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

[MB]

[John 10:26-30 NASB] 26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given [My sheep] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. 30 "I and the Father are one."

All you have proved is that some will not be saved but that does not mean they can't be saved later on. His sheep are already saved or they would not be His sheep This in no way proves election. If there is election of Gentiles there would be a passage stating that God has elected the Gentiles. It says God has elected the Jews and calls them elect. Scripture never calls a Gentile elect. I realize Calvinist use Eph 1 1-10 to prove there election yet not once in Ephesians. Is there ever one Gentile ever called elect . They assume the synagogue was just packed with Gentiles but that is speculation. Gentiles were not accepted in the Synagogues. Gentiles are not to this day respected by the Jews. Generally Gentiles were non believers because of it.Though some have converted to Judaism .

Athens is the only place where Paul was recorded to go to and preach to the Gentiles and when he did He called none of them elect even after some believed. So just where is this election of the Gentiles in scripture and why do you suppose that they are elect with out scripture that says so?
MB

 

[Van]

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". [Let's flip it around, believing in Christ, as credited by God, Romans 4, results in being given to Christ. So using that view, "...he that is transferred into me shall never hunger; and he whose faith is credited as righteousness, shall never thirst.]

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? [Take a better look at the word meanings, "All that the Father is giving to Me shall "arrive" in Me." The point is that the idea expressed next occurs after the person arrives in Christ. The one being transferred into Me shall not be cast out.]


I can agree with this. [Great, we both see it the same way!]


I can't quite agree with this. [Learned is our response, having the gospel presented to us is the action of Christ's witnesses. Hearing is what leads to (or not) believing.]

And isn't this teaching of God that's referred to in John 6:65?

John 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.
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. [Coming must refer to a change in location because after coming, Christ will not cast out. To ignore that probably not the way forward. Actually we have two parallel truths, obviously no one can come to Me unless given by the Father after crediting their faith, but also no one can learn from the Father unless the Father allows it. Here Judas was not allowed]

What didn't the Father give these people that Jesus cites as the reason for their not believing? [His greater puirpose, Judas was chosen to be the betrayer and therefore was not allowed to believe, and in Romans 11 we have the non-believing Jews hardened (so they cannot believe) to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.]

Hi David, thanks for your thoughtful response. My reply's are bracketed above in red.

 

[MB]

Many refute your idea. Why didn't he pray for all, but only those the Father gave to him? Why did he tell the Pharisees he didn't die for them? And that is why they couldn't believe? Many more if interested.............

Many have rejected what I believe They have never refuted it. to do so would mean they have proven scripture wrong.
You know as well as I there are many that refute Calvinism.Including myself .
You are self convinced you are right because what you believe is not in scripture.
MB

 

[37818]

There is no, how to be saved you either are or aren't according to Calvinism . . . .

Again, I am not Calvinist. And that is a false view of Cavinism.

 

[MB]

I am not a Calvinist. And there are turths upon which Calvinism is based.

Did I say you are a Calvinist?. What truths would that be?. I believe you are Arminian.aren't you?
MB

 

[1689Dave]

Many have rejected what I believe They have never refuted it. to do so would mean they have proven scripture wrong.
You know as well as I there are many that refute Calvinism.Including myself .
You are self convinced you are right because what you believe is not in scripture.
MB

You think you refute Calvinism. But it's only taking from scripture what you think achieves this, while ignoring the rest that place constraints on it.

 

[MB]

You think you refute Calvinism. But it's only taking from scripture what you think achieves this, while ignoring the rest that place constraints on it.

No I know I've refuted it because no doctrine of Calvinism is in scripture. None of the scripture you use supports it because what you believe does not line up with scripture In fact most of what you believe didn't come from scripture it came from other Calvinist. Other men who didn't know what they are talking about.
MB

 

[37818]

Did I say you are a Calvinist?. What truths would that be?. I believe you are Arminian.aren't you?
MB

I am qualifying that I am not a Calvinist. My belief is similar but different. I am not Arminian. I believe in a total deptavity of sinful mankind. And God who saves also keeps rhose whom Hw saves. OSAS it has been called.

 

[MB]

I am qualifying that I am not a Calvinist. My belief is similar but different. I am not Arminian. I believe in a total deptavity of sinful mankind. And God who saves also keeps rhose whom Hw saves. OSAS it has been called.

I never said you were anything. Would you like to debate Arminianism? Is that it?
MB

 

[ivdavid]

Let's flip it around, believing in Christ, as credited by God, Romans 4, results in being given to Christ. So using that view, "...he that is transferred into me shall never hunger; and he whose faith is credited as righteousness, shall never thirst.

Well, and being transferred to Christ results in having eternal life - so using this view, "...he that has eternal life shall never hunger;...." is equally true as a premise. We can chain-link any number of truths from what results in what but we can't then infer equality of definitions/meanings from this.

"Coming to Christ" has always been understood as an abbreviated phrase of "Coming to Christ in faith for eternal life" which is the equivalent of "believing in Christ" as seen paralleled in John 6:35. Why redefine what's already clear and established?

Take a better look at the word meanings, "All that the Father is giving to Me shall "arrive" in Me." The point is that the idea expressed next occurs after the person arrives in Christ. The one being transferred into Me shall not be cast out.

I'm sorry, this still remains confusing. It would be helpful if you first listed out your interpretation of all the word meanings for us to take a better look at. From this, you seem to be equating "coming to Christ" with "arriving in Christ". What is this "arrival" referring to? Is this the final arrival into the resurrection after Judgement Day?
And is "arriving in Christ" the same as "being transferred into Christ" from your last statement above - in which case we run into the same issue I'd raised in my original question, right?

Two concerns with such reinterpretations -
1. When you equate "coming to Christ" with "being transferred in Christ", you're switching an action attributed to man in his coming to be an action attributed to God in His transferring. Isn't this an error in interpreting to swap what's described as man's response to being taken as God's response?
2. How do we ignore all the parallelism in John 5:38-47 in the context of "believing Christ"?
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Should this be read as equal to "And God will not transfer ye in Christ, that ye might have life." ?

 

[ivdavid]

Learned is our response, having the gospel presented to us is the action of Christ's witnesses. Hearing is what leads to (or not) believing.

Joh 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.
Hearing, Learning and Coming to Christ are all responses of man. While the commonly accepted interpretation is that Hearing and Learning leads to the Coming in Faith / Believing - you equate Learning with the Believing itself just so the Coming to Christ can be redefined. Why? If your only goal was to conclude "Therefore some of those drawn are given, and all given have been drawn.", can't this be done without these re-definitions? Are there other conclusions you are attempting to uphold with these?

...no one can learn from the Father unless the Father allows it.

I'm not aware of what your doctrinal positions are - but given that you were arguing for God drawing all, I assumed you were against calvinism. But when you say God enables faith to those He wills according to His greater purposes - isn't that as calvinistic as it gets?

 

[ivdavid]

Scripture never calls a Gentile elect.

We've already addressed this in another thread - why do you continue holding on to this view when it is demeaning and not edifying to the Church or glorifying God? Why don't we conclude on this with finality instead of drawing this out endlessly into several threads?

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

See, Paul is writing to Gentiles here!

 

[37818]

I never said you were anything. Would you like to debate Arminianism? Is that it?
MB

Is that the point of our disagreement? We are both not Calvinist, right?

 

[MB]

We've already addressed this in another thread - why do you continue holding on to this view when it is demeaning and not edifying to the Church or glorifying God? Why don't we conclude on this with finality instead of drawing this out endlessly into several threads?

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

See, Paul is writing to Gentiles here!

Because men still claim election for them selves. They neither have scriptural proof for it and that makes it heresy.. The Jews are elect and God said so and calls them elect. God never calls Gentiles elect. If you claim you are elect show me scripture for it. Not something addressed to the Jews.
Col 2:13 says nothing about the elect
Why are you upset about it does it bother you about what I'm saying
MB

 

[MB]

Is that the point of our disagreement? We are both not Calvinist, right?

I have no disagreement with you. You are the one with disagreement.
You first addressed me out of the blue and said you're not a Calvinist. I had no clue why you wrote this. I told you that I never said you were. Then you said
"Is that the point of our disagreement? We are both not Calvinist, right?" I didn't know we had a disagreement. Please show me where I said you were.
a Calvinist
MB

 

[ivdavid]

Col 2:13 says nothing about the elect

You asked for Scriptures not addressed to the jews and I presented Col 2:13 - i don't understand, are you saying this is not addressed to gentiles?

Why are you upset about it does it bother you about what I'm saying

I am definitely uncomfortable with the implications.

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

As per your interpretation if this is not addressed to me, an uncircumcised gentile in the flesh, then I am not Peter's brother in Christ and the entire epistle by extension was not addressed to me even though Peter begins the epistle in v.1 with "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

 

[MB]

You asked for Scriptures not addressed to the jews and I presented Col 2:13 - i don't understand, are you saying this is not addressed to gentiles?

I asked you to show proof of election for Gentiles. How is it that Col. 2:13 proves election of Gentiles

I am definitely uncomfortable with the implications.

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

As per your interpretation if this is not addressed to me, an uncircumcised gentile in the flesh, then I am not Peter's brother in Christ and the entire epistle by extension was not addressed to me even though Peter begins the epistle in v.1 with "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

I'm not saying you aren't Peter's brother in Christ. I don't know if you are or aren't. I'm not asking to judge whether or not you are saved. I'm only seeking to understand what you believe and why.
I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable. it's just that Calvinist make such a big deal out of there presumed election from before the foundation of the world that I had to look at it more closely. If you read 1st Peter 1 you will not see a Gentile even mentioned. We know for sure the Jews are elect yet this is not a reason to assume Gentiles are also elect. To believe this I need confirmation from scripture not men. I read scripture every day and completely through it every year. And I don't ever remember it telling me I'm elect or that Gentiles are elect. Not only this sir but I have never read of the necessity of being elect in order to have Salvation. Scripture never says this that I'm aware of.
Obviously you believe election is a requirement for Salvation. So why would you believe something that isn't mentioned in the Bible as if it were. How do you know you are elect. I don't need assumptions just scriptural facts
MB

 

[George Antonios]

Christ said he would draw all men, not "drag" all men. Our Calvinist brethren read "draw" as "drag".
You can resist God's drawing, as God himself tells you in Hosea:
Hos 11:3 I taught Ephraim [matching 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]. also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.
Hos 11:4 I drew them [matching John 6:44 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.] with cords of a man [the prophetic double application is the man Christ Jesus, as he said: John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.], with bands of love [John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.] : and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.
Hos 11:5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.

See that? God drew them and yet they knew not and they refused.

It's "draw", friends, not "drag". You can resist a drawing. Just ask the council which heard Stephen's preaching.

 

[Scott Downey]

Christ said he would draw all men, not "drag" all men. Our Calvinist brethren read "draw" as "drag".
You can resist God's drawing, as God himself tells you in Hosea:
Hos 11:3 I taught Ephraim [matching 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]. also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.
Hos 11:4 I drew them [matching John 6:44 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.] with cords of a man [the prophetic double application is the man Christ Jesus, as he said: John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.], with bands of love [John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.] : and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.
Hos 11:5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.

See that? God drew them and yet they knew not and they refused.

It's "draw", friends, not "drag". You can resist a drawing. Just ask the council which heard Stephen's preaching.

You can not compare the inferior Old Covenant relationship with the superior New Covenant relationship in this way by quoting how something happened in Hosea as to how the relationship exists in the New Covenant. Your comparison is obsoleted and meaningless as to how this relationship works in the New Covenant.

Read Hebrews 8, from v10 on God tells us it is 100% as a guarantee that they will be His people, and He will be their God.

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

 

[George Antonios]

You can not compare the inferior Old Covenant relationship with the superior New Covenant relationship in this way by quoting how something happened in Hosea as to how the relationship exists in the New Covenant. Your comparison is obsoleted and meaningless as to how this relationship works in the New Covenant.

You're going to have to correct our Lord Jesus Christ likewise because, right after saying John 6:44, he based it in the Old Testament and the past:
Joh 6:44 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.
Joh 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.

If the Lord of glory went back to the prophets to make his point about drawing men, can't I?