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

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist Jn. 6:64 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.

Here is absolute proof that "some" are not drawn by the Father

Sadly Biblicist must 'insert" the very words not found in the text - giving us a perfect example of the words we do NOT find in John 6!

" "some" are not drawn by the Father " - not found in John 6 at all.

So then we have another test case showing that Calvinism makes its points in "out of the void of what is NOT in the text" while downsizing what "IS in the text".

And as if to illustrate the point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblicist
"all" in John 12:32 does not mean "all ..."

And as if to illustrate the point


The Calvinist argument is that "ALL" does not mean "ALL" the way it normally reads in the chapter - but rather "ALL" is open for "downsizing".

So also "World".


Because when you get to appeal to statements NOT in the text as your "proof" combined with liberal and imaginative "inferences" -- well the sky is the limit!

John 6:64 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.

Let the reader judge for themselves if "some" is not found in John 6 in the precise text I said it was (v. 64) which denies they were DRAWN by the Father (v. 65).

Nothing in vs 65 says they were not "Drawn" rather they are not "given" by the Father.

The "Given of the Father" statement in John 6 is highly qualified - applying to those who believe AND who come to Christ and who are given eternal life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinism vs Arminan in John 6:

• Nothing in John 6 says “All Drawn” are the same as “those given by the Father to Christ”.
• Noting in John 6 says “All drawn” will come to Christ, or “All drawn” will be saved.
• Nothing in John 12:32 says “all drawn” will be saved or will come to Christ or that they are the same as those who are “Given by the Father”.

But we do have this
John 12:32 “I will draw ALL MANKIND unto Me”
John 6:44 ""No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Obviously those who “come to Christ” are within that larger group of “all mankind” who are first drawn to Christ.


Big Problem for Calvinists.

• They “need” a text that says “God does NOT Draw ALL mankind unto Him” – and there is not ONE such text in all of scripture.
• Arminians HAVE a text that says God “will DRAW ALL mankind to Him” John 12:32.
• So Calvinists have to sort of make up the text “they need” via inferences and taking liberties with the text.

Jn. 6:64 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.

Here is absolute proof that "some" are not drawn by the Father and therefore the "all" in John 12:32 does not mean "all without exception" but rather is the same "all" in John 6:45a or the same "all" that are given by the Father to come to Christ by faith (Jn. 6:37-39).

Classic bait-and-switch "drawn by the Father" being substituted in where the text says "given by the Father"

Caveat: Arminians never claim that “The Father has given ALL mankind to Christ as saints” nor does the Bible say it. And Arminians do not say that all Drawn are also Given by the Father to Christ as those who will be saved.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nothing in vs 65 says they were not "Drawn" rather they are not "given" by the Father.

The "Given of the Father" statement in John 6 is highly qualified - applying to those who believe AND who come to Christ and who are given eternal life.

in Christ,

Bob

Christ words "therefore I said unto you" refer to John 6:44 and YOU KNOW IT. Hence, "given" in verse 65 is used as a synonym for "draw" in verse 44 and gives the true meaning of "draw." What was not "given" in verse 64-65 is FAITH in Christ or the ability to "come to me" by faith as those in John 6:64 were still in unbelief. They "believe not" because they were NEVER "given" faith by the Father, so they could never "come to me" in faith as faith is "the work of God" (Jn. 6:29) as it requires God first to "give" them to the son in order them to "come to me" - Hence, being given is the work of God. It requires being drawn by God to "come to me" hence, being drawn is the work of God.

 

[Skandelon]

Big Problem for Calvinists.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

• They “need” a text that says “God does NOT Draw ALL mankind unto Him” – and there is not ONE such text in all of scripture.
• Arminians HAVE a text that says God “will DRAW ALL mankind to Him” John 12:32.
• So Calvinists have to sort of make up the text “they need” via inferences and taking liberties with the text.

So true! :thumbs:

And one need only read the context of John 12 to see beyond all reasonable doubt that the idea of God only irresistibly drawing a relative few from the Jews and Gentiles is completely off base.

The fact that after his death he commissions the spreading of the Gospel to ALL CREATION should be a clear indication as to what MEANS Christ is referencing as what will be 'drawing' all men to himself after he is raised up. Yet, they have to make it about some irresistible inward supernatural means that affects a relatively few number of people. Such a meaning could hardly be defended in view of the universal term employed by Christ ('all men')....as if Christ, if he wanted to communicate that meaning, just couldn't have used the word 'some.'

Spurgeon addressed this gross misrepresentation of scripture when he said:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

 

[agedman]

What is unfortunate, is that God left us without a guide. Finally, you have shown up, and now all of us poor English Speaking peoples can be enlightened.
I speak as a fool, of course.

Truth is, some of us find your insinuation that our language is somehow inefficient, to be a most savage insult. And seeing how God arranged for the Scriptures to show up in Greek, at a time when the whole world used Greek as a 2nd language, at least of trade; One would be ignorant to miss the fact that English has taken that role, currently.

Sorry your felt so insulted by my post.

Perhaps if you think the English is so strong you might express why:

1) Uncountable number of preaching and teaching sessions in which the presenter is explaining the nuance of the original in comparison to the weakness of the English.

2) The current translations of the Scriptures have to work from either a word for word or thought for thought or some blend of the two. Even the most word for word translation, is not completely nor exhaustively accurate to the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic... Here are three various charts showing just a bit of what I mean.
1. here
2. here
3. here

3) Why the common use of English words change with each generation and often more frequently. Example: "whosoever" as used in John 3 in comparison to how the folks of King James used it.
​

English is a relatively weak language compared to that in which the Scriptures were originally and to the Latin.

Perhaps you didn't know that. I don't know.

But, it nevertheless is true.

 

[prophet]

Sorry your felt so insulted by my post.

Perhaps if you think the English is so strong you might express why:

1) Uncountable number of preaching and teaching sessions in which the presenter is explaining the nuance of the original in comparison to the weakness of the English.

2) The current translations of the Scriptures have to work from either a word for word or thought for thought or some blend of the two. Even the most word for word translation, is not completely nor exhaustively accurate to the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic... Here are three various charts showing just a bit of what I mean.
1. here
2. here
3. here

3) Why the common use of English words change with each generation and often more frequently. Example: "whosoever" as used in John 3 in comparison to how the folks of King James used it.
​

English is a relatively weak language compared to that in which the Scriptures were originally and to the Latin.

Perhaps you didn't know that. I don't know.

But, it nevertheless is true.

1. Lack of the presence of the Holy Guide, in the presenter. Unbelief on his part, as well. Poor training.
2. Faithlessness. One must believe that He is, before they can come to Him. If one truly believes that the author of languages is in control, that one would believe that said author could express Himself well in any such language, which He had drafted.
3.Go to school for law, and you will hear the words of our English unchanged. Suffer still means 'allow'. Pray still means 'make a formal request to the judge', and etc.

English is made up, mostly, of 8 major language groups. 25% being Germanic, 18% Latin, and so on.
It has a bridge to most of the languages spoken on the planet, either through shared root words, or transliterated words.

English has 250,000 words, or so.
It also has the strength of allowing for transliterated words from the major language groups. Any word, not found in English, can be made into an English word, like the Chinese word trans :"junk".
English has descriptive words galore, so that things can be expressed more thoroughly in it, than any other language.
Germanic Toungues are wordy, and English is no exception.
If you are looking to say something in one word, look to a different language. If you want to fill your 1,000 word quota, for an essay, English is your friend.

No, the problem isn't English, it is "scholars"

 

[agedman]

1. Lack of the presence of the Holy Guide, in the presenter. Unbelief on his part, as well. Poor training.

R. G. Lee, Chuck Swindol, W. A. Criswell, Hyman Appleman, Bob Jones, John R. Rice, Adrian Rogers ... (I could go on with the list, but these are given to show).

I suggest before you make such statements that you consider the above ALL had to bring greater understanding as to what the original language was bringing to a passage in comparison to the weakness of the English.

2. Faithlessness. One must believe that He is, before they can come to Him. If one truly believes that the author of languages is in control, that one would believe that said author could express Himself well in any such language, which He had drafted.

Using your view, the question would be which "version" is the most accurate to the originals?

The NASB and the "interlinear" are the closest "word for word" translation.

Some on the board exalt the NIV or the KJV as more authoritative.

If there is a "preserved word" then it must remain as close to the original as possible.

That would be the NASB.

But then one must ask, which is more important the thought behind the original or is it more important that actual word definition for word definition be used without much regard for sentence construction.

3.Go to school for law, and you will hear the words of our English unchanged. Suffer still means 'allow'. Pray still means 'make a formal request to the judge', and etc.

Strange that you would pick the word "suffer." If you ask anyone - be it lawyer or farmer - they would say "suffer" means to be in need and hurt. This is just ONE word that older English is defined differently than what it is currently held. I do not know of one lawyer that uses "suffer" to mean "allow" in any legal brief in this "modern age;" however, I know more than one that would use "suffer" to support class action for "pain and suffering."

English is made up, mostly, of 8 major language groups. 25% being Germanic, 18% Latin, and so on.
It has a bridge to most of the languages spoken on the planet, either through shared root words, or transliterated words.

English has 250,000 words, or so.
It also has the strength of allowing for transliterated words from the major language groups. Any word, not found in English, can be made into an English word, like the Chinese word trans :"junk".
English has descriptive words galore, so that things can be expressed more thoroughly in it, than any other language.
Germanic Toungues are wordy, and English is no exception.
If you are looking to say something in one word, look to a different language. If you want to fill your 1,000 word quota, for an essay, English is your friend.

No, the problem isn't English, it is "scholars"

None of the above is other than showing proof for what I have stated. Cookie is dutch. Love has three variations in Greek. And the list could go on and on.

Prophet, again, I had no wish to insult, nor demean you in the post(s).

The English is weak because it is a blend of many, and beholding to none - that is why definitions become archaic, and changed by the influence of culture and education.

For instance, Davy Crockett claimed he was a "screamer." That didn't mean that he went around shouting; rather, the word was used in his time to indicate one who was a star or notable - one who possessed powerful political alliances and could call the rich and famous as friends and partners.

 

[prophet]

Ever heard of women's suffrage? It wasn't an act passed, so we could beat our wives, was it? Nope. They are "allowed" to vote now.

 

[BobRyan]

quoted Spurgeon

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth.

Spurgeon also edited/expanded the "Baptist Confession of Faith" - I particularly like Section 19.

I have to admit I find a number of things in Spurgeon's writings that are insightful on his part. Calvinist or not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinism vs Arminan in John 6:

• Nothing in John 6 says “All Drawn” are the same as “those given by the Father to Christ”.
• Noting in John 6 says “All drawn” will come to Christ, or “All drawn” will be saved.
• Nothing in John 12:32 says “all drawn” will be saved or will come to Christ or that they are the same as those who are “Given by the Father”.

But we do have this
John 12:32 “I will draw ALL MANKIND unto Me”
John 6:44 ""No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Obviously those who “come to Christ” are within that larger group of “all mankind” who are first drawn to Christ.


Big Problem for Calvinists.

• They “need” a text that says “God does NOT Draw ALL mankind unto Him” – and there is not ONE such text in all of scripture.
• Arminians HAVE a text that says God “will DRAW ALL mankind to Him” John 12:32.
• So Calvinists have to sort of make up the text “they need” via inferences and taking liberties with the text.

Classic bait-and-switch "drawn by the Father" being substituted in where the text says "given by the Father"

Caveat: Arminians never claim that “The Father has given ALL mankind to Christ as saints” nor does the Bible say it. And Arminians do not say that all Drawn are also Given by the Father to Christ as those who will be saved.

Your whole argument rests squarely upon your interpretation that "all" in John 12;32 must refer to all men without exception and that "some" in John 6:64 were drawn as well. If one or the other can be proven to be wrong your whole argument simply crumbles. For example, if it can be proven that John 6:64 were never drawn you interpretation of "all" in John 12:32 is proven wrong as here are "some" never drawn and yet everything you characterize "draw" had been done in regard to them and yet they were not drawn according to Christ's meaning in John 6::45.

Any objective reader can easily see that those identified as "some" of his disciples in John 6:64 must have PHYSICALLY heard and had been taught the gospel by either John the Baptist and/or Christ as they had to confess Christ and submit to baptism in order for Christ to acknowledge they were his "disicples" (Jn. 4:1-2).

Second, the word "therefore" demands that verse 65 is being given by Christ as explanatory of their condition of unbelief in verse 64. John makes it clear that Christ knew "from the beginning" they never truly believed and verse 65 provides the explanation why He knew that.

Third, no one can deny that verse 65 is restating verse 44. There is only three words different between verse 44 and 65 and that is "it be given" versus "draw." Hence, "it be given him" must be synonymous with "draw" in Christ's mind as he purposely substitutes it for "draw." It must be synymous as in both cases this is the work attributed to the Father alone.

Fourth, the problem stated and specifically addressed in verse 64 is that they "believed not." This same problem is restated in verse 65 in the words "no man can come to me" which contextually is defined as "no man can come to me in faith" (Jn. 6:35-36). Hence, the very same issue presented in verse 64 is the very same issue presented in verse 65 except in verse 65 the solution for that issue is also presented by the words "except it is given him of the Father." Thus the explanation for "some" remaining in unbelief "from the beginning" until they left Christ is that the Father never gave them "faith to come to Christ."

Fifth, the phrase "given it....of my Father" cannot possibly refer to verse 63 merely interpreted as PHYSICALLY hearing and being taught the gospel because they are called "disciples" which proves they did PHYSICALLY hear and was taught the gospel and professed it and submitted to baptism. However, Jesus claims what he is talking about in verse 65 was NOT GIVEN to them and this is the explanation why they remained in unbelief "from the beginning" to the moment they forsook Christ.

Readers, neither Bob, Skandelon, Van or Winman have the capability for honest evaluation of the evidence I have provided. They will not accept this interpetation under any condition, regardless if they can disprove it or not as to receive it is to acknowledge their whole system is false. They simply will not do it. They will not treat the evidence fairly even though the evidence I present is so obvious and clear.

 

[The Biblicist]

And one need only read the context of John 12

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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." .

The problem in not actually quoting the text when comparing it to John 12:32 is that one misses the "not so subtle detail" that there is no place in John 6 where it is said that someone "Was not drawn to Christ".

No not one verse.

So then just giving the verse numbers "as if" there was something there to that affect - is the substitution that is necessary.

Clearly there are some not "given to Christ" by the Father - but that is because the "Given" context is highly qualified and is not mentioned at all in John 12 - because that is not the focus of John 12.

The outreach is "I will draw all" the - degree to which that outreach is received by the lost and the lost willingly choose to accept it - is the "Given of the Father" to Christ because it includes the qualified list of those who see, who learn, who come to Christ according to John 6.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem in not actually quoting the text when comparing it to John 12:32 is that one misses the "not so subtle detail" that there is no place in John 6 where it is said that someone "Was not drawn to Christ".

You are simply ignoring the problem spelled out for your interpretation of John 12:32 with John 6:64-65. This text repudiates your interpretation of John 12:32 that "all" without exception will be drawn. JOhn 6:64-65 explicitly repudiates your interpretation as it provides examples of "some" that John 6:44 was NEVER APPLIED to by the Father IN SPITE OF the fact they EXTERNALLY and PHYSICALLY had been taught the gospel, heard the gospel, learned the gospel.

Therefore, just because the words "all the Father draws comes to Christ" cannot be found in the text does not mean it is not taught clearly in the context - which it is by the fact that the context makes it clear that not all man kind are drawn and espeically those in unbelief and remain so have NEVER had John 6:44-45 applied to them - thus leaving only REAL BELEIVERS as the only possible objects of John 6:44-45. The fact that NONE GIVEN are lost eliminates anyone can be really given or draw and be lost.

 

[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.

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
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.
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.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Who among our Arminians on this forum can deny that this passage is directed explicitly to "some" among "his disicples"?

Who among the Arminians on this forum can deny that in order to be claimed by Christ as "his" disciples they had to be EXTERNALLY and PHYSICALLY been taught the gospel and thus "heard" and "learned" the Gospel so that they could PUBLICLLY EXPRESS gospel conversion in baptism?????

Yet, Jesus claims that those disicples he is speaking about were false professons "from the beginning" and were not among those whom the Father did the work explained in John 6:44-45 as expressed in John 6:65!

1. Therefore, here are examples of "some" the Father NEVER performed the work described in John 6:44-45 and thus proves that "all" in John 12:32 cannot possibly mean "all men WITHOUT EXCEPTION" because here are "some" exceptions.

2. Therefore, here are examples of "some" the Father NEVER performed the work described in John 6:44-45 and thus proves that the PUBLIC EXTERNAL PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL cannot be the correct interpretation of this work as these "disciples" received all of that and yet the Father NEVER applied this work to them according to Jesus in John 6:65.

 

[Winman]

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
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.
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.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Who among our Arminians on this forum can deny that this passage is directed explicitly to "some" among "his disicples"?

I do not know of anyone who has denied this. When did this denial happen?

Who among the Arminians on this forum can deny that in order to be claimed by Christ as "his" disciples they had to be EXTERNALLY and PHYSICALLY been taught the gospel and thus "heard" and "learned" the Gospel so that they could PUBLICLLY EXPRESS gospel conversion in baptism?????

It was John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that called these men disciples. And it is certain that many did superficially hear and learn, but they did not believe.

And I have no idea how you know who was baptized and who was not.

Yet, Jesus claims that those disicples he is speaking about were false professons "from the beginning" and were not among those whom the Father did the work explained in John 6:44-45 as expressed in John 6:65!

Yes, Jesus did say that some did not believe, and we are told that Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not, and who should betray him. I believe this is an example of God's foreknowledge clearly being shown to us.

But the reason they did not come is because they did not receive and believe what was given them, which is Jesus's words shown in verse 63. This is also confirmed in chapter 17 where again Jesus speaks of those given by the Father to him, and Jesus clearly tells us what was "given" to his disciples, "the words the Father gave to me".

Jhn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Note the repeated emphasis on the word of God. This is what Jesus was speaking of in John 6:65, he was saying that no man can come to him unless "it" which is the word of God were given them. But still, a man must receive and believe God's word, God does not believe for you. Note that Jesus credits his disciples with receiving and believing. Jesus does not say he gave his disciples faith as Biblicist would try to falsely teach.

1. Therefore, here are examples of "some" the Father NEVER performed the work described in John 6:44-45 and thus proves that "all" in John 12:32 cannot possibly mean "all men WITHOUT EXCEPTION" because here are "some" exceptions.

The work was that Jesus gave these men the words his Father gave him. Jesus does not say he gave them faith. Jesus said he gave these men his "words"

But the man is responsible to hear and learn (vs. 45) and to believe (vs. 65). Therefore a man must receive what was "given" to him to come to Jesus.

Note also that those whom the Father gave to Jesus "kept thy word". Note that Jesus knew who would believe and who would not. I believe this shows that God the Father gave those persons in his foreknowledge whom he knew would believe his words to Jesus. Foreknowledge is clearly shown in Jhn 6:64.

2. Therefore, here are examples of "some" the Father NEVER performed the work described in John 6:44-45 and thus proves that the PUBLIC EXTERNAL PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL cannot be the correct interpretation of this work as these "disciples" received all of that and yet the Father NEVER applied this work to them according to Jesus in John 6:65.

Again, the work is clearly described by Jesus in John chapter 17. It does not say Jesus gave his disciples faith, it says he gave them the words his Father gave to him, and then Jesus clearly credits his disciples with both receiving and believing his words.

 

[BobRyan]

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
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.
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.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Who among our Arminians on this forum can deny that this passage is directed explicitly to "some" among "his disicples"?

And who among our Calvinist friends can deny that the statement Christ makes about those fall back into unbelief - is based on his foreknowledge of what they would do??

For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,

Who among the Arminians on this forum can deny that in order to be claimed by Christ as "his" disciples they had to be EXTERNALLY and PHYSICALLY been taught the gospel and thus "heard" and "learned" the Gospel so that they could PUBLICLLY EXPRESS gospel conversion in baptism?????

Yet, Jesus claims that those disicples he is speaking about were false professons "from the beginning"

No doubt. But Jesus never says of those who fall away "they were never drawn".

One may conclude they were "never given to me of the Father" in that fully qualified see, believe, come to Christ, learn of the Father... sequence - but one may not conclude that "they were never drawn".

And unfortunately for Calvinism the point that IT needs is the one that is not "in the text" but must be drawn outside of the text via inference and taking liberties with the text.

1. Therefore, here are examples of "some" the Father NEVER performed the work described in John 6:44-45 and thus proves that "all" in John 12:32 cannot possibly mean "all men WITHOUT EXCEPTION" because here are "some" exceptions.

Too much "bait-and-switch" there.

John 12:32 specifically speaks of the outreach in the form of "Drawing ALL mankind unto Me" -- it does not address the more qualified statements in John 6 regarding "Those the Father has given to Christ" who see, who believe, who come to Christ, who Learn and are taught by the Father and whom Christ will raise up on the last day. You are grossly equivocating between almost every term used in John 6 -- with that of the single focus of John 12:32 regarding the outreach of God in "Drawing all unto Him". And subject in one or two verses in john 6 but it is not all of John 6 - thus you are not free to swap out anything you wish from John 6 and use it to downsize John 12:32.

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not know of anyone who has denied this. When did this denial happen?

Never said anyone did deny it. It is a question that asks who can? In other words, it is something that can't be denied.

But the reason they did not come is because they did not receive and believe what was given them, which is Jesus's words shown in verse 63.

Not according to Christ! You claim that your interpretation of verses 44-45 is exactly what the Father gave them in verse 63 while Christ denies in verse 65 what he speaks about in verses 44-45 was given to them. Your interpetation is in a direct contradiction with Jesus Christ. You affirm exactly what Christ denies.

 

[The Biblicist]

And who among our Calvinist friends can deny that the statement Christ makes about those fall back into unbelief - is based on his foreknowledge of what they would do??

For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,

Contextually he is not referring "from the beginning" of the world but "from the beginning" of their profession as disciples.

No doubt. But Jesus never says of those who fall away "they were never drawn".

Christ denies that any "of all" given can fall away but "of all" given that he "SHALL LOSE NOTHING." Case closed!

One may conclude they were "never given to me of the Father" in that fully qualified see, believe, come to
Christ, learn of the Father... sequence - but one may not conclude that "they were never drawn".

Absolutely false! That is precisely what Jesus is denying in John 6:64-65. He is denying that in the sequence of "see, believe, come to me, heard, learn of the Father" they never were drawn in THE SENSE CHRIST MEANS (not in the sense you interpret it to mean). That is His explicit conclusion by "therefore I said unto you" as the explanation of why "some" disciples still "believed not."

 

[Yeshua1]

Nothing in vs 65 says they were not "Drawn" rather they are not "given" by the Father.

The "Given of the Father" statement in John 6 is highly qualified - applying to those who believe AND who come to Christ and who are given eternal life.

in Christ,

Bob

They have to be given to jesus by the father, thru the workingof the Spirit unto their behalf, for NONE call jesus their Lord a;aert from the Holy Spirit enabling them to say that, as NONE seek God apart from the drawing of the Father, and the work of the Spirit to permit them to see jesus and receive Him thru God granted faith!

 

[The Biblicist]

They have to be given to jesus by the father, thru the workingof the Spirit unto their behalf, for NONE call jesus their Lord a;aert from the Holy Spirit enabling them to say that, as NONE seek God apart from the drawing of the Father, and the work of the Spirit to permit them to see jesus and receive Him thru God granted faith!

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.