John:6:38-39

[The Biblicist]

Stick with the text. It simply says: "My Father which gave them me..."

-

Stick with the entire text given which the thread defines as verses 38-38. It does not simply say "My Father gave them me" as you are jerking that statement out of a specific context. This is stated as a reason for His coming, as this is the specific will of the Father which he came to fulfill.

Never mind all the hypotheticals and reading into the text the things that are not there.

You are right that the text does not use the term "chosen" but the text does demand a pre-coming act of having been "given" and that is simple to show if the context is not ignored as you did above. It does not take too much common sense to realize that "ALL" who come because of a pre-coming act of having been "given" were the objects of a pre-coming choosing as this is a limited "all" rather than a universal all. Think about it.

No Jesus makes a simple play one words.
Like the rich your ruler who asked Jesus: "What must I DO to inherit eternal life," Jesus told him: "Thou knowest the commandments, this do and thou shalt live." He replied that he had kept all of them from his youth up. Jesus proceeded to show him how that was not true.
This time, Jesus takes a different approach.

That is simply not true to the context. He approaches it the very same way first by positive denial (vv. 36-39) and then by direct explicit denial (vv. 44,65). This is a total repudiation of your whole "overall contextual" argument

The question is basically the same as the rich young ruler but in different words:
What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
--Jesus says there is only one work of God.
The only "work of God" is faith. We know from Romans 4:1-5 that faith is not a work. Jesus was teaching that they couldn't work to have eternal life, they could only believe. There was nothing they could do but have faith.
Therefore his answer was:
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Faith is not a work.
--This was a play on words.

Stick with the text! In verse 28 they claim to be able to do the PLURAL "works" of God. In verse 29 Jesus responds with the SINGULAR "work" and claims it is God's "work" rather than their "works." In verse 30 they again claim ability but this time specifically in regard to BELIEVING but required that he provide something tangible to base their faith upon. He responds that they already had tangible evidence and yet remained in unbelief and then defined why they remained in unbelief first positively - only "ALL" given come to Christ - they did not come hence they were not part of that "ALL". Then negatively and specific to their claim that had ability to believe in verse 44 - "no man can come" -If you theory and interpretation were correct he would have never restricted coming to just those given and he would have never directly denied that they had ability to come. Your interpretation is completely repudiated by the overall context.

There is no mention of baptism here.

They are called his "disciples" and there is no such thing as an unbaptized among those called "his disciples". The very definition on making disciples necessarily includes baptism (Mt. 28:19-20). The very requirement to be an apostle includes baptism (Acts 1:21-22).

The truth of these verses is not about drawing but about giving.

Remember, you are the one that made the charge about ignoring the overall context! This is part of the overall context. The line of development is simple to see. First he explains why the do not believe even though they saw the very things they required of him to believe - they were not "given" and hence they did not come. Then he addresses the problem directly - their belief (and yours) that coming to Christ by faith is a natural ability he bluntly repudiates and says "no man can come to me" or else there is no need of an exception clause. So it is about being drawn in addition to being given.

Those that the Father gave to Christ, he will raise up.

He that is drawn is also raised up (vv. 44b) showing affinity between those given and those drawn as verses 39-40 both end with the same clause.

They came asking Jesus "what works," based on a rebuke of Jesus that He had just given them--"Labor not!"
Whatever confidence they may have had, had just been shaken. They were commanded not to work. "Labor not!"
They were not confident at all.

Again, you are jerking a statement out of context. They were told to labour not FOR FOOD that perishes - as that was the motivation for continuing to follow him. Hence, they were not told simply to "labor not" in a comprehensive manner as you suggest. They are told to labor for an immaterial kind of food that does not perish and they responded enthusiastically in verse 30 claiming they were capable of laboring for that kind of food. However, Jesus proves they had no such capability as that capability is restricted within the boundaries "OF ALL" previously given and in regard to natural man "NO MAN can come" thus repudiating your whole interpretational argument in one blow.

You are reading into this passage something that isn't here perhaps based on your own presuppositions instead of expounding the text.

You are describing yourself to a tee! I have shown that my interpretation is based precisely upon the text and grammar of the text as well as the overall context. In response you have taken a verse here and there and tried to read in this context the very opposite of what the text and context actually states.

In the whole scenario Jesus rebukes them for their lack of faith.
I have already stated that clearly.

That is simply not true at all! In context they enthusiastically claim they do have ability to believe and only require of him substance to base their faith upon, just as the rich young ruler enthusiastically claimed he was sufficiently "good" as God and enthusiastically claimed to have kept the law. Both were deceived - the rich young ruler was not inherently good (agathos) and these people did not have ability to believe and jesus plainly tells them so - v. 44

The problem for the Calvinist

Again, it is you that brings the name of Calvin into this discussion not I. I don't like Calvin, and I don't gain my theology from reading Calvin and don't believe most of what Calvin teaches or stands for. I am not a Reformed theologian. Why resort to names when we are discussing scripture, grammar and context???????

is the utter disregard for the true teaching of this verse, and the blindness based on their 16th century idol.

Why the inflammatory language with a term and person I have never once mentioned, used, or claimed?

I suggest your hatred of Calvin influences your view of scripture so that you are unable to look at the text objectively and purely from unbiased perspective and follow the consequences regardless of labels.

The word "draw" does not mean regenerate, convert, justify, save, etc.

The only meaning that Strong's give is "to draw," "to drag."
However, Thayer's Lexicons says this:

Quite simply, the drawing is akin to the convicting of the Holy Spirit.
God doesn't force anyone into salvation. They must choose. That is what the passage teaches over and over again, a point which you conveniently ignore.

Look at the usage of term outside of the two debates texts (Jn. 6; 12). The object is always passive and never active in the drawing process. However, your view demands cooperative efforts for which there IS NOTHING in Scripture to warrant that idea.

Nowhere does the bible teach Total Inability.

The words "no man can" are as explicit as the Bible can get. He did not say "SOME men" can't but "NO MAN" - that is an explicit expression of universality as it can be. The term "can" translates the term "dunamis" and refers to ABILITY. This universal inability is directly assoicated with the very thing you claim universal abilty "COME TO ME. " inability. Stick to the terms of the text instead of reading into the text what it clearly not only does not say but actually repudiates.

 

[DHK]

DHK, please post your responses to the following questions I have for you so I can better understand your beliefs. Can someone without the Holy Spirit have faith in the gospel?

Absolutely. One doesn't receive the Holy Spirit until he puts his faith in Christ.
The Gospel; faith; and then salvation with the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit.

If you believe the answer is yes, from where does the faith come from?

What is faith?
If it is "The Faith" which I contend for then it is contained in the 66 books of the Bible. It is often summarized in a statement of faith.
If that is not what you are looking for, I answered your question in detail in my previous post. It is innate. Children have faith. Everyone has faith. Faith is confidence in the word of another. Do you have faith in your wife, confidence or trust in her; you can rely on her for certain things? If you don't have such a relationship where there is no trust or confidence in your spouse you shouldn't be married. However, the longer two people are married the more trust or confidence they can put in one another. It is based on a relationship. So it is with the Christian life.

Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised God will perform. That is a biblical definition of faith.

Does the Holy Spirit come to an individual as a result of them having faith or is the Holy Spirit present in an individual before they have faith?

Does the Holy Spirit enter unsaved individuals, people who are unsaved? Of course not. Salvation is by faith. At the point of conversion does the Holy Spirit indwell a person. That happens only after a person puts their faith in the gospel.

Is an individual born again before God before or after they are justified by faith?

You are speaking of the ordo salutis which Calvinists and non-cals disagree on.
Calvinists believe regeneration comes first. I believe they are wrong and in error.
What happens first is that the gospel is preached and heard.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
There is your source of faith--the Word of God. It follows the hearing of the Word. Only after a person puts their faith in the gospel message can a person be regenerated.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
We are born again by the Word of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

-

Stick with the entire text given which the thread defines as verses 38-38. It does not simply say "My Father gave them me" as you are jerking that statement out of a specific context. This is stated as a reason for His coming, as this is the specific will of the Father which he came to fulfill.
You are right that the text does not use the term "chosen" but the text does demand a pre-coming act of having been "given" and that is simple to show if the context is not ignored as you did above. It does not take too much common sense to realize that "ALL" who come because of a pre-coming act of having been "given" were the objects of a pre-coming choosing as this is a limited "all" rather than a universal all. Think about it.

That is simply not true to the context. He approaches it the very same way first by positive denial (vv. 36-39) and then by direct explicit denial (vv. 44,65). This is a total repudiation of your whole "overall contextual" argument

Stick with the text! In verse 28 they claim to be able to do the PLURAL "works" of God. In verse 29 Jesus responds with the SINGULAR "work" and claims it is God's "work" rather than their "works." In verse 30 they again claim ability but this time specifically in regard to BELIEVING but required that he provide something tangible to base their faith upon. He responds that they already had tangible evidence and yet remained in unbelief and then defined why they remained in unbelief first positively - only "ALL" given come to Christ - they did not come hence they were not part of that "ALL". Then negatively and specific to their claim that had ability to believe in verse 44 - "no man can come" -If you theory and interpretation were correct he would have never restricted coming to just those given and he would have never directly denied that they had ability to come. Your interpretation is completely repudiated by the overall context.




They are called his "disciples" and there is no such thing as an unbaptized among those called "his disciples". The very definition on making disciples necessarily includes baptism (Mt. 28:19-20). The very requirement to be an apostle includes baptism (Acts 1:21-22).





Remember, you are the one that made the charge about ignoring the overall context! This is part of the overall context. The line of development is simple to see. First he explains why the do not believe even though they saw the very things they required of him to believe - they were not "given" and hence they did not come. Then he addresses the problem directly - their belief (and yours) that coming to Christ by faith is a natural ability he bluntly repudiates and says "no man can come to me" or else there is no need of an exception clause. So it is about being drawn in addition to being given.







He that is drawn is also raised up (vv. 44b) showing affinity between those given and those drawn as verses 39-40 both end with the same clause.



Again, you are jerking a statement out of context. They were told to labour not FOR FOOD that perishes - as that was the motivation for continuing to follow him. Hence, they were not told simply to "labor not" in a comprehensive manner as you suggest. They are told to labor for an immaterial kind of food that does not perish and they responded enthusiastically in verse 30 claiming they were capable of laboring for that kind of food. However, Jesus proves they had no such capability as that capability is restricted within the boundaries "OF ALL" previously given and in regard to natural man "NO MAN can come" thus repudiating your whole interpretational argument in one blow.


you are describing yourself to a tee! I have shown that my interpretation is based precisely upon the text and grammar of the text as well as the overall context. In response you have taken a verse here and there and tried to read in this context the very opposite of what the text and context actually states.



That is simply not true at all! In context they enthusiastically claim they do have ability to believe and only require of him substance to base their faith upon, just as the rich young ruler enthusiastically claimed he was sufficiently "good" as God and enthusiastically claimed to have kept the law. Both were deceived - the rich young ruler was not inherently good (agathos) and these people did not have ability to believe and jesus plainly tells them so - v. 44



Again, it is you that brings the name of Calvin into this discussion not I. I don't like Calvin, and I don't gain my theology from reading Calvin and don't believe most of what Calvin teaches or stands for. I am not a Reformed theologian. Why resort to names when we are discussing scripture, grammar and context???????





Why the inflammatory language with a term and person I have never once mentioned, used, or claimed?

I suggest your hatred of Calvin influences your view of scripture so that you are unable to look at the text objectively and purely from unbiased perspective and follow the consequences regardless of labels.





Look at the usage of term outside of the two debates texts (Jn. 6; 12). The object is always passive and never active in the drawing process. However, your view demands cooperative efforts for which there IS NOTHING in Scripture to warrant that idea.



The words "no man can" are as explicit as the Bible can get. He did not say "SOME men" can't but "NO MAN" - that is an explicit expression of universality as it can be. The term "can" translates the term "dunamis" and refers to ABILITY. This universal inability is directly assoicated with the very thing you claim universal abilty "COME TO ME. " inability. Stick to the terms of the text instead of reading into the text what it clearly not only does not say but actually repudiates.

:wavey::applause::applause::wavey:

He does not really answer because he cannot...he deflects and hides behind Calvin.

 

[convicted1]

The context is ignored here. It is not just verse 38 or even 37-38. It begins back at verse 26, and it goes much further than verse 38. Without the context the meaning in lost.
Going back at least to verse 35, we read:

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.
--The issue is one of belief or faith. That is the basis of this conversation. Those who came to Christ had to come on the basis of faith: whether or not they believed in Christ.
--This is the one thing, the one "work" that they could do; in fact the only requirement that they had for entering into heaven:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
--In the entire conversation Jesus had made this very clear. All who came to Christ had to come on the basis of faith.

In verses 35 and 36 Jesus declares and convinces them that He is that Bread that they, by faith, must eat, and by faith (by partaking or believing) they would have eternal life.
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.

Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Look at the rebuke given for the lack of faith.
Now, the Father has no concern that His work will be ineffective. He will enable people to come to Christ. Jesus has confidence people will come to him. But the people must have confidence also. Confidence is faith.
Remember that many came to him because they had the faith or confidence that he would and could heal them.
Jesus never turned away anyone. He says that very plainly here. "He that comes to me I will in no wise cast out."

(ISV) Everything the Father gives me will come to me, and I'll never turn away the one who comes to me.

Jesus repeats his Divine origin:
Joh 6:38-39
(38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
(39) 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.
--He came down from Heaven to do the Father's will who sent Him.
--The Father's will is that those whom He gives to the Son will not suffer an single loss and all will be raised to life in the resurrection.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
--This is a reaffirmation not only of the previous verse, but reinforces what he had previously taught them. Salvation is based on their belief.

Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Joh 6:42 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?
--The Jews grumble at this teaching and question his qualifications. Isn't he just a carpenter's son, the son of Joseph?

Joh 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
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.
--First Jesus makes no attempt to rebuke their grumbling, for they are in no position to judge him.
Now note carefully: No man can come to Jesus (or believe on him) without divine help.
This drawing of God is not limited to just a few (John 12:32) :
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--This does not mean that all men will be saved, but it does mean that Gentiles as well as Jews will be saved and resurrected:

The context of John 12:32:
John 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

Joh 6:45-48
(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.
(46) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
(47) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(48) I am that bread of life.
--Here are the concluding verses.
The prophets believed this message. The must come to me.
The way to come to Christ is through faith. Christ comes back full circle to his statement in verse 35: "I am the bread of live."
Eternal life is obtainable only through faith in him.

This is not a discourse on election. If one desires eternal life he must come through faith in Christ.

 

[convicted1]

Without context there is no meaning.

Not unless your selectively chosen verses contradict the rest of what Jesus was saying in the overall context of the chapter.

One cannot insert "Calvin" into the middle of the chapter without warrant. And since he didn't live then, there is no warrant.

Let's not make assumptions that aren't there.

Stick with the text. It simply says: "My Father which gave them me..."
Never mind all the hypotheticals and reading into the text the things that are not there.

No Jesus makes a simple play one words.
Like the rich your ruler who asked Jesus: "What must I DO to inherit eternal life," Jesus told him: "Thou knowest the commandments, this do and thou shalt live." He replied that he had kept all of them from his youth up. Jesus proceeded to show him how that was not true.
This time, Jesus takes a different approach.

The question is basically the same as the rich young ruler but in different words:
What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
--Jesus says there is only one work of God.
The only "work of God" is faith. We know from Romans 4:1-5 that faith is not a work. Jesus was teaching that they couldn't work to have eternal life, they could only believe. There was nothing they could do but have faith.
Therefore his answer was:
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Faith is not a work.
--This was a play on words.

There is no mention of baptism here.
The truth of these verses is not about drawing but about giving.
Those that the Father gave to Christ, he will raise up.

They came asking Jesus "what works," based on a rebuke of Jesus that He had just given them--"Labor not!"
Whatever confidence they may have had, had just been shaken. They were commanded not to work. "Labor not!"
They were not confident at all.
You are reading into this passage something that isn't here perhaps based on your own presuppositions instead of expounding the text.

In the whole scenario Jesus rebukes them for their lack of faith.
I have already stated that clearly.

The problem for the Calvinist is the utter disregard for the true teaching of this verse, and the blindness based on their 16th century idol.
The word "draw" does not mean regenerate, convert, justify, save, etc.

The only meaning that Strong's give is "to draw," "to drag."
However, Thayer's Lexicons says this:

Quite simply, the drawing is akin to the convicting of the Holy Spirit.
God doesn't force anyone into salvation. They must choose. That is what the passage teaches over and over again, a point which you conveniently ignore.

Nowhere does the bible teach Total Inability. It simply teaches that God is in the process, even initiates the process. But we have known that all along. No one ever contradicted that. That doesn't not refer to regeneration.

Consider this about the above verses:
What was Christ promised?

 

[convicted1]

Faith is given to a believer, it is a spiritual fruit. It is also a gift of the Spirit, such as the gift of tongues, healings, miracles, etc.
Would God give such spiritual fruit and/or the fruit of the Spirit to unsaved individuals?
Of course not!

 

[convicted1]

Absolutely. One doesn't receive the Holy Spirit until he puts his faith in Christ.
The Gospel; faith; and then salvation with the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit.

What is faith?
If it is "The Faith" which I contend for then it is contained in the 66 books of the Bible. It is often summarized in a statement of faith.
If that is not what you are looking for, I answered your question in detail in my previous post. It is innate. Children have faith. Everyone has faith. Faith is confidence in the word of another. Do you have faith in your wife, confidence or trust in her; you can rely on her for certain things? If you don't have such a relationship where there is no trust or confidence in your spouse you shouldn't be married. However, the longer two people are married the more trust or confidence they can put in one another. It is based on a relationship. So it is with the Christian life.

Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised God will perform. That is a biblical definition of faith.

Does the Holy Spirit enter unsaved individuals, people who are unsaved? Of course not. Salvation is by faith. At the point of conversion does the Holy Spirit indwell a person. That happens only after a person puts their faith in the gospel.

You are speaking of the ordo salutis which Calvinists and non-cals disagree on.
Calvinists believe regeneration comes first. I believe they are wrong and in error.
What happens first is that the gospel is preached and heard.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
There is your source of faith--the Word of God. It follows the hearing of the Word. Only after a person puts their faith in the gospel message can a person be regenerated.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
We are born again by the Word of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Absolutely. One doesn't receive the Holy Spirit until he puts his faith in Christ.
The Gospel; faith; and then salvation with the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit.

As we have agreed before regeneration and conversion are simletaneous in action. The gospel is first preached to the EXTERNAL man, but it is the Holy Spirit that makes the gospel INTERNALLY the creative word that produces faith just as Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:6. It is this creative WORD OF COMMAND that produces the sustance and hope of faith just as Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:6.

What is faith?
If it is "The Faith" which I contend for then it is contained in the 66 books of the Bible. It is often summarized in a statement of faith.

Read hebrews 11:1 if you want to know "what is faith"! "The Faith" is the objective faith contained within the 66 books not the subjective faith that comes from the heart - "for with the heart man believeth".

If that is not what you are looking for, I answered your question in detail in my previous post. It is innate. Children have faith. Everyone has faith. Faith is confidence in the word of another. Do you have faith in your wife, confidence or trust in her; you can rely on her for certain things? If you don't have such a relationship where there is no trust or confidence in your spouse you shouldn't be married. However, the longer two people are married the more trust or confidence they can put in one another. It is based on a relationship. So it is with the Christian life.

Sure, general faith is innate but not saving faith, as Jesus explicitly denies saving faith is universal - "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME". Your simplistic view of faith disregards the fact that natural man is ruled over by the law of sin which is in a STATE of enmity against God and WILL NOT subject itself to God. The problem is not the will or power of choice, the problem is the heart of man which is at enmity with God and as long as enmity exists it is IMPOSSIBLE for faith to exist toward the object of enmity.

Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised God will perform. That is a biblical definition of faith.

We agree on this. We simply disagree concerning its source.

At the point of conversion does the Holy Spirit indwell a person. That happens only after a person puts their faith in the gospel.

What happened to simultaneous action???????? The term "after" is not demanded by the Greek text in Ephesians 1:13.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

The Greek text uses the term "rhema" which MAY refer to a COMMAND and in this context and in this case that is precisely what it refers to just as Paul uses the very term "COMMANDED" in 2 Cor. 4:6 in regard to how the gospel comes to the INTERNAL heart of a lost person. Just as 1 Thes. 1:5 denies the gospel comes to the elect "IN WORD ONLY" but rather in "POWER" or as a CREATIVE COMMAND just as Ephesians 2:10 bluntly states concerning the production of faith in Christ that it is "his workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus."

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
We are born again by the Word of God.

The gospel does not produce anything by itself. I have gone door to door witnessing for years and have passed out thousands of tracts and talked to hundreds of people one on one at their door and I can tell you from experience the gospel has no power to save anyone in and of itself. God must empower it and it is that empowering of the gospel that saves and that is a CREATIVE work of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

What Arminians do not understand is that there is both a experiential and judicial or legal condition of condemnation to death.

That is, you are dead SPIRITUALLY by nature, in addition to being dead LEGALLY by the law. When a child is born they are not conscious of either their spiritually dead nature or their legally dead position before God. It is through experiential interaction between the law of indwelling sin and the Law of God that both are consciously made known to them. They are legally dead BECAUSE they are first spiritually dead. Only consicous interaction with the law reveals the knowledge of their spiriutal state and legal condition to them (Rom. 7:7-11). The law does not make them spiritually dead but only REVEALS they are spiritually dead and thus as a consequence reveals they are under the LEGAL condemnation of death.

Initial salvation regenerates the condition of fallen man whereas justification reverses LEGAL condemnation to death unto justification of life. These both occur simultaneously in connection with the preaching of the gospel, but logically regenerative life precedes judicial life.

Hence, wherever faith is mentioned as the cause of life it is in the context of judicial life. Wherever, the actual condition of man is mention as being "quickened" (made alive) it is in the context of new birth. Man receives Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:12) because he has been born again (Jn. 1:13).

The new birth counters the experiential condition of SPIRITUAL death, while justification by faith counters the legal or judicial POSITIONAL or LEGAL death They are both simultaneous in action but logically the experiential life (new birth) precedes the judicial life (Justification).

So yes, faith precedes judicial life but faith is the product of regenerative life. So the logical and Biblical order is regeneration - faith- justification. Regeneration is the creation of a believing heart, and it is "with the heart man believeth." It is not the OLD heart that believes as that heart is in a state of enmity against God and it is impossible for a heart in a state of enmity against God to submit to that God by faith. That is why the New covenant is giving a NEW HEART, thus beginning with an INTERNAL change (Ezek. 36:26) before their can be an EXTERNAL change (Ezek. 36:27).

Now, DHK and others are not going to like or agree with what I have said, but their dislike and disagreement does not change the facts at all.

 

[Rippon]

Everyone has faith.

But the Bible differs with you:

"And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil people, for not everyone has faith." (2 Thess. 3:2)

Scripture vs. DHK --the Scripture is true. DHK's philosophy is false.

 

[Iconoclast]

So yes, faith precedes judicial life but faith is the product of regenerative life. So the logical and Biblical order is regeneration - faith- justification. Regeneration is the creation of a believing heart, and it is "with the heart man believeth." It is not the OLD heart that believes as that heart is in a state of enmity against God and it is impossible for a heart in a state of enmity against God to submit to that God by faith. That is why the New covenant is giving a NEW HEART, thus beginning with an INTERNAL change (Ezek. 36:26) before their can be an EXTERNAL change (Ezek. 36:27)..

[/B]

A stated reason that DHK denies the truth of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in EZK 36...is that his dispensational system does not allow him to understand the teaching as valid for New Covenant gentiles who are grafted into the root promises.He is trying to solve the puzzle.....but is bewildered because his system does not supply him with the necessary puzzle pieces.

B.....you have methodically worked through these passages leaving him no wiggle room so he has three options.
1] Believe them as the truth of God as you and others have posted and given a solid explanation....
2] say Jn 6 is true...but seek to confuse the clear teaching and instead insert a carnal understanding about a "different context"...insert the name of calvin in here and argue about him.....
3] just look for any reason at anytime to sneak away to a future time when the passage somehow only speaks about God dealing with national Israel.:thumbs:




Now, DHK and others are not going to like or agree with what I have said, but their dislike and disagreement does not change the facts at all.

 

[Iconoclast]

Con1

You have consistently illustrated the frustration that a wrong system of interpretation will bring to a person by these images:laugh:

It is not lack of effort....or sincerity. It is missing the mark:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

But the Bible differs with you:

"And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil people, for not everyone has faith." (2 Thess. 3:2)

Scripture vs. DHK --the Scripture is true. DHK's philosophy is false.

Yes.....This is an Accurate statement.

The other day a poster was trying to say everytime you or any other Cal makes such a statement it is Arrogant..

Why this can always be a danger...it is not the case most of the time.

The consistently accurate presentation of truth which has been offered by you, and B , and protestant, and reformed, Con 1,Bosley,AA etc.....is withering to those who avoid the careful working through the passages....:wavey::wavey:

Reading post after post by DHK......[ he is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting for those who actively oppose these truths...] it is clear that like a child doing a puzzle without all the pieces cannot complete it....and perhaps he takes pieces from another puzzle and tries to force them in where they do not fit.

Now over time DHK and others have complicated this scenario by developing and agenda and going to poisonious web sites dedicated to an opposition and a concerted effort to explain away truth. They think that this is a valid option but it fails them over and over and when refuted they look for another.

If you read over just this months posts you see more time trying to explain away good teaching than offering anything new.

Those portions he is correct on....are the factual and plain narrative...There was a crowd...the crowd was in need...faith is essential...etc.....but the doctrinal content remains closed to him...the eyes of his heart are veiled for these reasons:wavey:

 

[The Biblicist]

[/COLOR][/B]

A stated reason that DHK denies the truth of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in EZK 36...is that his dispensational system does not allow him to understand the teaching as valid for New Covenant gentiles who are grafted into the root promises.He is trying to solve the puzzle.....but is bewildered because his system does not supply him with the necessary puzzle pieces.

B.....you have methodically worked through these passages leaving him no wiggle room so he has three options.
1] Believe them as the truth of God as you and others have posted and given a solid explanation....
2] say Jn 6 is true...but seek to confuse the clear teaching and instead insert a carnal understanding about a "different context"...insert the name of calvin in here and argue about him.....
3] just look for any reason at anytime to sneak away to a future time when the passage somehow only speaks about God dealing with national Israel.:thumbs:




Now, DHK and others are not going to like or agree with what I have said, but their dislike and disagreement does not change the facts at all.

Hebrew 8:10-15 and 10:12-17 make it clear that the New Covenant promised Israel in Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 is the same and only covenant for individual salvation before and after Pentecost.

 

[DHK]

[/COLOR][/B]

A stated reason that DHK denies the truth of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in EZK 36...is that his dispensational system does not allow him to understand the teaching as valid for New Covenant gentiles who are grafted into the root promises.He is trying to solve the puzzle.....but is bewildered because his system does not supply him with the necessary puzzle pieces.

B.....you have methodically worked through these passages leaving him no wiggle room so he has three options.
1] Believe them as the truth of God as you and others have posted and given a solid explanation....
2] say Jn 6 is true...but seek to confuse the clear teaching and instead insert a carnal understanding about a "different context"...insert the name of calvin in here and argue about him.....
3] just look for any reason at anytime to sneak away to a future time when the passage somehow only speaks about God dealing with national Israel.:thumbs:




Now, DHK and others are not going to like or agree with what I have said, but their dislike and disagreement does not change the facts at all.

This has nothing to do with dispensationalism.
His posts are quite lengthy and I have not had the time to work through them. You would do well not post such foolishness.

 

[DHK]

What I said, was "your interpretation" and then I refuted your interpretation and replaced it with my interpretation of the overall context. So it is not true that my interpretation is "without context" as I provided an alternative to "your interpretation" of the context. So your point is completely moot.

So what you are admitting here is that it is "your interpretation" vs. "my interpretation," but I provided more context than you did therefore it is your point that is moot and not mine.

Another moot point! Again, I did not deny anything the immediate preceding and following context stated. I did deny "your interpretation" which was that the audience "can" believe and need motivation. The context proves the very opposite to your argument. They indeed had motivation and believed they could do whatever was required (vv. 28,30) but the contextual development demonstrates they could not just as Jesus plainly states in John 6:44.

First, I don't believe my points are "moot." Otherwise I wouldn't state them.
IOW, you have selectively chosen two verses out of this chapter and still continue to ignore the rest of the chapter. That is not a moot point. It is not that you deny anything, but simply ignore it.
"As Jesus plainly states in John 6:44."
What you say Jesus says in John 6:44 is not so plain after all. I see that you never replied to the last part of my post which shows why it is not as plain as you think it is.

Another moot point and a false charge, as I made no mention of quote "calvin" unquote. You are the one inserting this into this discussion not I. Be honest here. I never referred to Calvin or quoted Calvin.

You are correct in that I should not have brought Calvin into the discussion.

I said the language demands the common sense conclusion that in the context where Christ defines his motivation coming to secure the salvation of those previously "given" (perfect tense) that such cannot have been given prior to Christ's coming without previously been chosen as those to be given. This is simply common sense.

This "common sense conclusion" is unwarranted. It is not the subject of the thread. It is a red herring. Thus my reference to Calvin.

Again, YOU are the one who inserted the name of "Calvin" and the term "Calvinism" into this discussion and not I, so you are right "there is no warrant" for your inclusion of that in this discussion.

Perhaps, but why the tangent? Why go down a road that isn't there?

The text clearly and explicitly states he came to fulfill the will of the Father.

This part is true}
Hence, the will of the Father precedes his coming. He then explicitly states the specific will of the Father is to make sure "OF ALL" that the Father had already "given" (perfect tense) him none would be lost. Hence, having been given is inclusive of the revealed will that motivated Christ to come. So there are no assumption on part at all. If there are, then please demonstrate such assumptions by the text rather than making an unwarranted accusation.[/QUOTE]
Who are the ones that the Father gave Him.
Why is your conclusion so different than mine. It is based on unwarranted conclusions that are being read into the text.

 

[The Biblicist]

So what you are admitting here is that it is "your interpretation" vs. "my interpretation," but I provided more context than you did therefore it is your point that is moot and not mine.

How is that so? I dealt precisely with the context you presented and in more detail than you presented. For example, the plural "works" versus the singular "work". For example, the prohibiition to labor for food whereas you attempted to make it a generalized prohibition of all works. For example, where you quoted merely a portion of the text while demonstrated the fuller text repudiated your application. I agreed with those parts that did not conflict with my interpretation of the two texts.

you have selectively chosen two verses out of this chapter and still continue to ignore the rest of the chapter.

That is simply not true! I dealt with the overall context far more than you did and demonstrated that my interpretation of those two verses was far more consistent with the preceding and following context. I think you need to reread what I said.

What you say Jesus says in John 6:44 is not so plain after all. I see that you never replied to the last part of my post which shows why it is not as plain as you think it is.

Are you referring to this by Dave Hunt?

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." [NOT all He draws].
"Him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out." [NOT everyone the Father draws].
"And this is the Father's will...that of all which he giveth me I should lose nothing..." [NOT all whom He draws]/
"Everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting live..." [NOT all who are drawn]
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him."
[ALL who come have been drawn--not all who are drawn come].
"And I will raise him up at the last day."
[ALL who will be raised up have been drawn, but not all who have been drawn will be raised up].

Hunt divorces John 6:37-40 from John 6:44-45 when in fact they are directly connected by the very same subject - COMING TO CHRIST and directly connected by the very same conclusion "raise him up at the last day" Moreover, the term "all" in verse 45 is EQUAL to the word "all" in verses 37-39 because it is a quotation from the PLURAL prophets Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 where "ALL" leaves no exceptions outside those who effectually are made to know God in the New Covenant salvation. So Hunt's arguments are simply false. The same facts completely repudiate your following arguments:

Read the entire text again (John 6:35-65). Christ does not say that all whom the Father draws, but all whom He gives to the Son will come to Him, and He will lose none of them whom the Father gives Him; they will all be raised at the last day. Of whom is Christ speaking?

The can't come without both and that is the self-evident truth of both texts why they are interconnected about the same subject - coming to Christ. The "he" that is drawn is the same "he" comes as "no man" can but "he" and that "he" is "raised up which again directly connects him to the very same "he" raised up in verses 38-39.

The Bible teaches that in God's foreknowledge He knew who would believe and who would reject the gospel. The former are those whom the Father gave the Son.

First, foreknowledge is based upon "purpose" as Romans 8:28 precedes Romans 8:29-30 as Romans 8:29-30 is the outworking of "his purpose." Just as a archetect foreknows where every door is located before it is built because he has purpose it before hand.

Second, you are now inserting something into the text that is not stated and so you have no right to condemn me for drawing the necessary inferrence that a pre-coming act of having been given necessarily demands a pre-coming act of having been given.

There is nothing here about causing a select number to believe unto salvation and choosing not to save the rest of mankind.

Never ever stated such a thing! That is no my view and I think you know that as I do not believe in election to damnation as election is ALWAYS unto salvation (2 Thes. 2:13).


Why is your conclusion so different than mine. It is based on unwarranted conclusions that are being read into the text. Your own words fit your interpretation so I just repeated them.

 

[DHK]

-

Stick with the entire text given which the thread defines as verses 38-38. It does not simply say "My Father gave them me" as you are jerking that statement out of a specific context. This is stated as a reason for His coming, as this is the specific will of the Father which he came to fulfill.

Previously I simply had said to you:

Stick with the text. It simply says: "My Father which gave them me..."

I did stick with the text.
Here it is again:
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 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.
--My point simply was that the text is dealing with those that the Father GAVE to Christ. Those that he GAVE, he will not lose. No argument.
--But I do note that you are the one reading more into this Scripture than that which is written.
1. He came from heaven, and He came to do his Father's will.
2. There is nothing said about anything more about eternity past.

You are right that the text does not use the term "chosen" but the text does demand a pre-coming act of having been "given" and that is simple to show if the context is not ignored as you did above. It does not take too much common sense to realize that "ALL" who come because of a pre-coming act of having been "given" were the objects of a pre-coming choosing as this is a limited "all" rather than a universal all. Think about it.

Why are you speaking about "pre-coming" when Christ is not?
You are jumping around from one thing to another instead of simply sticking to the text.
"The 'too much common sense' to realize that 'all' who come because of a pre-comming act..." is not there, but inferred by you." The text doesn't say that. Perhaps your "common sense" is not all that common.

That is simply not true to the context. He approaches it the very same way first by positive denial (vv. 36-39) and then by direct explicit denial (vv. 44,65). This is a total repudiation of your whole "overall contextual" argument

I don't know what this has to do with what Christ said back in verse 29. I was using the example of the rich young ruler and his relationship to the law/works as a comparative example to the Jews thinking also they needed to do something to inherit eternal life. They both wanted to "do something."

Stick with the text! In verse 28 they claim to be able to do the PLURAL "works" of God.

No they did not, just as the rich young ruler did not claim to know how to have eternal life. He came asking. So it was with these Jews.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
--There is no claim here of knowledge. They were asking "what must they do, what works were necessary--the same basic question that they rich young ruler asked.

In verse 29 Jesus responds with the SINGULAR "work" and claims it is God's "work" rather than their "works." In verse 30 they again claim ability but this time specifically in regard to BELIEVING but required that he provide something tangible to base their faith upon.

Now Jesus had given them an answer, but they question his authority and demand a sign from him--questioning his deity, or that he is who he says he is.

He responds that they already had tangible evidence and yet remained in unbelief and then defined why they remained in unbelief first positively - only "ALL" given come to Christ - they did not come hence they were not part of that "ALL". Then negatively and specific to their claim that had ability to believe in verse 44 - "no man can come" -If you theory and interpretation were correct he would have never restricted coming to just those given and he would have never directly denied that they had ability to come. Your interpretation is completely repudiated by the overall context.

Now how does Jesus answer them?
Joh 6:35-40
(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.
(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.
(38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
(39) 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.
(40) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
He declares to be that bread from heaven. It alone can give eternal life.
The only way to attain it is through faith. They must believe on him.
Faith is the primary teaching here.

(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.
--These are the ones that are given by the Father to Jesus.
--In verse 36 he declares that there are some that don't believe.
--In verse 37, but those that do believe are the ones that the Father gives to Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Previously I simply had said to you:

Stick with the text. It simply says: "My Father which gave them me..."

That is the only portion of the text you quoted! That quoted portion was jerked out from its contextual relationship with coming to do the will of the Father and it can only be rightly interpreted in that relationship. Your interpretation repudiate precisely what its relationship demanded. The relationship demanded and it is not merely about losing them. The point of verses 37-38a is the CAUSE for the Son's coming is explicitly stated to be that the Father had already given (perfect tense) them to him and it is for that CAUSE He came into the world to secure their salvation. They were not given to him AFTER he came into the world but BEFORE he came into the world because that is the stated CAUSE for him coming into the world. The Father's will that he came to fulfill IS the salvation of those already given (perfect tense) to him by the Father.

I did stick with the text.
Here it is again:
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 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.
--My point simply was that the text is dealing with those that the Father GAVE to Christ. Those that he GAVE, he will not lose. No argument.

You are dealing with the CONSEQUENCE of his coming where the text is pointing out the CAUSE of his coming which is in regard to an already "GIVEN" people that "SHALL" come to him.

--But I do note that you are the one reading more into this Scripture than that which is written.
1. He came from heaven, and He came to do his Father's will.
2. There is nothing said about anything more about eternity past.

You are ignoring the CONTENT of the Father's will that had to be already presented to the Son BEFORE He came as it is the CAUSE for his coming. The CONTENT is that the Father had willed that some were "GIVEN" to him to save after he came. Their coming to Christ in the FUTURE ("shall" verse. 37) is a CONSEQUENCE of already having been given (perfect tense verse 38) before the Son came to earth as that is part and parcel of His will for coming.

Why are you speaking about "pre-coming" when Christ is not?

I just answered this question.

You are jumping around from one thing to another instead of simply sticking to the text.

I have done no such thing. You are the one who wanted to broaden the context and so I just followed your lead. I have proven that verses 38-39b demand they had been "given" (perfect tense) BEFORE Christ came, because He came to secure their salvation as a CONSEQUENCE to the already revealed will of the Father to have given them to him to save BEFORE he came. Common sense tells you that the "all" is not universal but a restricted number of mankind as ALL HUMANS WITHOUT EXCEPTION do not come to Christ. So in order for God to give a qualfied "ALL" to him prior to his incarnation the Father had to choose to do so. Hence, they are the chosen of God and it is manifest in time by the fact that "OF ALL" given all come and NONE are lost. That by definition is the elect or chosen before the incarnation.

I don't know what this has to do with what Christ said back in verse 29. I was using the example of the rich young ruler and his relationship to the law/works as a comparative example to the Jews thinking also they needed to do something to inherit eternal life. They both wanted to "do something."

No they did not, just as the rich young ruler did not claim to know how to have eternal life. He came asking. So it was with these Jews.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
--There is no claim here of knowledge. They were asking "what must they do, what works were necessary--the same basic question that they rich young ruler asked.

Nice try! They are parallel to each other in regard to the fact that the rich young ruler BELEIVED he was already intrinically "good" and therefore not only could do, but has done everything commanded by Law. He was wrong, he had no such intrinsic goodness or ability and the final analysis proved that to be true.

So likewise, with these men in John 6:28-36. They too BELEIVED they had ability to do whatever works God required and were motivated by that belief to challenge Christ to simply provide substance for credible faith and they would also beleive. They were wrong, He had provided substance for credible faith and yet the did not believe (v. 36) because they had no such ability to COME TO HIM BY FAITH as that is restricted only to those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father and apart from that WORK OF GOD "no man can come."

Now how does Jesus answer them?
Joh 6:35-40
(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.
(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.
(38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
(39) 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.
(40) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
He declares to be that bread from heaven. It alone can give eternal life.
The only way to attain it is through faith. They must believe on him.
Faith is the primary teaching here.

(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.
--These are the ones that are given by the Father to Jesus.
--In verse 36 he declares that there are some that don't believe.
--In verse 37, but those that do believe are the ones that the Father gives to Christ.

No one is disputing what they "must" do but the dispute is about what they "can" do and Jesus said "NO MAN CAN" while you and they assert with President Obama "yes we can":tonofbricks:

 

[DHK]

No one is disputing what they "must" do but the dispute is about what they "can" do and Jesus said "NO MAN CAN" while you and they assert with President Obama "yes we can":tonofbricks:

You have Jesus contradicting himself.
What must they do:

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.
--They must come to him; they must believe on him.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
--What is the will of God?
That everyone sees (or comes) to the Son, and believes on him.
He is not willing that any should perish.

Joh 6:49-51
(49) Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
(50) This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
(51) I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
--They must come to him; they must believe in Him.
This is the commandment that Jesus gave to them. He did not give them a command they could not obey. The plain sense of the Scripture tells us that anyone can come. He will not cast out anyone. He will not turn anyone away. He never, in his entire ministry, turned anyone away.

The doctrine of reprobation is nowhere taught in Scripture.
For that matter, not even the doctrine of election unto salvation is taught in Scripture.
Election is always unto the blessings of Christians or even the service of Christians, but never the salvation of Christians.