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

[Yeshua1]

That's baloney and you know it Willis, there are many examples of God calling and drawing men and they would not come, such as in Matthew 11;

Mat 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

Here Jesus compares the enticement of God to children piping in the market, calling to their fellows to come and dance, but they refused to do so.

We have the example of Jesus calling to Jerusalem as a mother hen would try to gather her chicks, but they would not come.

Mat 26:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

You have to ignore a lot of scripture to believe Irresistible Grace.

You have to understand that doctrine better, as we hold that the elect in christ will not resist the Grace, that the Holy spirit will di his work to enable them to receive jesus by faith, andconfirm that their election was surre from god, but sinners can and do resisit him daily!

 

[Skandelon]

Deal first with the mechanics and then I will gladly deal with the contextual subjects.

This reveals the weakness of your hermeneutic. Anyone unwilling to objectively understand the context of the words being spoken cannot be trusted with the mechanics of those words. Why? Because it reveals that their aim is to make the mechanics fit their presumed context and systematic, which ANY linguist worth his salt will tell you is the wrong approach to the text. Why? Because any decent linguist can mechanically make a text appear to support almost any presumed claim brought to that text.

You are clearly set on making the text say what you want it to say regardless of the historical truth that would bring clarity to the author's intent.

 

[Revmitchell]

This reveals the weakness of your hermeneutic. Anyone unwilling to objectively understand the context of the words being spoken cannot be trusted with the mechanics of those words. Why? Because it reveals that their aim is to make the mechanics fit their presumed context and systematic, which ANY linguist worth his salt will tell you is the wrong approach to the text. Why? Because any decent linguist can mechanically make a text appear to support almost any presumed claim brought to that text.

You are clearly set on making the text say what you want it to say regardless of the historical truth that would bring clarity to the author's intent.

Your post here goes to the heart of the weakness of systematic theology. It uses the bible plus outside sources to include philosophy and personal logic which is held up as equal to scripture. What cals need to do is stick to soal scriptura and go by biblical theology.

 

[The Biblicist]

This reveals the weakness of your hermeneutic. Anyone unwilling to objectively understand the context of the words being spoken cannot be trusted with the mechanics of those words.

Yours is a case of absolute desperation.

1. You have already admitted on several occassions that the content matter is GENERAL in scope apart from what you believe is its specific contextual application.

2. Therefore, the mechanics are as true for the GENERAL as they are for the SPECIFIC and are not determined as you demand by the nature of the subject. That is simply an irrational argument.

3. So again, your attempt here is to distract, a ruse, because you cannot possibly get out of the dilemma I have presented and you know it, so this ruse, this distraction.

 

[The Biblicist]

First, are you denying that "learn" is included in "draw"?? John 6:44 and 6:65 present the very same problem "no man can come to me" and John 6:44 does not give TWO solutions to that problem "draw AND...." Furthermore, Jon 6:65 is simply recalling what was stated in verse 44 and Christ states the very same problem "no man can come to me" and he does not give TWO solutions to that problem "it given unto him AND..." Hence, to have "learned" of the Father must be inclusive of both "draw" and "given it". Therfore are you denying those in verse 64 had "learned" which is inclusive of "draw" which is inclusive of having "it given" to them? If so, they you are conceding that the Father does not draw all men without exception. However, even if you are not, Jesus is denying that such had been drawn by the Father and that does include having both heard and learned and so here are "some" that contradict your interpetation.

Second, you have not interpreted "draw" to mean only "learned" of the Father but rather have interpreted to include having "HEARD" and "learned" by the EXTERNAL PREACHING of the gospel and the evidence you and every Arminian on this forum has claimed as EVIDENCE is a PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE GOSPEL. However, all of these EXTERNALS are true of "his disciples" because He did not accept or claim as "his disicples" anyone who did not profess all of these things. Indeed, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 literally reads "make disciples" and it includes preaching the gospel (Mk. 16:15) and baptizing those who profess the gospel. The claim of all Arminians on this forum is that verse 63 and the words "my words are spirit and they are life" refer to the EXTERNAL PREACHING of the gospel as you believe faith cometh by the EXTERNAL PREACHING of the gospel rather than by internal revelation as my interpretation consistently states.

Third, we have rock solid evidence in the twentieth century that head hunters in New Gunea had grandfather's and father's who never heard of Christ, the cross or the gospel as that generation killed the missionaries sent them and those later saved confessed that no such cross, Christ or gospel had been taught them or known among them in the generations of their father's and grandfathers. Hence, your interpetation of John 12:32 contradicts the facts of History.

Again, I place this dilemma before our Arminians opponents to directly confront and respond to. Skandelon is bright enough to see there is no response possible and so attempts to distract and change the subject.

Bob, attempts to deny that "heard....and learned" is inclusive in the meaning of "draw" and so admits defeat as that is an impossible position to defend since "draw" is the only condition to reverse universal inability to come to Christ and if "draw" is not inclusive of having "heard.....and learned" then how in the world can anyone come to Christ????

Mitchell does what he always does, acts like a scavenger who has nothing positive to add to any discussion but rather comes in only to help gang upon on another poster.

 

[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.

Here again are the problems for the Arminian interpreter of John 6:36-65. Regardless what text and context we may debate, it is the stubborn little details that expose false arguemnts and so these stubborn little details always determine the bottom line and proper interpretation of any given text or context being debated.

 

[convicted1]

That's baloney and you know it Willis, there are many examples of God calling and drawing men and they would not come, such as in Matthew 11;

Mat 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

Here Jesus compares the enticement of God to children piping in the market, calling to their fellows to come and dance, but they refused to do so.

We have the example of Jesus calling to Jerusalem as a mother hen would try to gather her chicks, but they would not come.

Mat 26:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

You have to ignore a lot of scripture to believe Irresistible Grace.

The call of the gospel via preaching through man goes to all indiscrimentally(sp?), Brother. We are commanded to preach to "every creature". The gospel weeds the garden and separates the wheat from the tares, so to speak. When we preach the gospel, the goats...the tares...want nothing to do with it. However, when His sheep hear it , after He has quickened them, they will respond. Better than that, in Luke 15, He goes and gets them, puts them upon His shoulders, and carries them and places them in the fold. And guess what? They don't kick, they don't scream, they don't rebel. They know the love their Shepherd has for them, and are thankful He brought them to the sheepfold. There is one sheepfold and one Shepherd...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yours is a case of absolute desperation.

1. You have already admitted on several occassions that the content matter is GENERAL in scope apart from what you believe is its specific contextual application.

2. Therefore, the mechanics are as true for the GENERAL as they are for the SPECIFIC and are not determined as you demand by the nature of the subject. That is simply an irrational argument.

3. So again, your attempt here is to distract, a ruse, because you cannot possibly get out of the dilemma I have presented and you know it, so this ruse, this distraction.

BULLS EYE:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here again are the problems for the Arminian interpreter of John 6:36-65. Regardless what text and context we may debate, it is the stubborn little details that expose false arguemnts and so these stubborn little details always determine the bottom line and proper interpretation of any given text or context being debated.

LOL...You gotta be thinkin this place is better than LUMOSITY! :thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

It still amazes me that a historical context where these facts are true doesn't play any role in how some here choose to interpret these texts:

1. Israel has grown calloused to the revelation of God over the generations. (John 12:39, Acts 28, etc)

2. God has 'given them over' to their rebellion and hardened or blinded them in their rebellion making them UNABLE to see, hear, understand and repent, otherwise they might do so and be healed (Acts 28:21-27).

3. In order for God's purpose in electing Israel would stand, He supernaturally intervened by selecting a remnant from Israel to be given directly to His incarnate Son so as to be discipled and commissioned to spread the gospel appeal of reconciliation to the rest of the world. These individuals were supernaturally persuaded with signs, wonders and divine teaching from God in the flesh Himself. In doing so he establishes them as messengers with inspired authority to write the scriptures.

4. The gospel was sent first to Jew and then to Gentiles. The Jews were hardened to it, but the Gentiles would listen. (Acts 28:28)
​

How do these FACTS not affect how you understand Jesus' words in the gospel of John?

1) Pharaoh was a sinner, yet God still hardened his heart. God doing this didn't change his sinful state. Same with the Jews during, and before, the time of Jesus walking as a man here on earth.

2) God has commanded every man to repent(Acts 17:30). Yet He knows that they won't. God has commanded us to be holy as He is holy. Yet none of us can be holy like He is. God commanded the OT Jews to keep the Law, knowing none could keep it. He has set standards for His creation that none could obtain, and yet, condemned them for not doing, or keeping it. No different than what you stated in your #2 here.

3) God elected a remnant of Israel as a way to keep everyone from being as "Sodom and Gomorrah". Without the remnant...the church...His sheep...His chosen people...this world would be nothing more than an "spherical orb of sin". God chose Israel...insert church here...based solely on His love He poured out upon them. The words "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore, by my lovingkindness have I drawn there"ring ever so true.

4) The elected Jews would hear it, and also the elected Gentiles. Jesus sent them to gather all...both elect Jew and Gentile into the one sheepfold, that has one Shepherd. Not one of His lambs will be left behind.

 

[Skandelon]

This reveals the weakness of your hermeneutic. Anyone unwilling to objectively understand the context of the words being spoken cannot be trusted with the mechanics of those words. Why? Because it reveals that their aim is to make the mechanics fit their presumed context and systematic, which ANY linguist worth his salt will tell you is the wrong approach to the text. Why? Because any decent linguist can mechanically make a text appear to support almost any presumed claim brought to that text.

You are clearly set on making the text say what you want it to say regardless of the historical truth that would bring clarity to the author's intent.

It's too late to edit this but instead of saying 'Anyone' in the second sentence it would be better to have said, 'any approach' as it wasn't intended to be personal...sorry about that. :love2:

 

[The Biblicist]

It's too late to edit this but instead of saying 'Anyone' in the second sentence it would be better to have said, 'any approach' as it wasn't intended to be personal...sorry about that. :love2:

Apology accepted and appreciated.

 

[Winman]

The call of the gospel via preaching through man goes to all indiscrimentally(sp?), Brother. We are commanded to preach to "every creature". The gospel weeds the garden and separates the wheat from the tares, so to speak. When we preach the gospel, the goats...the tares...want nothing to do with it. However, when His sheep hear it , after He has quickened them, they will respond. Better than that, in Luke 15, He goes and gets them, puts them upon His shoulders, and carries them and places them in the fold. And guess what? They don't kick, they don't scream, they don't rebel. They know the love their Shepherd has for them, and are thankful He brought them to the sheepfold. There is one sheepfold and one Shepherd...

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?

 

[convicted1]

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?

Because Jesus told the Pharisees and Saducees they were of their father, the devil. He also told them they were not of His sheep, and His word had no place within them. He also stated in John 17, He did not pray for the world, but for those "Thou hast given me", and also for those who would believe their words.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

His sincerety is not discredited IF their inability is of their own doing and He is calling them to their duty as creatures toward their Creator. Neither is his sincerety discredited if as Paul says they "are fitted to destruction" by their own free choice fueled by a heart of enmity against God.

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.

Sincere about what? About calling them to simply do their duty (repent and believe - imperative mode) when nothing prevents them but their own enmity against God????

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.

It is not irrational for God to lament in the self-destruction of fallen mankind when nothing but their own depraved will lashes out against God and drives them to self-destruction. Their sin is not His fault nor their condition of absolute enmity against God His delight but a lamentable condition due to their own hatred of light.

 

[Winman]

Because Jesus told the Pharisees and Saducees they were of their father, the devil. He also told them they were not of His sheep, and His word had no place within them. He also stated in John 17, He did not pray for the world, but for those "Thou hast given me", and also for those who would believe their words.

OK, read the parable of the prodigal son. Was he a child of the devil at first? NO, he was a son of his father until he willingly and knowingly chose to go out in sin. Only after he chose to sin do the scriptures say he was joined to a citizen of this far country.

Luke 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Did Jesus say the prodigal son was born a son of the devil at first Willis? NO, he was born in his house a son of the father which represents God.

Only after he chose to sin was he joined to a citizen of that far country, I believe this represents the devil or Satan.

Did the prodigal have to be regenerated to repent? NO, the scriptures say he "came to himself" and started home. His father saw him a great way off (foreknowledge).

When he came to his father, he immediately put a ring on his finger (sonship), a robe on his back (righteousness) and shoes on his feet (the Christian's new walk).

But note that the father said the boy was alive AGAIN Willis. That means he was alive BEFORE. He was not born dead in sin, and he was not born a child of the devil as Calvinism falsely teaches.

No, he was originally a child of God, but he went out in sin and spiritually died. This is when he became a child of the devil.

But when he repented and trusted his father, his sins were forgiven and he was made alive AGAIN.

Tell me Willis, how do you explain Jesus's words that the prodigal was alive again?

Do you admit that this parable shows men are not born dead in sin, and that men are not born children of the devil?

Please answer those questions Willis.

 

[The Biblicist]

OK, read the parable of the prodigal son. Was he a child of the devil at first? NO, he was a son of his father until he willingly and knowingly chose to go out in sin.

So, all mankind are already children of God the Father and God is their spiritual Father and thus do not need to be "born of the Spirit" to be in the "family of God" becuase they are already sons/children of God. So as children of God they rebell and go into to sin. As children of God they come back to the Father and thus no new birth is necessary to become a child of God as they are already children of God but just children in error??????????

This is but one problem when you take a parable to defend your doctrine but you have many more problems with this parable than just this obvious one.

 

[convicted1]

Okay, we being in Adam's loins prior to the fall, were in a "right standing" with God. When Adam sinned, we sinned , too, still being in his loins. He died, and we died, being in Adam. We were sheep having gone astray, being in Adam. God then gave us, His chosen, to the Lamb, to redeem. What Adam did, God, via Jesus, undid.

Once you see the consequences of the fall, and all it entails, can see what really happened to us, via Adam. And also see what God did to rectify what Adam did, via Christ.

 

[convicted1]

So, all mankind are children of God and God is their spiritual Father and thus do not need to be "born of the Spirit" to be in the "family of God" becuase they are already sons/children of God.

This is but one problem when you take a parable to defend your doctrine but you have many more problems with this parable than just this obvious one.

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.

 

[Winman]

So, all mankind are already children of God the Father and God is their spiritual Father and thus do not need to be "born of the Spirit" to be in the "family of God" becuase they are already sons/children of God. So as children of God they rebell and go into to sin. As children of God they come back to the Father and thus no new birth is necessary to become a child of God as they are already children of God but just children in error??????????

This is but one problem when you take a parable to defend your doctrine but you have many more problems with this parable than just this obvious one.

No, this young man needed to be born again, because when he sinned he spiritually died.

And it is you that has a serious problem, because if you are honest you must admit that Jesus is teaching this boy was originally alive, and that when he repented he was alive AGAIN.

Are you honest enough to admit that? Please answer.