"some of you" believe not

[The Biblicist]

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 saidI unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

1. Who is he speaking about when he said "some OF YOU"?

a. Those he knew "from the beginning" that believed not
b. "Many" that were "OF HIS DISCIPLES"

2. What reason does Jesus give for their condition of unbelief?

Therefore saidI unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

3. Where does Judas fit within this context?

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.

a. He is placed among the "some of you that believed not"
b. Among those "he knew from the beginning who they were that believed not"

4. Hence, the stated fact that Judas "IS" a devil demands what?

a. He "IS" presently a devil when Jesus spoke these words as it is PRESENT TENSE and a STATE OF BEING verb used.
b. He was among "SOME" of His disciples that never beleived.
c. He was NEVER among those the Father drew to come to Christ in saving faith - v. 65 as verse 65 explains WHY Jesus "knew from the beginning" did not believe in him.
d. He could not be a true believer PRESENTLY and "IS" a devil PRESENTLY.

5. These PLURAL "disciples" which left him are not named among those Jesus lost in John 17 but only Judas why?

a. These including Judas were not chosen by the Father and given to the Son to come to Him in truth faith.
b. NONE were chosen by the Father and given to the Son in the same sense as Judas as "the son of perdition"
c. He was chosen by the Father and given to the Son as a lost man for that very purpose as a "lost" man

CONCLUSION: Christ never denied they PROFESSED to have believed in him, he merely denied that they EVER truly beleived in him or as John later describes such:

"They WENT OUT from us BECAUSE they were NOT OF US; for if they had been of us THEY WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE CONTINUED WITH US, but they went out BECAUSE ALL of them were not of us. - 1 Jn. 2:19 more literal translation.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Talmudim were "learners". There is no indication in history of a person being a disciple (of anyone; every great teacher/leader had disciples) that guarantees that they believe or have achieved.

It isn't just "some" in Jesus' case. "Most" were not truly regenerate. By the cross there were 11 + a few "secret" followers that were not really disciples. By Pentecost there were 120. Out of thousands.

 

[The Biblicist]

Talmudim were "learners". There is no indication in history of a person being a disciple (of anyone; every great teacher/leader had disciples) that guarantees that they believe or have achieved.

Hence, "disciple" never equals "believer" but only a professed learner or follower. At baptism they had to at least profess repentance of sin and faith in the Messiah (Mt. 3:6-8; Acts 19:5) but that profession needed "fruits of repentance" to be authenticated before men which included continuance in the teachings of Christ (Jn. 8:32).

It isn't just "some" in Jesus' case. "Most" were not truly regenerate.

I believe that it was the very distinct purpose of Matthew 5-7 and Matthew 13 to distinguish between true and false kingdom professors and the vast majority were not true professors. At the beginning of John 6 the vast multitudes who "followed" him were interested in "food" instead of faith in Christ as Savior. Those in John 8:30-44 were false professors as they still had Satan as their Father and yet professed to believe. The pronouns cannot be disputed by those who oppose this interpretation.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;....33 They answered him,

By the cross there were 11 + a few "secret" followers that were not really disciples. By Pentecost there were 120. Out of thousands.

They were the only ones that publicly identified with Christ and that is at least one fruit of a true disciple.

 

[InTheLight]

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 saidI unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


5. These PLURAL "disciples" which left him are not named among those Jesus lost in John 17 but only Judas why?

a. These including Judas were not chosen by the Father and given to the Son to come to Him in truth faith.
b. NONE were chosen by the Father and given to the Son in the same sense as Judas as "the son of perdition"
c. He was chosen by the Father and given to the Son as a lost man for that very purpose as a "lost" man

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the word "chosen" in those verses, I'm seeing the word "given", yet I'm seeing "chosen" in your exposition. Why is that?

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the word "chosen" in those verses, I'm seeing the word "given", yet I'm seeing "chosen" in your exposition. Why is that?

You are correct the word "chosen" is not found EXPLICITLY in the text but it is demanded IMPLICITLY for several contextual based reasons.

1. The giving of the Father is SELECTIVE and RESTRICTED to "of all" that come and giving is the stated cause for coming. - vv. 37-39. Hence, those "given" had to be chosen by the Father as he did not choose ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION because "OF ALL" he gave NONE ARE LOST and that is not true of ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Hence, those "given" by the Father are RESTRICTED and thus SELECTIVE "of all" that come.

2. The drawn by the Father is first addresed by a universal negative with only one exception. The universal negative is "no man can" while the one exception is "except the Father draw him" thus the "him" is in EXCLUSION to all but those drawn. That necessarily infers "him" is chosen by the Father in EXLUSION to all contained within the universal negative or those not drawn by him. That must be the case because the "him" drawn can only be the "him" raised up to the resurrection of life as none but such as come to Christ are rasied up to that resurrection. - Jn. 6:44. Add to the fact this is further qualified by the word "all" in Jn. 6:45 whom the Father "taught" and this teaching is further explained to consist of having "heard" and "learned of the Father which Jesus states that "EVERY MAN" thus taught also comes to Christ in faith. Hence, the teaching of the Father is not UNIVERSAL but selective because "ALL" taught equals "EVERY MAN" thus taught this way (heard...learned of the Father) does actually come to Christ.

3. In John 6:65 note the change from "draw" in verse 44 which Christ is referring to in verse 65 to the word "given" unto him which has reference to the ability to beleive which is missing in those in verse 64. Verse 65 is explanatory to why Jesus knew "from the beginning" who they were because the Father never chose to draw them to come to Christ by faith. Hence, those drawn are selected not universal.

Conclusion: The only way to deny this necessary inference is to reverse the order between given and come and draw and come. In each case, come is future tense in relation to given and draw thus establishing the proper cause and consequence relationship. Even if the the future tense "SHALL come" is ommitted and merely the word "come" was there it follows being given and being drawn by the father again establishing the cause and consequence relationship between given and come and draw and come. Thus "given" and "draw" are causal in regard to coming and not vice versa. Hence, no one can argue that coming to Christ is the cause for being given or being drawn by the Father and so the Father giving and drawing must be traced to something else. The stated ultimate cause for coming to Christ in faith is being "chosen to salvation" by the Father before the world began (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Thes. 1:4-5).

 

[The Biblicist]

You are correct the word "chosen" is not found EXPLICITLY in the text but it is demanded IMPLICITLY for several contextual based reasons.

1. The giving of the Father is SELECTIVE and RESTRICTED to "of all" that come and giving is the stated cause for coming. - vv. 37-39. Hence, those "given" had to be chosen by the Father as he did not choose ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION because "OF ALL" he gave NONE ARE LOST and that is not true of ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Hence, those "given" by the Father are RESTRICTED and thus SELECTIVE "of all" that come.

2. The drawn by the Father is first addresed by a universal negative with only one exception. The universal negative is "no man can" while the one exception is "except the Father draw him" thus the "him" is in EXCLUSION to all but those drawn. That necessarily infers "him" is chosen by the Father in EXLUSION to all contained within the universal negative or those not drawn by him. That must be the case because the "him" drawn can only be the "him" raised up to the resurrection of life as none but such as come to Christ are rasied up to that resurrection. - Jn. 6:44. Add to the fact this is further qualified by the word "all" in Jn. 6:45 whom the Father "taught" and this teaching is further explained to consist of having "heard" and "learned of the Father which Jesus states that "EVERY MAN" thus taught also comes to Christ in faith. Hence, the teaching of the Father is not UNIVERSAL but selective because "ALL" taught equals "EVERY MAN" thus taught this way (heard...learned of the Father) does actually come to Christ.

3. In John 6:65 note the change from "draw" in verse 44 which Christ is referring to in verse 65 to the word "given" unto him which has reference to the ability to beleive which is missing in those in verse 64. Verse 65 is explanatory to why Jesus knew "from the beginning" who they were because the Father never chose to draw them to come to Christ by faith. Hence, those drawn are selected not universal.

Conclusion: The only way to deny this necessary inference is to reverse the order between given and come and draw and come. In each case, come is future tense in relation to given and draw thus establishing the proper cause and consequence relationship. Even if the the future tense "SHALL come" is ommitted and merely the word "come" was there it follows being given and being drawn by the father again establishing the cause and consequence relationship between given and come and draw and come. Thus "given" and "draw" are causal in regard to coming and not vice versa. Hence, no one can argue that coming to Christ is the cause for being given or being drawn by the Father and so the Father giving and drawing must be traced to something else. The stated ultimate cause for coming to Christ in faith is being "chosen to salvation" by the Father before the world began (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Thes. 1:4-5).

If the above is too wordy to see the clear point then just read the conclusion above. Grammatically it is impossible that either being given or drawn by the Father can be attrituted to coming to Christ as the cause and yet "OF ALL" given and "EVERY MAN" drawn does come to Christ and none shall be lost. Hence, the cause for being given and being drawn must be traced to some other first cause as they are secondary causes for coming to Christ. The only first cause is found in being "chosen" FROM THE BEGINNING of the world.

 

[InTheLight]

You are correct the word "chosen" is not found EXPLICITLY in the text but it is demanded IMPLICITLY for several contextual based reasons.

2. The drawn by the Father is first addresed by a universal negative with only one exception. The universal negative is "no man can" while the one exception is "except the Father draw him" thus the "him" is in EXCLUSION to all but those drawn. That necessarily infers "him" is chosen by the Father in EXLUSION to all contained within the universal negative or those not drawn by him. That must be the case because the "him" drawn can only be the "him" raised up to the resurrection of life as none but such as come to Christ are rasied up to that resurrection. - Jn. 6:44.

No, because drawn does not mean chosen. Unless you are saying all who are drawn will eventually come to Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, because drawn does not mean chosen. Unless you are saying all who are drawn will eventually come to Jesus.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come....and OF ALL which he hath given me I should lose nothing,;

Isn't that exactly what his words demand of the Father's causal action in John 6:37-39 and isn't coming to Christ the same consequence of the causal action of the Father's action in John 6:44??? Does not "ALL" taught equal "EVERY MAN" in John 6:45 and "EVERY MAN" comes in verse 45 or are there some that heard and learn of the Father that do not come???????

 

[The Biblicist]

No, because drawn does not mean chosen. Unless you are saying all who are drawn will eventually come to Jesus.

Here is the problem for those who deny that all who are drawn do not come to Christ.

In verses 37-39 "ALL" and "OF ALL" given by the Father do come to Christ, and NONE of them fail to come and be saved, therefore one who assumes that not all drawn do come to Christ they must also assume:

1. That God draws more people than what people God actually gives to come to Christ and that demands ELECTION of the "given" out of all drawn as all given are saved and it demands ELECTION if all given equals all drawn.

2. That being drawn by the Father is inferior to being given by the father because "OF ALL" given none fail to come while not all drawn by the Father come to Christ.

3. That God does not teach "EVERY MAN" (v. 45b) or "ALL" men without exception because "EVERY MAN" that has "heard and...learned" do come to Christ and this is Christs explanation of being drawn by the Father. This again demands ELECTION if not ALL drawn equal "ALL" taught by God" and it equals ELECTION if all taught equal everyman heard and leaned as such do come to Christ in faith.

Both being given and being drawn by the Father are presented EQUALLY as necessary for coming to Christ and therefore both are presented in the causual position to coming. Election determines who is given "of all" flesh (Jn. 17:2) by the Father to come to the Son while "draw" is the empowerment mechanism used by the Father INTERNALLY in those given to bring them to the son in faith.

 

[InTheLight]

...therefore one who assumes that not all drawn do come to Christ they must also assume:

Deleted post

 

[Revmitchell]

I stopped reading here because you are guilty of my #1 pet peeve--mischaracterizing someone's position. This is at least the second time I've called you on it. Going into my killfile now.

Cal just cannot help themselves. They have to create a false position in order to be able to knock it down.

 

[Winman]

Calvinists simply cannot understand how someone can be drawn but resist and get away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypcTg7hSWZU

This is even shown in scripture;

Luk 5:4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.

Were all of the fish in the net drawn toward the boat? YES.

Were all of these fish that were drawn toward the boat caught? NO.

Just because you are drawn does not mean you will come to Jesus, just like a fish who is drawn in a net or on a fishingline, a person can fight and resist this drawing and get away.

Any fisherman could easily explain this to you, but you refuse to understand.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Calvinists simply cannot understand how someone can be drawn but resist and get away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypcTg7hSWZU

This is even shown in scripture;

Luk 5:4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.

Were all of the fish in the net drawn toward the boat? YES.

Were all of these fish that were drawn toward the boat caught? NO.

Just because you are drawn does not mean you will come to Jesus, just like a fish who is drawn in a net or on a fishingline, a person can fight and resist this drawing and get away.

Any fisherman could easily explain this to you, but you refuse to understand.

It says the same thing about Israel in Jeremiah 31:3, God DREW Israel and they rebelled. But of course, the Calvie's will say "Oh that's CORPORATE Israel" and then they switch it to INDIVIDUAL salvation in Romans 9. God must be so impressed with how they play games with His word.

They say "Judas was the son of perdition" even though the Scripture's PLAINLY SAY that God gave Judas to Christ and He did not come. They want to interpret "given" when it suits them, and then say "Oh but Judas was a devil from the beginning, how could he have been called?" WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? "ALL that that Father GAVE ME I have lost none BUT the son of perdition". If GIVEN means the same thing in John 6, it means the SAME THING in John 17. All these silly attempts to get around the fact that Judas was given but did not COME because they know that the testimony of Judas destroys their view of "drawn" and "given" from John 6. Given means chosen and drawn in John 6 when it suits their presuppositions, but doesn't mean 'given' in John 17 when the exact same theme is covered.

There's a reason God put the story of Judas in John 17, because He knew that Calvinists would come along and butcher John 6.

 

[Winman]

There's a reason God put the story of Judas in John 17, because He knew that Calvinists would come along and butcher John 6.

I agree 100% with this statement. I believe Luke 5:6 is teaching the exact same thing, a person can be drawn but resist and get away. The disciples caught many fish in this story, but many got away as well. It is no mistake that we are told the net brake.

Jesus said he would make the disciples "fishers of men", all fishermen know some get away.

 

[Rippon]

Calvinists simply cannot understand how someone can be drawn but resist and get away.

You are way off the proverbial beam Winman. You remind me of ole' Skypair.

Do you also think that as believers we can free ourselves from His hand?

 

[Amy.G]

I agree 100% with this statement. I believe Luke 5:6 is teaching the exact same thing, a person can be drawn but resist and get away. The disciples caught many fish in this story, but many got away as well. It is no mistake that we are told the net brake.

Jesus said he would make the disciples "fishers of men", all fishermen know some get away.

Context!!! Jesus isn't teaching that some fish "get away"! He's teaching the disciples to obey Him and trust Him even when it doesn't make sense, since they normally fished at night because the fish were closer to the surface where the net could catch them. But Jesus tells them to let down the net while the sun was making the surface of the water hot and the fish would normally be much deeper in cooler water.

*all fisherman know this! :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

Context!!! Jesus isn't teaching that some fish "get away"! He's teaching the disciples to obey Him and trust Him even when it doesn't make sense, since they normally fished at night because the fish were closer to the surface where the net could catch them. But Jesus tells them to let down the net while the sun was making the surface of the water hot and the fish would normally be much deeper in cooler water.

*all fisherman know this! :laugh:

:laugh::wavey::applause:You have snagged winman in another fish story of error and novelty...lol good CATCH...AmyG

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:laugh::wavey::applause:You have snagged winman in another fish story of error and novelty...lol good CATCH...AmyG

Now the question remains...are you gonna throw em back?:laugh:

 

[Winman]

Context!!! Jesus isn't teaching that some fish "get away"! He's teaching the disciples to obey Him and trust Him even when it doesn't make sense, since they normally fished at night because the fish were closer to the surface where the net could catch them. But Jesus tells them to let down the net while the sun was making the surface of the water hot and the fish would normally be much deeper in cooler water.

*all fisherman know this! :laugh:

I beg to differ Amy. The Lord does not speak idle words. There is a reason we are told the net broke. Not everyone who is drawn comes to Jesus. Just as a fish can fight and resist being reeled in, a man can fight and resist the Holy Spirit and get away. And in this story the net broke and many fish got away.

It was no accident that we were told the net broke.

Of course, no Calvinist could possibly see this, their minds have been blinded by false doctrine.

Now, you are correct we are to obey Jesus even when it doesn't seem to make sense, and that is absolutely part of this story, but the net breaking is also to teach us a spiritual lesson, and that lesson is that Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine.

 

[Winman]

:laugh::wavey::applause:You have snagged winman in another fish story of error and novelty...lol good CATCH...AmyG

What a shock that Iconoclast doesn't understand. :laugh: