None can come but those "given" - Jn. 6:36-40

[The Biblicist]

Furthermore, if a baby is born sinless, with a clean slate, it would impossible for them to die. Sin brings death, and being sinless, how could they die? That's why Adam's fall causes them to dos, even whilst in the womb.

However, the son in the parable is NOT AN INFANT but a full grown man who can ask for his legal inheritance! Thus according to Winman's logic, there is no need to be born into God's family as an adult because they already are children of God, just in sin and need to be reconciled as His children to their father.

If this is what he believes, then mercy oh mercy!

However, we are leaving the subject of the OP and it is obvious why Winman is attempting to derail the OP because he has yet responded to the problems I have placed before Arminians to answer! Thus none have dared to given any direct answers to the explicit stated problems.

 

[Winman]

Furthermore, if a baby is born sinless, with a clean slate, it would impossible for them to die. Sin brings death, and being sinless, how could they die? That's why Adam's fall causes them to die, even whilst in the womb.

Baloney, the animal that God killed in the garden to cover Adam and Eve did not sin, yet he died.

Children die as a consequence of Adam's sin, not because they have sinned. Paul clearly shows babies have not sinned in the womb, but millions of babies die in the womb every year.

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

You can't simply ignore scripture that is inconvenient to your personal doctrine. If all men sinned in Adam's loins in the garden as Biblicist believes, then Paul was wrong to say Jacob and Esau had done no evil. In Biblicist's view, both Jacob and Esau ate the forbidden fruit in the garden with Adam, and Paul would be mistaken here.

No, Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb, they had not sinned "in Adam".

Likewise, Paul said he was spiritually alive until he learned the commandments. When he learned the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died.

Paul was absolutely NOT a Calvinist.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then why does God even comment on those he calls who will not come? Anybody simply reading the scriptures without a bias would believe that God is sincerely calling these persons to come to him. Now, in Calvinism, if God was sincere then he would regenerate these persons, because God would know this is the only possible way they could come.

So it is ridiculous to argue that God would be upset or lament that these persons did not come when he called them if Calvinism were true, but that is what the scriptures show over and over again.

Calvinism is a ridiculous view, a person has to completely ignore scripture to believe it.

Tell me Willis, how can you possibly believe this stuff?

Do yuo have any children, if so, have you ever had one go wayward, and still loved them, accepted them, but know that they will end up in a bad way, forceing them to 'do as they would will?"

Don'r you think Paul lamented over his own people the jews, willing to go to hell for them if that would save them, yet also knowing only a remant would be saved by grace of God?

 

[The Biblicist]

Baloney, the animal that God killed in the garden to cover Adam and Eve did not sin, yet he died.

That was a type of Christ being slain "for our sins" and the prototype that Abel followed - "the lamb of God slain FROM the foundation of the world."

Thus, the death of the animal is directly related to sin and death of that animal is the consequence of sin because "by one man sin entered into the world and DEATH BY SIN."

Again, we are departing from the OP which has nothing to do with this subject injected by Winman.

 

[Winman]

Do yuo have any children, if so, have you ever had one go wayward, and still loved them, accepted them, but know that they will end up in a bad way, forceing them to 'do as they would will?"

I only have eight children, how many do you have?

And of course I love them, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Don'r you think Paul lamented over his own people the jews, willing to go to hell for them if that would save them, yet also knowing only a remant would be saved by grace of God?

If God only died for a few select persons, why should Paul lament over the non elect? This makes Paul MORE loving than God, but it also sets Paul in opposition to God's will.

Of course, once you realize that Calvinism is total bunk, and that God desires all persons to be saved, then you realize Paul's will was the same as our heavenly Father's will, and that God is just as loving as Paul was.

Calvinism is absolutely nonsensical, you must throw your brain in the trash to believe it's false doctrines.

 

[convicted1]

Do yuo have any children, if so, have you ever had one go wayward, and still loved them, accepted them, but know that they will end up in a bad way, forceing them to 'do as they would will?"

Don'r you think Paul lamented over his own people the jews, willing to go to hell for them if that would save them, yet also knowing only a remant would be saved by grace of God?

Oh yeah, Brother winman has seven kids, if I am remembering correctly. He and his wife were "fertile myrtles". They probably could have been like the Duggars and had 19 kids if she hadn't stopped. LOL.

 

[The Biblicist]

Convicted! and Winman,

If you want to discuss children, death and sin please open another thread for that. It is against the rules of BB to intentionally derail any thread and that is what you are doing.

Thank you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the issue that our Arminian friends are avoiding and refuse to directly address:

1. Both John 6:44 and 65 EQUALLY state the problem is "no man can come to me"

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw 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.

2. John 6:44 provides "draw" as the solution to this problem and verse 65 provides "it were given unto him" as the solution to the very same problem.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

3. The words "therefore said I unto you" in verse 65 is a direct reference to what he already said in verse 44 and therefore "it were given unto him" must be regarded as synonmous with "draw him" in verse 44.

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.

4. The Arminians interpret both "draw him" and "it were given unto him" equally to refer to the EXTERNAL preaching of the gospel whereby they are taught and whereby they hear and learn of the Father.


5. They claim this intepretation is what John 6:63 is teaching by "my words are spirit and they are life."

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

6. They also claim that these words in verse 63 are the antecedent for the pronoun "it" in verse 65 and thus this was "given" unto the "disciples" in verses 62-66 and they must interpret "given" as such because if not then here are "some" never drawn, never given by the Father but their interpretation of John 12:32 demands this interpertation or they must give up their interpreation of "all" in John 12:32 as false.


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.




7. However, Jesus is denying in verse 65 that such (draw, taught, heard, learned - vv. 44-45) was "given" by the Father to those in verse 64. Indeed, the "therefore I said unto you " is in direct reference to the fact those in verse 64 "beleive not" presently and that has been their state "from the beginning" and that is the case because the Father has not "given" it to them.

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.



8. Moreover, the immediate antecedent for "it" in verse 65 is not anything stated in verse 63 but the words "come unto me" in verse 65 as being "given it" is the solution for "no man can come unto me EXCEPT". Moreover, that is the problem presented in verse 64 "believe not....believed not" which is the very opposite of "come unto me" and for which there is but only one exception "except it were given unto him of my Father" to come to me - "believe in me"

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

9. Finally, the interpretation of "all me without exception" cannot possibly be the correct interpetation of John 12:32 for the simple reason that we can document two generations of tribes in New Guinea within our own generation that died never hearing about the cross or Christ or the gospel until missionaries in our own generation brought it for the first time to them. They had elders whose grandfathers and fathers died NEVER HAVING HEARD such and thus never able to tell them until these missionaries came.

Here is absolute irrefutable evidence that those who will be honest and objective with John 6:44-65 cannot possible refute making the Arminian interpretation impossible. Instead the Calvinist interpetation of John 6:44-45, 63-65 is the only possible interpretation as those "disciples" had EXTERNALLY been taught the gospel, heard and learned it so they could publicly profess it in baptism as that is the ONLY KIND OF DISCIPLES JESUS CLAIMED TO BE HIS DISCIPLES. However, that PUBLIC taught, heard, learned, and professed gospel is not the meaning of John 6:44-45 or 63-65 BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN THAT AND YET CHRIST DENIED THAT WAS WHAT HE MEANT AND HOW HE UNDERSTOOD JOHN 6:44-45 AS WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD BY IT HAD NOT NEVER BEEN GIVEN UNTO THEM IN VERSE 64.

These questions remain unanswered by our Arminian opponents and these questions deal directly with the subject of this OP.

 

[convicted1]

Baloney, the animal that God killed in the garden to cover Adam and Eve did not sin, yet he died.

Children die as a consequence of Adam's sin, not because they have sinned. Paul clearly shows babies have not sinned in the womb, but millions of babies die in the womb every year.

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

You can't simply ignore scripture that is inconvenient to your personal doctrine. If all men sinned in Adam's loins in the garden as Biblicist believes, then Paul was wrong to say Jacob and Esau had done no evil. In Biblicist's view, both Jacob and Esau ate the forbidden fruit in the garden with Adam, and Paul would be mistaken here.

No, Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb, they had not sinned "in Adam".

Likewise, Paul said he was spiritually alive until he learned the commandments. When he learned the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died.

Paul was absolutely NOT a Calvinist.

The animals killed...God made them coats of skin...was post fall. If we, born after Adam, and he had never sinned, we would have been born in the same "upright" state he was in. But when he fell, we fell, too. Now we are born at enmity and it takes Christ to change that state we're into.

 

[Winman]

That was a type of Christ being slain "for our sins" and the prototype that Abel followed - "the lamb of God slain FROM the foundation of the world."

No kidding?

Nevertheless, an innocent animal that did not sin died because of sin. Likewise, children who have not sinned die as a consequence of sin.

Thus, the death of the animal is directly related to sin and death of that animal is the consequence of sin because "by one man sin entered into the world and DEATH BY SIN."

The animal of course represents sinless Christ who died to pay our sin debt.

Again, we are departing from the OP which has nothing to do with this subject injected by Winman.

You simply do not like when I refute your false teachings, which is very EASY to do with scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the issue that our Arminian friends are avoiding and refuse to directly address:

1. Both John 6:44 and 65 EQUALLY state the problem is "no man can come to me"

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw 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.

2. John 6:44 provides "draw" as the solution to this problem and verse 65 provides "it were given unto him" as the solution to the very same problem.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

3. The words "therefore said I unto you" in verse 65 is a direct reference to what he already said in verse 44 and therefore "it were given unto him" must be regarded as synonmous with "draw him" in verse 44.

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.

4. The Arminians interpret both "draw him" and "it were given unto him" equally to refer to the EXTERNAL preaching of the gospel whereby they are taught and whereby they hear and learn of the Father.


5. They claim this intepretation is what John 6:63 is teaching by "my words are spirit and they are life."

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

6. They also claim that these words in verse 63 are the antecedent for the pronoun "it" in verse 65 and thus this was "given" unto the "disciples" in verses 62-66 and they must interpret "given" as such because if not then here are "some" never drawn, never given by the Father but their interpretation of John 12:32 demands this interpertation or they must give up their interpreation of "all" in John 12:32 as false.


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.




7. However, Jesus is denying in verse 65 that such (draw, taught, heard, learned - vv. 44-45) was "given" by the Father to those in verse 64. Indeed, the "therefore I said unto you " is in direct reference to the fact those in verse 64 "beleive not" presently and that has been their state "from the beginning" and that is the case because the Father has not "given" it to them.

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.



8. Moreover, the immediate antecedent for "it" in verse 65 is not anything stated in verse 63 but the words "come unto me" in verse 65 as being "given it" is the solution for "no man can come unto me EXCEPT". Moreover, that is the problem presented in verse 64 "believe not....believed not" which is the very opposite of "come unto me" and for which there is but only one exception "except it were given unto him of my Father" to come to me - "believe in me"

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

9. Finally, the interpretation of "all me without exception" cannot possibly be the correct interpetation of John 12:32 for the simple reason that we can document two generations of tribes in New Guinea within our own generation that died never hearing about the cross or Christ or the gospel until missionaries in our own generation brought it for the first time to them. They had elders whose grandfathers and fathers died NEVER HAVING HEARD such and thus never able to tell them until these missionaries came.

Here is absolute irrefutable evidence that those who will be honest and objective with John 6:44-65 cannot possible refute making the Arminian interpretation impossible. Instead the Calvinist interpetation of John 6:44-45, 63-65 is the only possible interpretation as those "disciples" had EXTERNALLY been taught the gospel, heard and learned it so they could publicly profess it in baptism as that is the ONLY KIND OF DISCIPLES JESUS CLAIMED TO BE HIS DISCIPLES. However, that PUBLIC taught, heard, learned, and professed gospel is not the meaning of John 6:44-45 or 63-65 BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN THAT AND YET CHRIST DENIED THAT WAS WHAT HE MEANT AND HOW HE UNDERSTOOD JOHN 6:44-45 AS WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD BY IT HAD NOT NEVER BEEN GIVEN UNTO THEM IN VERSE 64.

Again, please get back on track with the OP. The issues are stated above and yet we have no Arminian willing to directly and objectively address any of these nine issues.

 

[The Biblicist]

You simply do not like when I refute your false teachings, which is very EASY to do with scripture.

You are not even dealing with the subject of this OP. If you want to refute my teachings then open up your own thread on this subject and I will be happy to accomodate you. It is against the rules of the BB to derail this thread or any thread and that is what you and convicted are both doing. I have now asked both of you to kindly stop doing this and open up your own thread. Next I will ask the moderator to address this violation. I don't want to do that so please open up your own threads.

 

[Winman]

Biblicist loves to pull a single verse out of the scriptures and isolate it to attempt to prove false doctrine. He objects whenever anyone introduces other scripture that easily refutes his false views.

He is no different from John Calvin himself who would punish anyone who opposed him and disagreed with him. Like father, like son.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist loves to pull a single verse out of the scriptures and isolate it to attempt to prove false doctrine. He objects whenever anyone introduces other scripture that easily refutes his false views.

He is no different from John Calvin himself who would punish anyone who opposed him and disagreed with him. Like father, like son.

I have kindly asked you now several times to stop derailing my thread with a topic that is totally unrelated to this OP. I have reported this to the Moderator and will allow him to take whatever actions he deems right.

 

[Winman]

I have kindly asked you now several times to stop derailing my thread with a topic that is totally unrelated to this OP. I have reported this to the Moderator and will allow him to take whatever actions he deems right.

And I answered you that I will introduce any scripture that I believe refutes your false views.

You can do whatever you wish. You show that you fear opposition.

 

[The Biblicist]

And I answered you that I will introduce any scripture that I believe refutes your false views.

You can do whatever you wish. You show that you fear opposition.

If I feared opposition, then why did I volunteer to respond to any argument you wish to speak about as long as you open your own thread?

It would seem that I am simply asking you to honor the rules of the BB and not intentionally derail the OP by opening another subject that has nothing to do with the subject of this OP.

Again, I kindly ask you to please open your own thread to discuss this new topic and I will be more than happy to respond to you on that thread, but please stop derailing this thread.

 

[convicted1]

No on can/will come w/o first being drawn. Neither faction denies this. However, the rub is that our side states they will come, whereas the other side states that drawing doesn't actually mean they will come.

I was going to tie into this thread what Brother winman and I were debating, but someone apparently wants to play dictator.

Cool your jets, Brother and continue quoting yourself like you repeatedly do. I am done with this thread. Carry on!! :thumbsup:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

At 10 pages and 96 posts, I'm closing this thread before it turns into an inferno. And yes, please do start a new thread if your comments would tend to diverge significantly from the OP.