Irresistible Grace, John 6:37

[freeatlast]

you are presenting a false dichotomy.

No, I am agreeing with scripture. God elects and man accepts from free will.

 

[Skandelon]

I can agree that Jesus Christ was speaking to the Jews. However, His larger audience was both Jew and Gentile.

Skandelon, your insistence that the John 6 is only for the Jews is as nonsensical as the dispensationalist insistence that Revelation 4-20 is not written to and for the Church but is for Jews only.

Only for the Jews? Really? Did I say that? No, in fact, I specifically told you that I didn't believe that yet you continue to misrepresent my view. He was speaking to Jews, as you acknowledged, who are being hardened in their rebellion. That doesn't negate the fact that EVERYONE (Jew or Gentile) must be drawn by God. It only goes to show that the Jews are being blinded from the means God uses to draw all men to himself, but once he is lifted up he will send the gospel to 'every creature' and will 'draw all men unto himself.' That doesn't happen UNTIL it is 'his time.' Understanding that historical context is essential to understanding the intent. Dismissing my view as 'only applying to Jews' is what is non-sense. Please try to at least correctly represent my view if you are going to debate me.

 

[OldRegular]

Only for the Jews? Really? Did I say that? No, in fact, I specifically told you that I didn't believe that yet you continue to misrepresent my view. He was speaking to Jews, as you acknowledged, who are being hardened in their rebellion. That doesn't negate the fact that EVERYONE (Jew or Gentile) must be drawn by God. It only goes to show that the Jews are being blinded from the means God uses to draw all men to himself, but once he is lifted up he will send the gospel to 'every creature' and will 'draw all men unto himself.' That doesn't happen UNTIL it is 'his time.' Understanding that historical context is essential to understanding the intent. Dismissing my view as 'only applying to Jews' is what is non-sense. Please try to at least correctly represent my view if you are going to debate me.

All I insist is that not all Jews were blinded. That is what Scripture shows. I demonstrated from John 11 that the Jewish high priests were the ones primarily responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. They conspired in His death because they feared the people would follow Him after He raised Lazarus.

 

[Skandelon]

All I insist is that not all Jews were blinded.

I agree. God reserved a remnant of Jews from the hardening to ensure his purpose in electing Israel would be accomplished.

That is what Scripture shows. I demonstrated from John 11 that the Jewish high priests were the ones primarily responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. They conspired in His death because they feared the people would follow Him after He raised Lazarus.

And I and Luke showed you where scholars on both sides affirm the hardening of Israel as a whole, not just the leaders. Many on that day cried out "crucify him," not just a handful of their leaders. Now, their leaders may have been leading them in their hardening, but all those who crucified Christ were being hardened in one way or another. Had 2000 Jews came to believe in Christ while he was still on earth, as in they did when Peter preached in Acts 2, they wouldn't have been able to crucify Him. He did NOT send the Spirit and the Gospel UNTIL he was raised up. That is when the process of 'drawing all men to himself' began, not a moment before.

You are taking passages which happened BEFORE God starting the drawing process of all mankind to prove your premise that God doesn't draw most of mankind and that is where you err. You are ignoring the historical context of what God is attempting to accomplish and drawing unfounded conclusions.

 

[OldRegular]

I agree. God reserved a remnant of Jews from the hardening to ensure his purpose in electing Israel would be accomplished.

And I and Luke showed you where scholars on both sides affirm the hardening of Israel as a whole, not just the leaders.

I don't recall but scholars can be wrong. Scholars affirm the Doctrines of Grace. Does that help you?

Many on that day cried out "crucify him," not just a handful of their leaders.

How many?

Now, their leaders may have been leading them in their hardening, but all those who crucified Christ were being hardened in one way or another. Had 2000 Jews came to believe in Christ while he was still on earth, as in they did when Peter preached in Acts 2, they wouldn't have been able to crucify Him.

That is incorrect. I remind you that the prophecy of Isaiah Chapter 53 shows the death of Jesus Christ without mention of hardening.

He did NOT send the Spirit and the Gospel UNTIL he was raised up.

That is absolute nonsense. What was Jesus Christ preaching?

That is when the process of 'drawing all men to himself' began, not a moment before.

You are taking passages which happened BEFORE God starting the drawing process of all mankind to prove your premise that God doesn't draw most of mankind and that is where you err. You are ignoring the historical context of what God is attempting to accomplish and drawing unfounded conclusions.

The physicist Einstein is quoted as saying relative to the Quantum Mechanics: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice."

Whether Einstein was correct regarding Quantum Mechanics I cannot say but he was correct that God does not throw dice. That is of course what Arminianism teaches.

As for the Gospel: There is one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He taught it and the Apostles preached it.

The fact that Jesus Christ made certain statements prior to His Crucifixion does not change the truth of what He taught. Are you going to deny the New Birth because He taught it prior to His death? If your logic is carried to the illogical extreme then there would be no need for the Gospels. That is exactly what the hyper dispensationalists teach!

 

[Skandelon]

That is absolute nonsense. What was Jesus Christ preaching?

You don't seem to be listening brother. He preached in parables to the whole crowd, lest they heard the truth and turned to be healed, but then he explained the truths to his apostles. (Mk 4; Matt 13 etc)

In John 6 he told them to drink his blood and eat his flesh without so much as an explanation. Even his own apostles didn't fully understand all the aspects of the gospel until the Christ was raised up and the Spirit came upon them. This is common biblical knowledge brother and you just seem to want to disagree with anything and everything I say regardless so I'll just leave it at that. Maybe someone objectively reading this thread will get something from it.

 

[OldRegular]

You don't seem to be listening brother. He preached in parables to the whole crowd, lest they heard the truth and turned to be healed, but then he explained the truths to his apostles. (Mk 4; Matt 13 etc)

In John 6 he told them to drink his blood and eat his flesh without so much as an explanation. Even his own apostles didn't fully understand all the aspects of the gospel until the Christ was raised up and the Spirit came upon them. This is common biblical knowledge brother and you just seem to want to disagree with anything and everything I say regardless so I'll just leave it at that. Maybe someone objectively reading this thread will get something from it.

You are the one not listening! Your insistence that the hardening of Israel is biasing the teaching of Jesus Christ in John 6 must logically mean that any teaching of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels is similarly biased and must be corrected for Gentile readers. And who is to make the corrections.

I realize the apostles did not understand the implications of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. People have been studying the words of Jesus Christ for 2000 years and look at how far we have come.

 

[convicted1]

I dated someone in high school named Grace, and she was very irresistible.

And yet, you, or her, decided of your own free will not to marry....:smilewinkgrin: :wavey: :love2:

 

[saturneptune]

And yet, you, or her, decided of your own free will not to marry....:smilewinkgrin: :wavey: :love2:

You see, that is where you are wrong. Before the foundation of the world, it was decided in eternity past that Grace would braid her armpits with little pink ribbons on the end. I first noticed it at the senior prom when she wore a sleeveless dress. It was really embarrasing when she put her arms around me on the first slow dance. Oops, did I say dance, there goes another sin.

 

[convicted1]

You see, that is where you are wrong. Before the foundation of the world, it was decided in eternity past that Grace would braid her armpits with little pink ribbons on the end. I first noticed it at the senior prom when she wore a sleeveless dress. It was really embarrasing when she put her arms around me on the first slow dance. Oops, did I say dance, there goes another sin.

If those ribbons were "kentucky blue", she'd gotten hitched to you that night......:laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

If those ribbons were "kentucky blue", she'd gotten hitched to you that night......:laugh:

Only if she was my sister. LOL

 

[Van]

Van it is you who are avoiding the clear teaching of Scripture by this nonsensical talk about come vs arriving. I suspect most people realize that when they come they have arrived.

I have shown that the most widely accepted translations use come. If you don't like it, tough. Get yourself a pen and in your Bible write arriving every place they have come and then you can go your merry way!

Lots of different Greek words are translated "come." The one, "heko," that appears in the phrase "all that the Father gives to Me come to Me" describes being transferred spiritually from outside of Christ to "in Christ." Words have meaning.

Here is our basic dispute: Calvinism claims folks are "given to Christ" via "Irresistible Grace" so all that God alters from an unregenerate state to a regenerated state seek intimacy with Christ. This view is a total fiction, completely altering what is said and missing the actual message.

I think "given to Me" refers to God putting a person spiritually in Christ, and says all that the Father gives to me shall be arriving in Me, and I will not cast them out.

In summary the point about the actual nuanced meaning of "heko" is that it emphasizes arriving rather than seeking.

 

[OldRegular]

And yet, you, or her, decided of your own free will not to marry....:smilewinkgrin: :wavey: :love2:

Women seem to have a unique ability to bind man's free will starting with Eve!

 

[Skandelon]

You are the one not listening! Your insistence that the hardening of Israel is biasing the teaching of Jesus Christ in John 6 must logically mean that any teaching of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels is similarly biased and must be corrected for Gentile readers. And who is to make the corrections.

Biasing? What does that mean? We are talking about the historical context. If Jesus is speaking to a world where his elect nation is being cut off while the non-elect nations of the world are being grafted in, which HE IS (read Rom 11), that might be an important piece of information to understand while listening to his teachings regarding why or why not some people can or can't come to Him, don't you think?

You continue to commit the fallacy of "Reductio ad absurdum" (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"): it is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence. Instead of listening to what I'm actually saying you reduce my view to some absurd conclusion (i.e. everything Jesus taught was biased and should be dismissed, or this is hyper dispensationalism, etc) so that you can dismiss it without dealing with my actual points.

I'm tired of it, so I'll move on now....:tear:

 

[OldRegular]

Biasing? What does that mean? We are talking about the historical context. If Jesus is speaking to a world where his elect nation is being cut off while the non-elect nations of the world are being grafted in, which HE IS (read Rom 11), that might be an important piece of information to understand while listening to his teachings regarding why or why not some people can or can't come to Him, don't you think?

You have denied that the Scripture in the OP is appropriate for the Gentiles because Jesus Christ is speaking to the Jews, some which may or may not be judicially hardened. The point is that the four Gospels are primarily a record of the discourse of Jesus Christ with the Jews. Are they irrelevant?

 

[OldRegular]

You continue to commit the fallacy of "Reductio ad absurdum" (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"): it is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence. Instead of listening to what I'm actually saying you reduce my view to some absurd conclusion (i.e. everything Jesus taught was biased and should be dismissed, or this is hyper dispensationalism, etc) so that you can dismiss it without dealing with my actual points.

I'm tired of it, so I'll move on now....:tear:

I am simply trying to find out which Scripture in the Four Gospels are relevant to the Gentiles and which are not!

 

[Skandelon]

I am simply trying to find out which Scripture in the Four Gospels are relevant to the Gentiles and which are not!

All of them are relevant to all of us, but it helps to understand their intent.

Hermeneutics 101 teaches us that we must understand the historical context in which they are written in order to best understand that intent. Knowing that God is in the process of hiding the truths of the gospel from his elect nation of Israel (cutting them off from the tree, ref. to Rom 11, Mk 4; Matt 13), while taking those truths to the Gentiles (grafting them into the tree, ref. to Rom. 11 and Acts 28:28), is significant in discerning the intent of the author who is writing about God drawing some people to Christ and not others, don't you think?

 

[OldRegular]

All of them are relevant to all of us, but it helps to understand their intent.

Hermeneutics 101 teaches us that we must understand the historical context in which they are written in order to best understand that intent. Knowing that God is in the process of hiding the truths of the gospel from his elect nation of Israel (cutting them off from the tree, ref. to Rom 11, Mk 4; Matt 13), while taking those truths to the Gentiles (grafting them into the tree, ref. to Rom. 11 and Acts 28:28), is significant in discerning the intent of the author who is writing about God drawing some people to Christ and not others, don't you think?

We are just talking past each other!

 

[Skandelon]

You have denied that the Scripture in the OP is appropriate for the Gentiles because Jesus Christ is speaking to the Jews

I'm sorry, but that is INCORRECT.

The fact that he is speaking to Jews doesn't make it irrelevant to Gentiles. It only helps us to understand its relevance. I've affirmed a dozen or more times that NNE, from any nation, can come to Christ unless enabled by God to do so. The Gospel is the means God draws men to Himself. That is His method of inviting the lost, appealing for them to be reconciled. That message is being hidden from the Jews in John 6 lest they repent and be forgiven, and that message hadn't yet been sent to the Gentiles. The only people being 'let in' are a remnant from the elect nation of Israel and even they are only being revealed a little at a time (as they can't handle it all yet, as Jesus explained). It is not until Jesus is raised up that he sends the Spirit and the Gospel, the means of drawing all men to himself. That is the context in which we must read and understand Jesus' teaching in John 6. It has NOTHING to do with applying only to Jews or Gentiles. It applies to EVERYONE for all times!

In fact, Paul tells us exactly why all this applies to us as Gentiles when he wrote:

"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.​

 

[Iconoclast]

Van

Lots of different Greek words are translated "come." The one, "heko," that appears in the phrase "all that the Father gives to Me come to Me" describes being transferred spiritually from outside of Christ to "in Christ." Words have meaning.

They do have meaning.You do not get the meaning right.Most everytime you just make up what you want. I still remeber that thread where Archangel totally shreaded your false ideas,and supposed greek study.That was shocking:thumbsup:

But you persist as if we forgot that thread.We have not...although you repeat the same errors alot so we do not have to look far:wavey:

Here is our basic dispute: Calvinism claims folks are "given to Christ" via "Irresistible Grace

"

Here is a perfect example....this is not what calvinists say. It is your misunderstanding of what calvinism is, and what it teaches, because you lack biblical understanding.You think you know what you are talking about, but you do not. So you post one fallacy after another....then you post -folks this is all fiddlesticks.The evil calvinists are attacking me again.

The Father gave the elect to the Son before time....unlike what you post.
irresistable grace refers to that although men can and do resist the grace of God......the saving grace given to the elect is not ultimately resisted. God makes them willing psalm110.

so all that God alters from an unregenerate state to a regenerated state seek intimacy with Christ. This view is a total fiction, completely altering what is said and missing the actual message.

No this is the truth you misrepresent when you offer your false teaching.:thumbsup:

I think "given to Me" refers to God putting a person spiritually in Christ, and says all that the Father gives to me shall be arriving in Me, and I will not cast them out.

We are free in America to think what we want. You are free to"think " this false idea....but you are the only one on the planet who thinks this, unless winman or aic want to join you on this one also.

In summary the point about the actual nuanced meaning of "heko" is that it emphasizes arriving rather than seeking

In summary...you have posted falsehood ,one more time.