Featured Are ALL who are given by the Father the ALL drawn by the Father

Without getting into T.U.L.I.P I am considering the exegetical and expository basis for determining if "all" given by the Father in Jn. 6:37-39 is the same "all" drawn by the Father in John 6:44-45.

I would suggest purely from an exegetical/expository basis that they are identical for several reasons:

1. John 6:37-39 is restricted to "all" who have been given and "of all" given none fail to come and that security is expressed by the phrase "and it shall be raised up at the last day" - v. 37 which also is the summary conclusion to John 6:44 "he shall be raised up at the last day." This phrase is first used of those given in verse 37 and so its application to verses 40, 44 and 54 demonstrate the very same people are in view in these texts.

2. John 6:37-39 shows that coming is the consequence rather than the cause for being given. This is demonstrated exegetically in the text several ways: (a) coming is future tense from giving in verse. 37; (b) the incarnation is the response to those being given to Christ proving the giving occurred prior to the incarnation; (c) The aorist tense verb ("given") in John 6:39 demands that Christ's coming is in response to an action that preceded not only his incarnation but the act of coming to Christ by all that had been given by the Father. John 6:44 denies that coming to Christ has its cause in fallen man ("no man CAN come") and therefore since being given by the Father is the cause for coming to Christ then being given must be inclusive of being drawn by the father. Finally, this giving is limited as all who are given to Christ, it is Christ that makes sure none are lost, therefore, all men without exception were not given to the Son and that means they had to be the elect or the chosen ones, or chosen.

3. Jn 6:45 is the scriptural explanation of what it means to be drawn and he quotes prophetic scriptures that declare "all" will be "taught" of God. The specific texts he is referring to are Isa. 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34 which in context deal with the people of the new covenant which demand "all" whom are taught by God will know God in salvation (Jer. 31:34) "from least to the greatest". Furthermore, one cannot be "taught" without both hearing what is being said and learning what is said or else they were never "taught" and all who are thus taught Jesus says do come in faith to him for eternal life. This demonstrates "all" drawn are the very same "all" who are taught or drawn.

4. The exception clause in John 6:44 proves that fallen man has no capacity to come to Christ by faith. Thus the capacity has to come from outside of man - from God. Thus, the act of being "given" by God to the son is essential for coming by faith to Christ for eternal life as it is those given that come in true faith rather than those not given as those described in Jn. 6:64 who came in a false professed faith. The fact that Christ denies that capacity to come was ever "given unto them" (Jn. 6:65) demonstrates drawing is not universal but that God only draws "all men" without distinction of race, class or gender as those Greeks in John 12:20-32. The substitution of "given unto them" in verse 65 for "draw" in 44 is significant. In verse 44 what is needed is the capacity to come which drawing furnishes. It is that capacity that is the "it" which is not "given unto them" and that is why they remained in unbelief "from the beginning."

5. John 6:35 demonstrates that coming to Christ in John 6:37-65 is defined to mean to come to him by faith for eternal life ("believe on him"). So, to deny that "cometh to me" is something other than coming to Christ by faith for eternal life not only denies the explanation for those words prior to Jhn 6:37-65, but denies the very explanation that follows in John 6:40 which is coming to Christ by faith for eternal life.

6. In the overall context of the gospel of John and the New Testament this cannot be regulated to a specific ethnic class of people as both the inability and act of coming to Christ by faith is not a racial, gender or class issue or problem, but a human issue that is grounded in the fallen nature of man (Jn. 6:44a).

 

First, John 18:9 has a more nearer application and that is John 17:12.

Second, trying to localize and restrict John 6:37-45 to just the 12 or disciples of Christ during his ministry has many problems.

1. John 6:44 "no man can" is not a localized problem but a universal problem.

2. John 6:44 is extended beyond Judaism in John 12:20-32 to "Greeks"

3. John 6:39,40, 44, 54 all conclude with the very same phrase that has in view not his present earthly ministry but those who will be raised in the first resurrection as the focus for being given and drawn to Christ by the Father. Surely, the promise of resurrection cannot be intended for 12 men only.

4. The word "whosoever" in verse 40 cannot be restricted to just 12 men or just the jews of his day since the resurrection is in direct view as the consequence of "whosoever" believeth not whosoever is appointed apostles.

5. The issue is in John 6:37-39 is broader than selecting and securing of 12 men but is the explanation to those Jews in John 6:36 why they saw but refused to believe in Christ just as John 6:65 is Christ's explanation why those disciples in John 6:64 were still in unbelief "from the beginning." Coming to Christ in faith for eternal life is the stated consequence of being given to the Son by the Father and that is why those in verse 36 did not come to Christ in faith for eternal life. Being drawn by the Father is the stated consequence for the ability to come to Christ by faith for eternal life and that is why those in versre 64 were still in unbeleif because that ability "it" was not "given unto them by the Father." The very same cause and effect is stated in John 10:26-27. Jesus told the Pharisees they believed not because they were not of his sheep rather than "you are not of my sheep because you believed not."

6. It must be broader than then merely 12 men or even the whole present era because Jesus states that his incarnation or coming to earth was for this very purpose secure all that the Father gave unto him. Surely, the incarnation was designed to secure more than just 12 persons or even all the Jews saved in the first century.


7. Finally, the whole chapter from beginning to end is concerning why people come to Christ and why all that come to him are not saved not about the 12 apostles or their calling.

a. Those in John 6:2 came to him "because they saw miracles"
b. Those in John 6:14-15 came to him for power to set up a kingdom to free Israel from Rome.
c. Those in John 6:26 came to him for food
d. Those who come to Christ by faith for eternal life have been given to Christ for that end - Jn. 6:36-40
e. Those who come to Christ by faith for eternal life have been drawn by the Father for that end - Jn. 6:44-45, 64-65
f. Coming to Christ by faith is as revolting to the natural man as cannibalistically eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood - Jn. 6:51-66.

8. The immediate context has a greater focus than just 12 men or even the whole nation of Israel as Jesus introduces John 6:37-45 with a "world" application:

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Hence, His coming from heaven in John 6:38-39 cannot be restricted to just 12 men or even the whole nation of Israel

Joh 6:51 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.

CONCLUSION: The whole contextual issue is that people come to Christ for many things other than the primary purpose which is coming to him by faith for eternal life. This chapter is designed to explain the causes behind those who come to Christ for the right reason - eternal life. So to reduce this chapter to an explanation how only 12 men would come and be selected as apostles or how a few Jews would be saved is simply beyond credibility to me.

 

Having established that the context is far more inclusive than Christ's immediate disciples, or the apostles or even all Jews saved during the first century, but is inclusive of "the world", now lets take it apart piece by piece and establish the basis of each aspect I have presented in summary form.

A. This is the work of God that ye believe on him - Jn. 6:26-30

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 ¶ Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

The previous context presents different reasons that people came to Christ, none of which were for eternal life:

1. Some came to him because of miracles - v. 2 "because they saw his miracles"
2. Some came to him because they wanted civil power - v. 15 "by force, to make him a king,"
3. These came to him for food - v. 26 "because ye did eat of the loaves"

Moreover, these are unbelievers in Christ by their own testimony "that we may....believe" (v. 30) and were pronounced as unbelievers by Christ "ye also have seen me, and believe not." (v.36).

The issue here is what do the words "this is the work of God that ye believe" mean. There are two different interpretations:

1. believing in him is a "work" they can do
2. believing in him is a "work" of God that no man can do but must be given by God

The first option is directly repudiated by Christ in the immediate context as Jesus says "no man can come to me" (Jn. 6:44). The exception clause demands that coming is the work of God and does not and cannot originate in man.

The only possible contextual objection is found in verse 27 where Jesus instructs them not to labor after food that perishes but to labor for food that endureth unto eternal life. Hence, the implication is that eternal life may be obtained by works as the root for the term translated "labor" is "ergos" the same term translated "work." However, Christ immediately counters that conclusion by saying it must be given to them - "which the Son of man shall give unto you:" Eventually they realize that it is something given rather than earned as they later say "give us this bread" but when they realize this bread is Christ - they will not believe in him.

The second option is reaffirmed over and over again by the larger context.

1. Coming to Christ by faith for eternal life is directly placed as a consequence of God's act of giving to the Son - Jn. 6:37

2. Coming to Christ by faith for eternal life is explicitly said to be something man cannot do - Jn. 6:44 but is the work of God drawing. The Greek term translated "can" in John 6:44 is "dunamai" and refers to ability. To respond that man can once God draws proves my point that it is the work of God.

3. The explanation given by Christ for some of his disciples continuing in a state of unbelief "from the beginning" (Jn. 6:64) is that they were not objects of the Father's work of drawing - Jn. 6:65. The change from using "draw" to "it were given unto him of my Father" clearly again asserts that coming to Christ by faith for eternal life is the work of God.

The second option is also confirmed by the immediate context:

1. Those being addressed refused to believe in him apart from seeing him do more miracles.

2. The explanation for having seen him and yet remaining in unbelief (v. 36) is that they were not "of all" the Father gives to the Son because "all" given do in fact come to Christ by faith.

3. The condemnation by Christ in verse 36 is immediatlely followed by an explanation of why anyone does come to Christ by faith for eternal life as a consequence of the act of God giving them to the Son.

Some object that "come to me" does not mean come to Christ by faith for eternal life. However, Christ establishes that words "cometh unto me" is precisely what that means as he says just preceding this passage:

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.

He first asserts that he is the bread of life and then illustrates coming to him by faith for eternal life in the metaphorical language of eating and drinking as partaking of him by coming to him by faith for eternal life.

 

B. The Metaphor eating and drinking Christ as food equivalent to believing in him

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

The demonstration of the unbelief of those Christ addressed is illustrated by demanding that he perform a miracle before them similar to Moses giving bread from heaven to Israel. Remember, Jesus has read their hearts and told them that they had come to him not by faith for eternal life, but for food. So food is still on their minds and they were attempting to manipulate Christ into providing literal food miraculously as he formerly did when feeding the 5000.

In response to Roman Catholicism it is necessary here to distinguish between the bread that God gave from heaven during the time of Moses and the kind of life it perpetuated versus the kind of bread God had now sent from heaven and the kind of life it perpetuated. The former was physical bread that sustained temporal life while the latter is metaphorical for the Person of Christ and sustains eternal life.

In verse 33 he first introduces that this bread the Father gives now "is he". In verse 35 he directly states "I am the bread of life." The wording here is the first in a series of similar claims by Christ in the book of John:

1. "I am the light of the world" - Jn. 8:12
2. "I am the door" - Jn. 10:9
3. "I am the true vine" - Jn. 15:1

The fact that Christ is neither literal "bread" or a literal "light" or a literal "door" or a literal "vine" demands he is speaking metaphorically or else we have complete nonsense.

Furthermore, the proof he is speaking metaphorical is that he immediately explains precisely how eating and drinking him as food and water is to be understood:

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.

He first asserts the metaphor "I am the bread of life" and then he explains the metaphor "he that cometh to me shall never hunger" and thus eating of him is metaphorical of coming to him. However, it is not coming to him for any reason, as those reasons already given in the preceding context (for miracles, for power, for food), but "he the beleiveth on me" is the reason for coming to him. Hence, eating and drinking is how food is partaken of and brought within the physical body, and that metaphorically represents coming to him by faith for eternal life. This is the meaning as he immediately applies it negatively in the very next verse "But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not" meaning they metaphorically refused to eat or drink of him.

This direct application of this metaphor as believing in him is repeated later in the context:

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth upon me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Moreover, the very phrase that has been used consistently to describe the latter end of all those coming to Christ by faith is later attached to the metaphor of eating and drinking of him. First, note the repeated use of this final phrase with the act of coming to Christ by faith:

1. John 6:37,39

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

2. John 6:40

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

3. John 6:44

44 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.

Then this same phrase associated with believing in him is directly shown to be the same conclusion to those metaphorically eating and drinking of him:

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Furthermore, when Jesus comes to explaining the kind of language he intends for his disciples to understand when they murmur about eating and drinking of him he says:

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.

The only "flesh" spoken of previous to verse 60 is his literal physical flesh that must be metaphorically be partaken of in order to have eternal life. Here he plainly says that eating of the literal "flesh profiteth nothing" as it is not eating of his literal flesh provides life, but it is the Spirit that provides eternal life and it is partaken of him by faith in "the words" he has spoken about himself. It is partaking of those words that "are spirit, and..life."

Peter understood and the rest of the believing disciples understood this as it is reflected in Peter's response:

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Finally, the blood was still running in the veins when Christ spoke these words here and when he instituted the Lord's Supper later. Hence, there was no Lord's Supper available to partake of Christ as Rome claims. Neither at the institution of the Supper had the body and blood of Christ been sacrificed or given up. Therefore, at the institution of the only possible way to partake of his body and blood was metaphorical and symbolical.

 

When Christ referred to their "labor" for perishable food he was not referring to any works of the law, but referring to their previous pursuit of coming to Christ for the wrong thing. They had followed him across the sea and sought him out for literal perishable "meat" Jesus is simply telling them that the labor they had expended in pursuing him for perishable food was the wasted as they should have expended that labor and coming to him for eternal life. However, that eternal life is not earned but is something he shall "give" to those who come to him by faith or metaphorically speaking partake of him by faith as one would partake of food.

 

First, simply demonstrating an exposition of a text where the consequences are simply the consequences of careful exposition does not qualify as Calvinist doctrine unless Van is admitting that any solid exposition of Scripture will confirm Calvinist doctrine.

His ploy is obvious. He wants to start an argument over Calvinism versus Arminianism so the administrators will be forced to transfer it. I am not taking the bate. As anyone can see I have simply advanced in the exposition and handled what the text is about - e.g. the metaphorical language of eating and drinking.

Readers, notice Van offers nothing but his personal opinion while I am simply making expository remarks based on the evidence provided in the text and context.

The problem is that it angers Van for any exposition of a text that contradicts his opinions. He does not have to read this thread if it bothers him so badly.

 

I did not cut and paste anything, all original copy.

Good! You demonstrate giving precedes coming and thus coming is the consequence of giving not vice versa - agreed.

Good! You demonstrate drawing precedes coming.

Good! Except for one word and that is the word "some" as that is not found in the text. That is your interpretation and it has NOTHING in the text to support it. In fact what the context supplies is a direct repudiation that only "some" do as will be shown below.

Again, your adding to the text what it neither says or means. First, it says that "God" not man is who is teaching AND the scripture references are from Isaiah 54:13 and Jer. 31:33-34. The latter passage denies this knowledge comes through man but is a direct revelation from God because the sphere of teaching is INTERNAL not external:

Jer. 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

1. This knowledge is imparted by God WITHIN THEM - v. 33
2. Man is not the one imparting this knowledge - v.34b
3. "all" with no exceptions will be taught, will have their sins forgiven.

Isa. 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

This text defines the "all" in John 6:45 as "ALL thy children" and the consequence for "ALL thy children" "great shall be the peace of thy children" - so these "children" obtain "great peace". So the identity of "ALL thy children" is established by the consequence of teaching which results in "great...peace". There "all" in John 6:45 is established to the same "all" in John 6:37-39.

You have reversed the Biblical order. Giving these to Christ occurs firsts, as Jesus demands this giving occurred previous to his incarnation as it was this giving by the Father that He came to earth to secure.

Second, The text does not say "some" but it says "all" and the prophetic quotations identify this "all" as "all thy children" proving that there is no "some" who don't and "some" who do but "ALL" result in "great...peace".

Third, Justification is not even mentioned in the entire chapter much less these texts so there is no "faith he credits" as the text defines "coming to Christ" as coming by faith to Christ for eternal life (Jn. 6:35; 40).

Fourth, there is nothing in this chapter much less these texts that says anything about being "spiritually placed in Christ (arrive in Christ" as this is pure eisegesis.

So you have added to the text, taken away from the text, rearranged the order of the text in order to make the text fit your doctrine. That is called eisegesis not exegesis.

CONCLUSION: I am not going any further into Van's analysis because his whole foundation is based upon reversing the Biblical order in the text, adding to the text, rearranging the text and misinterpreting the text. Until he addresses these issues there is no sense to go any further as his foundation is wrong and obviously wrong.

I am not going to engage in a Calvinism versus Arminian debate with Van. On my part this will be strictly an exegetical/expositional exercise in defining what the text and context say or don't say.

1. Nowhere do we find the word "some" in the text but we consistently find the word "all" repeated in the words of Christ and in the prophets he quotes.

2. Drawing does not precede giving by the Father but this is the order given in Van's conclusion.

3. Nowhere in this context is imputed righteousness referred to.

4. Nowhere in this text is being "in Christ" referred to or "being placed in Christ" ever referred to.

 

Van's working hypothesis is his foundation for his interpretation of John 6:37-39 and 44-45 and 64-65. However, if his working hypothesis includes errors then his conclusions are wrong. Here is his working hypothesis in regard to John 6:37:

In summary, I have found no passage of scripture that conflicts with this understanding of John 6:37 - (1) God draws people with the gospel message, (2) some of these hear (understand) the message and believe (having learned), (3) God gives those whose faith He credits as righteousness to Christ, (4) all those God gives in this matter are spiritually placed in Christ (arrive in Christ), and (5) everyone that comes to Jesus in this manner is saved forever. - Van

It appears that he is confusing John 6:37 with John 6:44-45 but he says this is his understanding of John 6:37 and his fourth point shows it is intentional rather than accidental. Let's begin with his first point:

A. "God draws people with the gospel message." - Van

1. John 6:37 has nothing to say about drawing at all, but about the Father's act of giving.

2. John 6:37 has nothing to say about "people" but only about "ALL" those having been given to the Son and "ALL" of these do in fact come to Christ by faith for eternal life.

B. "Some of these hear (understand) the message and believe (having learned)" - Van

1. John 6:37-39 flatly denies this assertion that "some" come to Christ by faith for eternal life but explicitly says that "all" that are given come savingly. There is no "some" who do not.

2. John 6:37 says nothing about "hear" or "have learned"

C. "God gives those whose faith he credits as righteousness to Christ" - Van

1. John 6:37-40 says nothing about anything in this statement by van - nothing!

D. "All those God gives in this matter are spiritually placed in Christ (arrive in Christ)" - Van

1. This demonstrates that Van is indeed speaking of John 6:37 but is reading John 6:44-45 into this text.

2. The only part of this statement that can be found in the text is that "God gives" but nothing else he says.

3. It appears that Van is interpreting "come to me" to mean "placed in Christ (arrive in Christ) but the immediate context repudiates that interpretation of "come to me." The immediate and overall context of John 6 demands the words "come to me" means "believeth on me" for eternal life rather than a STATE or CONDITION as "placed in" Christ or "arrive in Christ". The evidence that "come to me" means "beleiveth on me" for eternal life is abundantly evident in the context:

a. The whole preceding context is about coming to Christ for other reasons than for eternal life.

(1) Some came to him because of miracles - v. 2 "because they saw his miracles"
(2) Some came to him because they wanted civil power - v. 15 "by force, to make him a king,"
(3) These came to him for food - v. 26 "because ye did eat of the loaves"

b. John 6:30-36 is about believing in him for eternal life in relation to the metaphor of Christ as bread of life.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Verse 35-36 define coming to him as coming to him by faith for eternal life, the act of faith in him for eternal life. I will dedicate a post just to these two verses later. But sufficient to say now, the phrase "he that cometh to me" is parallel to "he that beleiveth on me".

c. The conclusion of John 6:37-39 is verse 40 and that defines coming as believing in him for eternal life:

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

d. The bread metaphor that introduces coming to Christ as beleiving on him for eternal life in verse 35 is picked back upon in verses 48-49 and again coming to Christ is defined as coming to him by faith for eternal life:

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

e. The metaphor of eating and drinking in verse 35 established as coming to Christ and partaking of him by faith for eternal life is repeated in verse 54.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


Finally, Drawing and giving cannot be regarded as the same action by God. Drawing not only occurred prior to coming to Christ but occurred before Christ came to earth. Christ explicitly states that he came to earth because the Father had already given them to Christ (vv. 38-39). So the true order is 1) Being given; 2) Being drawn; 3) coming to Christ by faith for eternal life, and the finality phrase first used in John 6:39 is used for those drawn in verse 44 proving the "all" given are the same "all" drawn and therefore none drawn fail to come as reaffirmed by "all" in verse 45.

CONCLUSION: Coming to christ is NOT contextually defined as a STATE ("placed in Christ" or "arrived in Christ") as Van asserts but repeatedly it is defined the very same way to mean the action of coming to Christ by faith for eternal life. None of Van's foundational points that make up his working hypothesis are true to the text except his last point "everyone that comes to Jesus in this manner is saved forever." All the rest of His whole working hypothesis has no basis in John 6:37-39.

 

I think this post speaks for itself as it is empty of anything substantive except "twaddle from a fire-hose."

 

I provided contextual evidence in abundance that repudiates Van's assertions. And how does he respond? By just reasserting proven fiction with no more substance to support it than "more twaddle, less fire hose" words?

 

Van, I am bending over to be as kind to you as I can. Anyone reading my expositions and then reading your responses can see that you are unable to provide anything substantive or reasonable as a response. I welcome your comments but try to be a little more civil in your tone as there is no basis in by comments for the kind of responses of ridicule you are making.

I would be more than happy to respond to any point where you disagree with my interpretation, but so far you have offered nothing that can be taken seriously. I don't want to continue just exchanging insults with you as that only creates unnecessary heat between us rather than light. I would like to conduct this expositional investigation in a noble and charitable manner and I would hope you would like to do the same, even if we must agree to disagree, lets do it agreeably. Are you willing to go at least half way with me on this?