Calvinism View of John 6-The Judas Conundrum

[Iconoclast]

Why I'm responding to you is a mystery to me--perhaps it's because you've begged the question by ignoring something in a text you've quoted.

Furthermore, why you're still allowed to post here after saying that all Calvinists hate Jews is beyond me. Had you been a Calvinist and said such a thing, you'd have been banned immediately. However, being that you're a non-Calvinist, you've received a free pass.......but, I digress.

In any event, you ask the Calvinists to answer a supposed conundrum, which is, indeed, easily solvable, while ignoring this conundrum in your own theology:


Brother,
^Thanks for yet another solid post. you saw right through the house of cards that was trying to be assembled.

In like manner to Judas we read this:
6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.


And yet we are told...not all Israel is of Israel:wavey::wavey: So much for this big conundrum.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You did...

I don't ever recall that...show me the comment

 

[DrJamesAch]

I am, and no doubt other posters, are sick to death about hearing about your ethnic background. It has nothing to do with theology, Scripture, or the Gospel. Had you not made that fact apparent, no one would have ever known. IMO, you do not care about sovereignty, free will or any other doctrine. You are here to cause division, provoke others into comments that result in infractions, and to just generally stir the pot. There is nothing genuine about your postings.

Well if you are sick to death of hearing about it, then stop calling me a Zionist. Pretty simple. You and EWF are the ones that keep throwing the term up and then complain when it gets called out.

And do tell how I provoked EWF's comment when the OP has NOTHING to do with being Jewish or Judaism or Zionism? It was only the THIRD comment of the thread, and it simply said "LOL...idiot zionists" So do tell how that was provoked?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Why I'm responding to you is a mystery to me--perhaps it's because you've begged the question by ignoring something in a text you've quoted.

Furthermore, why you're still allowed to post here after saying that all Calvinists hate Jews is beyond me. Had you been a Calvinist and said such a thing, you'd have been banned immediately. However, being that you're a non-Calvinist, you've received a free pass.......but, I digress.

In any event, you ask the Calvinists to answer a supposed conundrum, which is, indeed, easily solvable, while ignoring this conundrum in your own theology:


Brother,
^Thanks for yet another solid post. you saw right through the house of cards that was trying to be assembled.

In like manner to Judas we read this:
6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.


And yet we are told...not all Israel is of Israel:wavey::wavey: So much for this big conundrum.

Funny you agree with Archangel (no surprise there) when if you look closer, I even PREDICTED that Calvinists would use this argument to explain the conundrum by resorting to "that the scripture may be fulfilled" comment. If you knew your Bibles well enough, you would know that the "scripture might be fulfilled" part was based on Judas being the son of perdition.

So much for picking apart the conundrum which neither you nor Archangel have done.

 

[saturneptune]

Well if you are sick to death of hearing about it, then stop calling me a Zionist. Pretty simple. You and EWF are the ones that keep throwing the term up and then complain when it gets called out.

And do tell how I provoked EWF's comment when the OP has NOTHING to do with being Jewish or Judaism or Zionism? It was only the THIRD comment of the thread, and it simply said "LOL...idiot zionists" So do tell how that was provoked?

I would not know since I never used the word "Zionist" in one post. That is just another one of your bare faced lies. Find another forum to peddle your pseudo martyrdom.

 

[convicted1]

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.

Let me explain this through how God dealt with me. I went for years and rebelled against God, and eventhough I knew if I drew my last breath in my sinful state, I was going straight to hell. No other way around it, I knew I was going to hell. But, my love for sin, self, living my life, my way, was my greatest desire. I chose my greatest desire, and that was me over Him. Then one morning, something changed within me. My focus no longer centered on me. It centered on Him. My will had been changed......my desire had been changed.....I then began seeking after Him for His grace, love, and mercy, but I was too ignorant to realize this.....He had already bestowed all this upon me by revealing His Son Jesus in me, who had broken the yoke of sin off of me, and allow me to choose the yoke that Christ put upon me, which is easy, and it's burden light.

Judas chose his greatest desire....himself.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I am, and no doubt other posters, are sick to death about hearing about your ethnic background. It has nothing to do with theology, Scripture, or the Gospel. Had you not made that fact apparent, no one would have ever known. IMO, you do not care about sovereignty, free will or any other doctrine. You are here to cause division, provoke others into comments that result in infractions, and to just generally stir the pot. There is nothing genuine about your postings.

You are showing your true colors as an anti-Semite....

Dr. J. doesn't "kow-tow" to a lot of Calvinist argumentation on this board and he gives as good as he gets.

Should he be more peaceable at times?...
Yes, he should. So should we all.

You need to intro-spect IMO....your rage at Dr. J. is built on two things:

1.) he isn't afraid to fight back when people get nasty and personal with him
2.) He's (in your head) a dirty Jew.....

You demonstrate the heart and soul of "Replacement Theology" so clearly........you just hate the dirty Jew who has the "CHUTZPAH"...to stand up to you. That spins you into a dimension of un-controlled rage doesn't it?

No one cares if a Gentile sticks up for a Jew....But "HEAVEN FORFEND"....a dirty Jew has the chutzpah to defend himself...

ME?????

I'm a Gentile, so I can get away with defending dirty Jews like Dr. J. all I want and I'll only put up with some nominal and insignifigant name-calling.......................I can do that.........'cause I'm a gentile..........But WHAT THE HECK!!! is up with these uppity dirty JEWS????

Dr. J:..................In all sincerity my friend, let ME defend you and your people against anti-Semitic assaults. I am authorized to get "uppity".....you aren't, you see, because you're just a dirty Jew and what-not....See what I mean my friend? Let us Gentiles back you up, 'cause dirty Jews like you aren't permitted to get feisty with Anglo-Saxons such as myself, we've "Replaced" you. WE are now Jews and you AREN'T!!..

Us Anglo-Saxons are GOD'S chosen people, and you are just a dirty Jew punk...C'mon.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Why I'm responding to you is a mystery to me--perhaps it's because you've begged the question by ignoring something in a text you've quoted.

Furthermore, why you're still allowed to post here after saying that all Calvinists hate Jews is beyond me. Had you been a Calvinist and said such a thing, you'd have been banned immediately. However, being that you're a non-Calvinist, you've received a free pass.......but, I digress.

In any event, you ask the Calvinists to answer a supposed conundrum, which is, indeed, easily solvable, while ignoring this conundrum in your own theology:


Brother,
^Thanks for yet another solid post. you saw right through the house of cards that was trying to be assembled.

In like manner to Judas we read this:
6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.


And yet we are told...not all Israel is of Israel:wavey::wavey: So much for this big conundrum.

Not all Israel are OF Israel because you can't read Romans 9-11. Notice what follows Pauls statement, "IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED". You forget that Hagar's line also came from Abraham, and just because one race came through Ishmael doesn't mean they were OF ISRAEL. Nothing to do with certain Israelites not being of Israel, and everything to do with who came from the bond woman, and who came from the free.

 

[saturneptune]

You are showing your true colors as an anti-Semite....

Dr. J. doesn't "kow-tow" to a lot of Calvinist argumentation on this board and he gives as good as he gets.

Should he be more peaceable at times?...
Yes, he should. So should we all.

You need to intro-spect IMO....your rage at Dr. J. is built on two things:

1.) he isn't afraid to fight back when people get nasty and personal with him
2.) He's (in your head) a dirty Jew.....

You demonstrate the heart and soul of "Replacement Theology" so clearly........you just hate the dirty Jew who has the "CHUTZPAH"...to stand up to you. That spins you into a dimension of un-controlled rage doesn't it?

No one cares if a Gentile sticks up for a Jew....But "HEAVEN FORFEND"....a dirty Jew has the chutzpah to defend himself...

ME?????

I'm a Gentile, so I can get away with defending dirty Jews like Dr. J. all I want and I'll only put up with some nominal and insignifigant name-calling.......................I can do that.........'cause I'm a gentile..........But WHAT THE HECK!!! is up with these uppity dirty JEWS????

Dr. J:..................In all sincerity my friend, let ME defend you and your people against anti-Semitic assaults. I am authorized to get "uppity".....you aren't, you see, because you're just a dirty Jew and what-not....See what I mean my friend? Let us Gentiles back you up, 'cause dirty Jews like you aren't permitted to get feisty with Anglo-Saxons such as myself, we've "Replaced" you. WE are now Jews and you AREN'T!!..

Us Anglo-Saxons are GOD'S chosen people, and you are just a dirty Jew punk...C'mon.

You know nothing about me, in particular the fact that some of my family is Jewish. Quite honestly, I am surprised you would support a poster with such obviously deceptive tactics.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Let me explain this through how God dealt with me. I went for years and rebelled against God, and eventhough I knew if I drew my last breath in my sinful state, I was going straight to hell. No other way around it, I knew I was going to hell. But, my love for sin, self, living my life, my way, was my greatest desire. I chose my greatest desire, and that was me over Him. Then one morning, something changed within me. My focus no longer centered on me. It centered on Him. My will had been changed......my desire had been changed.....I then began seeking after Him for His grace, love, and mercy, but I was too ignorant to realize this.....He had already bestowed all this upon me by revealing His Son Jesus in me, who had broken the yoke of sin off of me, and allow me to choose the yoke that Christ put upon me, which is easy, and it's burden light.

Judas chose his greatest desire....himself.

No offense, but I'm not interested in having experience used as an authority on how the Scriptures should be interpreted. This is all too often what charismatics do in attempting to justify their interpretation of "manifestations of the Holy Ghost". While I don't doubt the sincerity of your experience, it really has nothing to do with how a particular Bible passage should be interpreted.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Funny you agree with Archangel (no surprise there) when if you look closer, I even PREDICTED that Calvinists would use this argument to explain the conundrum by resorting to "that the scripture may be fulfilled" comment. If you knew your Bibles well enough, you would know that the "scripture might be fulfilled" part was based on Judas being the son of perdition.

So much for picking apart the conundrum which neither you nor Archangel have done.

Archangel is no plodder...he is in fact a very fair minded & studied man with regard to theology but you have provoked a grudging response on his part because of your own bias toward Calvinists & all things "Doctrines of Grace" orientated. Had you used some discretion in your many posts trying to excoriate Reformed theology, I do sincerely believe that Arch's commentary would have been unnecessary. As it stands, Archangel will get no argument from anyone who stands up for fairness....you on the other hand have been exposed more than a few times on this forum. Deal with it!

 

[Iconoclast]

Not all Israel are OF Israel because you can't read Romans 9-11. Notice what follows Pauls statement, "IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED". You forget that Hagar's line also came from Abraham, and just because one race came through Ishmael doesn't mean they were OF ISRAEL. Nothing to do with certain Israelites not being of Israel, and everything to do with who came from the bond woman, and who came from the free.

Oh but i can read my friend...they were broken off....In UNBELIEF.....they were Covenant breakers....not the descendants of Ishmael

hebrews is clear they did not ENTER into His rest...try again:laugh:

 

[Revmitchell]

You are showing your true colors as an anti-Semite....

You are out of line.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are showing your true colors as an anti-Semite....

Dr. J. doesn't "kow-tow" to a lot of Calvinist argumentation on this board and he gives as good as he gets.

Should he be more peaceable at times?...
Yes, he should. So should we all.

You need to intro-spect IMO....your rage at Dr. J. is built on two things:

1.) he isn't afraid to fight back when people get nasty and personal with him
2.) He's (in your head) a dirty Jew.....

You demonstrate the heart and soul of "Replacement Theology" so clearly........you just hate the dirty Jew who has the "CHUTZPAH"...to stand up to you. That spins you into a dimension of un-controlled rage doesn't it?

No one cares if a Gentile sticks up for a Jew....But "HEAVEN FORFEND"....a dirty Jew has the chutzpah to defend himself...

ME?????

I'm a Gentile, so I can get away with defending dirty Jews like Dr. J. all I want and I'll only put up with some nominal and insignifigant name-calling.......................I can do that.........'cause I'm a gentile..........But WHAT THE HECK!!! is up with these uppity dirty JEWS????

Dr. J:..................In all sincerity my friend, let ME defend you and your people against anti-Semitic assaults. I am authorized to get "uppity".....you aren't, you see, because you're just a dirty Jew and what-not....See what I mean my friend? Let us Gentiles back you up, 'cause dirty Jews like you aren't permitted to get feisty with Anglo-Saxons such as myself, we've "Replaced" you. WE are now Jews and you AREN'T!!..

Us Anglo-Saxons are GOD'S chosen people, and you are just a dirty Jew punk...C'mon.

Clearly you do not know what an anti Semite is to have spoken thus.....your the only one making suggestions by your commentary & you need to stop it.

 

[convicted1]

No offense, but I'm not interested in having experience used as an authority on how the Scriptures should be interpreted. This is all too often what charismatics do in attempting to justify their interpretation of "manifestations of the Holy Ghost". While I don't doubt the sincerity of your experience, it really has nothing to do with how a particular Bible passage should be interpreted.

Everything I experienced is saturated with scriptures. No one can come to Him w/o Him first drawing them(both sides agree with this). As long as we were sinners and satisfied to be that way, we had no desire to come to Him. You show me a "happy go lucky" sinner that comes to Him. As long as a sinner is happy "status quo", they won't come. All this is I mean if left to their own desires. God must come in and change their desires.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Archangel is no plodder...he is in fact a very fair minded & studied man with regard to theology but you have provoked a grudging response on his part because of your own bias toward Calvinists & all things "Doctrines of Grace" orientated. Had you used some some digression in your many posts trying to excoriate Reformed theology, I do sincerely believe that Arch's commentary would have been unnecessary. As it stands, Archangel will get no argument from anyone who stands up for fairness....you on the other hand have been exposed more than a few times on this forum. Deal with it!

I have just as much right to state my views of Calvinist doctrine as Calvinists have to state theirs about Non Calvinist and Arminians which they do so frequently and with just as much ire and pejorative laden rhetoric as what you accuse Non Calvinists of with the exception of using racist terms like you do. To their credit, the majority of them haven't went that far.

Stating that someone's theology is wrong would "provoke" a response from anyone of that view. ITS SUPPOSED TO that's why it's called a DEBATE. Yet many who hold the same views as I do, don't get personally attacked based on their race every time they start a thread.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

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".

Jn 12 is no response to Jn 6 at all. Unless you are claiming universalism:wavey:

 

[DrJamesAch]

You are out of line.

RM, you may not have seen the post on post #3 because it got snipped. EWF came straight out and said as a response to this thread said "LOL..idiot zionist", and he does that on every thread I start. Jovert is merely pointing out the obvious to him.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have just as much right to state my views of Calvinist doctrine as Calvinists have to state theirs about Non Calvinist and Arminians which they do so frequently and with just as much ire and pejorative laden rhetoric as what you accuse Non Calvinists of with the exception of using racist terms like you do. To their credit, the majority of them haven't went that far.

Stating that someone's theology is wrong would "provoke" a response from anyone of that view. ITS SUPPOSED TO that's why it's called a DEBATE. Yet many who hold the same views as I do, don't get personally attacked based on their race every time they start a thread.

So thats all you got....Play a racial card & whine! There is joke there somewhere.:laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

RM, you may not have seen the post on post #3 because it got snipped. EWF came straight out and said as a response to this thread said "LOL..idiot zionist", and he does that on every thread I start. Jovert is merely pointing out the obvious to him.

That is your problem. The post Jovert addressed as an anti-Semite was to me. It was reported, as well as your deceptive posts. You are not even keeping up with the thread. Thanks to EWF and Rev Mitchell for defending me.