Calvinism View of John 6-The Judas Conundrum

[DrJamesAch]

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.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Actually, there is one instance where it appears Judas did call Jesus Lord. Notice...

20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth [his] hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

Every one called Him Lord according to this passage.

But we do know that not all that call Him Lord are saved.

Matthew 7:21 (KJV)
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

LOL...idiotic [snipped]

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Please refrain from name calling. It doesn't do anything to give you credibility with those you disagree with.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Actually, there is one instance where it appears Judas did call Jesus Lord. Notice...

20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth [his] hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

Every one called Him Lord according to this passage.

But we do know that not all that call Him Lord are saved.

Matthew 7:21 (KJV)
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

If you read the rest of that, after it says every one of them said , "Lord, is it I" then when it got to Judas, he said "MASTER, is it I" in verse 25. Verse 25 shows that Judas was not one of the "every one of them" that asked in verse 22.

Also, Matthew 7:21 has a qualifier. "but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven".

Think about the implications of that verse. Jesus says unto them, " I NEVER knew you". Jesus could not say that of someone that He knew, and was then lost, because there would be at least one time in that person's life that they WERE KNOWN to Jesus.

It is not Judas referring to Christ as master alone that shows Judas wasn't saved although I don't believe he ever called him Lord at all which is clear from the context. Judas never demonstrated any affection for Christ, and was never interested in any ministry other than the money he oversaw.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

If you read The rest of that, after it says every one of them said , "Lord, is it I" then when it got to Judas, he said "MASTER, is it I" in verse 25. Verse 25 shows that Judas was not one of the "every one of them" that asked in verse 22.

Yes, i see that. but we must note that every one of them began to say Lord, is it i?judas at least began to say Lord, is it i? Is it at all possible that he said it and the latter question too? Or did he begin to say Lord, is it i? And change to Master?

I believe it was the former, but i am not dogmatic about it.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Yes, i see that. but we must note that every one of them began to say Lord, is it i?judas at least began to say Lord, is it i? Is it at all possible that he said it and the latter question too? Or did he begin to say Lord, is it i? And change to Master?

I believe it was the former, but i am not dogmatic about it.

I think Matthew was simply stating what the majority said. It is like the Jews saying "we have no king but Caesar" and "crucify him" when it says that the crowd said it (John 19:14-15), even though not everyone in the crowd said so. That's why the clarification of verse 25 helps.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Great OP Dr.J! :applause:

As an aside....I had never noticed that Judas never called Jesus "Lord"...I have to look more into that.

Along the same lines of your observation about Judas, although there isn't a PERFECT positive correlation...there is a NEAR PERFECT positive correlation between when people say "The Lord thy God, or the Lord my God." especially in the Old Testament. Read that subtlety of speech from men like Ahab (I think) Saul, and others who were specifically of Israel, but likely not regenerate.

Many of the wicked kings of Israel and Judah will make statements to a prophet such as "Call upon the Lord thy God..." even when they were seeking help from Yahweh. Yahweh, wasn't their God per se...he was the God of whichever prophet they were speaking to. I need to study that issue more in-depth...I've always meant to:thumbs:

 

[jonathanD]

Start reading at page 27.

 

[Revmitchell]

Start reading at page 27.

Great Book I have it.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Start reading at page 27.

THE OTHER SIDE OF CALVINISM-LAURENCE VANCE

Start reading at page 1

 

[jonathanD]

THE OTHER SIDE OF CALVINISM-LAURENCE VANCE

Start reading at page 1

Had the font size not been enlarged, I might've dismissed this suggestion...

I'm all about a book swap though. You read Frame's doctrine of God and I'll read LV. Deal?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Had the font size not been enlarged, I might've dismissed this suggestion...

I'm all about a book swap though. You read Frame's doctrine of God and I'll read LV. Deal?

I've read virtually every major book on Calvinism there is when I was in the Presbyterian church. Even my college textbook on systemic theology was by a Calvnist (Wayne Grudem) and all of the textbooks I used for my masters in counseling were Calvinist (Jay Adams, Jim Newheiser). I've read everything from Luther's Bondage of the Will, Calvin's Institutes, have an entire shelf of Spurgeon books, Gill, Pink, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Keach, Whitefield (though not convince he was 100% Calvinist), Kennedy, Foxe, Knox, Henry, Carey, and have already read several of DA Carson's books on the KJV and articles in support of his book, King James Debate, A Plea For Realism (on my book shelf in front of me), Boice, Lloyd Jones, Hodges, and last but not least, the Calvinist champian Boettner.

In fact, I'd have to say I've read MORE (if not 3x as many) Calvinist books on Calvinism than Non Calvinist books on Calvinism/Reformed Theology.

Sure I'll add one more to the dozens I've already read when I WAS a Calvinist

PS. Had it not been for the large print photo of the DA Carson book, I would have missed it!

 

[jonathanD]

I've read virtually every major book on Calvinism there is when I was in the Presbyterian church. Even my college textbook on systemic theology was by a Calvnist (Wayne Grudem) and all of the textbooks I used for my masters in counseling were Calvinist (Jay Adams, Jim Newheiser). I've read everything from Luther's Bondage of the Will, Calvin's Institutes, have an entire shelf of Spurgeon books, Gill, Pink, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Keach, Whitefield (though not convince he was 100% Calvinist), Kennedy, Foxe, Knox, Henry, Carey, and have already read several of DA Carson's books on the KJV and articles in support of his book, King James Debate, A Plea For Realism (on my book shelf in front of me), Boice, Lloyd Jones, Hodges, and last but not least, the Calvinist champian Boettner.

Sure I'll add one more to the dozens I've already read when I WAS a Calvinist

PS. Had it not been for the large print photo of the DA Carson book, I would have missed it!

You could've just said yes...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[DrJamesAch]

You could've just said yes...:smilewinkgrin:

I am a Jew. We're supposed to be dramatic (the whole Holocaust invention thing you know! see Earth Wind & Fire's comment Post#3). I have a reputation to protect:thumbs:

 

[Inspector Javert]

Had the font size not been enlarged, I might've dismissed this suggestion...

I'm all about a book swap though. You read Frame's doctrine of God and I'll read LV. Deal?

Dude...no fair!, I wanna do a book-swap

 

[jonathanD]

Dude...no fair!, I wanna do a book-swap

If yours is cheaper, I might leave ole Doc high and dry! I've actually lost my copy of Doctrine of God due to a few moves. :tear:

 

[Inspector Javert]

I am a Jew. We're supposed to be dramatic (the whole Holocaust invention thing you know! see Earth Wind & Fire's comment Post#3). I have a reputation to protect:thumbs:

LOL! Yah....and they ban others. :laugh::laugh:
A random, un-provoked, un-called-for serious personal attack.

This is the same one who under-handedly threatened to KILL someone only a month or so ago....and no Mod seems to care to interfere :laugh:

 

[Inspector Javert]

From another thread..............

but when a Calvinist accuses someone of Arminianism, they NEVER show any support for it?

Because by and large...they've never read a word from him, or often any Arminian source at all. Generally, everything they "know" about Arminianism comes from Calvinist Polemic, or at least a blatantly Calvinist source.

It's hilarious....if you stick around long enough, you will see them define Arminianism by linking to "founders.org" or something.
There are some who do. But most of them don't.

It's similar to the term "Pelagian"....NONE of them have ever read a single statement from his own pen (even though they exist and can be read). It's just a "boogey-man" word. Anyone who has actually READ any of Pelagius' writings will notice one thing which is QUITE peculiar...

Pelagius wasn't a "Pelagian".

They also don't know that the emperor who finally decreed (in abstentia) that Pelagius was a "heretic" was bribed by a friend of Augustine with 80 Numidian Stallions too :laugh::laugh:

Why would they know that?.......Their Calvinist sources have never bothered to study up on that themselves.

All their "knowledge" of Pelagius comes from Augustine and Jerome (his enemies)..........Similarly, all their knowledge of Arminius comes from their own sources, almost never Arminius himself.

How do you think that most people believe that "Arminians" believe that men can lose their salvation? The "Arminians" never claimed that as a truth.....they were non-committal on it. Even non-Calvinists believe that lie, because Calvinist sources have said as much for literally centuries.

If they WANTED or cared to learn the truth, they could ask some Arminians themselves:
7. Do you believe in eternal security?
• The issue is whether people who truly believe in Jesus for salvation can possibly shipwreck their faith and forfeit their salvation, or conversely, once people have genuinely put their faith in Christ, whether their final salvation is unconditionally guaranteed
• If you answered yes and do believe in eternal security, you might be an Arminian• Arminius himself was non-committal on the issue and never actually taught that believers may make shipwreck of their faith and so forfeit their salvation
• The Remonstrants—people who sided with Arminius in the theological debates of 17th century Holland—originally took no position on this issue, though they ultimately came to the conclusion that believers can make shipwreck of their faith and so perish
• If you answered no and don’t believe in eternal security, then you affirm something which many Arminians strongly affirm, and you certainly would not be welcome in the Calvinist camp
• The official statement of faith of the Society of Evangelical Arminians only affirms that “persevering in faith is necessary for final salvation,” without commenting further on the possibility of making shipwreck of one’s faith.
• All Calvinists believe in unconditional eternal security (some without qualification and some because they think that faith and its continuance is due to unconditional election).
• Most Independent and Southern Baptists base their claim to be Calvinists on this sole issue; however, in light of historic agreement among Arminians to allow for disagreement on this issue, eternal security is not a determining factor in the question of whether one is an Arminian or a Calvinist

From this excellent cite: http://evangelicalarminians.org/survey-are-you-an-arminian-and-dont-even-know-it-2/

 

[Inspector Javert]

If yours is cheaper, I might leave ole Doc high and dry! I've actually lost my copy of Doctrine of God due to a few moves. :tear:

What subject you interested in?
I got history secular and Christian, General Systematic Theologies (probably nothing you don't have though) and Philosophy....Literature like crazy.......and everything C.S. Lewis EVER............hmmm......I'm also, along the Literature line a fanatic about folklore....I have a marginal collection of folklore from around the world. Comparison of cultural folklore is fascinating to me.

What'cha got!