Featured Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.” ~ John 12:32

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

 

Of course he can, the same way that anyone PROVES their election ... by dying and being Glorified! (It just will not help the topic or C & A debate.)

 

No one will reply to these fine verses. There are no replies of substance coming anytime soon.

 

that's because both C and A followers AGREE with these passages.
there was only one difference between C,A. the selection of the elect done in eternity - was it based upon foreknowledge or decree? the rest, at one time and for the most part, was agreed upon.

But ALL KINDS of faith expressions built upon weird doctrinal foundations NOW-A-DAYS get mislabeled as either Calvinism or Arminianism. True there are modified versions of both C/A but in reality its a zoo out there in the Ethernet.

there are other reasons LOTS of folks won't answer.

e.g. for fear of receiving flak which ends in a crash and burn, its not always because of one's opponents prowess and oratory skills.

 

If you define ALL with scripture. All = all the Father gave to Jesus. It's a contradiction if you define otherwise.

 

thank you for that - even though Jesus didn't qualify the "all" it is a good observation.

 

still - why does He love only a select few? What is it that makes Him care for the elect but not the others?
Arminius says because He looked and saw certain ones would believe and come to Christ if they had the power to do so, but they being helpless and hopeless He therefore provided that power.

 

I am neither C nor A - so I end up agreeing and disagreeing with either group on different points. I do not agree with the calvinists on predestined/pre-decreed condemnation of the non-elect but isn't pre-decreed salvation of the elect quite clear in Scriptures?

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

What I derive from this verse:
1. This is in the context of salvation - for Paul is explaining why God's word seems to have failed with the Israelites except for a remnant (Rom 9:27, Rom 10:1)
2. This is pertaining to individuals - for Paul is using examples of Jacob and Esau to show how God's election works.
3. This is impartial and Sovereign - for Paul insists that the differential does not lie in either Jacob or Esau but in God alone as reiterated in Rom 9:16.

How could the purpose of God not stood by election if it had been after the children had been born and not before - why was it necessary that God elect without considering anything they would do - why must the parenthesis of v.11 be added in Holy Scriptures? It's because it would lead to the charge of partiality in the dispensation of Grace. Now, there are 2 plausible positions for the basis of election - either God bases it on what man is/does or He bases it on just His own sovereign will. If it is based on what man is/does, then God must factor in each man's life through foreknowledge - but v.11 is specifically negating that, therein proving it must be by His own sovereign will. What is the alternate interpretation possible here?

His selecting a few for a purpose does not in any way imply He does not care or desire the salvation of the others. This is where I disagree with the calvinists. This is like the parable of the workers in the field - If God wishes to pay more to the workers of the last hour, it in no way negates Him being willing to give what is due to the rest. There's an entire thread just to debate this, so I will not digress on this thread.

 

Hi Scott, if a person is a C, they will not be able to make sense of these verses.

Lets start with John 6:37,

John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

And here is an analysis that does make sense:

In this verse "all" only refers to those individuals God "gives" to Christ.
Giving refers to transferring chosen individuals into Christ spiritually.
Thus "come to Me" does not refer to trusting in Christ, but to their spiritual location being changed from not it Christ, to being in Christ.
Why? Because after being "given" and having "come to Christ" they are "in Christ" with the promise Christ will not cast them back out.

Next, John 6:39 requires that "giving" in this context requires it refer to being placed "in Christ" thus will be saved forever and raised on the last day.

Next John 6:45 again uses "all" to refer only to those God "gives" (transfers into Christ.) Everyone who has heard [the gospel of Christ] and has "learned" is transferred into Christ. Learned refers to a person putting their full trust in Christ, as credited by God.

John 10:27-30 says those transferred into Christ become "My Sheep." This passage does not say "the sheep" or "of My sheep."

John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” (all the peoples God gives to Christ) Here we have the bogus Calvinist doctrine added to the text in parenthesis. "All" here refers to all those who behold (become aware" of Christ "high and lifted up" (dying for them on the cross) and therefore will be "drawn" (attracted by God's lovingkindness) to Christ. Therefore some of those drawn are given, and all given have been drawn. The bogus view is all that are drawn are given. Not how it reads.

Next we have three verses from John 17, which seem non germane, with the possible bogus intent to conflate things given to Christ such as authority with God transferring individuals into Christ. Nonsense.

Next, the long passage from Hebrews seems to be non-germane.

 

Hank,
You do offer answers .
If you want to have fun sit with a legal pad or copy and paste some of the answers on each thread.
When you can list 20 responses with no scripture, just mocking, and name calling, that is what I am speaking of

 

yes, iconoclast my journey through BB is one of understanding our differences.

truly if i have ruffled feathers i am sorry, though if it were entertainment for you, i am glad

 

So what would the bible have to say if Jesus actually meant ALL MEN as we understand it?

 

We can see the immediate audience of John 6. Most end up Rejecting a clear offer made to them.

32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.


We can see their objections.

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”


Calvinist Jesus Simply would have agreed. You guys are correct, I did not come to give you life, I did not come to die for you, I do not offer my flesh to you.


Also Jesus Christ does all the drawing.

 

Note there is no such thing as Greek Calvinists. Because there was simply no fooling them.

 

Here is a fine example of the win or lose win and defeat type posts.

 

Have you not read, ". . . 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. . . ." -- John 6:45. "And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children." -- Isaiah 54:13. "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." -- Jeremiah 31:34.

 

@Scott Downey,

Being of God precedes being born of God. Calvinist position, as I understand it, regeneration precedes faith. It is my understanding, sanctification of the Spirit precedes faith which pecedes regeneration. Those who resist being sanctified of God's Spirit, resist hearing truth, indicating not being of God for that reason.

 

for those who already have the witness of the Spirit - not a lot - HOWEVER being desired by those being drawn with their appetite being awakened.

 

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Isn't there parallelism here to equate "coming to Christ" with "believing in Christ" depicted by the equal comparison over hunger and thirst? The way Jesus words this just seems weird as per your interpretation of "come to Me" not referring to "believing in Christ".

Even by your definitions, it gets more confusing.
v.37 becomes - "All that the Father has transferred in Me shall be in Me". Isn't it a redundancy to state this? Obviously, someone transferred in Christ is in Him by that very act of transferring - why draw out a future distinct "shall be" inference from this just to mean one and the same? The act of giving sequentially precedes the act of coming - how is this explained by your interpretation?

I can agree with this.

I can't quite agree with this.

From John 6:44-45, no man can come unless they have heard and learned, being taught by God. How can learning be equal to believing, when it is the learning of the truth of Christ that leads one to the believing in Him? Aren't these supposed to be held as distinct acts? And isn't this teaching of God that's referred to in John 6:65?

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 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.

Here again, believing is paralleled with the coming to Christ in faith. Also, it speaks of a different "giving" to the person by the Father. What didn't the Father give these people that Jesus cites as the reason for their not believing?