thing. You are the one who wanted to broaden the context and so I just followed your lead. I have proven that verses 38-39b demand they had been "given" (perfect tense) BEFORE Christ came, because He came to secure their salvation as a CONSEQUENCE to the already revealed will of the Father to have given them to him to save BEFORE he came. Common sense tells you that the "all" is not universal but a restricted number of mankind as ALL HUMANS WITHOUT EXCEPTION do not come to Christ. So in order for God to give a qualfied "ALL" to him prior to his incarnation the Father had to choose to do so. Hence, they are the chosen of God and it is manifest in time by the fact that "OF ALL" given all come and NONE are lost. That by definition is the elect or chosen before the incarnation.

Nice try! They are parallel to each other in regard to the fact that the rich young ruler BELEIVED he was already intrinically "good" and therefore not only could do, but has done everything commanded by Law. He was wrong, he had no such intrinsic goodness or ability and the final analysis proved that to be true.

So likewise, with these men in John 6:28-36. They too BELEIVED they had ability to do whatever works God required and were motivated by that belief to challenge Christ to simply provide substance for credible faith and they would also beleive. They were wrong, He had provided substance for credible faith and yet the did not believe (v. 36) because they had no such ability to COME TO HIM BY FAITH as that is restricted only to those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father and apart from that WORK OF GOD "no man can come."

No one is disputing what they "must" do but the dispute is about what they "can" do and Jesus said "NO MAN CAN" while you and they assert with President Obama "yes we can":tonofbricks: