Giving by the Father - Jn. 6:37-65

[The Biblicist]

You gave your opinion but you gave no evidence to support your oppinion or to prove my assertion was wrong! I did give evidence to support my position and you simply ignore it and throw out your unfounded opinion!

Let me break this down in baby steps for you:

1. Is verse 45a a quotation of the Old Testament? yes or no?

2. Does this quotation speak explicitly about what God does? Yes or no?

3. What aspect in verse 44 refers to what God does? "draw" or "come"?

4. Isn't coming to Christ the consequence of what God first does which only God can do? Yes or no?

The hardest thing to defend is the denial of the obivous! It is obvious that the scripture quotation is called upon and used by Christ to affirm what God does in verse 44 rather than what men do as a way of consequence to what God does.

The issue is so simple! Verse 44 is about what God must do to obtain a certain consequence by men. The Isaiah quote is about what God must do to bring about the same consequences. Man has to do with the consequences but "draw" and "taught" have to do with what God does.


1. "Draw" in verse 44 is synonmous with "taught" in verse 45a - correct?

2. "Taught" in verse 45a is synonmous with BOTH "heard" and "learned" in verse 45b as no one can claim to have been taught to teach anyone else if they have not BOTH "heard" what is said and "learned" what it means. Correct?'

3. Conclusion - The ONLY ONES drawn are those who have both heard and learned and "WHOSOVER" has been thus drawn/taught do come to Christ. So "ALL" drawn do come just as "ALL" given do come. All who do not come where never drawn/taught/heard/learned of the Father.

NOTE; Again, let me point out to the unbiased reader that both "heard" and "learn" have direct reference to "taught" not "draw" which should be rather obvious as "taught" is the immediate point of reference since hearing and learning have to do with being taught. Furthermore, that verse 45a is a scripture quotation brought in by Christ to affirm the work that only God can do in verse 44 as "no man can" apart from that work of God. Likewise, "taught of God" is a scripture quotation to affirm his assertion of what God does not what man does.
__________________

Van, Winman, Jarvis and Bob have all provided responses and arguments against what I have said above. However, every single argument they have provided has been exposed to be contraditory to one or more contextual facts. When confronted by these contextual based facts they simply ignore them and make personal attacks, ridicule my person and then reasset the same proven false arguments.

Therefore, I present the same facts again since none of their arguments is based on HONEST contextual based data and thus nothing has yet been presented to overturn a single statement above.

 

[The Biblicist]

I didn't say that you deny "alternative options"....I know that you will admit they EXIST. I made sure I insisted that they "have the CAPACITY TO CHOOSE" from available options. Your position denies that.

No, my position does not deny that. What you are failing to distinguish is desire versus capacity. My position simply states that God by a creative act provides a new inner inclination that delights in the Law of God (Rom. 7:21; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and thus provides new desires without denying capacity as sinful capacity is still retained in the fallen nature (Rom. 7:14-25). Hence, it is not an issue of capacity but of ruling desire.

Trust me...this ain't my first rodeo.

If you think this is my first rodeo you are sadly mistaken. I have been in the ministry over 40 years, Bible college, Seminary and am well over 60 and retired.

You're just quoting Luther and Augustine.....That is WAY more than you can prove, and WAY more than you have learned from SCRIPTURE!!!

You should not make charges that you are completely ignorant about. I have never read Augustine, except excerpts and none dealing with this issue. I have read about 10 pages of Luther's book "Bondage of the will." My statements come from intense studies of the Scriptures alone. I pointed out two specific Greek terms translated will that you seem completley ignorant of. I suggest you take the time and consult a good Greek Lexicon and check those words out and then you can come and apologize for insinuating I am in error in providing those definitions - don't talk until you can do the walk and verify what you are saying.

"BIBLICIST" my FOOT!! :laugh:

This kind of ridicule reveals more about your true character than any opponent you are attacking personally. I certainly have not attacked your name, handle or person or ridiculed your person.

tis is sheer philosophical conjecture on your part....complete philosophical conjecture.



There are more words in the Scriptures than Greek ones, like the other, say...2/3rds of the Bible, but yeah, ok. sure.....
But who denies that it's "connected"? What exactly does THAT MEAN!....and HOW are they "connected"? What do all these things prove?....Heck...it's "connected" to the BRAIN!, and by extension chemical synapses within it too! Inasmuch as one can't utilize the capacity to make a decision devoid of one, but so what?....It's "connected" (yes, that totally proves something meaningful)

Your ridicule, your assertions advertise your complete ignorance in this matter. Go get a good Greek Lexicon and Bible concordance and do the work before you advertise your ignorance. What I said about these words are indisputable facts that any good Greek word study will demonstrate. Try looking at the basic roots of these two terms and that will expose your ridicule to be based upon pure ignorance.

You resort to ridicule and persoanl attack throughout this post as your chosen form of debate. That is not a good commentary on your intelligence is it?

 

[Winman]

Van, Winman, Jarvis and Bob have all provided responses and arguments against what I have said above. However, every single argument they have provided has been exposed to be contraditory to one or more contextual facts. When confronted by these contextual based facts they simply ignore them and make personal attacks, ridicule my person and then reasset the same proven false arguments.

Therefore, I present the same facts again since none of their arguments is based on HONEST contextual based data and thus nothing has yet been presented to overturn a single statement above.

Your argument is a fallacy.

1. Is verse 45a a quotation of the Old Testament? yes or no? Yes.

2. Does this quotation speak explicitly about what God does? Yes or no? No, it also includes that the man must hear and learn.

3. What aspect in verse 44 refers to what God does? "draw" or "come"? Draw.

4. Isn't coming to Christ the consequence of what God first does which only God can do? Yes or no? No, it is both. God must draw and teach, but the man must hear and learn.

You just do not get it. There are a lot of great teachers in the world, but that doesn't guarantee their students will learn. The student must hear and learn from his teacher to be taught.

I have already shown you that Jesus himself shows that the hearer is responsible to hear and learn.

Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

You keep trying to prove that God force-feeds men knowledge when that is not what the scriptures say or show. Jesus himself told his disciples to be careful and take heed what they hear. To those that hear, more (knowledge) shall be given. But to those who do not hear, even what was given them shall be taken away.

I have also shown you scripture where God himself says he tried to teach men, but they would not listen and learn from him.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

God called these men, he stretched out his hand to them, but they refused. They would not listen to his counsel or reproofs.

Irresistible Grace is FALSE DOCTRINE. You can insist a thousand times that God force-feeds men knowledge, and you will be wrong a thousand times.

And the way this is going, it very well looks like you will insist (or rather, persist) in your error a thousand times.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van, Winman, Jarvis and Bob have all provided responses and arguments against what I have said above. However, every single argument they have provided has been exposed to be contraditory to one or more contextual facts. When confronted by these contextual based facts they simply ignore them and make personal attacks, ridicule my person and then reasset the same proven false arguments.

Therefore, I present the same facts again since none of their arguments is based on HONEST contextual based data and thus nothing has yet been presented to overturn a single statement above.

It looks that way...exactly:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

No, my position does not deny that. What you are failing to distinguish is desire versus capacity. My position simply states that God by a creative act provides a new inner inclination that delights in the Law of God (Rom. 7:21; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and thus provides new desires without denying capacity as sinful capacity is still retained in the fallen nature (Rom. 7:14-25). Hence, it is not an issue of capacity but of ruling desire.



If you think this is my first rodeo you are sadly mistaken. I have been in the ministry over 40 years, Bible college, Seminary and am well over 60 and retired.



You should not make charges that you are completely ignorant about. I have never read Augustine, except excerpts and none dealing with this issue. I have read about 10 pages of Luther's book "Bondage of the will." My statements come from intense studies of the Scriptures alone. I pointed out two specific Greek terms translated will that you seem completley ignorant of. I suggest you take the time and consult a good Greek Lexicon and check those words out and then you can come and apologize for insinuating I am in error in providing those definitions - don't talk until you can do the walk and verify what you are saying.



This kind of ridicule reveals more about your true character than any opponent you are attacking personally. I certainly have not attacked your name, handle or person or ridiculed your person.






Your ridicule, your assertions advertise your complete ignorance in this matter. Go get a good Greek Lexicon and Bible concordance and do the work before you advertise your ignorance. What I said about these words are indisputable facts that any good Greek word study will demonstrate. Try looking at the basic roots of these two terms and that will expose your ridicule to be based upon pure ignorance.

You resort to ridicule and persoanl attack throughout this post as your chosen form of debate. That is not a good commentary on your intelligence is it?

Ouch....:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Translation: I no longer wish to hear and learn. It matters not what Scripture declares. I have made an immutable decision according to my unchangeable free will. Nothing and no one can make me believe otherwise. Therefore, this debate was, is and will always be circular.



Translation: How the first cause and all subsequent second causes concur to actually make something infallibly come to pass is of little importance. What is important is the end result. Whatever the result, whether belief or unbelief, Heaven or Hell, God is merely a bystander, a note-taker, not actively involved nor the primary cause in determining the outcome.



Translation: Salvation is determined by the pagan god ‘chance’, otherwise known as ‘lady luck’ and ‘fate’. Salvation is not grounded in the sovereign saving grace of God purposefully given in Christ to the Elect according to His good pleasure.



Translation: Jesus did not die with the purpose of infallibly atoning for the sins of specific persons given Him by the Father according to the Father’s infallible eternal will. Instead of being sent here on a mission whereby He would actually purchase salvation and all gifts necessary to guarantee salvation of those men given Him by the Father before the foundation of the world, Christ came hopeful, trying His utmost to reach men through His moral teaching, as well as His unselfish example of martyrdom.



Translation: Although I have been teaching the doctrine of ‘eternal security’ on this board, I will now, by the power of my free will, contradict that teaching by stating unequivocally that men can leave Christ, though they may have at one time been in the safe harbor of His ‘boat’....proving Jesus to be an incompetent fisher of men.



Translation: How many times must I tell you ignorant Calvinists that the ultimate cause of men’s salvation is the good use of their free will??

To free will be the power and the glory! Amen.

:applause::applause::thumbs::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

Why continue this? Anyone can read our exchanges when we both were deailing with textual issues instead of personal issues and see that I provided detailed contextual based evidences that you responded to by assertions based on nothing but your own opinions.
The record is there for our readers to examine themselvves for themselves. Your opinions are irrational, contrary to basic principles of hermenuetics, contradictory to the Greek grammar and thus worthless.

Yes...that is exatlcy what has taken place...

I am not willing to debate someone who is irrational and has so much bias they will say anything, anything to defend their bias. If you had any objectivity and honesty in dealing with passages I would more than accomodate you. I can say that skandelon for the most part tries to be objective and our discussions are substantive more than any other opponent to the truth.[/QUOTE]

:thumbs: this is so true:wavey:

 

[BobRyan]

1. Is verse 45a a quotation of the Old Testament? yes or no? Yes.

2. Does this quotation speak explicitly about what God does? Yes or no? No, it also includes that the man must hear and learn.

3. What aspect in verse 44 refers to what God does? "draw" or "come"? Draw.

4. Isn't coming to Christ the consequence of what God first does which only God can do? Yes or no? No, it is both. God must draw and teach, but the man must hear and learn.

You just do not get it. There are a lot of great teachers in the world, but that doesn't guarantee their students will learn. The student must hear and learn from his teacher to be taught.

I have already shown you that Jesus himself shows that the hearer is responsible to hear and learn.

hence statements like the ones we find in Rev 3 by the same author that is writing in John 6 - also quoting the teaching of Christ.

"I STAND and the door and knock - if ANYONE HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come in". Rev 3.

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Your argument is a fallacy.

Thank you for illustrating exactly what I charged you with. You don't read the questions correctly and you don't answer the questions truthfully and I will illustrate it by your own answers:

2. Does this quotation speak explicitly about what God does? Yes or no? No, it also includes that the man must hear and learn.

Reread my question again and this time more carefully. I asked if the quotation addresses explicitly what God does and the key word is the action word "does." Do you know the difference between the subject of the verb doing the action versus the direct object of the verb RECEIVING the action? Apparently not. Which noun is DOING the action and which noun is RECEIVING the action. Try again!

4. Isn't coming to Christ the consequence of what God first does which only God can do? Yes or no? No, it is both. God must draw and teach, but the man must hear and learn.

The Greek and English grammar demand that coming is the consequence of God's previous actions of being "given" and "draw." In verse 37 the words "shall" come is a future tense. A future tense is FUTURE from any action described in the present tense. Hence, your answer is directly opposed to the grammar and therefore either Christ is wrong or you are. I wll let the reader decide for themselves. What is sad, is that this is so obvoius that only pure blind bias would cause anyone to respond as you have. That is what is truely sad.

You just do not get it. There are a lot of great teachers in the world, but that doesn't guarantee their students will learn. The student must hear and learn from his teacher to be taught.

Isaiah said "ALL" will be taught not some as your theory suggests as there can be no such claim unless BOTH "heard' and "learned" are involved. No one can claim to be taught or to have taught anyone who either has not "heard" them teach or "learned" what they taught. Heard and learned are the definitive essentials that Jesus is defining "taught" by and "ALL" shall be taught because this "all" in context refers to only those chosen to salvation thorugh the new covenant. I proved this in a former post that both Isaiah and Jeremiahs quotations which Jesus refers to as plural "prophets" use the FUTURE tense of the salvation of Israel under the New Covenant when "ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" which is the same covenant applied to US right now by the writer of hebres (heb. 8,10). Both Isaiah and jeremiah claim "ALL" shall be taught by God and jeremiah denies that this is due to any teaching by men (Jer. 31:34). Hence, this is the "ALL" who are given in John 6:37-39. This is the "ALL" of John 12:32. This is "as many as" are given to him in John 17:2. This is the kind of teaching that Jesus says comes from the Father AND NOT BY FLESH AND BLOOD (Mt. 16:16-17).

However, your interpretation of this teaching attributes it to me with God whereas Jesus and Paul denies this kind of teaching can come from men as this kind of teaching is by a CREATIVE act of God - 2 Cor. 4:6

I have already shown you that Jesus himself shows that the hearer is responsible to hear and learn.

Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.;

You are confusing contexts which deal with two completely different things. Jesus also said "he who has ears to hear let him hear" implying as well as categorically denying that all have such ears to hear as that must be "given" to me by God and God does not give that ability to all - Mt. 13:8-10

Your context deals with RESPONSIBILITY not ability whereas Mt.13:8-10 denies the very thing you are asserting as does John 6:37-39 and 44-65.

You keep trying to prove that God force-feeds men knowledge when that is not what the scriptures say or show.

You keep perverting my position when I have explained it to you thoroughly and provided absolute indisputable evidence in the very words translated "will" in the Scriptures. Your responses prove you are completely ignorant of the meaning, the roots of these words.

I have also shown you scripture where God himself says he tried to teach men, but they would not listen and learn from him.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

God called these men, he stretched out his hand to them, but they refused. They would not listen to his counsel or reproofs.

Your method of argument here is like the SDA church and its view of the nature of man. They take ONE HALF of the Biblical evidence and present it as though there is no other HALF that contradicts their theory. You know very well we believe in the GENERAL call and so this text and texts like it always describe refusal/rejection of that call as this one does and always will (Acts 7:51). However, the "whom" in Romans 8:28-30 is effectual in every aspect listed from predestination to glorification. 1 Cor. 1:26-31 contrasts the "called" from other men whom were not "chosen" by God and effectually comes to Christ.

The issue here is not the scriptures as they clearly repudiate your views. The issue is that you have a seared conscience. A seared conscience is unwilling to be objective, unwilling to deal honestly with others and will say anything and everything just to defend their bias. That is the real problem.

 

[BobRyan]

the text says

"44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."

They must be DRAWN, they must choose to HEAR, and they must choose to LEARN - to then have the result that "they come to Me".

Does this sound familiar??

Christ does not split man into two groups (wicked and saints) in John 6 but rather he inlcudes ALL HUMANS in the universal negative "NO MAN can come to Me UNLESS the Father Draws Him". No one CAN come to God without that drawing - and ALL are drawn. So it includes ALL humans in every sense.

This applies to ALL the saints and ALL the wicked.

Neither gropu came to Christ WITHOUT the Drawing of God nor CAN they do it "on their own".

...

45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."

It is "DRAWN" AND it is "HEARD" AND it is "learned" that results in "Comes to Me" as is pointed out in vs 45.

Thus "I will DRAW ALL" John 12:32 does not mean "all will learn, all will choose to hear -- all will come to Me"

John 6:70 "have I not chosen YOU the twelve and yet one of you is a devil".

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1

This statement is the crux of the issue.

Arminians are adamant that the Father is ‘fair’ to one and all. He draws ‘all’ men –

Indeed.

Romans 2:11 "There is no partiality with God".

John 12:32 "I will DRAW ALL unto Me".

2Peter 3 "God is not WILLING that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him Not" John 1

However, Arminians claim, it is now within the power of free will that man ‘chooses’ to hear and learn.

Arminians claim "God draws ALL" in "yes really all!" fashion.

Calvinists "need" to limit that "drawing of ALL" because even Calvinists will admit that the DRAWING of God ENABLEs the power of choice that depravity disables.

We do not differ so much when it comes to the claim that those who ARE DRAWN are ENABLED to make that choice to come to God. Where we differ is in the somewhat fictional "Behold I bust down the door and resurrect the person on the inside - causing them to be My friend ... but other doors I simply ignore". The Arminian model is more along the lines of "behold I STAND at the door and knock. If anyone HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in" Rev 3

All men have been given the same opportunity by the Father.

The difference in the results resides in men, not in God.

Agreed.

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him Not" John 1

John 1 does not say "He came to His own insufficiently and so because he failed to fully reach out to his own - well his own had no other choice but to receive him not".

I think we all see that.

This is why I keep bringing it up.

Non-Catholic Arminians (including Baptist Arminians and SDAs) support the Roman Catholic view which has been overwhelmingly ‘Arminian’ long before the advent of Arminius.

I also agree that some views held by Catholics are correct.

Just as I affirm the "believer's baptism" teaching of Baptists and yet not all of the baptist doctrines - so also - I agree that the Catholic idea that you must choose salvation is valid -- the extent that they actually believe it. When they engage in infant baptism I am not sure they are adopting the free will model as fully as would the non-Catholic Arminian - but that has to do with their teaching on "original sin" which I do not hold to.

I now quote from “The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582.” (Prepared and edited by Dr. William von Peters, Ph.D.; © 1998; p. 171)

[FYI: This is the first English version Bible authorized by the Roman Church. It was printed for the express purpose of countering the Reformation Bibles used by Protestants to convert Catholics to the truths of God’s Word. The Rheims Bible used extensive annotations to teach their errant Catholic interpretation of theology.]

“Annotations – JOHN, Chapter 6……..verse 44. Draw him. – GOD DRAWETH US WITH OUR FREE WILL – The Father draweth us and reacheth us to come to his Son, and to believe these high and hard mysteries of his Incarnation and of feeding us with his own substance in the Sacrament:

not compelling or violently forcing any against their will or without any respect of their consent, .

I will agree with you that comments added to the Bible have been used to teach a number of doctrines - some correct and others in error.

But if your argument is that all Protestants were Calvinists - I am not at all aware that this is historically accurate.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

hence statements like the ones we find in Rev 3 by the same author that is writing in John 6 - also quoting the teaching of Christ.

"I STAND and the door and knock - if ANYONE HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come in". Rev 3.

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1

in Christ,

Bob

May I ask you if you believe you need to be honest with scripture? I ask that because you keep repeating Rev 3:14 and jerking it completely out of context and it seems it does not bother you to be so dishonest with God's Word.

I will prove my point if you kindly answer the following questions:

1. Who is the contextual subject being addressed by Christ with these words?

2. Is the Spirit speaking to the churches or the lost world?

3. Contextually is this a church problem or just an individual being addressed? Is he using a singular "you" or "he" or a plural "you" when describing who has shut him out?

4. If you answer Christ is addressing "individuals" rather than the church are these church members or people in the world?

Can you be honest in your answers and provide explicit statements within the letter you are quoting to support your answers to these three questions?
2.

 

[The Biblicist]

"44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."

They must be DRAWN, they must choose to HEAR, and they must choose to LEARN - to then have the result that "they come to Me". - Bob

Your problem is that "come" includes choosing which is found in the FUTURE TENSE (v. 37) placed AFTER being given by the Father as well as placed AFTER being drawn (v. 44). The grammar and the order provided proves "coming" is consequential to both being given and drawn by the Father.

Now, before you come back and do your "parrot" bit read my post on the contextual definition of coming as I have already proven by the context that 'coming" means "come to Christ in faith" and thus far neither you nor anyone else on this forum has yet to address that post even though I have now posted it twice. Instead all of you have chosen to simply ignore it and that is wise on your part as you canot HONESTLY deal with it.

Now, I did not say you could not or would not deal with my post on coming. No, you can pervert what i said, you can deny the grammatical facts that don't suit your or ignore them, you can deal with it dishonestly. What I said is that you cannot deal with it HONESTLY.

 

[The Biblicist]

The words "cometh to me" in John 6 means "come in faith" or "partaking by faith." This is made abundantly clear in John 6:35-36 and here are the indisputable facts:

1. John 6:1-51 is all about Christ as the "bread of life" that must be partaken to have eternal life. No LIQUID or DRINK is mentioned in these verses at all. Drinking is not mentioned until after John 6:51 where the "blood" of Christ is brought into the context as something to drink.

2. Eating this bread for eternal life is placed in exact parallel with believing or partaking by faith in Christ - vv. 35-36; 47-48

3. In John 6:35 although no liquid had been introduced up to this point, "thirst" is used in parallel with "hunger" which are both eliminated by PARTAKING of Christ as "THE BREAD OF LIFE". Hence, both "cometh" and "believeth" are also used in parallel with each other in order to define how "thirst" and "hunger" are elminated through PARTAKING of Christ.

4. The words "cometh to me" cannot possibly refer phsical arrival to the physical presence of Christ as this would deny anyone living past the cross could "come to Christ"!

5. Matthew 11:33 uses the word "come" in the very same sense as Jesus uses it in John 6. Here also. rest from the burden of sin is eliminated by simply coming to Christ. Coming PARTAKES of the "peace" found in Christ and Paul plainly says "we have peace with God THROUGH FAITH" - Rom. 5:1 - rather than PHYSICAL ARRIVAL. If we interpret "coming to me" as "SPIRITUAL ARRIVAL" there can be no such thing apart from faith as it is impossible for anyone that "cometh" to God WITHOUT FAITH - Heb. 11:6.

CONCLUSION: so anyway you define "cometh to me" must INCLUDE the idea of "coming to Christ in/by faith."

APPLICATION: Hence, "come to me" in John 6:44 means "come to me in/by faith". Thus "draw" is God's enablement to come to Christ in faith - meaning - faith is the work of God not of men, as "no man can come to me" in faith. That is precisely how Christ applied verse 44 to those in verse 64. They were still without faith because God had not enabled them or "given" it to them - v. 65. This was not a new condition, but Christ knew they were without faith "FROM THE BEGINNING" when they professed to be followers of Christ.

Remember, the context is NOT about the relationship between the believer and the gospel or gospel ministry. The context is about the work that no man can do but God and thus itis about God's work in making sure "ALL" He gives to Christ do in fact come to Christ and NONE of that "ALL" be lost. John 6:37-39 reveals the PURPOSED WILL of God to obtain that end whereas John 6:44-45 reveals the POWER of God to obtain that end.

I repost this again as no one has addressed it. Carefully read what I say before answering it.

 

[Iconoclast]

I repost this again as no one has addressed it. Carefully read what I say before answering it.

they did not address it because they cannot:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Inspector Javert]

No, my position does not deny that. What you are failing to distinguish is desire versus capacity.

WOW!!! For THE THIRD TIME!! I'll quote myself,

I didn't say that you deny "alternative options"....I know that you will admit they EXIST. I made sure I insisted that they "have the CAPACITY TO CHOOSE"

<----See! that's me. You haven't read my post. Obviously, we already BOTH distinguish between option and capacity....

If you think this is my first rodeo you are sadly mistaken.

WHEN DID I SAY THAT?? I said this isn't MY first one. That doesn't mean I think it's YOURS DOES IT? Wow, just wow...you don't read anyone else's posts do you.

I have been in the ministry over 40 years, Bible college, Seminary and am well over 60 and retired.

Good for you, you're a genius.....no one questioned your absolutely no doubt vast over-qualifications....We are impressed by your resume' Biblicist, truly.....But, no one questioned it either.

You should not make charges that you are completely ignorant about. I have never read Augustine, except excerpts and none dealing with this issue. I have read about 10 pages of Luther's book "Bondage of the will."

Good grief....it doesn't LITERALLY have to be those two, it could be any number of people. Luther and Augustine are my images, could have been Jonathan Edwards get it? Doesn't have to LITERALLY be them.

Besides? how do you throw up your resume' and then admit to never having read Augustine or "Bondage of the Will"? I couldn't graduate from a Public High School without reading Bondage of the Will for crying out loud. You need a refund from your Bible College.

My statements come from intense studies of the Scriptures alone.

Nobodies statements like that come from intense studies of Scriptures alone. No-ones. Not yours, not mine. You are kidding yourself.

I pointed out two specific Greek terms translated will that you seem completley ignorant of.

I'm aware of them and I know exactly what you are saying about them too....but, they don't prove anything. Nothing at all. Studying the Lexical definitions for will (only in the Greek) as though that's the only language which matters doesn't prove anything either for you or for me.

I suggest you take the time and consult a good Greek Lexicon and check those words out and then you can come and apologize for insinuating I am in error in providing those definitions

I didn't say you were in error. What little you said about those words is perfectly TRUE!! But it doesn't prove a thing. Nothing. Most of the rest is speculation.

There's also the fact that well, Greek isn't the only language on Earth either, but, have it your way.

don't talk until you can do the walk and verify what you are saying.

I haven't tried to prove my view to you Biblicist. There's no point. Most of what we have isn't Biblically derived, not really.

I certainly have not attacked your name, handle or person or ridiculed your person.

No, never. You are a perfect gentleman at all times. Always, as everybody is. You are the connsummate sweet little lamb.

Your ridicule, your assertions advertise your complete ignorance in this matter. Go get a good Greek Lexicon and Bible concordance and do the work before you advertise your ignorance. What I said about these words are indisputable facts that any good Greek word study will demonstrate.

Hey, genius.....what you said about those words is quite correct. I didn't argue that with you...
But to then assume we can then draw the insane conclusions from those two words (again, as though Greek is the only Biblical language) from that is FAR more than you can prove.

Try looking at the basic roots of these two terms and that will expose your ridicule to be based upon pure ignorance.

Try reading other people's posts before responding to them. I haven't challenged your definition of those words. I challenged your ability to jump to un-justified conclusions based upon looking at a lexicon.

You resort to ridicule and persoanl attack throughout this post as your chosen form of debate. That is not a good commentary on your intelligence is it?

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I repost this again as no one has addressed it. Carefully read what I say before answering it.

People "adress" your arguments and they "answer" you all the time. Problem is, you seem to think no one has "answered" you if they have failed to PROVE something to you.

You have been "answered" a million times. Just because you can always come back with an argument doesn't mean no one has answered you. You think someone has to "Prove" you to be in error before they have "answered" you.

Biblicist....no one on this planet could prove to you that 2+2=4 if you didn't already believe it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

they did not address it because they cannot:thumbs::thumbs:

It's just a re-wording and a repetition of the same arguments he's been debating for the last two months. A rose by any other name....

It's simply the fact that not all people like to repeat themselves as much as he does. When this thread closes....he'll most likely re-package the same arguments and create a new thread on the same topic in the next 8-weeks or less. If no one responds to it....he'll quote his own post and begin debating with himself.

I'll give him this, he's persistent. He should have been in W.W.I.
He fights a battle of attrition. We'll simply give up LONG before he quits. You've got to give him the A for effort. He's got tenacity too: I admire that much about him at the very least.

There's no NEW argument there, Icon....just a re-wording of the same one he's been making for months now.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, never. You are a perfect gentleman at all times. Always, as everybody is. You are the connsummate sweet little lamb.

Hey, genius.....what you said about those words is quite correct. I didn't argue that with you...


Pot meet kettle.

Such a junvenile post! Again, when a person stoops to such ridicule it reveals character instead of intelligence.

 

[The Biblicist]

People "adress" your arguments and they "answer" you all the time. Problem is, you seem to think no one has "answered" you if they have failed to PROVE something to you.

You have been "answered" a million times. Just because you can always come back with an argument doesn't mean no one has answered you. You think someone has to "Prove" you to be in error before they have "answered" you.

Biblicist....no one on this planet could prove to you that 2+2=4 if you didn't already believe it.

You are such a junvenile in maturity as your posts are full of ridicule but empty of substance. For the record, no one has attempted to respond to this post - check the record and see.

 

[Inspector Javert]

For the record, no one has attempted to respond to this post - check the record and see.

That's because it's not appreciably different from what you've been be-laboring since the thread started:

It's re-worded, re-packaged...but not appreciably different. No one can conceivably give you the answer you want unless it's "WOW Biblicist"!! Thanks for the brilliant exegesis! :wavey: :wavey: "You've been right about everything all along!" :thumbsup:

Here goes then:

"You know....I don't think anyone can possibly avoid the inevitable conclusions you posed about John 6: You arguments are air-tight, iron-clad and your exegesis perfect!" :thumbsup: