• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Objective consideration of John 12:32

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1. Jesus answered them...Andrew and Phillip, not the gentiles as you have said. Based on the faulty context, you will arrive at faulty conclusions.

2. Jesus was telling them (Jews) of His eternal plan, to graft gentiles in as they felt the need to censor the gentiles that wanted access to Christ.

3. His comment was in regards to drawing all men, both Jew and gentile.

See how simple this all is:)

This is the only post I can find where you make the arument you do in point #1. I see no following posts where you claim you agree with my response to your point #1. If it is on the forum it does not come up on my screen.

Instead of agreeing with me in may assessment of verses 22-23 in response to your point #1 note your own words at the end of point #1 and I quote:

"not the gentiles as you have said. Based on the faulty context, you will arrive at faulty conclusions."

That does not sound like agreement to me! I never said that Jesus made a direct response to the Greek but that the discourse from verses 24-33 are in response to the Greeks seeking Christ. I still maintain that and therefore I did not base anything upon a faulty context nor were my conclusions "faulty conclusions" as even you admit you agree with those conclusions.

The problem is that you did not carefully read what I said in the first place. Perhaps an honest oversight on your part as I have been guilty of the same at times. But here is what I said:


1. This conversation was introduced by some Gireeks/Gentiles seeking to follow Christ - vv. 19-22.

2. Verses 23-33 is Christ response to Gentiles seeking him and how his death related to that request.

I did not say Jesus was addressing the Greeks but his conversation was "introduced by some Greeks/Gentiles seeking to follow Christ" and His "response to Gentiles seeking him and how his death related to THAT REQUEST."

I can see how you could take my second statement and presume I am saying the Greeks are being directly addressed by Christ. However, even if I had said that or mistakenly meant that (and I did not) it would not change my conclusions one single bit. If you think it would then please explain how that would affect any conclusions I drew???
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
To those who respond reasonable and rational so do I.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12

"...bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." -Luke 6:28

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." Matt. 5:44
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
This is the only post I can find where you make the arument you do in point #1. I see no following posts where you claim you agree with my response to your point #1. If it is on the forum it does not come up on my screen.

Instead of agreeing with me in may assessment of verses 22-23 in response to your point #1 note your own words at the end of point #1 and I quote:

"not the gentiles as you have said. Based on the faulty context, you will arrive at faulty conclusions."

That does not sound like agreement to me! I never said that Jesus made a direct response to the Greek but that the discourse from verses 24-33 are in response to the Greeks seeking Christ. I still maintain that and therefore I did not base anything upon a faulty context nor were my conclusions "faulty conclusions" as even you admit you agree with those conclusions.

The problem is that you did not carefully read what I said in the first place. Perhaps an honest oversight on your part as I have been guilty of the same at times. But here is what I said:


1. This conversation was introduced by some Gireeks/Gentiles seeking to follow Christ - vv. 19-22.

2. Verses 23-33 is Christ response to Gentiles seeking him and how his death related to that request.

I did not say Jesus was addressing the Greeks but his conversation was "introduced by some Greeks/Gentiles seeking to follow Christ" and His "response to Gentiles seeking him and how his death related to THAT REQUEST."

I can see how you could take my second statement and presume I am saying the Greeks are being directly addressed by Christ. However, even if I had said that or mistakenly meant that (and I did not) it would not change my conclusions one single bit. If you think it would then please explain how that would affect any conclusions I drew???
OK, I think I see what you mean now by Christ's response to gentiles. I thought your point was that the response was relayed back to them, and that somehow lead to your understanding all didn't mean all without distinction.

I still think that all is without distinction, meaning both Jew and gentile based on the context, particularly when Jesus was telling his disciples his divine plan all along, that salvation was not for the Jew only.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12

"...bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." -Luke 6:28

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." Matt. 5:44

You know, this unvariably happens when I simply spell out honestly what many repeatedly do over and over again and expose the little game they play. Instead of admitting the obvious as can be seen in just looking at their responses, it turns into another personal attack upon myself as that is the only way to escape just condemnation by attacking the one who exposes them. Ok! I am big enough to take it.

Skandelon, look at what you are doing in this post! You are playing the RJP game. You quote scripture to PIT against the scripture I quoted as though they are opposed to each other.

Let me show you how you ought to have handled it instead of playing the same silly RJP game.

We have Biblical examples with God, Jesus and Paul where there came a time and place where both are equally applicable. I applied the scripture in Psalm to the appropriate case. Jesus put up with the scribes and pharisees for a long period of time but then in Matthew 23 the time and place occurred where your scriptures simply do not apply and mine does. In this situation my scripture applies and yours do not. I asked and asked and asked people like Bob and others to simply address the OP but to no avail. It is on the record for all to see. The time came to call a spade a spade.

Now, if I get booted off this forum for expressing myself this way then so be it. I am fine with that. I have no guilty conscience - none - zilch - nada.
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
You know, this unvariably happens when I simply spell out honestly what many repeatedly do over and over again and expose the little game they play. Instead of admitting the obvious as can be seen in just looking at their responses, it turns into another personal attack upon myself as that is the only way to escape just condemnation by attacking the one who exposes them. Ok! I am big enough to take it.

Skandelon, look at what you are doing

Now, if I get booted off this forum for expressing myself this way then so be it. I am fine with that. I have no guilty conscience - none - zilch - nada.

You're exactly correct and there is no need nor reason for you to be booted. He's expressed the same in his Scripture quoting directed at you and followed this into at least two threads. One would've been enough IMO. None would've been even better.

You simply have to pick with whom to engage, and decide if it is profitable for you to do so. You've answered the semi-pelagian tendencies Scripturally and thoroughly as I've read your answers. Doing these things won't win you any points in that camp, as we full well know, and will get you the above reactions and attacks. I'd practice Titus 3:10 if I were you. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that is my advice.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
You're exactly correct and there is no need nor reason for you to be booted. He's expressed the same in his Scripture quoting directed at you and followed this into at least two threads. One would've been enough IMO. None would've been even better.

You simply have to pick with whom to engage, and decide if it is profitable for you to do so. You've answered the semi-pelagian tendencies Scripturally and thoroughly as I've read your answers. Doing these things won't win you any points in that camp, as we full well know, and will get you the above reactions and attacks. I'd practice Titus 3:10 if I were you. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that is my advice.

No, see you are simply wrong here. It is not about WHO you engage it is all about HOW you engage. And just in case you are wondering, I do not support anyone being booted unless they surpass all sensibilities of decorum and become exceptionally "nasty".
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
. I asked and asked and asked people like Bob and others to simply address the OP but to no avail. It is on the record for all to see.

Friend, then why bother? I am not suggesting you stop debating, but if believe you are not getting the responses you want then disengage. That is what I now do. It took me a while to get there. I do not feel this compulsion to win the debate. Once I believe the conversation has either reached and end, or is no longer profitable, I stop.

Just a thought.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
"All men" in John 12:32 means "ALL men" and not 'those 6 greeks asking me a question just now plus my 12 disciples". Obviously.

Yet some have tried to downsize this text -- while also downsizing texts like John 3:16 in the same fashion.

Does not work.

In John 12 we have -

.” 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.




The "Ruler of this world" and "judgment is upon this world" is a reference to the global unlimited terms - the planet. Not some tiny piece of dirt where Christ is standing.


Thus Christ will "Draw ALL men unto Himself" by the same drawing that is mentioned in John 16 - the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Jesus is reminding the group that He is drawing ALL mankind - not just one nation.

in Christ,


Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
preacher4truth


You're exactly correct and there is no need nor reason for you to be booted.

There is no reason whatsoever.he has not been "nasty", but rather he has been biblical.If he is banned it is because he is being unjustly censored:thumbs:

You simply have to pick with whom to engage, and decide if it is profitable for you to do so.

Some here or on a 24/7 mission against the grace of God. He calls them back to scripture and they haggle about philosophy instead.They look bad...so they try and silence him.

You've answered the semi-pelagian tendencies Scripturally and thoroughly as I've read your answers
.

:thumbsup:yes he has:wavey:
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by webdog
I have a suggestion for you. If you desire people replying to your posts objectively without "ridicule, RJP, personal attacks, distractions, etc", it would behoove you to not be the instigator and lead by example. I believe your context is wrong. We disagree, leave it at that.


I spelled it out in small words for you so that you could see your interpretation is contextually worthless, inaccurate and mere eisgetical wishful thinking. Anyone can read verse 22 and see Greeks came to the Philip and asked specifically if they could see Jesus. No genius is required to grasp that just second grade reading level. Verse 23 directly speaks of Philip telling another disicples and then both coming to Jesus and telling him. It does not take a rocket scientist to see they are telling him precisely what the Greeks ask them about. Your interpretation simply denies the obvious. If you wish to be incompetent then so be it.

If you want to have a rational discussion I am all for it but don't expect anyone to accept such an irrational interpretation when they have the very thing you are denying spelled out in black and white in verses 22-23 and then charge me with ignoring the context (which you did).

Vs 22-23, 32 does not say "one or two out of all types of mankind"

Vs 22-23, 32 does not say "a couple of arbitrarily selected FEW from all cultures in mankind".

Rather Christ is pointing out all humanity from the Jewish perspective - which is Jew and Gentile.

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

This is no "a couple from" or "the arbitrarily select few from both Jew and Gentile" in the text.

To get such Calvinist ideas one must "quote themselves" and then use an extreme amount of eisegesis calling it "inference".

in Christ,

Bob
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, see you are simply wrong here. It is not about WHO you engage it is all about HOW you engage. And just in case you are wondering, I do not support anyone being booted unless they surpass all sensibilities of decorum and become exceptionally "nasty".

Where do you see any nasty post by biblicist? That he has exposed the faulty reasoning of your friend does not equate to nastiness.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Biblicist

You know, this unvariably happens when I simply spell out honestly what many repeatedly do over and over again and expose the little game they play.

yes...we all see the same thing:wavey:

Instead of admitting the obvious as can be seen in just looking at their responses, it turns into another personal attack upon myself as that is the only way to escape just condemnation by attacking the one who exposes them. Ok! I am big enough to take it.

yes indeed.

Skandelon, look at what you are doing in this post! You are playing the RJP game. You quote scripture to PIT against the scripture I quoted as though they are opposed to each other.

Yes....very clearly.

Let me show you how you ought to have handled it instead of playing the same silly RJP game.

very graciously worded.

We have Biblical examples with God, Jesus and Paul where there came a time and place where both are equally applicable. I applied the scripture in Psalm to the appropriate case. Jesus put up with the scribes and pharisees for a long period of time but then in Matthew 23 the time and place occurred where your scriptures simply do not apply and mine does. In this situation my scripture applies and yours do not. I asked and asked and asked people like Bob and others to simply address the OP but to no avail. It is on the record for all to see. The time came to call a spade a spade.


yes.....correct..

Now, if I get booted off this forum for expressing myself this way then so be it. I am fine with that. I have no guilty conscience - none - zilch - nada.

Nothing in this post is over the line at all:wavey:
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Where do you see any nasty post by biblicist? That he has exposed the faulty reasoning of your friend does not equate to nastiness.
It started in the op. The belittling and demeaning continued. How can't you see it?

"Now, can my opponents deal with my examination of John 12;32 objectively or will they simply resort to ridicule, RJP, personal attacks, distractions, etc.??? If I was a betting man (and I am not) I would bet they will resort to these cultic tactics."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It started in the op. The belittling and demeaning continued. How can't you see it?

"Now, can my opponents deal with my examination of John 12;32 objectively or will they simply resort to ridicule, RJP, personal attacks, distractions, etc.??? If I was a betting man (and I am not) I would bet they will resort to these cultic tactics."

That's right it did. They already had to shut down another thread because he suggested that anyone who is not a cal is not saved.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Where do you see any nasty post by biblicist? That he has exposed the faulty reasoning of your friend does not equate to nastiness.

I was not saying he was "nasty" but rather my objections only lead to "punishment" if one is "nasty".

and BTW, he has exposed Nothing of the sort.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
webdog

How can't you see it?

hello WD.....There are a few reasons why I do not see it.
1] I am probably biased toward Biblicist to begin with.I have seen many of His posts and i have noticed they are filled with good scriptures in context, key words explained, good questions asked.

2] I am biased toward him because i am in substantial agreement with most of what he posts...as I am with many of the sovereign grace brothers...so, when i read what he and the others post....I am not quite as much looking to attack and undermine what he offers. I consider what verses he offers and try to learn from them.if I see something major that needs correction i will offer it.

3] If you look at the Op and this portion you offer here.....I do not think his intention was hostile or nasty...let me demonstrate this....

It started in the op. The belittling and demeaning continued.
let's look-

"Now, can my opponents deal with my examination of John 12;32 objectively or will they simply resort to ridicule, RJP, personal attacks, distractions, etc.???

When I read this having followed many of his posts....what i see is a degree of irritation and a mild frustration.he posts in detail,and is looking for a line , by line response.....he puts time into his responses.He wants the courtesy of someone taking the time to go point by point over what he of reading what he offers ...without avoiding his "proofs".

If we were sitting over a cup of coffee and we read each post...you would see it. So all i see is an appeal to stay on topic, no personal attacks, deal with the issue.

If I was a betting man (and I am not) I would bet they will resort to these cultic tactics."

This statement is not arrogant rude or nasty...he just has been on this bb for awhile and knows what many do.He would rather they do not do it ....but they do....do you see how i view it differently now?

The cultic tactics he speaks of are jumping out of the passage he is discussing and going to random verses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Since this is a thread about John 12:32 I will make this statement again as it is on topic.

Vs 22-23, 32 does not say "one or two out of all types of mankind"

Vs 22-23, 32 does not say "a couple of arbitrarily selected FEW from all cultures in mankind".

Rather Christ is pointing out all humanity from the Jewish perspective - which is Jew and Gentile.

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

This is no "a couple from" or "the arbitrarily select few from both Jew and Gentile" in the text.

To get such Calvinist ideas one must "quote themselves" and then use an extreme amount of eisegesis calling it "inference".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top