A passage in which many struggle

[Inspector Javert]

Sir, I believe you have missed the "immediate context". Jesus said, "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." Jesus recognized in verse 26 that the crowd was there for the loaves and the fishes, but He countered that with "the food which endures to eternal life". He changed the dynamic. He told them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent". The crowd challenged Him on this claim by asking for a sign. Eventually this lead to the Jews grumbling among themselves (v. 41) because of Jesus' claim that He was the bread that came down out of heaven (v. 33). This is not a Calvinistic interpretation of the text. This interpretation is shared by Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, and even Charles Wesley; and no one is going to accuse these men of being Calvinists.

You don't seem to have read what I wrote very closely Herald, as that is precisely what I am saying. What you posted agrees with the point I was making. I am not surprised that it does. The immediate context is quite obvious, as Ryrie, McGee and Wesley would agree, and it is NOT the interpretation being proferred by Agedman. They are saying exactly what I was saying. :type:

Me thinks that perhaps you quick-skimmed my post in order to jump immediately into counter-argument. I hope that is not the case. :tear:

 

[DrJamesAch]

You don't seem to have read what I wrote very closely Herald, as that is precisely what I am saying. What you posted agrees with the point I was making. I am not surprised that it does. The immediate context is quite obvious, as Ryrie, McGee and Wesley would agree, and it is NOT the interpretation being proferred by Agedman. They are saying exactly what I was saying. :type:

Me thinks that perhaps you quick-skimmed my post in order to jump immediately into counter-argument. I hope that is not the case. :tear:

I've posted a new thread on this issue with a problem for Calvinists that they have never given a satisfactory explanation for-JUDAS

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2004763#post2004763

 

[Herald]

You don't seem to have read what I wrote very closely Herald, as that is precisely what I am saying. What you posted agrees with the point I was making. I am not surprised that it does. The immediate context is quite obvious, as Ryrie, McGee and Wesley would agree, and it is NOT the interpretation being proferred by Agedman. They are saying exactly what I was saying. :type:

Me thinks that perhaps you quick-skimmed my post in order to jump immediately into counter-argument. I hope that is not the case. :tear:

I am disagreeing with your assessment of the crowd Jesus was speaking to after His initial confronting of their being there only because of the loaves and the fishes. They got His message. They just did not believe it.

As an aside, you criticize Aged for reading a Calvinistic interpretation of the text. You do the same thing from your paradigm:

I am afraid you have been viewing that passage from Calvinist pre-supposition which insists on two things:
1.) That "faith" is in any way properly defined as a "work". (and it's not, and no amount of further study of Scripture will imply that.)
2.) That man cannot exercise faith, or be empowered to exercise faith...except God essentially CAUSE him to believe.

It is not until verse 37 that we are forced to deal with "All that the Father gives Me". That is when both Calvinistic and Arminian presuppositions come into play.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Van, You and I spent many days on 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
​

You desire to read into the passage some movement, but the original does not support that reading.

I do not intend to re-hash all that again with you.

For the readers, God does not transport you from one state to another.

"through" does not mean some travel from one position to another has taken place. The Greek word is "en" and is a fixed position.

Two short illustrations:

Those of you familiar with electrical conduit know that the conduit doesn't travel, but the energy of the wires travels through the conduit.

Sanctification is as the conduit. Not the energy, not the wiring, the conduit. A fixed installation placed into the believer (new creature) that God's Word and light might be properly channeled into every area of living.

Sanctification can also be pictured as one who purchases a car from a car lot. What distinguishes the car from all others is not the looks or some modification, it is the title of ownership. That document is the "through" of this verse. Anyone question ownership merely needs to see that the ownership is shown "through" the title of the car.

When the tabernacle, priests, and temple were "sanctified" they did not change places. They changed title. They became holy to be used in God's service. Holy is another word that can be used for sanctification.

There is "no progressive sanctification" taught in the Scriptures. You are to be Holy. One is either holy or unclean.

Do not be confused and think that I speak against the growth and maturity that must be a part of every believer. That (growth and maturity) is extremely important and probably the most neglected part of us all. That growth is progressive.


I do not intend to drag the discussion out, but to state that Van and I view this matter differently.

You are welcome to look up the word(s) yourself, using your tools, and make your own decision. For ultimately you are responsible with all the available tools to be as accurate as possible when rendering the Scriptures.

Actually, Calvnist's believe in progressive sanctification more than you care do admit. For the Calvinist, Perseverance of the Saints demands that a person who has been elected and saved MUST PERSEVERE in order to prove that they were truly elect, or they were never saved in the first place.

Of course the Calvinist will argue "it is God that makes them persevere" and I would agree with this to the extent that God PRESERVES ones salvation. However, that doesn't help the Calvinist with ASSURANCE of salvation because of how they view soteriology. For assurance of salvation, the Calvinist DEPENDS ON WORKS as evidence of salvation, and therefore espouses to progressive sanctification because assurance of salvation must based on a daily and moment-by-moment observance of ones perseverance as evidence that he is STILL PERSEVERING.

Your view fails to separate the distinction between JUDICIAL perfection and EXPERIENTIAL perfection. Your argument against sanctification is an argument in support of JUDICIAL perfection (justification). If you believe sanctification does not involve experiential perfection, then you are claiming that every justified believer is now experientially perfect. If that were true, then nobody would be ashamed at Christ's coming. 1 John 2:28.

In Reformed Theology, there is offered 9 primary terms of the ordo salutis: the ordo solutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) calling, 4) regeneration, 5) faith, 6) repentance, 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification.

Which one of those do you suppose fits with the following:

" For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;" 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

"12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Phillipians 3:12-14

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." 1 Tim 2:15. The word for holiness here is the same word for sanctification. How do you CONTINUE in sanctification if sanctification is merely a one-time event?

"I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily." 1 Cor 15:31

"But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

"But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." 2 Peter 3:18

" Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 2 Cor 7:1

"To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." 1 Thess 3:13

 

[Inspector Javert]

I am disagreeing with your assessment of the crowd Jesus was speaking to after His initial confronting of their being there only because of the loaves and the fishes. They got His message. They just did not believe it.

O.K.....I'm not disagreeing with you here. You are reaching for a place of disagreement between what I said in my post, and your first post. There is none there, It seems to me that you wish there were, but there isn't.

As an aside, you criticize Aged for reading a Calvinistic interpretation of the text. You do the same thing from your paradigm:

You cannot demonstrate that my exegesis of his treatment of verse 29 shows any presupposition at all. If I am reading in Arminian suppositions, than you are as well, since I disagree with nothing you have said about the text. You are claiming that, but my demonstrating the context of Christ's statement in verse 29 belies absolutely no Arminian eisegesis at all. I think you could show me that if it is so.
I believe that you only said that as a knee-jerk defensive reaction which is something like:
"Well....you Arminians are making assumptions too!!, so EVERYONE is guilty!" But I have made none. Essentially, my exegesis of the passage in question is Soteriologically neutral, because verse 29 IS Soteriologically neutral, and it agrees with your statement 100%

It is not until verse 37 that we are forced to deal with "All that the Father gives Me". That is when both Calvinistic and Arminian presuppositions come into play.

I did not mention the "All the Father gives me" in verse 37, and I did so intentionally. I was only referring to his first bolded statement relative to verse 29. For the purposes of my Opening Post....I have no interest in verse 37.

You are finding sources of disagreement with my post which I do not believe exist. I think it stems entirely from my suggestion that his presupposition of Calvinism has skewed his rendering of the meaning of Jesus' statement in verse 29. I am sorry if you don't like it, but it was merely my opinion and my observation, and you may disagree with it as you will.
I won't debate it with you though, because I would rather speak with Agedman about the text itself, and what I think were his errors in interpreting the statement "This is the work of God"....

I believe that both my view on it, and yours (as you've explained it) demonstrate that that particular phrase proves nothing along the lines of what he was trying to suggest by it. It is neutral to either Arminianism or Calvinism.

 

[DrJamesAch]

O.K.....I'm not disagreeing with you here. You are reaching for a place of disagreement between what I said in my post, and your first post. There is none there, It seems to me that you wish there were, but there isn't.

You cannot demonstrate that my exegesis of his treatment of verse 29 shows any presupposition at all. If I am reading in Arminian suppositions, than you are as well, since I disagree with nothing you have said about the text. You are claiming that, but my demonstrating the context of Christ's statement in verse 29 belies absolutely no Arminian eisegesis at all. I think you could show me that if it is so.
I believe that you only said that as a knee-jerk defensive reaction which is something like:
"Well....you Arminians are making assumptions too!!, so EVERYONE is guilty!" But I have made none. Essentially, my exegesis of the passage in question is Soteriologically neutral, because verse 29 IS Soteriologically neutral, and it agrees with your statement 100%

I did not mention the "All the Father gives me" in verse 37, and I did so intentionally. I was only referring to his first bolded statement relative to verse 29. For the purposes of my Opening Post....I have no interest in verse 37.

You are finding sources of disagreement with my post which I do not believe exist. I think it stems entirely from my suggestion that his presupposition of Calvinism has skewed his rendering of the meaning of Jesus' statement in verse 29. I am sorry if you don't like it, but it was merely my opinion and my observation, and you may disagree with it as you will.
I won't debate it with you though, because I would rather speak with Agedman about the text itself, and what I think were his errors in interpreting the statement "This is the work of God"....

I believe that both my view on it, and yours (as you've explained it) demonstrate that that particular phrase proves nothing along the lines of what he was trying to suggest by it. It is neutral to either Arminianism or Calvinism.

Something I have NEVER seen a Calvinist do on here is demonstrate with any quotes from James (Jacobus) Arminius that supports ANY of their accusations when they attempt to accuse someone of Arminianism. Why is that when a Non Calvinist refutes Calvinism, many of us can post quotes from John Calvin, Augustine, a tenet of TULIP or a quote from the Confessions, but when a Calvinist accuses someone of Arminianism, they NEVER show any support for it?

Disagreeing with Calvinism does make one an Arminian anymore than a theist disagreeing with an atheist evolutionist makes one a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Inspector Javert]

OOPS:

Thought I was responding on another thread by Dr. J...that I was jumping back and forth on. This post would have de-railed Aged's thread....Sorry. Meant to put this somewhere else.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Something I have NEVER seen a Calvinist do on here is demonstrate with any quotes from James (Jacobus) Arminius that supports ANY of their accusations when they attempt to accuse someone of Arminianism. Why is that when a Non Calvinist refutes Calvinism, many of us can post quotes from John Calvin, Augustine, a tenet of TULIP or a quote from the Confessions, but when a Calvinist accuses someone of Arminianism, they NEVER show any support for it?

Disagreeing with Calvinism does make one an Arminian anymore than a theist disagreeing with an atheist evolutionist makes one a theistic evolutionist.

Don't wanna de-rail Aged's thread....I'll patch my response to this onto YOURS! :thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

As I am studying this out, there is one thing I DO know. That not ONE who comes to Him through the working of the Spirit, will He cast aside. The final stanza in an old song "Beside the Gospel Pool", states this:

No! He is full of grace,
He never will permit.
A soul that fain would see His face,
To perish at His feet.

:jesus: :jesus: :jesus: :jesus:

Now, the ginormous debates springs from "why" they won't come...........

 

[Herald]

Now, the ginormous debates springs from "why" they won't come...........

Willis, that debate has been springing for centuries, and I doubt threads on the BB are going to settle the issue. All Christians must be wholly convinced of their position by the Word the God.

 

[Van]

Who said we can't handle the truth? The passage John 6:28-30 clearly teaches God requires us to believe in Jesus.

John 6:37 says (dynamically and liberally translated) All that the Father places spiritually in Me will arrive in Me, and the one transferred into Me I will certainly not cast out.

 

[Herald]

Willis, that debate has been springing for centuries, and I doubt threads on the BB are going to settle the issue. All Christians must be wholly convinced of their position by the Word the God.

Typo. It should read "the Word OF God".

 

[Winman]

As I am studying this out, there is one thing I DO know. That not ONE who comes to Him through the working of the Spirit, will He cast aside. The final stanza in an old song "Beside the Gospel Pool", states this:

No! He is full of grace,
He never will permit.
A soul that fain would see His face,
To perish at His feet.

:jesus: :jesus: :jesus: :jesus:

Now, the ginormous debates springs from "why" they won't come...........

Well Willis, if you believe Calvinism and the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, the only logical reason a person does not come to Jesus is because the Father has no desire for them to come, else he would call them with the irresistible effectual call.

Wouldn't that be correct? Couldn't God simply call all men with his irresistible effectual call and 100% of men would come to Jesus?

So, if Calvinism is true, then it is obvious God does not want many billions of men, women, and children to be saved. He passes them by and lets them perish.

Do you agree with this?

 

[DrJamesAch]

As I am studying this out, there is one thing I DO know. That not ONE who comes to Him through the working of the Spirit, will He cast aside. The final stanza in an old song "Beside the Gospel Pool", states this:

No! He is full of grace,
He never will permit.
A soul that fain would see His face,
To perish at His feet.

:jesus: :jesus: :jesus: :jesus:

Now, the ginormous debates springs from "why" they won't come...........

Now this is where I totally agree with you. It's what us some of us Non Calvinists called Once Saved Always Saved (eternal security). However, this is not all there is to it in Calvinism. In Calvinism you'll note that salvation is based on perseverance, not preservation. In eternal security, God preserves the persons salvation, in Calvinism God works through the believer to persevere to the end.

So although it APPEARS that Calvinism teaches OSAS, Calvinist salvation is actually a works-based salvation because even though they claim that it is God that causes you to persevere, that perseverence is still performance based, and if you don't have the works, they claim you were never saved in the first place. So ULTIMATELY, assurance of salvation in Calvinism is not based on the finished work of Christ, but on the perseverance of the believer to endure to the end. It is a complete flip-flop on their explanation of salvation where they claim man has no choice, no free will, that God does it all, but yet it is all about man enduring after salvation. Watch how many Calvinists attempt to refute this comment by quoting James chapter 2, 1 John 2 and Phillipians 2.

The Calvinist "P" in TULIP is not the same thing as eternal security.

 

[Winman]

Now this is where I totally agree with you. It's what us some of us Non Calvinists called Once Saved Always Saved (eternal security). However, this is not all there is to it in Calvinism. In Calvinism you'll note that salvation is based on perseverance, not preservation. In eternal security, God preserves the persons salvation, in Calvinism God works through the believer to persevere to the end.

So although it APPEARS that Calvinism teaches OSAS, Calvinist salvation is actually a works-based salvation because even though they claim that it is God that causes you to persevere, that perseverence is still performance based, and if you don't have the works, they claim you were never saved in the first place. So ULTIMATELY, assurance of salvation in Calvinism is not based on the finished work of Christ, but on the perseverance of the believer to endure to the end. It is a complete flip-flop on their explanation of salvation where they claim man has no choice, no free will, that God does it all, but yet it is all about man enduring after salvation. Watch how many Calvinists attempt to refute this comment by quoting James chapter 2, 1 John 2 and Phillipians 2.

The Calvinist "P" in TULIP is not the same thing as eternal security.

Exactly. I've tried to point this out to Calvinists before, but it is as if they don't understand their own doctrine.

The one and only way any Calvinist can hope to know he is elect is if he does works that proves to himself he is saved. And as you said, he MUST persevere. It is as much slavery as a man under the law.

From Wiki on Perseverance of the Saints

Theologian Charles Hodge summarizes the thrust of the Calvinist doctrine:
Perseverance…is due to the purpose of God [in saving men and thereby bringing glory to his name], to the work of Christ [in canceling men's debt and earning their righteousness ], to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [in sealing men in salvation and leading them in God's ways], and to the primal source of all, the infinite, mysterious, and immutable love of God.[4]

On a practical level, Calvinists do not claim to know who is elect and who is not, and the only guide they have is the verbal testimony and good works (or "fruit") of each individual. Any who "fall away" (that is, do not persevere in the Christian faith until death) is assumed not to have been truly converted to begin with, though Calvinists do not claim to know with certainty who did and who did not persevere.

Essentially, Reformed doctrine believes that the same God whose power justified the Christian believer is also at work in the continued sanctification of that believer. As Philippians 2:13 says, "It is God who is at work in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure."
Thus, all who are truly born again are kept by God the Father for Jesus Christ, and can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but will persevere in their faith to the end, and be eternally saved. While Reformed theologians acknowledge that true believers at times will fall into sin, they maintain that a real believer in Jesus Christ cannot abandon one's own personal faith to the dominion of sin. They base their understanding on key scriptural passages such as Christ's words, "By their fruit you will know them"[Mt 7:16,20] and "He that endures to the end will be saved."[Mt 24:13] Similarly, a passage in 1 John says, "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God."[1Jn 3:7-9] The person who has truly been made righteous in Jesus Christ did not simply have faith at some point in life, but continues to live in that faith ("the righteous will live by faith."[Rom 1:17] This view understands that the security of believers is inseparable from their perseverance in the faith.[5]

The only way a Calvinist can have assurance is if he keeps working hard, and even that is not satisfactory, Calvinists are known for doubting their salvation.

Thank God I do not have to depend on my faithfulness to persevere to be saved, I am depending on the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to keep his promise that to those who sincerely come to him he will in no wise cast out, and that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Since the ... manage to get my thread closed that addressed John 6, and left this one open, the Judas Condundrum being relevant to this OP, I'll post it here

The biggest problem with Calvinist's interpretation of John six is not merely their fundamental misunderstanding of the word "draw". This can be debated back and forth with the Calvinist claiming "no man can come to me except the Father DRAW him", to which the Non Calvinist can reply, "Jesus said, If I be lifted up I will draw ALL MEN TO MYSELF".

The biggest problem Calvinists face on their interpretation is that of John 6 "all that the father giveth to me SHALL COME TO ME". The Calvinist have a fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase "all that the father GIVETH TO ME". If that portion is misunderstood, then it affects the proper interpretation of "SHALL COME to me", and the problem with the Calvinist interpretation here is....

JUDAS

To the Calvinist, only those CHOSEN can come to Christ. After all, that is the core of election is that the 'effectual' call only goes to those who are chosen. And, those whom are chosen being elect can not resist the effectual call. A Calvinist would not and can not admit, and still be a CONSISTENT Calvinist, that the effectual call goes to anyone who is NOT chosen, and can not be consistent by stating that being chosen is evidence by an effectual call.

Judas throws a major monkey wrench into the Calvinist interpretation of John 6.

Now in the following verses, pay close attention to the terms CHOSEN and GIVEN ("all that the father GIVES me").

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" John 6:70

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."
John 17:11-12

Now the Calvinist may latch on to "that the Scripture might be fulfilled" which presents another monkey wrench to Calvinist theology. How does God predetermine someone CHOSEN whom the Father GAVE to Christ to be damned?

Judas was clearly CHOSEN, and clearly one of whom Christ Himself said that the Father GAVE TO HIM. YET HE WAS LOST AFTER HE WAS GIVEN TO CHRIST, and AFTER HE WAS CHOSEN.

Now this presents not only a problem with the Calvinist view of "draw" and "given" and "chosen" but it also presents a problem with the view of perseverence of the saints and eternal security-UNLESS the Calvinist interpretation of John 6 is wrong!

The fundamental difference in understanding the Judas conundrum is to properly understand John 6:37 in it's ENTIRETY. Whom does the Father GIVE to Christ? Is it merely those who are CHOSEN according to the Calvinist view of election? No. Prior to salvation being offered to the Gentiles, the Father GAVE all of Israel to Christ, but that isn't the only catch. The ones that "SHALL COME" to Christ are the ones of whom have chosen to come to Christ. Notice the rest of John 6:37 "and he that cometh unto me".

JUDAS NEVER CAME TO CHRIST. In order for John 6:37 to be consistently applied to the believer, it is not merely the Father giving believers to Christ, it is also them COMING TO HIM. Judas never came to the Lord, he always referred to Christ as "master" and not Lord, and actively sought to betray him, yet he was GIVEN to Christ and CHOSEN.

The Calvinist can not reconcile the Judas conundrum by maintaining their view of John 6:37, and be consistent with their view of perseverance of the saints AT THE SAME TIME. The problem is as follows:

1. The Father gives all of the elect/chosen to Christ
2. Those that are given to Christ SHALL COME
3. Only those who are elect and chosen can receive the effectual call and those who receive the effectual call can not resist God's grace that leads to salvation.
4. Judas was given to Christ as well as chosen
5. Judas was lost
6. Therefore a person given to Christ and chosen can lose their salvation.

The Calvinist to be consistent with all five points of their TULIP theology would reject the conclusion as would anyone who, like myself, also believes in eternal security. Therefore one of the premises MUST BE WRONG in order to consistently maintain perseverance of the saints and eternal security. Based on John 6:70 and John 17:11-12, the Calvinist can not reject 4 and 5, but the Calvinist MUST reject 6 to be a consistent Calvinist. The only options are that the Calvinist view election, irresistible grace, and the effectual call must be rejected.

 

[DrJamesAch]

The basic objection to this post was that:

*Judas wasn't saved [true]
*Judas was the son of perdition [true]
*Not everyone that says, "Lord, Lord" is saved [although Judas never called Jesus Lord]
*Not all who are in Israel of are of Israel

However, all of these objections yet fail to ignore the results of Calvinist theology in how they define election, chosen, and given. A Calvinist can not consistently interpret John 6 with their definitions of these terms and be consistent Calvinists at the same time:

John 6:37, " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

John 17:

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now this is where I totally agree with you. It's what us some of us Non Calvinists called Once Saved Always Saved (eternal security). However, this is not all there is to it in Calvinism. In Calvinism you'll note that salvation is based on perseverance, not preservation. In eternal security, God preserves the persons salvation, in Calvinism God works through the believer to persevere to the end.

So although it APPEARS that Calvinism teaches OSAS, Calvinist salvation is actually a works-based salvation because even though they claim that it is God that causes you to persevere, that perseverence is still performance based, and if you don't have the works, they claim you were never saved in the first place. So ULTIMATELY, assurance of salvation in Calvinism is not based on the finished work of Christ, but on the perseverance of the believer to endure to the end. It is a complete flip-flop on their explanation of salvation where they claim man has no choice, no free will, that God does it all, but yet it is all about man enduring after salvation. Watch how many Calvinists attempt to refute this comment by quoting James chapter 2, 1 John 2 and Phillipians 2.

The Calvinist "P" in TULIP is not the same thing as eternal security.

Now Tough Guy, you are startin to sound like an old school baptist. :laugh:

 

[percho]

Aged: I must submit to you that you are reading verse 29 completely devoid of the immediate context. The immediate context has absolutely nothing to do with what you think it does. These people are asking Jesus to give them the power to make FOOD for themselves. Please read the obvious context without Calvinist pre-supposition:
Jhn 6:26 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.
Jhn 6:27 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.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Notice here how clearly they are asking Jesus to teach them HOW TO MAKE BREAD FOR THEMSELVES! They aren't asking about anything salvific....they aren't asking about faith or election or salvation or the new birth...they are trying to get Jesus to teach THEM how to make physical food for themselves. That's all they want.
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The purpose of verse 29 is for Jesus to change what they are seeking for:.....The "WORK" has already been defined by the people...and Jesus is responding back to what they said in verse 28. I'll cite it again it italics:
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
In other words....Jesus isn't defining faith, he isn't offering any details about faith; he is introducing faith to them. He is simply telling them that they are searching for the wrong thing.
Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Notice how the people brush off Jesus' attempt to convince them that they are looking for the wrong thing and go straight back to wanting to fill their gut: This is similar, in a way to the woman at the well, who is wanting Jesus to find her physical "water", and not understanding that Jesus is talking about himself as the "water of life". The point of the passage and the references to "works" is Jesus attempting to change their thinking from physical bread to himself as the "bread of Life"...That context is clearly alluded BACK TO later on in the passage you cite:
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

I am afraid you have been viewing that passage from Calvinist pre-supposition which insists on two things:
1.) That "faith" is in any way properly defined as a "work". (and it's not, and no amount of further study of Scripture will imply that.)
2.) That man cannot exercise faith, or be empowered to exercise faith...except God essentially CAUSE him to believe.

Even if those are BOTH true....your rendering of what is being taught in verse has been skewed, because it has been used as a Calvinist "proof-text" to demonstrate that faith is a "work"....and that God himself is, and must be the one who gives that "work" of faith to people.

Please attempt to re-read the passage and what verse 29 is teaching simply from it's own obvious and immediate context and I believe you will see it quite diffferently.

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? John 6:29.30

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. John 10:24,25

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. John 10:26

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

When and How did the, "of my sheep," Paul born in unbelief, an unbeliever, become a believing sheep? Was it relative to being given the Spirit of Truth? Did God through his Son Jesus call Paul and set him apart by the Holy Spirit of Truth causing Paul to become a believer that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the Christ, raised from the dead?

Or did Paul going down the road to Damascus to imprison and or kill those of the way all of a sudden by his own mind set, change his mind concerning Jesus as the Christ because he fell down blind and herd a voice from heaven?

 

[convicted1]

Well Willis, if you believe Calvinism and the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, the only logical reason a person does not come to Jesus is because the Father has no desire for them to come, else he would call them with the irresistible effectual call.

Wouldn't that be correct? Couldn't God simply call all men with his irresistible effectual call and 100% of men would come to Jesus?

So, if Calvinism is true, then it is obvious God does not want many billions of men, women, and children to be saved. He passes them by and lets them perish.

Do you agree with this?

Brother Wes, again, you have me confused with someone you think has all the answers. I don't. That's why I am studying this out. It behooves us all to put our beliefs to the test and see if they hold up to God's Word, imo. That's what I am doing.

Now, TBS, the "L" is the one I am struggling the most with. Did He die for all, some, etc? Remember, in either system, way more die lost than saved. If God's ultimate desire was to save all, He would do so. I see things like, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated", "I pray for those you have given me, and not the world", "Christ died for the ungodly", "God is not willing that any should perish", "God has commanded all men everywhere to repent", and it makes my head spin. Yet, the Word is one harmonious book that goes together like a puzzle. It's just that I am struggling how to put the pieces together.

Let's start at the Top(God) and work our way down to man. In eternity past, there is only one Eternal. This Eternal is Triune God, and everything ever created stemmed from Him. The angels we read about, the earth, sun, moon, stars, solar sytem, mankind, etc., all were created by Him. He, through the means only privy to Him, created Adam, and then Eve, and all the way down to us. Man, we they fell in the Garden, weren't in any way, shape, form, or fashion, under any obligation to Him, or His mercy. Yet, He allowed them to live on. We, as all other humans, suffer from their disobedience/sin. Even an angel asked God, "What is man that thou art mindful of him?". So, if this literally occured, or it is symbolic language, I am not for sure. I kinda wonder if this was satan, seeing that he was an angel pre-rebellion, but I am not sure. So, even God had more mercy on us than this angel, in that He was willing to save some, whereas this angel, seemed to be "miffed" at man(that's why I lean towards satan here) and asked why was God midful of mankind. Now, I am not for sure on the Hebrews 2:6 verse and the angel testifying to Him.

Now, take Joseph for instance. He was sold into slavery, and at the end of it all, he stated, "Man did it for evil, but God meant it for good". Then look at our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The bible states, "It pleased God to bruise His Son"(Isaiah 53:10). Imagine that? God gets enjoyment out of saving sinners via His Son's blood atonement. God chose to send Jesus, His Pride and Joy, His only begotten Son to die for sinners. Sinful man? God sent the very best He had to offer to save us? Wow! There is so much to the bible, that it's impossible for us to wrap our minds, and arms, around it.

Man is under no more obligation to God than what He has bound Himself to in His Word. He would be just to slay us all, because we were sinners. Yet, He was patient with us. Our sense of justice is different that His, imo.