It's not a tree I'm attempting to point out, but rather a forest or big picture. Therefore it is very difficult for me to debate in a western, verse by verse, blow by blow format ( not saying there's anything wrong with that). But as for the verses, i prefer to go back a bit:
John 6:40-47
40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that
every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The problem with just quoting this text to support a position is that this text is the closure point in a preceding context that defines and limits those who will come to him in faith. Notice that verse 36 is in direct contrast to verse 40. Here are a people in verse 36 who saw and did not believe in him whereas in verse 40 we have a seeing and believig people. Verses 37-39 provide the explanation of this difference. Those who saw and did not believe in verse 36 are those who had not been given by the Father to the Son because ALL whom the Father gives to the do come to him in faith and NONE coming to him in faith shall be lost. Hence, "everyone" that seeth and believeth in the son are those the Father gave to the Son - vv. 37-39.
Moreover, being given is the cause while coming is the consequence. This is proven three different ways in verses 37-39. First, in verse 37 "given" is present tense' while "shall come' is future tense showing being given precedes coming.
Second, in verses 38 being given occurred not only prior to coming, but prior to Christ coming to earth as Christ came to earth because the father had already "given" (v. 39) a people to save. Hence, the time of being given occured before the incarnation of Christ.
Third, in verse 39 Jesus uses the perfect tense verb translated "given" which grammatically demands the action of being given was a completed action at some point in time (before the incaranation - v. 38) and stands completed up to the time Christ is speaking.
So, if one just jerks verse 40 out of its context, then it has no context to determine what he means by it. However, if you interpret this verse in its context then it flatly contradicts the design and intent of those who jerk it out of its context. So, Ran's take is contextually inaccurate and abuses the text when used according to Christ's train of thought.
The issue is when we get to verse 44 about " no man can come unto me unless the Father draw him".
it's very obvious to me that from verse 25 on, we see that they came to see him for the miracles. Their heart was already not open. sort of like the "empty your cup" in Chinese philosophy. Their own already full cup of expectations prevented them from recieving what Jesus offered.
However, that is not the reason Christ gives for why they do not come to him in faith. He says people who do not come to him in faith is because the Father never gave them to him (v. 64-65). This is the case with false professors and those who come for other reasons.
The big picture issue: who is responsible for the condition of the heart, the condition of the ground on which the sower throws the seed? Is it God? The Calvinist viewpoint attempts to say yes to this.
No, God is not responsible for the "condition" of the ground (heart) because the condition of man's heart is due to sin and God is not responsible for sin. God is responsible for changing the ground, or plowing it up and planting the seed and causing it to grow. In the parable of the four soils, the only soil that Jesus calls "good" and the only soil that brought fourth crops that could be harvested is the fourth soil and the explanation immediately follows that gives the whole credit to God for that soil production.
By the way, you're a likeable dude. you remind me of Kenny Loggins.
Thank you, it is hard to get to know a person through black and white print but if we met I think you would like me and I probably would like you also.
