John 6:65 - what is "given"

[The Biblicist]

Falsehood #1, here John 6:65, God must allow people to come, thus it is dealing with those who do not come. OTOH, to draw deals with attracting people to come, and thus to allow people to come. So rather than being the same, they are opposites.

Falsehood #2. God must allow a person, i.e. not harden his or her heart. Here we are looking at Judas being chosen as the betrayer and therefore not allowed to come to faith.

Falsehood #3

Falsehood #4. What God did not grant was the opportunity to believe, because Judas had been chosen for another purpose.

Falsehood #5. John 6:65 is explanatory as to why Judas was not granted the opportunity to believe.

Falsehood #6a. Believing is the work God requires, see NET footnote.

Falsehood 6b. John 6:37 as all that the Father gives to Christ arrive in Christ and Christ will not cast them out. Thus the transfer from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son is in view. Coming to faith in not in view because if a person comes to faith, that does not put them "in Christ" only God does that.

Falsehood 6c. The Father drawing provides the opportunity to come to faith in Christ.

Falsehood 6d. Good golly miss molly. Now the Calvinist has redefined being given to Christ as giving faith to a lost soul. Twaddle

Falsehood #7. Total inability of all men at all times is a Calvinist fiction. Jesus taught that men could harden themselves by the practice of sin such that they could not understand the gospel, i.e. Matthew 13. Jesus also taught God could harden men such that they could not come to faith in Christ, i.e. Romans 11 and John 6:65. OTOH, Jesus taught that 3 of the four soils could put their faith in the gospel to various degrees.

Falsehood #8. So eight out of eight falsehoods to support the falsehoods of Calvinism.

You don't have an objective bone in your body in regard to this subject. It is waste of my time to discuss this subject with you or to make rebuttals to your superficial objections. I am saying this nicely, I am simply not going to enter into debate with you in regard to anything related to this subject as it is an exercise of futility. If you were more objective and reasonable I would but you are not.

Skandalon has been fairly objective until recently and I see that door closing as well.

 

[Skandelon]

There is no belittling of your PERSON to claim your POSITION is a "spin" and it is.

Thus, by that definition, your interpretation is likewise a 'spin'...my spin however happens to be much more widely accepted among baptists historically than your spin...but that means nothing more than the top on which we both apparently spin things.

Why is it when anyone repudiates the POSITION of you fella's that you all attempt to make it a PERSONAL issue? Your next statement below demonstrates my point exactly!

Providing defense for a widely held and respectable interpretation of the scripture, as I believe we both are, shouldn't be dismissed as a 'spin,' IMHO. It comes across as being derogatory and dismissive, but if that is not how you meant it, that's okay, let's move on...

The word "invited" infers joint activity between two parties but John 6:44 and the term "draw" is completely passive in regard to the object.

I disagree. I can invite many people who passively choose to ignore my invitation...just look at all facebook invites.

The parable of the wedding banquet is a great parallel. They can't come unless they are invited, but not all who are invited actually come and of those who do come, only those clothed in righteousness through faith will be chosen to enter the wedding feast. The gospel goes out to all peoples, some ignore it completely...some respond but with false motives, etc,...others humble themselves and trust Christ. In John 6 the drawing power, the gospel, hadn't been fulfilled on the cross and sent into all the world. Instead, the truth of who Christ was is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of Israel. Only a few preselected Israelites were given to Christ to learn from him and take the gospel to rest of the world....AFTER the resurrection! Then and only then does Christ 'draw all men to himself' by sending the disciples to proclaim the 'power of God unto Salvation, first to the Jew and then the Gentile.'

The term "no man can" denies it is merely an invitation

Untrue according to Paul, "HOW CAN THEY believe in whom they have not heard?"

 

[The Biblicist]

Providing defense for a widely held and respectable interpretation of the scripture, [/QUOTE]

By whom? What kind of Baptists?

I disagree.

First, this is not a parable.

Second, there is no invitation stated as in the parable you refer to

Third, It is the work of the Father under consideration not the work of the Holy Spirit or those who preach the gospel.

Fourth the verbs are passive.

Fifth, the coming to the Son is the stated consequence of the Father's act of giving and drawing rather than inclusive in the cause for coming nor are there any conditions stated to be inclusive in the acts by the Father which produce coming to Christ. Indeed you are REVERSING the cause and effect of the context. John 6:37-40 and 6:65 are explanatory for the absence of faith in Christ in John 6:36 and 6:64. Your turn it completely upon its head and repudiate the very thing Jesus is providing as the explanation for their lack of faith in him.

Sixth, your whole invitational interpretation is based purely and solely upon inferences not stated in the text.

Seventh, I could prove or disprove anything about any text in scripture if I followed your method of interpretation you employ here.

 

[percho]

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.
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.

The immediate and overall context proves that it is the believing ability that was not given to those in verse 64.

1. The words "given unto him" are being used synonomous with "draw" in verse 44.

Note that Jesus says "Therefore I said unto you" demonstrating he is referring to John 6:44 almost word for word. Hence, "given unto him" is synonmous with "draw" in John 6:44. This is not a quote of John 6:45 but of verse 44 as anyone can easily see.

2. The words "given unto him" refer to what must be obtained directly from the Father in order to come to Christ which is an expression of believing in Christ.

The Holy Spirit is the author of the Word of God not the Father.

The preached gospel comes directly from a human preacher not from the Father


3. The preached gospel had been given to them but that is what they refused as they were false professors who did not believe in Him.

4. John 6:65 refers to what they were NOT GIVEN rather than what they were given and refused to beleive.

5. John 6:65 is explanatory of why those in verse 64 did not believe. Though the word had been given to them it refers to something the Father had not "given unto him" as explanatory of why they did not believe.

6. From John 6:29 to John 6:65 it is consistently the work of the Father that Jesus attributes as the cause for all who come to Him:
a. John 6:29 Believing is the work of God
b. The Father giving those to Christ is the cause of all who come to him - Jn. 6;37-39
c. The Father drawing is the cause of coming to Christ - Jn. 6:44-45
d. The Father "given unto him" the cause of coming to Christ - Jn. 6:65

7. Total inability to come to Christ in faith is not only implied by these necessary acts of the Father in order that such might come to Christ but is clearly stated as the reason in John 6:44.

8. In all of these cases there are no active verbs but only passive verbs used to define what the Father does that permits all to come to Christ and yet the interpretations of my opponents all require active verbs to defend their interpretations.

Now my opponents may isolate each one of the eight reasons from the other seven and pick it apart (another cult tactic) but it is utterly impossible to deny all eight of these without complete dishonesty.

Would you say that this is in the same context as those who were with Paul on the road to Damascus.

Paul was being called therefore, "it was given him," however those with Paul, " it was not given," therefore they heard not? That is understood not the voice.

 

[Skandelon]

First, this is not a parable.

What do you call the story of the wedding banquet then?

Second, there is no invitation stated as in the parable you refer to

I thought you said it wasn't a parable? And what would you call the work of all the masters servants going into the highways and byways asking people to come to the wedding feast?

Third, It is the work of the Father under consideration not the work of the Holy Spirit or those who preach the gospel.

And? Not seeing how that distinction matters to this point...

Fourth the verbs are passive.

Which verbs are those and why does that matter?

Fifth, the coming to the Son is the stated consequence of the Father's act of giving and drawing

Are we still talking about the non parable of the wedding banquet?

Lost you...

 

[The Biblicist]

By whom? What kind of Baptists?


First, this is not a parable.

Second, there is no invitation stated as in the parable you refer to

Third, It is the work of the Father under consideration not the work of the Holy Spirit or those who preach the gospel.

Fourth the verbs are passive.

Fifth, the coming to the Son is the stated consequence of the Father's act of giving and drawing rather than inclusive in the cause for coming nor are there any conditions stated to be inclusive in the acts by the Father which produce coming to Christ. Indeed you are REVERSING the cause and effect of the context. John 6:37-40 and 6:65 are explanatory for the absence of faith in Christ in John 6:36 and 6:64. Your turn it completely upon its head and repudiate the very thing Jesus is providing as the explanation for their lack of faith in him.

Sixth, your whole invitational interpretation is based purely and solely upon inferences not stated in the text.

Seventh, I could prove or disprove anything about any text in scripture if I followed your method of interpretation you employ here.

Above when I say "first it is not a parable" I am referring to the text of this OP rather than to the parable you inserted into this discussion. Now, that you know what I am referring to, you can now respond appropriately.

 

[The Biblicist]

Would you say that this is in the same context as those who were with Paul on the road to Damascus.

Paul was being called therefore, "it was given him," however those with Paul, " it was not given," therefore they heard not? That is understood not the voice.

In that particular circumstance - yes.

 

[Skandelon]

Above when I say "first it is not a parable" I am referring to the text of this OP rather than to the parable you inserted into this discussion. Now, that you know what I am referring to, you can now respond appropriately.

Got you. You were saying John 6 is not a parable...but you do know that is not what I was saying either, right? I was referencing the parable as a rebuttal to your point...which you failed to answer, btw.

The argument you made about the objects of an invitation having to be 'active' was debunked soundly and you dropped that point, yet that was the very basis of your attempt to disassociate 'drawing' with 'inviting' or 'appealing' to others. I don't think you have made your case here...

Also, your argument, "The term "no man can" denies it is merely an invitation," was soundly defeated and unanswered:

I pointed out that Paul said, "HOW CAN THEY believe in whom they have not heard?" And you didn't reply.

Lastly, as I have argued previously (with you I think), in this context (where Jesus is making the case for why only a remnant have been entrusted with these mysteries, while the rest are being provoked and hardened) the terminology of drawing does indeed connote a more 'effectual' or 'compelling' meaning, IMO. God had set apart a number of people to be given to Christ while he was living on earth. These were the firstfruits of Israel, the remnant. He divinely appointed messengers of the gospel. As with Jonah, God would use more persuasive means (storm, fish, blinding light, signs, miracles, etc) to provoke and change their wills and ensure his message is spread throughout the world. That is a 'drawing' or compelling thing...and I'm not denying that. I'm simply putting into its proper historical context and meaning.

 

[The Biblicist]

The parable of the wedding banquet is a great parallel. They can't come unless they are invited, but not all who are invited actually come and of those who do come, only those clothed in righteousness through faith will be chosen to enter the wedding feast. The gospel goes out to all peoples, some ignore it completely...some respond but with false motives, etc,...others humble themselves and trust Christ.

Again, the parable explicitly speaks of an invitation through servants whereas John 6 does not. Neither is there any mention of servants or instrumental means but the text refers to the work of the Father, not the Spirit, not preachers. There is no similarity except what you force upon it by your insertion of this parable into this discussion about this text.

In John 6 the drawing power, the gospel,

Neither does John 6 identify the gospel as the "drawing power" but rather the Father is the drawing power.

hadn't been fulfilled on the cross and sent into all the world.

I guess Acts 10:43, Heb. 4:2; Gal. 3:6-8 mean nothing to you as they all teach the same gospel was preached prior to the cross with the only difference that faith looked forward whereas our faith looks back but both equally honored by promise (Rom. 3:25-26).

Instead, the truth of who Christ was is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of Israel. Only a few preselected Israelites were given to Christ to learn from him and take the gospel to rest of the world....AFTER the resurrection!

This is purely your fertile imagination as the Bible only knows of two classes of men (lost versus saved, unjustified verus justified, in the flesh versus in the Spirit, children of God versus children of the Devil, unregenerate versus regenerate). Sorry, but there is no third class of mankind as you imagine.




Untrue according to Paul, "HOW CAN THEY believe in whom they have not heard?"[/QUOTE]

You are talking about the instrumental means in Romans 10 whereas John 6 is referring to the initial cause - apples verus oranges. You have to confuse the two or reverse their cause and consequence order.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is "given" in John 6:65 is what is missing in John 6:64. The word preached was not missing as all these claimed to have received the word as professed "disciples." His audiance had been given the word from his own lips right then but refused to beleive (Jn. 6:36; 41-43; 64). However, Jesus knew from the beginning of their profession it was void of true saving faith as saving faith cannot be worked up or worked out by men but is the work of God (Jn 6:29; Philip. 1:29; 2:13) which means the author of faith is not man but God (Heb. 12:2) and is the work of God "begun" in man (Philip. 1:6) and finished in man by God as faith is kept by the power of God (2 Pet. 1:5). Faith is the conseqence of the creative word of command by God (Rom. 10:17 "rhema") in producing an enlightened heart (2 Cor. 4:6) whereby the law of God is written upon the heart (2 Cor. 3:3) by the creative command of God as "his workmanship created in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10a). That is why "no man can" come to Christ in faith without faith being "given unto him" (Jn. 6:40, 65) through the internal creative revelatory work of God (Jn. 6:45 with 2 Cor. 4;6 ) as only God can remove the darkness of ignorance within man (Eph. 4:18).

 

[Winman]

Your view is easily refuted by verse 67;

Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

If your view is correct and God supernaturally and irresistibly causes men to believe, then verse 67 is absolutely nonsensical. If your view is correct, how could his true disciples possibly fall away? If Jesus knew 11 of his disciples were elect (and he did), he would know it is impossible for them to fall away in unbelief. That is, if your view is correct (it isn't).

If Jesus knew that his disciples were false and not of the elect, then he knew they will most certainly will fall away and again his question in verse 67 is completely unnecessary and misleading.

NO, this question only makes sense if men themselves decide what they believe.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your view is easily refuted by verse 67;

Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

If your view is correct and God supernaturally and irresistibly causes men to believe, then verse 67 is absolutely nonsensical. If your view is correct, how could his true disciples possibly fall away? If Jesus knew 11 of his disciples were elect (and he did), he would know it is impossible for them to fall away in unbelief. That is, if your view is correct (it isn't).

If Jesus knew that his disciples were false and not of the elect, then he knew they will most certainly will fall away and again his question in verse 67 is completely unnecessary and misleading.

NO, this question only makes sense if men themselves decide what they believe.

Your argument is as much an attack on the doctrine of eternal security as it is on the doctrine of the effectual call.

 

[Skandelon]

Again, the parable explicitly speaks of an invitation through servants whereas John 6 does not.

But if you consider that its through the MEANS of this "INVITATION" that people are enabled to respond (held responsible) and, even more significantly, that invitation is being withheld at the time John 6 happened and isn't even employed until Christ is raised up, at which time the SAME AUTHOR speaks of Christ 'drawing all men to himself.' (Jn 12:32) Like it or not but that is a very strong case against your perspective when viewed objectively.

Summary:
Fact: The gospel invitation being withheld from everyone except a few from Israel, and even they don't get it completely, when John 6 is recorded.

Fact: Christ concludes that no one can come unless drawn (invited/enabled -- Paul supports this view in Rom 10)

Fact: Christ doesn't send the gospel invitation until after he is raised up when the disciples are commissioned to go to every creature.

Fact: The same author who wrote John 6 wrote John 12 where he concludes that all men will be drawn to Christ after he is raised.

Conclusion: The powerful, life giving gospel is the means God uses to enable/draw men to himself, not merely inform those who have already been saved.

Neither does John 6 identify the gospel as the "drawing power" but rather the Father is the drawing power.

Of course the Father is the drawing power, but through WHAT MEANS DOES HE DRAW? Some secret, inward, irresistible working that scripture never once names or expounds upon? OR the GOSPEL, which is called 'the power of God unto Salvation' and is spoken of countless times as powerful, sharp, God breathed, inspired, given to us by God, etc???

You seem to want to separate the Father from His chosen means.

I guess Acts 10:43, Heb. 4:2; Gal. 3:6-8 mean nothing to you as they all teach the same gospel was preached prior to the cross with the only difference that faith looked forward whereas our faith looks back but both equally honored by promise (Rom. 3:25-26).

I am not following your argument. The gospel (Christ, cross, death, burial, resurrection, salvation even for Gentiles through faith, etc), is not FULFILLED and SENT until Christ is raised up. That is not my opinion, that is a FACT. Prior to this there is foreshadowing, mystery, prophecy, and such all pointing to Christ, but the gospel wasn't completed and sent until that point in history. That is significant considering how much scripture speaks of the gospels power and significance. You can't just dismiss it and pretend its used just to inform those who have already been saved when scripture never teaches that.

This is purely your fertile imagination as the Bible only knows of two classes of men (lost versus saved, unjustified verus justified, in the flesh versus in the Spirit, children of God versus children of the Devil, unregenerate versus regenerate). Sorry, but there is no third class of mankind as you imagine.

I have no idea what you are talking about or how that applies to my statement.

I wrote: Untrue according to Paul, "HOW CAN THEY believe in whom they have not heard?"

You are talking about the instrumental means in Romans 10 whereas John 6 is referring to the initial cause - apples verus oranges. You have to confuse the two or reverse their cause and consequence order.

At least I can actually produce biblical support for the "means" of drawing, where as all you can provide is Calvin commentaries or other man made speculations based on a few proof texts used to prop up this concept of an inward, secret, irresistible working that makes people want to believe.

Paul teaches that faith comes by hearing. The gospel is the means to faith. Paul knows they can't come unless they are invited and at that time in history Israel was being 'cut off' (not invited) while the Gentiles were being 'grafted in' (invited). Read Rom 11 and he explains this very clearly.

 

[Winman]

Your argument is as much an attack on the doctrine of eternal security as it is on the doctrine of the effectual call.

Well, it is what it is. I believe in eternal security, but I also realize there are MANY scriptures that seem to argue against it. I am not one who wrests scripture to say what I desire it to mean, it says what it says.

I believe once a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit, (which was not the case in John chapter 6 as the Spirit was not yet given- Jhn 7:39), that a person cannot lose salvation.

The point is, Christ's question makes absolutely no sense unless man himself decides to believe. It is a choice. Albert Barnes who was a Calvinist realized that is what verse 67 is saying.

Verse 67

The twelve - The twelve apostles.

Will ye also go away? - Many apostatized, and it was natural now for Jesus to submit the question to the twelve. “Will you, whom I have chosen, on whom I have bestowed the apostleship, and who have seen the evidence of my Messiahship, will you now also leave me?” This was the time to try them; and it is always a time to try real Christians when many professed disciples become cold and turn back; and then we may suppose Jesus addressing us, and saying, Will ye also go away! Observe here, it was submitted to their choice. God compels none to remain with him against their will, and the question in such trying times is submitted to every man whether he will or will not go away.

I did not need Albert Barnes to explain this verse to me, I am just showing you how real scholars understand this verse which completely refutes your view.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe once a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit, (which was not the case in John chapter 6 as the Spirit was not yet given- Jhn 7:39), that a person cannot lose salvation.

So Christ was lying in John 3;16 and John 5:25 and what he PRESENT TENSE gives is not "eternal" life but only temporal life because there was nothing to maintain the "eternal" aspect until Pentecost???????!!!!! I suppose the double hand of eternal security in John 10:28-30 was all furturistic even though he used present tenses????

You would not know the gospel of Jesus Christ if it slapped you in the face. When you remove eternal security from the promise of the gospel ("eternal life") you have no gospel at all as that is the necessary consequence of the atonement. It is eternal simply because the work of Christ prior to the cross was pictured, preached and promised to be wholly and ETERNALLY sufficient for remission of sin (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:6-8). You know nothing of David's faith in the "everlasting covenant" that was "sure" to all the seed and thus called by Isaiah the "sure mercies of David" becuase it was founded upon faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ in the resurrection (Acts 13).

 

[Winman]

So Christ was lying in John 3;16 and John 5:25 and what he PRESENT TENSE gives is not "eternal" life but only temporal life because there was nothing to maintain the "eternal" aspect until Pentecost???????!!!!! I suppose the double hand of eternal security in John 10:28-30 was all furturistic even though he used present tenses????

You would not know the gospel of Jesus Christ if it slapped you in the face. When you remove eternal security from the promise of the gospel ("eternal life") you have no gospel at all as that is the necessary consequence of the atonement. It is eternal simply because the work of Christ prior to the cross was pictured, preached and promised to be wholly and ETERNALLY sufficient for remission of sin (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:6-8). You know nothing of David's faith in the "everlasting covenant" that was "sure" to all the seed and thus called by Isaiah the "sure mercies of David" becuase it was founded upon faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ in the resurrection (Acts 13).

Perhaps you do not read well, I told you I believe in eternal security. That said, the scriptures show persons do not always believe.

Luk 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Jesus spoke of persons "which for a while believe" and in time of temptation fall away.

First of all, this completely refutes your view that God gave them faith unless you believe like Calvin that he takes it away from some persons. If this is true, no Christian is eternally secure, God could take your faith away.

Isn't that true?

But Jesus himself said some people only believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. If you go back and read my past posts, you will see that I have always said these persons were saved, but bear no fruit. I have ALWAYS said that.

I do not believe all those persons who turned away from Jesus and did not follow him again were necessarily lost. If they believed, then they were saved.

Nevertheless, this scripture proves that men have to believe for themselves. It makes absolutely no sense in your doctrine for Jesus to ask who shall leave and who shall not, as he is the one who determines who will believe and who will not in your system.

Can you explain to me how some men can believe "for a while" in Luke 8:13?? According to you, men are unable to believe, so God must regenerate them to believe. How then do they cease to believe? Do they become unregenerate again? Does God take their regeneration away?

Please answer these questions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps you do not read well, I told you I believe in eternal security.

Your concept of eternal security is post-Pentecost in connection with the "sealing" of the Holy Spirit which makes Christ a liar, denies the promise of atonment that pre-Pentecost children of God exrpessly believed in and Jesus expressly taught in present tense terms. Here is your explanation:

I believe once a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit, (which was not the case in John chapter 6 as the Spirit was not yet given- Jhn 7:39), that a person cannot lose salvation.

That said, the scriptures show persons do not always believe.

Luk 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Jesus spoke of persons "which for a while believe" and in time of temptation fall away.

You have no concept of the gospel at all! You can't discern between true and false professors as you place them in the same category merely on the basis of profession. You have to defend you doctrine by parables and then misinterpretation of those parables.

I really do not want to continue discussing anything with you because (1) your completely and totally ignorant of basic Bible doctrines and (2) You are arrogantly proud in your ignorance without an objective bone in your body. It is a hopeless discussion. I got better things to do.

 

[Winman]

Your concept of eternal security is post-Pentecost in connection with the "sealing" of the Holy Spirit which makes Christ a liar, denies the promise of atonment that pre-Pentecost children of God exrpessly believed in and Jesus expressly taught in present tense terms. Here is your explanation:

It is certain that OT saints did not have the indwelling Spirit and that the Spirit could leave a person. King Saul is a famous example.

1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

I am not saying that Saul was lost, I am saying I do not know. But Jesus promised he would send the indwelling Spirit, and he would abide with us forever.

Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

We know as early as John chapter 2 that all the disciples except Judas believed on Jesus, but none had the indwelling Spirit, else it would not make sense for Jesus to promise he would send the Spirit to them. Jesus said the Spirit dwelled with them, but would be IN THEM when he came in the future.

So, only in the NT do we have evidence of the indwelling permanent Spirit. This is scripture whether you like it or not.

You have no concept of the gospel at all! You can't discern between true and false professors as you place them in the same category merely on the basis of profession. You have to defend you doctrine by parables and then misinterpretation of those parables.

You don't even understand the parables.

I really do not want to continue discussing anything with you because (1) your completely and totally ignorant of basic Bible doctrines and (2) You are arrogantly proud in your ignorance without an objective bone in your body. It is a hopeless discussion. I got better things to do.

No, it is more likely that you cannot answer the questions I asked you. Jesus himself spoke of persons who only believed for a while. This refutes your view that God gives men faith unless you believe that God "takes away" faith from some.

I personally believe that if a person believed on Jesus that they are always saved. I believe the thorny soil and the rocky soil were saved but did not bear fruit. I have always said this.

But the facts are that the Spirit could leave a person in the OT, and it is also true that people could cease to believe, at least before the indwelling Spirit was given.

I understand completely why you do not answer, because YOU CAN'T.

 

[OldRegular]

Biblicist,

You apply this passage as if it is addressing mankind's ability to believe in Christ in any and all contexts. That is a textbook example of the fallacy of 'proof texting.' You MUST look at the CONTEXT.

Who was being granted/given to come to the Incarnate God in flesh? Who was given to learn from him? To be His apostles? To carry the inspired, authoritative truth? John 17, uses this same language of God "giving them to Christ" in direct reference to the 12, just as is referenced in John 6 following your proof text.

The remnant of Israel, the 12, were GRANTED to come to Christ, while the rest were being HARDENED. That is why the rest were unable to believe, it has NOTHING TO DO with some inborn condition.

Jesus spells it out very clearly, "For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”

Israel, as a people, were being blinded/hardened from the truth for a time, with the exception of a few (a remnant) who were granted to learn from Christ directly and thus become the authoritative voices for the future church.

Context.

You still beating that dead horse Skan?

 

[The Biblicist]

But if you consider that its through the MEANS of this "INVITATION" that people are enabled to respond (held responsible)

This is circular reasoning! You attempting to provide as evidence for your interpretation the very thing we are debating!

Anyone can read this text and plainly see that it is the primary cause for coming that is being declared not an invitation. You are trying to arguing that "no man can come unto me excpet the Father invite them" but that is not what the text says or means.