The Archilles heel of Arminianism - Jn. 6:64-65

[The Biblicist]

That is precisely the problem. The immediate context shows that John 12:32 must be interpreted in the framework of John 12:19-33 as a new topic begins in verse 34. Your interpretation ignores that John 12:32 is a direct response to Greeks seeking to talk to him. Gentiles were regarded as unclean by the Jews and especially by rabbi's among the Jews.

Second, Spurgeon misrepresents our view. We do not reject the word "all" ("men" is not found in the Greek text) but rejects the ADDED interpretation that it must mean "all men without exception" rather than "all men without distinction.

Third, the term "all" in the Greek text is found without the definite article and it is a ligitimate interpretation of the anarthrous construct to interpret it to mean "all classes" of mankind without respect to gender, ethnicity or station in life.

Fourth, and more importantly you are interpreting the former much more comprehensive explanation of drawing in John 6:44-65 by a later singular text instead of vice versa.

Fifth, John 6:64-65 repudiates "all men without exception" interpretation of John 12:32 as here are "some" that Jesus denies that the Father applied John 6:44-45 to and yet they are EXTERNAL PROFESSORS OF THE GOSPEL and professed "disciplies." Thus, this repudiates that John 6:44-45 is accomplished by EXTERNAL hearing, learning, teaching or giving the gospel to men as your interpertation demands because they not only "beleived not" after all this EXTERNAL exposure but Jesus knew this was their state "from the beginning" of their profession just as he knew that Judas was a "demon" from the beginning and false professor.

Sixth, the disciples of Christ are not the Father and do not do the Father's work nor do they know who have been given and who have not been given to the Father and so they preach the gospel to everyone they come in contact with. And so a universal commission does not demand universal salvation or universal drawing.

CONCLUSION: When all these considerations are examined together then your interpretation is impossible.

In addition to all the above contextual problems to the Arminians interpretation of "all men" in John 12:32 is the historical contradiction to their interpretation where it is documented that entire civilizations have come and gone without ever hearing the gospel, the cross or about Christ.

A specific documented case are the head hunters of New Guinea who killed the missionaries that came and lived among them. Later after some had been saved they confessed that neither their grandfather's or fathers ever heard of such a gospel, a Christ or a cross but the missionaries introduced these things first among them for which they killed them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Bob's problem in his denial that those in John 6:65 had been drawn has already been pointed out.

Verse 65 is clearly stated to be a direct reference to verse 44 by the words - "therefore I said unto you."

In both verses it is the same problem presented "no man can come to me" and in both verses the exception clause provides the solution to this same problem - "except the Father draw him" and "except it were given of him of my Father."

The words of Christ "therefore I said unto you" demands they are synonymous expressions for dealing with the same problem. So Bob is wrong.

Not only so, the words "therefore I said unto you" shows clearly that this is Christ's explanation for why those in verse 64 "beleive not" and "beleived not....from the beginning" of their profession.

Bob's other attempt to wiggle out of this dilemma is to claim that having "heard....and learned" are not inclusive in the meaning of "draw" which makes coming to Christ possible without either having "heard.....and learned of the Father" as only being drawn by the Father is necessary to come to the Son rather than "draw" PLUS something else.

Hence, Bob is in a dilemma any way he turns.

The main problem is that he filters alls criptures thru the false teachings of his false prophetess, as her understanding trumps all else!

 

[The Biblicist]

The main problem is that he filters alls criptures thru the false teachings of his false prophetess, as her understanding trumps all else!

Perhaps, but at least he is not bold enough to claim that in print or use her writings for his arguments.

I have provided irrrefutable evidence that his interpretation of "all men" in John 12:32 is wrong. I presented the historical facts of the New Guinea head hunter tribes and the American indians - both of which never heard the gospel, the cross or Christ prior to modern missionaries sent to them. Generations of headhunters and American indians died never having been drawn to the cross, to Christ or having heard the gospel which proves beyond dispute his interpretation of John 12:32 cannot possibly be true.

I have shown that those in John 6:64-65 had never been drawn to Christ EVEN THOUGH they had been taught, had heard, had learned the gospel (Jn. 3:16,36) and publicly professed they had in baptism (Jn. 4:1-2) proving that EXTERNAL exposure to the gospel, gospel teaching and public embracing it in public profession cannot be regarded having been drawn by the Father.

Remember, regardless of the text and context of debate, it is ALWAYS the stubborn "little details" that ultimately expose all false arguments and interpretations and so any attempt to ridicule or avoid those stubborn "little details" is admission of defeat.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps, but at least he is not bold enough to claim that in print or use her writings for his arguments.

I have provided irrrefutable evidence that his interpretation of "all men" in John 12:32 is wrong. I presented the historical facts of the New Guinea head hunter tribes and the American indians - both of which never heard the gospel, the cross or Christ prior to modern missionaries sent to them. Generations of headhunters and American indians died never having been drawn to the cross, to Christ or having heard the gospel which proves beyond dispute his interpretation of John 12:32 cannot possibly be true.

I have shown that those in John 6:64-65 had never been drawn to Christ EVEN THOUGH they had been taught, had heard, had learned the gospel (Jn. 3:16,36) and publicly professed they had in baptism (Jn. 4:1-2) proving that EXTERNAL exposure to the gospel, gospel teaching and public embracing it in public profession cannot be regarded having been drawn by the Father.

Remember, regardless of the text and context of debate, it is ALWAYS the stubborn "little details" that ultimately expose all false arguments and interpretations and so any attempt to ridicule or avoid those stubborn "little details" is admission of defeat.

if anyone should have evidence being drawn/called by God to Jesus was Judas, yet he is the perfect example of how natural man receives NOT the things of god, that NONE seek God, not can call jesus their Lord, apart from God providing and granting them the means to do so!
NOT bult into human being instrinsically!

 

[convicted1]

To Brother Skan:

I mean this as it is typed, with no "alterior motive". I really appreciate the way you conduct yourself on here. Though we may now butt heads now and again, I love the gracious way you present your thoughts. It seems like nothing ever rattles you, but you, being a human, I am quite sure there are some things that eat at you, like the rest of us. But I wanted to let you know that I truly appreciate you as a Brother in Christ and the manner of how you conduct yourself. May He richly and abundantly bless you and your family. :thumbsup: :godisgood: :jesus: :love2:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

To Brother Skan:

I mean this as it is typed, with no "alterior motive". I really appreciate the way you conduct yourself on here. Though we may now butt heads now and again, I love the gracious way you present your thoughts. It seems like nothing ever rattles you, but you, being a human, I am quite sure there are some things that eat at you, like the rest of us. But I wanted to let you know that I truly appreciate you as a Brother in Christ and the manner of how you conduct yourself. May He richly and abundantly bless you and your family. ::godisgood: :jesus: :love2:

Nice:smilewinkgrin:

 

[BobRyan]

In John 6 - Christ is not blaming God for the result - He is blaming the refusal of sinful man that is drawn but then is foreknown to refuse anyway.

Given is always in the context of "foreknowledge" in John 6. Whether given to Christ - or "Given to the lost".

Bob's problem in his denial that those in John 6:65 had been drawn has already been pointed out.

In the spirit of "accuracy" - BobRyan has consistently claimed that everyone in John 6 "and that all mankind" have been drawn.

I have consistently denied that anyone was not drawn -- in my repeated "I will draw ALL mankind unto ME" quotes of John 12:32.

So I am a bit mystified that you would post that I have denied that someone in John 6:65 had not been drawn.

Verse 65 is clearly stated to be a direct reference to verse 44 by the words - "therefore I said unto you."

In both verses it is the same problem presented "no man can come to me" and in both verses the exception clause provides the solution to this same problem - "except the Father draw him" and "except it were given of him of my Father."

In the text you quote I have consistently left the door open that "Given to HIM" (the lost person that is drawn by the Father" could simply be another way to state the same thing "drawn" - that no one can come to God apart from the drawing "of all mankind".

But vs 65 is in the context of foreknowledge stated in vs 64.

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

Vs 65 is in the context of the foreknowledge of what they would not.

Vs 64 does not say "Jesus knew from the beginning who it is that the Father would refuse to DRAW unto Christ". The knowledge of the future event -- is purely the knowledge of who would accept and who would not.

Thus the "given" of vs 65 is in the context of the "foreknowledge" of what THEY would do - never stated as the foreknowledge of "What God would not DRAW".

The statement "no one CAN come to me" refers again to the sinful nature of man -

Christ attributes the fact that no one can come without the drawing of God - to the inclination and sinful state of man. And the "given of the Father" is always in terms of foreknowledge of the choices of man in John 6.

They statement "they did not come to Christ because they were not drawn" is found only in Calvinism not in the text.

Even in vs 65 Christ did not say "they do not come to Me because the Father has not given them to Me".

The words of Christ "therefore I said unto you" demands they are synonymous expressions

There is another possibility - rather than being synonyms it could be that it is a progression. All must be drawn because all have a sinful nature - among those drawn some will not choose to accept eternal life because they freely choose to yield to that same sinful bent toward evil as we see in vs 64 and the statement about foreknowledge. Thus the "given" of vs 65 can well be the result of "all drawn plus foreknowledge of God" about the future choices of man (vs 64). It is an appeal to vs 44 in the context of vs 64. This means that once again - Christ is not blaming God for the result - He is blaming the refusal of sinful man that is drawn but then is foreknown to refuse anyway.

Just when it may be supposed that Christ is blaming the Father for the result (as if - he has this result because the Father failed to draw and then to Give someone the ability to come to Christ) - Christ may well be blaming the result on the person that is yielding to the same sinful nature that predicts that without the supernatural drawing - no man will choose life and light.



The words "therefore I said unto you" shows clearly that this is Christ's explanation for why those in verse 64 "believe not" - because of their bent away from righteousness which they yield to in spite of the "Drawing of ALL mankind". The bend that all mankind has in vs 44 and the bent that these men specifically are foreknown to clinging to in vs 64 despite the "Drawing of all".

Bob's other attempt to wiggle out of this dilemma is to claim that having "heard....and learned" are not inclusive in the meaning of "draw" which makes coming to Christ possible without either having "heard.....and learned of the Father" as only being drawn by the Father is necessary to come to the Son rather than "draw" PLUS something else.

"Drawing all" enables "all to come to Christ" according to vs 44 - and John 12:32. But out of that number those who Do choose to come are those who are not only drawn - but also CHOOSE to respond positively to that drawing.

So that is "Drawing PLUS the choice to respond".

Hence no text says "all drawn to Me WILL come to Me".

The main problem is that he filters alls criptures thru the false teachings of his false prophetess, as her understanding trumps all else!

It is incredibly obvious to all on this board that you cannot blame the fact that the Bible does not agree with the Calvinist assumptions "on Ellen White" and further you cannot claim that the Arminian position arises only after God gives prophetic messages to Ellen White. Certainly all the Arminians will admit this if not (as in your case) all Calvinists. You need an actual Bible argument - ranting is not a substantive response.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

In John 6 - Christ is not blaming God for the result - He is blaming the refusal of sinful man that is drawn but then is foreknown to refuse anyway.

Given is always in the context of "foreknowledge" in John 6. Whether given to Christ - or "Given to the lost".



In the spirit of "accuracy" - BobRyan has consistently claimed that everyone in John 6 "and that all mankind" have been drawn.

I have consistently denied that anyone was not drawn -- in my repeated "I will draw ALL mankind unto ME" quotes of John 12:32.

So I am a bit mystified that you would post that I have denied that someone in John 6:65 had not been drawn.

In the text you quote I have consistently left the door open that "Given to HIM" (the lost person that is drawn by the Father" could simply be another way to state the same thing "drawn" - that no one can come to God apart from the drawing "of all mankind".

But vs 65 is in the context of foreknowledge stated in vs 64.

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

Vs 65 is in the context of the foreknowledge of what they would not.

Vs 64 does not say "Jesus knew from the beginning who it is that the Father would refuse to DRAW unto Christ". The knowledge of the future event -- is purely the knowledge of who would accept and who would not.

Thus the "given" of vs 65 is in the context of the "foreknowledge" of what THEY would do - never stated as the foreknowledge of "What God would not DRAW".

The statement "no one CAN come to me" refers again to the sinful nature of man -

Christ attributes the fact that no one can come without the drawing of God - to the inclination and sinful state of man. And the "given of the Father" is always in terms of foreknowledge of the choices of man in John 6.

They statement "they did not come to Christ because they were not drawn" is found only in Calvinism not in the text.

Even in vs 65 Christ did not say "they do not come to Me because the Father has not given them to Me".



There is another possibility - rather than being synonyms it could be that it is a progression. All must be drawn because all have a sinful nature - among those drawn some will not choose to accept eternal life because they freely choose to yield to that same sinful bent toward evil as we see in vs 64 and the statement about foreknowledge. Thus the "given" of vs 65 can well be the result of "all drawn plus foreknowledge of God" about the future choices of man (vs 64). It is an appeal to vs 44 in the context of vs 64. This means that once again - Christ is not blaming God for the result - He is blaming the refusal of sinful man that is drawn but then is foreknown to refuse anyway.

Just when it may be supposed that Christ is blaming the Father for the result (as if - he has this result because the Father failed to draw and then to Give someone the ability to come to Christ) - Christ may well be blaming the result on the person that is yielding to the same sinful nature that predicts that without the supernatural drawing - no man will choose life and light.



The words "therefore I said unto you" shows clearly that this is Christ's explanation for why those in verse 64 "believe not" - because of their bent away from righteousness which they yield to in spite of the "Drawing of ALL mankind". The bend that all mankind has in vs 44 and the bent that these men specifically are foreknown to clinging to in vs 64 despite the "Drawing of all".

"Drawing all" enables "all to come to Christ" according to vs 44 - and John 12:32. But out of that number those who Do choose to come are those who are not only drawn - but also CHOOSE to respond positively to that drawing.

So that is "Drawing PLUS the choice to respond".

Hence no text says "all drawn to Me WILL come to Me".



It is incredibly obvious to all on this board that you cannot blame the fact that the Bible does not agree with the Calvinist assumptions "on Ellen White" and further you cannot claim that the Arminian position arises only after God gives prophetic messages to Ellen White. Certainly all the Arminians will admit this if not (as in your case) all Calvinists. You need an actual Bible argument - ranting is not a substantive response.

in Christ,

Bob

ANY so called prophecies Ellen white received were from satan, not Jesus, but would also say that the foreknowledge of God in salvation NOT merely him knowing what will haapen with the sinner in their future, but that He determined to save the sinner, and so his foreknowledge based upon His will to save that sinner thru and by death of jesus, not on basis of him seeing sinner 'coming to Christ!"

 

[BobRyan]

But vs 65 is in the context of foreknowledge stated in vs 64.

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

Vs 65 is in the context of the foreknowledge of what they would not.

Vs 64 does not say "Jesus knew from the beginning who it is that the Father would refuse to DRAW unto Christ". The knowledge of the future event -- is purely the knowledge of who would accept and who would not.

Thus the "given" of vs 65 is in the context of the "foreknowledge" of what THEY would do - never stated as the foreknowledge of "What God would not DRAW".

The statement "no one CAN come to me" refers again to the sinful nature of man -

Christ attributes the fact that no one can come without the drawing of God - to the inclination and sinful state of man. And the "given of the Father" is always in terms of foreknowledge of the choices of man in John 6.

They statement "they did not come to Christ because they were not drawn" is found only in Calvinism not in the text.

Even in vs 65 Christ did not say "they do not come to Me because the Father has not given them to Me".



There is another possibility - rather than being synonyms it could be that it is a progression. All must be drawn because all have a sinful nature - among those drawn some will not choose to accept eternal life because they freely choose to yield to that same sinful bent toward evil as we see in vs 64 and the statement about foreknowledge. Thus the "given" of vs 65 can well be the result of "all drawn plus foreknowledge of God" about the future choices of man (vs 64)

the foreknowledge of God in salvation NOT merely him knowing what will haapen with the sinner in their future, but that He determined to save the sinner, and so his foreknowledge based upon His will to save that sinner thru and by death of jesus, not on basis of him seeing sinner 'coming to Christ!"

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.

In vs 64 the foreknowledge of God is stated as being in reference to the choices of the "all mankind" that is drawn by God.

Vs 64 does not say "Jesus knew from the beginning who it is that the Father would refuse to DRAW unto Christ". The knowledge of the future event -- is purely the knowledge of who would accept and who would not.

Here is where the Calvinist argument finds a problem in John 6.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

In vs 64 the foreknowledge of God is stated as being in reference to the choices of the "all mankind" that is drawn by God.

Vs 64 does not say "Jesus knew from the beginning who it is that the Father would refuse to DRAW unto Christ". The knowledge of the future event -- is purely the knowledge of who would accept and who would not.

Here is where the Calvinist argument finds a problem in John 6.

in Christ,

Bob

The Father was NOT drawing , bringing Judas to jesus to get saved, as he was a Devil from the beginning, and God deyermined to use him and his "free choice" to have OT prophecies fulfilled!