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

[Winman]

"Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you."

Have you never read, "Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned"?

Sure, but how does that teach inability?

Repentance is the gift of God to the Elect. "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."

Instead you and all Arminians view repentance and faith your gifts to God.

How humble of you.

Well, if any man repents it is due to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of God's word. Non- Calvinists believe this is much as you do. But it is the man himself who has to repent, God does not repent for you.

In summary: the verse in question commands repentance which the Lord will grant by pouring His Spirit unto [regenerating] His Elect.

No, Pro 1:23 teaches that if a man turns or repents at God's reproof, that AFTERWARD God gives them the Holy Spirit and regenerates them. Peter said the same thing in Acts chapter 2.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

As you can see, Peter said that these Jews must repent and believe on Jesus (because only believers are baptized, and only believers receive forgiveness of sins) and AFTERWARD they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, Pro 1:23 and Acts 2:38 clearly refute Calvinism.

How does it make you feel.....that on the one hand (as you say) God loves all men, but on the other hand (as you admit) laughs at their calamity?

This is after God has repeatedly called to them and stretched out his hands to save them but they refused. These are truly wicked men who chose evil. So their condemnation is just.

I asked, Is this how you would treat your own children? You refused to respond.

It depends. If one of my children were truly wicked, I might laugh at him if he fell. Fortunately, none of my children have ever acted like this. But I am sure there have been some children who were so evil and hurt so many people, that when they were sent to prison or even killed that their own parents rejoiced.

The Lord indeed proclaimed the true way of salvation. However, the external general call of the Gospel saves no man. The proof lies in the fact that men preferred Jesus dead than alive.

There is no such thing as a "general" and "effectual" call, all men are called by the same gospel.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

This warning makes no sense in Calvinism. The elect cannot possibly fail to believe and come short of receiving the promise, the non-elect have no promise.

Verse 2 shows both the saved and unsaved heard the same gospel. The difference was not the gospel preached, but some believed while others did not.

Your problem is that you know a lot about Calvinism, but almost nothing about scriptures. They are not the same.

Jesus died solely for those given Him by the Father. Have you not read:

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

Are you now teaching those men at whom God is laughing are those same ones He has given Christ as their Savior? Are these the Elect whom Christ has not/will not lose?

No, I am not saying that. God laughs at those who rejected his invitations to be saved. He gives those that believe to Jesus.

But your teaching, when examined beneath its sugar coated surface, is no different than the Bible truths which Calvinists teach.

You teach that God knows who will believe through foreknowledge.

By the same means God knows who will not believe.

Though God, who is all-powerful and all-wise, could have changed the outcome of those He foreknew would be damned due to unbelief (by using an infinite array of tools at His disposal) He chose not to.

What chance, pray tell, do the reprobate have in changing the foreknowledge of God?

And what, pray tell, is the purpose of God in bringing those unbelievers into the world whom God foreknew would never repent?

God has every right to bring any person into the world, he is God, he is the Creator. He gives every man a chance to be saved. That a man rejects God and chooses evil is not God's fault. God is just to punish such men.

And God's foreknowledge is not determination, God simply knows what a man will choose. If a man chooses to believe in his life, that is what God knows. If a man rejects Jesus, that is what God knows.

I'll tell you what cruel is.

Cruel is the Father who sends His Son to die a horrific death which does not accomplish the purpose for which He was sent.

Cold-hearted is the Father who does not believe the shed blood of His Son actually saves those for whom Christ died.

Monstrous is the Father who has so little respect for the power of His Son's blood that He posits the ultimate reason for salvation in man's decision and not the blood shed for many Elect.

It is you, Winman, who portrays a cruel, coldhearted and monstrous God.

Jesus died for all men, he accomplished exactly what he set out to do. He provided salvation for every man who will believe on him. It is God himself that determined that men must believe on Jesus to be saved.

And what a laugh, Arminians and non-Cals have never been accused of representing God as a monster, even by Calvinists, while Calvinists themselves have struggled with their own doctrine for centuries. Calvin himself called predestination (as Calvinism understands it) as the "horrible decree".

 

[The Biblicist]

This is correct, Jesus said all that the Father gives him shall come to him.



They certainly were chosen before the foundation of the world, but I am not familiar with scripture that says they were given before the foundation of the world. Perhaps you can show that scripture?



It simply says "all that the Father giveth me shall come to me". It does not say that coming is conditioned upon being given as you say, nor does it say being given is conditioned upon coming to Christ, it simply says all that the Father gives Jesus shall come to him. I do not add to what it says.

Grammatically, giving precedes coming. "SHALL" come is future tense. If giving were conditioned on coming it would say "all that cometh to me SHALL BE given to me by the Father." It does not say that. It says the very reverse. Hence, giving precedes coming and thus coming is conditioned by being given. A simple matter of the grammar.

Second, These come to the Son because they were previously given by the Father for that purpose. Note the use of the Father's will in verses 38-39. Thus this whole giving unto coming was DIVINE PURPOSE prioir to the coming of Christ. He said, "I CAME DOWN" to fulfill this very purposed will of the Father. Hence, this WILL OF PURPOSE preceded the incarnation. The only will of purpose that precedes the first coming of Christ in regard to the Father giving "ALL" of a certain class of men to Christ for salvation is being "chosen from the foundation of world to salvation" - 2 Thes. 2:13. If you can find anything but that in the Bible with those characteristics the show it.


The wording is so airtight that it cannot possibly be denied without repudiating the very language.

I am not denying that. What I am denying is the cause and effect relationship that you place on it. This passage denies that being given by the Father is conditioned upon coming to Christ (wherein the will of man occurs) but the exact reverse. Coming (inclusive of the will) is the consequence not the cause whereas being given is the cause for coming not the consequence.

What all of you fellas are missing is the fact that THIS CONTEXT is dealing with the work of the Father in connection with coming to Christ and establishing that it is His work that is causative in coming to Christ. Not the will of man, not the gospel but the ETERNAL PURPOSED WILL and POWER of the Father that secures coming to Christ.


John 6:40 is the CONSEQUENTIAL CONCLUSION of verses 37-39 not the CAUSE as the Father's will is the cause. Also note, that the final portion of verse 40 has already been stated in the last clause of verse 39 as a CONSEQUENCE of the Father's will. Finally, obsere that "believeth" is SYNONOMOUS with "cometh to me" which is the consequence of being given not the cause. If you doubt "believeth" is inclusive of "cometh to me" then please look at Post #137 where I prove contextually that it is.


What you fail to grasp is that verses 37-39 are in response to verse 36 and are explantory to those who have seen him and yet remain in unbelief because THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN BY THE FATHER TO COME TO CHRIST IN FAITH. This same group is the same ones that Jesus continues to address in verses 41-43What you continue to fail to grasp is that verses 41-43 addresses the very SAME PEOPLE. because THEY WERE NEVER DRAWN BY THE FATHER TO COME TO CHRIST IN FAITH. ALL who are given none fail to come and all who are drawn/taught as defined by having "heard" AND "Learned" none fail to come. They do not come to Christ but remain in unbelief as does those among his own disciples in verse 64 due to the very same reason - they were never drawn and thus faith was never "given" or the abiity to come to Christ was never given.


Well, I see you changed your analogy so it is consistent! Good for you but you are still wrong! Jesus said that he would make US to be FISHERS OF MEN not the Father. The Father NEVER LOSES ONE that He has given to Christ BECAUSE it is the FATHER who draws men to Christ NOT US!

Second, the drawing work of the Father is something men cannot do just as the giving work of the Father is something men cannot do.

Third, the drawing work of the Father is an INTERNAL work that deals with the mind and heart which no man can do as no man can change himself any more than an Lepord can change his spots or a black man his skin - impossible and that is the meaning of "no man can come to me."

Fourth, it is a work of TEACHING on the inside of a man done solely by the Father and not by men. This teaching is not merely EXPOSURE to the truth of the gospel but actually a CREATIVE work performed within man analogous with Genesis 1:2-3 WHICH IS EFFECTUAL (2 Cor. 4:6). When God said "let there be light" he did not say "Is the world willing to have light??" But rather COMMANDED light into existence and Paul says that is exactly how "light of knowledge" which is essential to be the "substance" and "hope" of faith (Heb. 11:1) was obtained:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Arminians basically do not understand the nature of regeneration, or eternal life or spiritual death and that is why they cannot understand that faith is the work of God by divine fiat (Jn. 6:29) or the "word of command" (Rom. 10:17 "rhema") which is NEVER WITHOUT POWER - "our gospel came not you you in word only BUT in power and in the Spirit and in much assurance." - 1 Thes. 1:5.

Yes, the unregenerated man is ignorant.

No it does not! The unregenerated condition IS ignorance, darkness and blindness, to be otherwise IS to be REGENERATE. Think carefully before attempting to refute what I just said. This IS the characteristics of spiritual death according to Paul (Eph. 4:17-19). Eternal life IS the verse characteristics according to Pual (2 Cor. 4:6).

That is why God must teach the man.

No, there is a difference between "teaching" as a progressive action and "taught" as completed action. Spiritual darkness to light is not a progressive action but a punctillary action (Jn. 5:24 - perfect tense). There is no TWILIGHT state of man but one IS either in darkness or light. Arminianism is the unbiblical doctrine of TWILIGHT or LIMBO decisionalism.

When men hear the gospel they are instructed.

You are talking about HUMAN teaching and teachers but the text is talking about DIVINE teaching by DIVINE FIAT or a CREATIVE act whereby at one instance the world is in pure darkness but the next moment by WORD OF COMMAND from the Father the world is in LIGHT. This text is talking about DIVINE REVELATION (Mt. 16:16-17) that does not originate with or by men as there is no "flesh and blood" that can produce this revelation to or in man.

Think about this next statement carefully. When at the precise point a previous blind man says "I can see" is his sight due to his profession or his profession due having been given his sight??? Which comes first sight or profession? Which is the cause and effect. Furthermore, when does that blind person see? Before He is given sight or WHEN he is given sight? Obviously it is WHEN so it is silmentaneous in action. However, which is the LOGICAL cause and effect? Being given sight or seeing? Here is what you do not understand, nor does any Arminian. We do not deny the human will in salvation but willingness to believe and belief are simletaneous but the cause of both is God. When does a person believe? When God removes darkness with light as the "light of knowledge" that God gives IS the "substance" as well as the "hope" of what SAVING faith consists and what it cannot exist without.

In Romans 10:14 Paul asks how any man can believe in Jesus unless he has HEARD of him.

You are confusing contexts! John 6:29-65 deals with the cause and effect relationship between the Father and coming to Christ by the Father giving such to the Son to come and enabling them to come whereas Romans 10 is dealing with human responsibility in response to the gospel and the use of gospel preachers.

What you are failing to see is that even in regard to human instrumentality and responsibility faith is a product of God's FIAT COMMAND "rhema" (Rom. 10:17) rather than by the gospel in "word only." You have to admit this because even you believe the Holy Spirit must accompany the Word when preached as something more than the mere gospel must be at work WITHIN a lost man for that man to come to Christ. Your error is that you make the human will the effectual cause instead of God whereas Jesus and Paul both make the work of God the effective cause rather than the human will, however, without excluding it as the necessary consequence as all given do come, and all drawn do come.

The scriptures NEVER say a man has to be regenerated to have the ability to believe. You cannot produce a single verse of scripture to support this.

Only in your untaught mind as the Word of God is full of that teaching. You don't understand what the condition of lost IS or the unregenerate state IS and that is why you don't understand what regeneration IS. You embrace a soteriology that is neither light or darkness but a TWILIGHT soteriology of which the Bible knows nothing about. Once you comprehend (if God reveals it to you) what the unregenerated state IS and what the regenerated state IS then you will have no problem finding it plentifully throughout the Scriptues as it will leap out at you on every page.

 

[Winman]

This is correct, Jesus said all that the Father gives him shall come to him.

They certainly were chosen before the foundation of the world, but I am not familiar with scripture that says they were given before the foundation of the world. Perhaps you can show that scripture?

It simply says "all that the Father giveth me shall come to me". It does not say that coming is conditioned upon being given as you say, nor does it say being given is conditioned upon coming to Christ, it simply says all that the Father gives Jesus shall come to him. I do not add to what it says.

Grammatically, giving precedes coming. "SHALL" come is future tense. If giving were conditioned on coming it would say "all that cometh to me SHALL BE given to me by the Father." It does not say that. It says the very reverse. Hence, giving precedes coming and thus coming is conditioned by being given. A simple matter of the grammar.

I agree that it says all that the Father gives me shall come to me. Being given precedes coming. Agreed.

Second, These come to the Son because they were previously given by the Father for that purpose. Note the use of the Father's will in verses 38-39. Thus this whole giving unto coming was DIVINE PURPOSE prioir to the coming of Christ. He said, "I CAME DOWN" to fulfill this very purposed will of the Father. Hence, this WILL OF PURPOSE preceded the incarnation. The only will of purpose that precedes the first coming of Christ in regard to the Father giving "ALL" of a certain class of men to Christ for salvation is being "chosen from the foundation of world to salvation" - 2 Thes. 2:13. If you can find anything but that in the Bible with those characteristics the show it.

I agree it was the will of the Father that all he gives to Jesus that none should be lost.

The wording is so airtight that it cannot possibly be denied without repudiating the very language.

Dude, you are telling me I was correct. Sheesh.

I am not denying that. What I am denying is the cause and effect relationship that you place on it. This passage denies that being given by the Father is conditioned upon coming to Christ (wherein the will of man occurs) but the exact reverse. Coming (inclusive of the will) is the consequence not the cause whereas being given is the cause for coming not the consequence.

No, it does not say one way or another. It simply says that all that the Father gives to Jesus will certainly come to Jesus. It does not say why God chose these persons to give to Jesus.

Now, I happen to believe that God chose those who in his foreknowledge he saw would believe.

What all of you fellas are missing is the fact that THIS CONTEXT is dealing with the work of the Father in connection with coming to Christ and establishing that it is His work that is causative in coming to Christ. Not the will of man, not the gospel but the ETERNAL PURPOSED WILL and POWER of the Father that secures coming to Christ.

I love the way you assume your opponent is always mistaken, NEVER YOU. You are so full of yourself.

I agree that no man can come to Jesus unless it were given him, but exactly what is given him? And to that I answer, KNOWLEDGE. Verse 45 explains exactly how a man is drawn, and what causes a man to come to Jesus.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jesus is clear that EVERY MAN that has heard, and learned from the Father comes to Jesus. This is the CAUSE. It is God's word that convicts and enlightens a man, teaches a man, that causes him to come to Jesus.

Now, you say God force-feeds a man knowledge, I completely disagree. Jesus told his disciples to take heed how they hear, showing it is the man's responsibility to both hear and learn. I have also shown scripture that shows men can refuse to listen and reject God's teaching.

This is the issue, and where you are wrong. You cannot show any scripture to support that God force-feeds men knowledge. I challenge you to show scripture that supports this, you can't do it, while there is multitudes of scripture that supports my view. I have already shown you some, and I could show you much more.

John 6:40 is the CONSEQUENTIAL CONCLUSION of verses 37-39 not the CAUSE as the Father's will is the cause. Also note, that the final portion of verse 40 has already been stated in the last clause of verse 39 as a CONSEQUENCE of the Father's will. Finally, obsere that "believeth" is SYNONOMOUS with "cometh to me" which is the consequence of being given not the cause. If you doubt "believeth" is inclusive of "cometh to me" then please look at Post #137 where I prove contextually that it is.

Well, it is certainly the Father's will that men listen to him and learn from him and come to Jesus. But some men refuse to listen and learn.

What you fail to grasp is that verses 37-39 are in response to verse 36 and are explantory to those who have seen him and yet remain in unbelief because THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN BY THE FATHER TO COME TO CHRIST IN FAITH. This same group is the same ones that Jesus continues to address in verses 41-43What you continue to fail to grasp is that verses 41-43 addresses the very SAME PEOPLE. because THEY WERE NEVER DRAWN BY THE FATHER TO COME TO CHRIST IN FAITH. ALL who are given none fail to come and all who are drawn/taught as defined by having "heard" AND "Learned" none fail to come. They do not come to Christ but remain in unbelief as does those among his own disciples in verse 64 due to the very same reason - they were never drawn and thus faith was never "given" or the abiity to come to Christ was never given.

Sheesh, here we go again. Just because someone is drawn does not mean they will come.

I have already showed you scripture in Matthew 22 and Proverbs 1 where men were called and drawn, but refused to come.

You simply cannot face the reality that Irresistible Grace is FALSE DOCTRINE.

Well, I see you changed your analogy so it is consistent! Good for you but you are still wrong! Jesus said that he would make US to be FISHERS OF MEN not the Father. The Father NEVER LOSES ONE that He has given to Christ BECAUSE it is the FATHER who draws men to Christ NOT US!

I didn't change my analogy, I actually provided a video of a fish being pulled and drawn into a boat, but fighting and resisting and getting away.

You are so full of yourself you said no fish would ever get away from you. Now you say no person can get away from God. So you compare yourself to God! Unbelievable, that is how incredibly proud you are!

And fact is, men do get away from God, I showed you where God called men and THEY WOULD NOT COME.

Second, the drawing work of the Father is something men cannot do just as the giving work of the Father is something men cannot do.

Third, the drawing work of the Father is an INTERNAL work that deals with the mind and heart which no man can do as no man can change himself any more than an Lepord can change his spots or a black man his skin - impossible and that is the meaning of "no man can come to me."

Fourth, it is a work of TEACHING on the inside of a man done solely by the Father and not by men. This teaching is not merely EXPOSURE to the truth of the gospel but actually a CREATIVE work performed within man analogous with Genesis 1:2-3 WHICH IS EFFECTUAL (2 Cor. 4:6). When God said "let there be light" he did not say "Is the world willing to have light??" But rather COMMANDED light into existence and Paul says that is exactly how "light of knowledge" which is essential to be the "substance" and "hope" of faith (Heb. 11:1) was obtained:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Arminians basically do not understand the nature of regeneration, or eternal life or spiritual death and that is why they cannot understand that faith is the work of God by divine fiat (Jn. 6:29) or the "word of command" (Rom. 10:17 "rhema") which is NEVER WITHOUT POWER - "our gospel came not you you in word only BUT in power and in the Spirit and in much assurance." - 1 Thes. 1:5.

The drawing of God is LOVE. Even when we were sinners Christ died for us. This is what draws men.

Nevertheless, some men refuse to come. Irresistible Grace is FALSE DOCTRINE. Again, please read this until you understand it;

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

God called them, but they would not come.

God called them, but they would not come.

God called them, but they would not come.

Please continue to read this scripture until it sinks in.

 

[The Biblicist]

With the exception of Bob, all my Arminian opponents agree that ALL the Father gives to the Son come to the Son and none are lost (bob fails to see doing the will of the Father in verses 38-39 refers to Christ's obedience not ours).

Therefore, they must agree that "ALL" those given were also drawn by the Father because coming to Christ is a consequence of both being given and being drawn by the Father as both texts explicitly present coming as the consequence of both being given and drawing. That is undeniable.

What they fail to see is that this passage is presented by Christ in contrast to those who see and do not believe (v. 36) thus do not come to Christ. The "all" in verse 37 excludes those in verse 36 which is the same bunch in verses 41-43 and even are the same class of people found within his own disciples in verse 64. Hence, contextually there are only two sorts of people being contrasted, no third class.

Lets look at the grammar in verse 36-37:

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The words "but I said unto you" refer to a specified subject and place them in a specific class of people because "all that the Father gives me" do what you refuse to do and thus "you" were not given by the Father to me or else you would come to me in faith instead of remaining in unbelief. Hence, they were not among the "ALL" that were given! Why? Because they do not come to Christ.

The very same persons are addressed in verses 41-43:

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

Verse 41 identifes this people with those who heard the words in verses 30-35 and responded to them as described in verse 36. These are they which were never given to the Father because they will not come but remain in unbelief as demonstrated by the repeated word "murmured" which describes the state of unbelief among his own disicples later (61,64). Hence, the same group that were never part of the "ALL" given by the Father to come to the Son.

Verse 44-45 is directed toward those never given by the Father to the Son as further explanation why THEY DO NOT COME to the Son.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

1. They are not in the "ALL" class of mankind given by the Father to the Son and so they do not come as only the given come.
2. They are not in the "ALL" (v. 45) that will be taught by the Father.

Now here is where my Arminian opponents make the text take a big leap from its contextuall addressed audiance to another kind of audiance but which the context does not address. They want verses 44-45 to be applied to a universal audiance of mankind and where the READ INTO the text that "heard" is possibly an ALTERNATIVE OPTION to "learned" in order to expand the audiance from this contextual audiance being addressed to include "ALL" those given PLUS all those not given.

They do this when the same consequence is in view - coming to Christ that was formerly in view but restricted to only those given as opposed to the audiance addressed in verse 36 and verses 41-43. Why? not because the context demands it but their soteriology demands it.

However, the Scripture passage quoted in verse 45a is an amalgamation of more than one prophet as Jesus use the plural "prophets" instead of the singular. It is almost a direct word for word quote taken from Isaiah 54:13 but it also includes Jeremiah 31:34 and is restricted to the "ALL" who actually partake of the New Covenant IN THE FUTURE and I quote:

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


Jer. 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is spoken of in the FUTURE tense and is the same covenant quoted twice by the writer of Hebrews called the "NEW" covenant applied to all of God's elect and I quote:

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:.....
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.


Note that all the above references use the FUTURE tense and in direct application to Israel yet in the future. However, this same covenant is used in the PRESENT tense in Hebrews 9 for all of God's people NOW.

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 ¶ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

This is the blood of the "EVERLASTING COVENANT" in regard to the elect in all ages from Adam to the last elect saved:

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

The same covenant with the same blood described in Hebrews 10:19 is the same "blood" of the "everlasting Covenant. In regard to Israel it is the "new" covenant but in regard to God's ETERNAL PURPOSE ACCORDING TO ELECTION it is the blood of the "EVERLASTING COVENANT."

My point, John 6:36-65 is a constrast between those never given, never drawn and so never come to Christ with the "ALL" who are given and the "ALL" who are taught of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that it says all that the Father gives me shall come to me. Being given precedes coming. Agreed.

I agree it was the will of the Father that all he gives to Jesus that none should be lost.

No, it does not say one way or another. It simply says that all that the Father gives to Jesus will certainly come to Jesus. It does not say why God chose these persons to give to Jesus.

Those in verse 36 did not come to Christ and verses 37-39 explain WHY they did not come to Christ! They were not "GIVEN" because all who are given DO COME to Christ! Hence, being given is the contextual CAUSE provided to explain why "ALL" do come to Christ in contrast to them refusing to come to Christ. Your whole case is sunk right here and you know it, so that is why you deny the obivous that "give" is the only contextual reason supplied to explain why "ALL" come to Christ but these in verse 36 do not come. Period!

Now, I happen to believe that God chose those who in his foreknowledge he saw would believe.

If that were true then the text would read "all who come to me shall be given by the Father" as that reflects your view of God's response to our coming to Christ by faith due to mere omnicience rather than purposeful "will" as the text states (vv. 38-39). Thus you pervert the text by reversing its cause and effect statement. However, the text claims that it is Christ's purpose in coming down from heaven to accomplish what God's "will" of purpose rather than God's omnicience of events.

Here is the crux of your error. (1) you must repudiate the cause and effect relationship between "give" and "come" by REVERSING it through your interpetation; (2) you have to ignore the contrast being made between those in verse 36 and the "ALL" in verse 37-39 who do come due to being given;
(3) you have to substitute "foreknowledge" for "will" in verse 38-39; (4) you have to deny that Christ came down to secure this specific "will" of the Father in regard to specific "all" in contrast to those in verse 36. In short, you have to violate sound principles of exegesis and READ INTO the text what it does not say whereas my interpretation is based only on what the text does say, its grammar, its cause and effect relationships.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jesus is clear that EVERY MAN that has heard, and learned from the Father comes to Jesus. This is the CAUSE. It is God's word that convicts and enlightens a man, teaches a man, that causes him to come to Jesus.

You are failing to understand WHY Jesus made this quote immediately following his statment in verse 44! He made it to support his statement about God must draw or else no man can come. Hence, "taught" in the statment is being used by Christ as a synonym for "draw."

Now, here is the crux of your error. Both "heard" and "learn" have to do DIRECTLY with the word "taught" in the prophetic quotation but indirectly with "draw" as "Taught" is used to substitute "draw" in this Biblical quotation. Hence, sound interpretation understand the word "taught" in verse 45 as "draw/taught." Miss this point and you pervert the whole text and you make the quotation meaningless to his statement in verse 44.

That means "draw/taught" is impossible apart from both "heard" and "learned" as it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to claim to have been "taught" who has not both heard and learned from the teacher - impossible. Hence, any who claim to have "heard" but do not come have not been draw/taught. Any who claim to have "learned" but do not come have not been draw/taught as it is impossible to be taught, and thus impossible to be drawn if both are not present. Hence, you are wrong! You cannot be drawn by God without both as you cannot be Taught by God without both and that is exactly the crux of your error is that you attempt to make "draw" include one but not the other and thus you define "taught" as one without the other and that is simply IMPOSSIBLE and irrational.

Hence, EVERYONE that has been draw/taught has "heard and learned" and none fail to come to Christ - NONE! ANd so "ALL" in verse 45a is the "ALL" in verse 37-39 which is the same "ALL" in John 12:32. To deny this you must READ INTO the text that heard OR learned is OPTIONAL and either equals "draw/taught" and that is simply false!

 

[Winman]

Those in verse 36 did not come to Christ and verses 37-39 explain WHY they did not come to Christ! They were not "GIVEN" because all who are given DO COME to Christ! Hence, being given is the contextual CAUSE provided to explain why "ALL" do come to Christ in contrast to them refusing to come to Christ. Your whole case is sunk right here and you know it, so that is why you deny the obivous that "give" is the only contextual reason supplied to explain why "ALL" come to Christ but these in verse 36 do not come. Period!

It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that being given is the cause. It simply says that those given shall come.

Verse 44 says that no man can come unless he is drawn. And verse 45 shows what causes a man to come, by being taught of God. Every man who hears and learns from the Father shall come to Jesus. It is being taught by the Father that causes him to come to Jesus.

That said, not every man drawn comes, some men resist and do not come.

If that were true then the text would read "all who come to me shall be given by the Father" as that reflects your view of God's response to our coming to Christ by faith due to mere omnicience rather than purposeful "will" as the text states (vv. 38-39). Thus you pervert the text by reversing its cause and effect statement. However, the text claims that it is Christ's purpose in coming down from heaven to accomplish what God's "will" of purpose rather than God's omnicience of events.

Not omniscience, but foreknowledge. We are elect according to foreknowledge. We are chosen through sanctification of the Spirit AND BELIEF OF THE TRUTH. I believe these are the ones the Father gives to Jesus.

Here is the crux of your error. (1) you must repudiate the cause and effect relationship between "give" and "come" by REVERSING it through your interpetation; (2) you have to ignore the contrast being made between those in verse 36 and the "ALL" in verse 37-39 who do come due to being given;
(3) you have to substitute "foreknowledge" for "will" in verse 38-39; (4) you have to deny that Christ came down to secure this specific "will" of the Father in regard to specific "all" in contrast to those in verse 36. In short, you have to violate sound principles of exegesis and READ INTO the text what it does not say whereas my interpretation is based only on what the text does say, its grammar, its cause and effect relationships.

No, I am not. I am saying that God in his foreknowledge knows who will believe on Jesus in time, and gives these persons to Jesus. Therefore they will certainly come to Jesus in time. God's foreknowledge does not determine that they will come, but it is infallibly correct. Being given is not what causes them to come, though all who are given will come.

Being drawn is not what causes a man to come to Jesus, though no man can come unless he is drawn. But not all who are drawn come.

Those who hear and learn from the Father are the ones who come to Jesus, this is what causes them to come.

That is why preachers go out and preach the gospel. This is why Jesus commanded us to go out and TEACH men. It is knowledge that causes men to believe.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[The Biblicist]

Q

Jesus is clear that EVERY MAN that has heard, and learned from the Father comes to Jesus. This is the CAUSE. It is God's word that convicts and enlightens a man, teaches a man, that causes him to come to Jesus.

The word UNACCOMPANIED BY GOD is worthless just as the word spoken in Genesis 1:3 unaccompanied by God's power would not create light. The gospel is the power of God because it becomes God's vehicle of POWER when an elect (1 Thes. 1:4) is saved (1 Thes. 1:5).

Now, you say God force-feeds a man knowledge[/ QUOTE]

A complete perversion of my position! Regeneration gives a NEW HEART and the new heart controls the wil as the will is nothing more than the vehicle of expression for the mind and heart. This is seen in the cause and effect order given in Ezekile 36:26-27 which is the NEW COVENANT in Hebrews 8 and 10.

Give a sinner a heart created in righteouseness and true holiness (the governing motive/inclination) then he freely chooses according to the desires of that heart. Both Greek words translated "will" prove my position is true. (1) Boulomai - means the will directed by intellect; (2) thelomai - means the will directed by emotions - no other words exist translated will because the will is the slave of the intellect and emotions.

In contrast, you have something no being in the universe including God has - a will FREE from their own nature. This does not deny contrary choice but denies that any choice contrary to either intellect or emotions is by force rather than willing.

However, in our context coming to Christ equals willing to believe in him and that is causually attributted to what God can only do Himself - give them to Christ before the incarnation (v. 37) and draw/taught them. In both cases "give" and "draw/taught" are the only contextual provided causes for coming and thus coming is presented in its relationship to "give" and "draw/taught" as the CONSEQUENCE not the cause. However, you repudiate the contextual cause and effect relationships provided and REVERSE them in order to teach your error. That is called EISGESIS. All your intepretatons and arguments are based on denial, reversal and repudation of the grammar, contextual cause and effect relationships provided, and meaning of terms.

 

[The Biblicist]

It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that being given is the cause. It simply says that those given shall come.

There is no point in further discussing this with you. If you cannot see the "but" of verse 36 followed by the conclusion in verse 36 which sets them in direct CONTRAST to the "all" in verses 37-39 in regard to the subject of coming to Christ there is no hope of any intelligent or productive discussion.

Only blind hardned ideological mindedness would deny the obvious and this is obvious. Jesus provides the reason WHY they can see and refuse to believe in verses 36-40 and that is precisely because they are not part of the "ALL" given to the Son to come. That is so plain, so obvioous that itis futile to continue any conversation with a person who denies it. Why not just as equally claim that drawing is not the cause of coming either and then you will be consistently wrong as both are the ONLY causes provided in the context for WHY people come to Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not omniscience, but foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge as YOU DEFINE IT is nothing more than omnicience as omniscience is cognance of all events including coming to Christ in the future. Foreknowledge as God's word defines it is all events "according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28 before 8:29) and thus part of working out His purpose (Isa. 46:10) and is therefore the "determinate counsel of God" being expressed in time (Acts 2:23). Look at the grammar in Acts 2:23 before making an ignorant and foolish response.

 

[Winman]

Foreknowledge as YOU DEFINE IT is nothing more than omnicience as omniscience is cognance of all events including coming to Christ in the future. Foreknowledge as God's word defines it is all events "according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28 before 8:29) and thus part of working out His purpose (Isa. 46:10) and is therefore the "determinate counsel of God" being expressed in time (Acts 2:23). Look at the grammar in Acts 2:23 before making an ignorant and foolish response.

Don't tell me what foreknowledge means.

Foreknowledge simply means to know something before it comes to pass. I know how Calvinists do everything they can to pervert the definition of foreknowledge as they do many other words in scripture.

Foreknowledge is where we get the word prognosis, which means to predict something, such as a doctor predicting the course of a disease, or a weatherman predicting the weather ahead of time.

And Acts 2:23 is a perfect example of foreknowledge. God did not determine that the Jews and Romans would crucify Jesus, as God never tempts any person to sin (Jam 1:13), but God surely knew they would come for Jesus.

What was determined was that Jesus would be delivered unto them. Jesus willingly gave himself up to these soldiers, he told Peter he could have called on his Father and he would have sent more than 12 legions of angels to rescue him.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

This verse does not say one word about God determining that Jesus would be crucified. It says "being delivered" was what was determined.

If God determined the Jews would crucify Jesus, then it would have been no sin. It is not sin to do God's will.

 

[The Biblicist]

Don't tell me what foreknowledge means.

The English word has no bearing on the historical use or meaning of the Greek term at the writing of the New Testament. However, that is a fact you don't want anyone to tell you about isn't it????

You are content with being ignorant and so I will honor your request and leave you to your ignorance.

 

[Winman]

The English word has no bearing on the historical use or meaning of the Greek term at the writing of the New Testament. However, that is a fact you don't want anyone to tell you about isn't it????

You are content with being ignorant and so I will honor your request and leave you to your ignorance.

Right. Only you Calvinists know the correct meaning of words, and they never agree with the rest of society.

Time to post the famous Calvinist dictionary;


All: The elect

Altar Call: An insult to God

Arminianism: Man centered theology

Assurance: hoping that you're elect

Augustine: The first church father.

Calvinism: The gospel

Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged

Call (general): God's justification to condemn the reprobate.

Catholicism: What Arminianism leads to.

Compatiblism: We are free to do whatever the Potter decrees us to do.

Contradiction: a mystery

Doctrines of Grace: Term that helps illustrate how God has given us Calvinists superior insight. Usage example: "I was an Arminian before being illuminated by the Doctrines of Grace."

Doris Day: Singer of truth

To Draw: To drag

Easy believism: The false idea that you can believe in Jesus Christ and be saved. Can a rotten corpse believe? Nope, neither can you.

Eisegesis: Any Arminian interpretation of a difficult passage (thanks Ben)

Emergent: Synonymous with "heretic", unless your name happens to be Mark Driscoll.

Esau: Someone God hated, not for any reason though.

Everyone: The elect

Exegesis: Any interpretation by James White, after all he's a Greek scholar.

faith (1): Something that the elect are zapped with after regeneration.

faith (2): A work that gives pride to Arminians.

Fatalism: Nothing to see here, move along.

Faux Pas: Coming to church with a Bible translation other than the ESV.

Finney, Charles: Wicked man who ravaged the evangelical movement. (Really)

To Foreknow: To decree or to love, absolutely nothing to do with knowing before.

Four Point Calvinist: An Arminian

Frankenstein: Cool story about a dead monster that got zapped with lightning and then became alive. Great parallel to the way we are regenerated.

Free Will: Something that can't exist because it would make God helpless if true.

Glory: Praise we give to God for anything wicked that has ever happened (except for the birth of Charles Finney).

God's secret will: To save a few and reprobate the rest (secret to Arminians but not to us)

God's revealed will: a mystery

Gospel of John: anything by John Piper

Hebrews: Skip this book and read the Gospel of John instead.

Hyper-Calvinists: Calvinists who care more about consistency than looking good.

Infralapsarianism: See "Four Point Calvinist".

Infant damnation: Something that brings God glory.

James: Book that Luther wanted thrown out of the canon.

Jesus Loves Me, This I Know: Misleading children's song.

Jesus Loves the Little Children: Another terrible song, obviously written by someone who didn't take the time to do a proper exegesis of scripture.

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White's unbiased insights are recommended.

Kosmos: Greek word that means "elect".

The Living Bible: I hope you're joking.

Missions: A complete waste of time, see "altar call" for more info.

Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.

NIV: Word for thought translation is heresy.

Paul: Author of Romans 9

Pelagian: Name to call Arminians, extra points if they don't know what it means.

Polemic Atheist: Another name to call Arminians, good diversionary tactic when appealing to John Owen doesn't work.

Preaching the Gospel: Something God commands, but the reason why is a mystery.

Pride: Something that works-based Arminians have in abundance, but we Calvinists don't after being chosen by God.

Regeneration: See "Frankenstein".

Reprobate: Those whom God justly damns to maximize His glory.

Rick Warren: worthless author, read something by John Gill instead.

The Road to Rome: Where synergism always leads to.

Robot: Don't say that word!

Servetus: A heretic who got what he deserved.

Shipwreck: Misleading term, because the "ship" wasn't really floating in the first place.

Sovereignty: meticulous micromanagement

Supralapsarianism: God orchestrated the fall for His glory, the central truth of scripture.

Wesley, John: A false apostle of free will (not kidding)

Whitefield, George: Wesley's superior

Whosoever: The elect

World: The elect

The sad part is that these definitions are actually accurate for Calvinists.

 

[The Biblicist]

Right. Only you Calvinists know the correct meaning of words, and they never agree with the rest of society.

Your beyond objectivity or rationality but buried in subjective bias and intentional misrepresentation of those who oppose you. No sense in discussing with this state of mind.

 

[Winman]

Your beyond objectivity or rationality but buried in subjective bias and intentional misrepresentation of those who oppose you. No sense in discussing with this state of mind.

Right.

There is no such thing as an Arminian or non-Calvinist mock dictionary. That says it all right there. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

Right.

There is no such thing as an Arminian or non-Calvinist mock dictionary. That says it all right there. :thumbs:

I feel genuine sorrow for you. You can't deal with your opponents honestly nor can you deal with scriptures honestly because you are so blinded by bias and so you say anything to defend that bias. That is truly a sad state of mind. I can deal with honest interpretative differences that have some kind of exegetical basis but not with irrational assertions.

 

[Inspector Javert]

..................

 

[Benjamin]

Eisegesis: Any Arminian interpretation of a difficult passage (thanks Ben)

You're welcome, I think...???

 

[Winman]

I feel genuine sorrow for you. You can't deal with your opponents honestly nor can you deal with scriptures honestly because you are so blinded by bias and so you say anything to defend that bias. That is truly a sad state of mind. I can deal with honest interpretative differences that have some kind of exegetical basis but not with irrational assertions.

First, I seriously doubt you think about anybody but yourself.

Second, I have patiently answered almost all of your excessively verbose posts. You are never at a lack for words.

Third, I have provided honest interpretive diffences to you, but you do not accept them. Fine.

John 6:45 is the key to understanding verses 37, 44, and 65.

Verse 37 tells us all that the Father gives Jesus shall come to him.

Verse 44 tells us none can come unless drawn, and those that come will be raised up the last day.

Verse 65 tells us that no man can come to Jesus unless "it" were given him.

Just what is the "it" Jesus speaks of? All of these verses are explained by verse 45;

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

How is a man drawn to Jesus? By being taught about Jesus. When a man is taught he is a sinner, but that Jesus died for his sins to save him, this is what draws a man to Christ.

What is given to men that makes them come? Knowledge. When God teaches a man, this is what causes him to believe and causes him to come to Jesus.

But the hearing and learning is man's part. God the Father teaches through his word, but man is responsible to hear and learn from God, not unlike students in any school.

You want us to believe God force-feeds certain men with knowledge, but you cannot submit a single verse to support this. You simply assume Irresistible Grace is true, even when multiple scriptures have been submitted to you that easily refute it.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

God tries to teach all men, but some men despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

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:

It may not fit your Calvinist concept of God, but the scriptures show God calling out to men, stretching his hands out to them, but they would not listen to his counsel or his reproofs.

Irresistible Grace is FALSE DOCTRINE.

 

[The Biblicist]

You're welcome, I think...???

Benjamin, I could not help but notice you by-line at the bottom of your post. The logic is correct but the premise is false.

In salvation of the elect there is no external force used by God on the human will. Instead, God provides a new INTERNAL FORCE (new heart) that operates the will. The will is not an entity free from the moral nature and force of any being including God. Indeed, the will is merely the expression of intellect and emotions and NOTHING MORE. Both Greek terms translated "will" in the New Testament (1) boulomai; (2) thelomai prove this point. Boulomai is the will directed by the intellect whereas thelomi is the will directed by the emotions.

The governing inclination in fallen man is the "law of sin" that operates as the moral force behind the will in fallen man. You can easily see this from Romans 7:15-20. In regeneration God merely replaces this governing inclination with a new moral governing inclination (Ezek. 36:26-27). Thus the will FREELY expresses this new inward governing force/inclination (Rom. 7:21) but the Holy Spirit provides the inward power for this new willingness to be expressed outwardly in the life (Rom. 8:10-13).

The same is true about God's will. There is no EXTERNAL force that dictates His will. His will is not free from His own internal inclination/emotions but is simply the vehicle of their expression and thus His righteous heart is the INTERNAL force behind all his decisions. That is why God WILL NOT sin because His intellect and emotions are governed by a righteous nature as the governing force behind His will.