Irresistible Grace, John 6:37

[Van]

Thanks

I read fine Van even though I need spectacles. I also think!

So it seems you agree with me that Calvinism misrepresents these verses, because you can read and comprehend.

The whole premise of the thread is to claim support for Calvinism where none is found.

The actual truth is that many are called, and if they understand the gospel, they are drawn by the lovingkindness demonstrated by God dying for them, but few are chosen because not all who are drawn are then chosen and given (spiritually placed into) Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Not really. Remember the Samaritan woman. This is the first time that Jesus Christ identified Himself, and to a Gentile!

You are missing the forrest for the trees. I'm talking about when the gospel was officially sent to the Gentile peoples. You know, "first to the Jew and THEN to the Gentiles..." You know, after Peter had his dream with a white sheet and Paul was called to be "the apostle to the Gentiles." It wasn't until this time that the Gentiles were being enabled or drawn to Christ, as John 6 explains. At the time John 6 happened, most of Israel (except a select few) were being judicially blinded in their rebellion so as to accomplish the redemption of man.

The 12 are specifically mentioned in John 6. However, according to Robertson's Harmony the 70 were later sent out [Luke 10]. Then of course the Apostle Paul mentions the 500 that were witnesses to the resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:6]. So not all were hardened.

Again, forrest vs trees. I understand this but I'm speaking in general terms about the nations of Israel, who is being hardened, and the "Gentiles, who will listen." (Acts 28:28)

You, like convicted1, are wanting to restrict the teaching of Jesus Christ in John 6 only to the Jews during the ministry of Jesus Christ.

No, the teaching applies to us as well, for if we (as a people) become arrogant, prideful and hard hearted we too could be 'cut off' from the tree. Paul spells this out very clearly in Romans 11. And I agree that people must be drawn to Christ. I just understand that God uses the means of the gospel (which had yet to be sent into the world at that time) as the power of salvation. And I understand that Israel, the elect nation, was chosen for the noble purpose of bringing the redemption of God to the rest of the world in two ways: The Christ lineage and the message.

John 1:11-13
11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Who does "his own" speak of? Israel. This verse supports exactly what I'm saying. Israel, his own people, didn't receive him, but the Gentiles did (generally speaking.) Acts 28:28

 

[HankD]

I've fast forwarded to the end (at this moment).

When we read the Gospel of John the message indicates that the sovereignty of God is in the forefront as to the human ability to believe:

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.​

In the pragmatic book of Acts man's responsibility is moved to the forefront:

NKJV Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.​

Hopefully we can present the gospel with both concepts in mind.
Yes, in this case holding both these concepts simultaneously approaches the proverbial orwellian "doublethink".​

However Orwell is/was a man but we have an infinite and eternal God and with Him we have been told all things are possible.​

This was the manner in which Paul preached to King Agrippa and Felix.​

Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.​

Felix had a kind of belief but not the kind which saves.
Apparently, he chose the darkness.
Did the convenient season ever come? It seems not.​

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.​

Paul looked beyond king Arippa's resistance and preached nonetheless.​

Skepticism and resisitance didn't stop Paul from preaching the gospel to all men everywhere.

Just a reminder FWIW.​

HankD​

 

[Van]

Hank D, no need for double think, or to present an impossibility as truth.

No man can come to Christ unless allowed by God is what John 6:65 says. Thus, if God does not disable the person by hardening, they can come. Judas was not allowed to come once he was chosen to fulfill the betrayer prophecy.

To take this verse and turn it on its head, God enables by irresistible grace, rather than God disables by hardening is needless and unwarranted.

 

[OldRegular]

So it seems you agree with me that Calvinism misrepresents these verses, because you can read and comprehend.

The whole premise of the thread is to claim support for Calvinism where none is found.

The actual truth is that many are called, and if they understand the gospel, they are drawn by the lovingkindness demonstrated by God dying for them, but few are chosen because not all who are drawn are then chosen and given (spiritually placed into) Christ.

You are confused. I am not trying to support Calvinism. I am simply presenting my understanding of Scripture and the Doctrines of Grace. The term Irresistible Grace has, unfortunately, been used by many in explaining those Doctrines.

 

[OldRegular]

Skandelon

I think I understand your point, however, generally speaking or otherwise does not negate the truth taught in John's Gospel and the rest of Scripture. All of Salvation is by and through the Sovereign Grace of God. Since Adam the "vaunted free will of man" has been in bondage to sin and satan.

 

[HankD]

Hank D, no need for double think, or to present an impossibility as truth.

No man can come to Christ unless allowed by God is what John 6:65 says. Thus, if God does not disable the person by hardening, they can come. Judas was not allowed to come once he was chosen to fulfill the betrayer prophecy.

To take this verse and turn it on its head, God enables by irresistible grace, rather than God disables by hardening is needless and unwarranted.

True, but to get to the root of the disconnect is to answer the forthcoming question to which you allude "once he was chosen", which implies a choice made in the time stream continuum.

What is the essential criteria in time and substance for God's decision to enable or to disable at the individual and personal level?

We don't know the details:

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:​

Presumably we can all agree that "predestination" indicates a condition or state of being before we even got here.​

"neither having done any good or evil" Romans 9:11.
Which would include Judas.​

So we are somewhat in agreement.​

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.​

But still, there seems a disconnect.​

i.e. - Which perhaps Abraham felt when he asked:
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"​

Or perhaps it is the adamic nature which prompts me (when I listen to it) to ask:​

"Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" and scripture following...​

None of the systematic theologies I have encountered has closed the disconnect that keeps appearing and re-appearing, debated and thrashed about here at the BB and other like venues concerning the "tension" between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.

Only the scripture provides a viable answer although it's doesn't provide the details but an oblique commandment (To wit:Leave it alone!) :

Psalm 46.

10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
11 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.​

Or as Jesus put it: "but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven" Luke 10:20c.

HankD​

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well said.....You have presented a clear scriptural case that is to be believed.
Some do not like the scripture, so they whine about personal attacks. When they twist the words, and cut the verses in half after they have been answered.....then whine and say they are not getting a response.....it is like a bad cycle they cannot escape from.
When verses are correctly offered they should welcome correction:wavey:

Some do not like the scripture, so they whine about personal attacks. When they twist the words, and cut the verses in half after they have been answered.....then whine and say they are not getting a response.....it is like a bad cycle they cannot escape from.

ONLY..............no one has, in fact, done this on this thread....truth be told, one Calvinist has baldly asserted some dogma, and numerous non-Calvinists have (and from numerous perspectives) taken up the challenge and argued for their position from Scripture and reason. None of them are whining or crying about personal attacks...You are lying.

Some take a more OT view (Van) and have argued it. Some have taken a more confessionally Arminian and "corporate election view" (Skan) and have argued it. Some have taken neither particular postion and have argued from a non-systematic and more "Biblicist" <---I hate the word; view (Winman). And some from a non-sytematized classically "Baptist" view (Convicted 1). [my apologies to any whom I have incorrectly or insufficiently labelled, it was obviously for the sake of brevity and concision]
Collectively....they are disproving and destroying any Calvinist arguments made here and from numerous perspectives...Somewhere, between the lot of them...the truth probably lies.
But you are lying about what has occured on this thread. They aren't fearing you, and crying about "personal attacks" or not "receiving responses". They are simply expositing as they know, and are rendering the opposition desperate for a rejoinder.

Please quote their complaints of "personal attacks" and "failures to respond" or cease your false accusation.

 

[Iconoclast]

So it seems you agree with me that Calvinism misrepresents these verses, because you can read and comprehend.

The whole premise of the thread is to claim support for Calvinism where none is found.

The actual truth is that many are called, and if they understand the gospel, they are drawn by the lovingkindness demonstrated by God dying for them, but few are chosen because not all who are drawn are then chosen and given (spiritually placed into) Christ.

:laugh::laugh:

The actual truth is that many are called


,.............. and if they understand the gospel, they are drawn by the lovingkindness demonstrated by God dying for them, ............

What version...or perversion of scripture actually adds these words, to those of Jesus:laugh:
but few are chosen because not all who are drawn are then chosen and given (spiritually placed into) Christ.[/

Simply nonsensical statements...a clear wresting of the scriptures.:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

But you are lying about what has occured on this thread. They aren't fearing you, and crying about "personal attacks" or not "receiving responses". They are simply expositing as they know, and are rendering the opposition desperate for a rejoinder.

Please quote their complaints of "personal attacks" and "failures to respond" or cease your false accusation

.

Here we go....who is lying?
from page two;

Why do Calvinists keep making the same claims but never addressing the rebuttal, except to dismiss it, usually with an attack on the opponents character and qualifications?

here from pg2 ...post14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van
Why do Calvinists keep making the same claims but never addressing the rebuttal, except to dismiss it, usually with an attack on the opponents character and qualifications?


yes I agree!

That is what I spoke about. Are you trying to tell me you have not seen this over and over in 90% of the threads.......sure


then we have this;

Some take a more OT view (Van) and have argued it. Some have taken a more confessionally Arminian and "corporate election view" (Skan) and have argued it. Some have taken neither particular postion and have argued from a non-systematic and more "Biblicist" <---I hate the word; view (Winman). And some from a non-sytematized classically "Baptist" view (Convicted 1). [my apologies to any whom I have incorrectly or insufficiently labelled, it was obviously for the sake of brevity and concision]
Collectively....they are disproving and destroying any Calvinist arguments made here and from numerous perspectives...Somewhere, between the lot of them...the truth probably lies.

The truth is almost the exact opposite of what they post.
We have here a sample list of those who constantly attack these truths,and prove exactly what I posted about embracing open errors trying in vain to resist the truth of God. You know it is so! Admit it.....do not white wash it. You want error, stand up and be proud of your error.

 

[OldRegular]

Have you ever been around them? I went to their annual association meeting back in '07 or '08(can't remember which), and they are wonderful, God fearing people. I also heard the Gospel preached there, too. Elder Bob Fields, from the Thornton Union preached a wonderful sermon, and Elder Mike Slone, SGA Moderator, sang my favorite song, "The Third Man"!! I had very good fellowship with them.

Some from the Northwest Assoc of PB's where there, and they invited me to visit them. They even invited me to preach, if I made it there. One said they would put me in the stand to find out what I preached. I guess they thought I was in-line with SGA's theology....They would have sung me down...:laugh: I may disagree with their beliefs, and they mine, but they sure showed me love.

You may need to explain

They would have sung me down...:laugh:

to many on this Forum! But I agree, they would!:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Van]

Hi Hank D, scripture clearly reveals what you claim is a mystery.

When was Judas chosen as the betrayer? Certainly the prophecy predates his physical birth. But the prophecy was generic, someone would betray, not Judas would betray. So no actual basis to conclude he was chosen before his actual lifetime.

“Brethren, (A)the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, (B)who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

John 17:12 can be read to say Judas was chosen and given to Jesus to be the betrayer. Do you see that?

Judas was not predestined to be the betrayer until he was chosen for that fulfillment.

But lets discuss what is meant by predestined. A condition or action or circumstance, such as a betrayal, can be predestined without a specific person being predestined to carry it out. All those redeemed by Jesus can be predestined, because they are redeemed, to be raised in glorified bodies, without at the same time choosing which individuals to redeem.

You say the basis of God's individual election is a mystery, but 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we were chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. No mystery in that!

There is no tension or mystery between God's sovereignty and our autonomous choices. God sets before us the choice of life or death. We may choose life with our lips, or even with our heart, yet not set aside the treasures of this world, and we will not be saved. It is God alone who sovereignly credits our worthless faith as righteousness, and places us spiritually in Christ. He says the work we need to do is trust in Christ, but He is the one who decides whether or not to have mercy on us, for it does not depend on the man that wills.

All the issues fade away once you look at salvation is the correct sequence. Before creation, God chose the Word to be His lamb, 1 Peter 1:19-20. Was this before the fall? Yes! So before Creation God had chosen His redeemer. Now is it a logical possibility to choose a redeemer without a plan to redeem? No. So everyone was chosen corporately as those to be redeemed, before the foundation of the world. Hence, God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, corporately, but not individually. This view then allows us to be chosen individually during our lifetime based on God crediting our faith as righteousness, just like 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says.

This view is completely consistent will all scripture. John 3:16 says whoever believes in Him shall not perish. Who would decide who believes, the guy professing belief, or God who knows our hearts? God of course.

Yes I know the Calvinists constantly assert no one can seek God or trust in Christ unless they are regenerated via irresistible grace. But that is a fiction. Jesus in Matthew 13:1-26 teaches us about four different kinds of people. The first soil is like what Calvinists claim all fallen people are like. They cannot understand or respond to the gospel, it is like they never heard it. But Calvinism ignores the other three soils, which receive the gospel in their fallen state.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon

I think I understand your point, however, generally speaking or otherwise does not negate the truth taught in John's Gospel and the rest of Scripture.

Who said anything about negating the truth? I'm talking about understanding truth in its proper context. Don't you think knowing that a large majority of his audience in John 6 is being blinded from the secrets of the kingdom for a time, so as to accomplish redemption, while only a few Jews are being entrusted with that information, as as to take the message to the rest of world, is significant in understanding the intent of the author?

 

[Van]

The actual truth is that many are calledWhat version...or perversion of scripture actually adds these words, to those of Jesus
but few are chosen because not all who are drawn are then chosen and given (spiritually placed into) Christ.[/

Scripture reads, many are called but few are chosen. Scripture does not say many are called but few are drawn because they are chosen. That is the Calvinist rewrite of scripture. Scripture is full of examples of people being drawn to Christ yet not being chosen. Look at all those "disciples" of Christ who left in John 6:64. They professed belief, but Jesus knew their hearts and knew they did not believe from their hearts. They had been drawn, but did not fully commit.

We love Him because He first loved us, and this is love, that He died for us. Because He be high and lifted up, i.e. crucified, He draws all men who behold Him, yet not all those men are chosen, for it does not depend on the man that wills, but upon God who has mercy on wretched sinners.

 

[HankD]

Hi Hank D, scripture clearly reveals what you claim is a mystery.

When was Judas chosen as the betrayer? Certainly the prophecy predates his physical birth. But the prophecy was generic, someone would betray, not Judas would betray. So no actual basis to conclude he was chosen before his actual lifetime.

“Brethren, (A)the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, (B)who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

John 17:12 can be read to say Judas was chosen and given to Jesus to be the betrayer. Do you see that?

Judas was not predestined to be the betrayer until he was chosen for that fulfillment.

But lets discuss what is meant by predestined. A condition or action or circumstance, such as a betrayal, can be predestined without a specific person being predestined to carry it out. All those redeemed by Jesus can be predestined, because they are redeemed, to be raised in glorified bodies, without at the same time choosing which individuals to redeem.

You say the basis of God's individual election is a mystery, but 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we were chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. No mystery in that!

There is no tension or mystery between God's sovereignty and our autonomous choices. God sets before us the choice of life or death. We may choose life with our lips, or even with our heart, yet not set aside the treasures of this world, and we will not be saved. It is God alone who sovereignly credits our worthless faith as righteousness, and places us spiritually in Christ. He says the work we need to do is trust in Christ, but He is the one who decides whether or not to have mercy on us, for it does not depend on the man that wills.

All the issues fade away once you look at salvation is the correct sequence. Before creation, God chose the Word to be His lamb, 1 Peter 1:19-20. Was this before the fall? Yes! So before Creation God had chosen His redeemer. Now is it a logical possibility to choose a redeemer without a plan to redeem? No. So everyone was chosen corporately as those to be redeemed, before the foundation of the world. Hence, God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, corporately, but not individually. This view then allows us to be chosen individually during our lifetime based on God crediting our faith as righteousness, just like 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says.

This view is completely consistent will all scripture. John 3:16 says whoever believes in Him shall not perish. Who would decide who believes, the guy professing belief, or God who knows our hearts? God of course.

Yes I know the Calvinists constantly assert no one can seek God or trust in Christ unless they are regenerated via irresistible grace. But that is a fiction. Jesus in Matthew 13:1-26 teaches us about four different kinds of people. The first soil is like what Calvinists claim all fallen people are like. They cannot understand or respond to the gospel, it is like they never heard it. But Calvinism ignores the other three soils, which receive the gospel in their fallen state.

Greetings Van,
Thanks for your civil (and all others of like kind) rebuttal.

"mystery" - OK I didn't use that word but it's functional if we understand that it's a term used of something that we currently can't or don't understand concerning the focus of the debate.

True, some of the details and apparent sequentiality of that focus which are constructable in our minds seems to make sense (and does to a degree) but a full comprehension I believe we do not or cannot know.

Personally, I am one who believes that time is a created entity in which we are caught up apart from God's state of being which is eternal of which the only real thing we have any measure of comprehension is that it has no beginning or end.

So when we view salvation from a point of view that is both chronologically sequential having to do with this present biological life having a beginning and end that then is the source of confusion not only about the outworkings of that salvation but as to the very character of God Himself the author of said salvation (after the counsel of His own will).

Our limited understanding appears to me to be like a key which fits in the door but cannot open it.

Personally I believe that even we His children will have to wait until we are enabled to communicate with our father on a level of total comprehensive only after we are resurrected and glorified according to His promise.

Until then I don't believe we can know the whole story while in the flesh.

NKJV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.​

Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.​

True and beyond debate is that much of the "mystery" of salvation has been revealed in these last days.

But one day I believe we shall see in toto.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

Until then we have that old commandment in which we should abide, the one which He made new while here in His flesh. 1 John 2:7-10.

HankD​

 

[OldRegular]

Who said anything about negating the truth? I'm talking about understanding truth in its proper context. Don't you think knowing that a large majority of his audience in John 6 is being blinded from the secrets of the kingdom for a time, so as to accomplish redemption, while only a few Jews are being entrusted with that information, as as to take the message to the rest of world, is significant in understanding the intent of the author?

I understand that the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jewish leaders was necessary and the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Isaiah. That being said how far did the hardening extend among the people? That is not indicated. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ required only the betrayal of the Jewish leaders so we really do not know the general attitude of those listeners in John 6 except they did not like what Jesus Christ had to say. That is no different from many on this Board!

 

[Skandelon]

I understand that the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jewish leaders was necessary and the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Isaiah.

Correct. And in order for that prophecy to be fulfilled God had to blind these people from the clear truth right in front of them. He hardened them, just like he hardened Pharaoh, which is exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11...a passage Calvinists misuse all the time as support for the premise that all men are born hardened.

That being said how far did the hardening extend among the people? That is not indicated.

What is indicated is what the Jews might have done if they hadn't become hardened:

'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"​

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ required only the betrayal of the Jewish leaders so we really do not know the general attitude of those listeners in John 6 except they did not like what Jesus Christ had to say. That is no different from many on this Board!

It says, 'the rest were hardened,' in Romans 11, and it speaks of the national hardening of Israel in several texts, so why would you assume only the leadership was hardened?

And why would you beg the question by presuming we don't like what Jesus had to say when in reality we don't like your application of what he said because you tend to ignore the context and thus misunderstand the obvious intent?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I understand that the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jewish leaders was necessary and the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Isaiah. That being said how far did the hardening extend among the people? That is not indicated. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ required only the betrayal of the Jewish leaders so we really do not know the general attitude of those listeners in John 6 except they did not like what Jesus Christ had to say. That is no different from many on this Board!

Was it not the "people" who screamed "give us Barrabus" and "crucify him"? I would think that the "hardening" was MORE amongst the "populace" (so to speak) than the leadership...Pilate, after-all was merely being pragmatic...in order to: "shut a bunch of stupid Jews" up (if you take my meaning). Would not the Jewish Religious leaders who held a certain political sway not be involved as well? At least, that is, to the extent that to satiate the crowd worked to their benefit? Jesus, was indeed, a sort of threat to their pre-emininence. Jesus hacked EVERYONE off, I tend to think, not just the leaders...after all, all that would have been necessary for the leaders, at least, was their bringing the issue up to Pilate to begin with; so that it might become a capital crime (as they were not allowed to engage in capital punishment without Roman authority). Once that has occured..Pilate wants to satiate what he views to be...the insanity of the maximal number of people at the same time. Pilate merely wants the region he is "governor" of to be at relative peace.

My view has always been that, at the point that Pilate (quite begrudgingly) the Scriptures tell us, permitted the slaughter of Jesus...it was a pragmatic decision made ONLY to satiate an irrational and blood-thirsty crowd.

 

[Skandelon]

Was it not the "people" who screamed "give us Barrabus" and "crucify him"? I would think that the "hardening" was MORE amongst the "populace" (so to speak) than the leadership...Pilate, after-all was merely being pragmatic...in order to: "shut a bunch of stupid Jews" up (if you take my meaning). Would not the Jewish Religious leaders who held a certain political sway not be involved as well? At least, that is, to the extent that to satiate the crowd worked to their benefit? Jesus, was indeed, a sort of threat to their pre-emininence. Jesus hacked EVERYONE off, I tend to think, not just the leaders...after all, all that would have been necessary for the leaders, at least, was their bringing the issue up to Pilate to begin with; so that it might become a capital crime (as they were not allowed to engage in capital punishment without Roman authority). Once that has occured..Pilate wants to satiate what he views to be...the insanity of the maximal number of people at the same time. Pilate merely wants the region he is "governor" of to be at relative peace.

My view has always been that, at the point that Pilate (quite begrudgingly) the Scriptures tell us, permitted the slaughter of Jesus...it was a pragmatic decision made ONLY to satiate an irrational and blood-thirsty crowd.

:thumbs: Right on, bro!

If you think about it, why did Jesus tell them to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 without as much as a qualification as to what he really meant by that? Why was he speaking in parables to prevent them from believing and being forgiven? (Mk 4; Matt 13 etc) He is provoking them. He calls them a brood of vipers to incite them. It is through his hardening of their hearts that he accomplishes his purpose on the cross and in doing so will also once again provoke their wills to envy so as to draw them back to Himself (Rm. 11:14). God is even merciful in his act of hardening them!!!! As Paul explains, "He is bounding all men over to disobedience so as to have mercy on them all."

 

[OldRegular]

And why would you beg the question by presuming we don't like what Jesus had to say when in reality we don't like your application of what he said because you tend to ignore the context and thus misunderstand the obvious intent?

If begging the question means stating the obvious truth then I stand guilty! When you talk about all being hardened consider what Jesus Christ says in the following:

John 12:37-42
37. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38. That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

The implication of the underlined part of verse 42 is that in addition to some rulers many others believe on Jesus Christ. This is shown by the many who were witnesses to the Resurrection and that 500 is not necessarily all that believe. God will bring His elect to Salvation.

I am not trying to deny or even debate the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. Jesus Christ had to die. If in John 6 alone we had the teaching of the Doctrines of Grace then your argument about context might have some merit, though I do not believe it does. But that Chapter does not close the book on such teachings. I am saying, and it appears you are denying, that what Jesus Christ taught in John 6 regarding Salvation is applicable for all time!