Two major objections against Non-Calvinists answered

[Yeshua1]

No, I was able to dispute you with scripture. You said a Christian is under a "law of sin" and I showed you scripture that says we have been made free from the law of sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

You can read, does this verse say that Christians have been made free from the law of sin?

Yes or no?

Therefore, Romans 7:14-25 cannot be speaking from the perspective of a saved person, as a saved person has been made free from the law of sin.

You should try taking your Calvinist blinders off when you read scripture, you might learn something.

You mean that Paul lied to us when he stated that while even a saved person, was weak and in his flesh could not live as he ought for jesus?


that even the greatest Chrsitian who ever lived was weak in himself tolive rightly?

that ONLY those who live by the person of the Spriit can have that freedom in Christ!

Question: You were a child of the Devil, in His kingdom before being saved, right?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The two accusations I hear most from the Calvinistic types against non-Calvinists are: (1) You lesson the Sovereignty of God and (2) you have too high of a view of man.

My biggest issue with the Finneyists is that they're unbelievably rude, ignorant, and wouldn't know basic Christian doctrine if their lives depended on it.

All they do is attack, attack, attack and then, the moment you stand up to them, they start whining and playing the victim card.

People like JamesAch and "Happy Christian" make you all look bad.

In all fairness, in their cases, I think there may be some mental illness going on there.

Here's a simple question for you: Did you seek Christ or did Christ seek you? And how does a spiritually dead, unregenerate man, at enmity with God, seek and please God?

 

[Winman]

You mean that Paul lied to us when he stated that while even a saved person, was weak and in his flesh could not live as he ought for jesus?


that even the greatest Chrsitian who ever lived was weak in himself tolive rightly?

that ONLY those who live by the person of the Spriit can have that freedom in Christ!

Question: You were a child of the Devil, in His kingdom before being saved, right?

Could you show me where Paul said those things? I don't recall ever reading that in scripture. Show me where Paul said a Christian was weak to live right.

I hope you don't say Romans 7, because in Romans 7 Paul said he was "sold under sin" and brought into "captivity to the law of sin". No Christian is sold under sin or brought into captivity to the law of sin, Paul said a Christian has been set free from the law of sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Perhaps you were not familiar with this scripture? No Christian is sold under sin or brought into captivity of the law of sin.

So, Paul DID NOT say a Christian is weak and cannot live right. But maybe that is what they taught you in your Reformed church?

I hope not, because that would be complete error, and you don't want to believe or teach error do you?

 

[Yeshua1]

So, what are you saying? That God would call an unregenerate/unsaved man to be his divinely appointed apostle for real? Don't you agree that he was included with them only for the purpose of fulfilling the plan? Surely you don't think Jesus called him in the same "irresistible" manner he did the others, do you? That is why your use of Judas is perplexing to me. You, not me, are the one who thinks God's call is irresistible. How does that fit your system for Judas to not be irresistibly drawn?

why do you keep making this complex though?

To fulfill His prophecy as One betraying messiah, the father determined/selected Judas for do that role, and Judas acted based upon his own nature, doing as he "willed" to use your terminology!

Judas had to do what he did, but god did NOT have to force him to do ANYTHING 'against his will!"

 

[Yeshua1]

Could you show me where Paul said those things? I don't recall ever reading that in scripture. Show me where Paul said a Christian was weak to live right.

I hope you don't say Romans 7, because in Romans 7 Paul said he was "sold under sin" and brought into "captivity to the law of sin". No Christian is sold under sin or brought into captivity to the law of sin, Paul said a Christian has been set free from the law of sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Perhaps you were not familiar with this scripture? No Christian is sold under sin or brought into captivity of the law of sin.

So, Paul DID NOT say a Christian is weak and cannot live right. But maybe that is what they taught you in your Reformed church?

I hope not, because that would be complete error, and you don't want to believe or teach error do you?

John stated that one of our enemies is the flesh, paul stated that even he had struggles to overcome the flesh and its desires/wants UNTIL He saw that it was not by paul might nor his power, but by the Spirit of the Lord!

MANY saved live weak andineffectual here, in bondgae, they need to discover that truth!

 

[Winman]

John stated that one of our enemies is the flesh, paul stated that even he had struggles to overcome the flesh and its desires/wants UNTIL He saw that it was not by paul might nor his power, but by the Spirit of the Lord!

MANY saved live weak andineffectual here, in bondgae, they need to discover that truth!

Oh yes, the flesh lusts against the Spirit, that is true. But that is not what you said, you said;

You mean that Paul lied to us when he stated that while even a saved person, was weak and in his flesh could not live as he ought for jesus?

Exactly where did Paul say this? Can you give me the book chapter, and verse so I can read it for myself please?

 

[Reformed]

Reformed, would you say that God's call to follow Christ is his call to eternal life, or is there a call to eternal life, then another call to follow Christ? I think this rabbit trail is the result of a misunderstanding of my perspective regarding John 6, but I do think we should all be able to agree that God's call to follow Christ is His call to salvation.

Skan, I think we have a non-normative situation in the Gospels. Was Judas truly called to be a disciple? Well, both of us (unless I misunderstand your position) agree in the perseverance of the saints -- that a true child of God cannot lose his salvation. Only saints can be true disciples of Christ. If that is true then it was never God's intention for Judas to be a true disciple, c.f. 1 John 2:19. God intended all along for Judas to be the "son of perdition". Luke 22:3 tells us that, "Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot". This is not descriptive of a believer.

So, yes, God's call to follow Christ (as a disciple) is unto salvation. It is my opinion that God never called Judas to be a true, genuine disciple.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh yes, the flesh lusts against the Spirit, that is true. But that is not what you said, you said;



Exactly where did Paul say this? Can you give me the book chapter, and verse so I can read it for myself please?

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Romans 7:14-19 Niv

Paul stating what he lived and ONLY found freedom from that burden when he realized :
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 6:11-14nasb

We chosse to obey the flesh or the Spirit, sinners can only choose their flesh!

 

[Winman]

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Romans 7:14-19 Niv

Paul stating what he lived and ONLY found freedom from that burden when he realized :
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 6:11-14nasb

We chosse to obey the flesh or the Spirit, sinners can only choose their flesh!

You either cannot read with comprehension, or you have a very short memory, I have already shown you that these scriptures are not speaking of a Christian.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

No Christian is sold under sin, Paul repeatedly tells us that we are no longer slaves or servants of sin, we have been made free of sin.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

A Christian is not sold under sin, Jesus has redeemed us, he has bought us with his blood, we now belong to Jesus and are his servant.

So, Romans 7:14 cannot possibly be speaking of a Christian.

Paul also said he was "brought into captivity of the law of sin" in Romans 7;

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

This cannot possibly be a Christian, because in chapter 8 Paul says the Spirit has made him free from the law of sin;

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

So again, Paul cannot be speaking of a Christian in Romans 7.

So, you need to show me something else, you have not shown me where Paul said a Christian was weak and could not live as he ought to for Jesus.

So please show me that scripture. So far you have not done so.

 

[Yeshua1]

You either cannot read with comprehension, or you have a very short memory, I have already shown you that these scriptures are not speaking of a Christian.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

No Christian is sold under sin, Paul repeatedly tells us that we are no longer slaves or servants of sin, we have been made free of sin.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

A Christian is not sold under sin, Jesus has redeemed us, he has bought us with his blood, we now belong to Jesus and are his servant.

So, Romans 7:14 cannot possibly be speaking of a Christian.

Paul also said he was "brought into captivity of the law of sin" in Romans 7;

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

This cannot possibly be a Christian, because in chapter 8 Paul says the Spirit has made him free from the law of sin;

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

So again, Paul cannot be speaking of a Christian in Romans 7.

So, you need to show me something else, you have not shown me where Paul said a Christian was weak and could not live as he ought to for Jesus.

So please show me that scripture. So far you have not done so.

So you no longer have a sin nature/flesh still in you, no more priniple of sin that paul experienced, nor no need to crucify the flesh daily, your act to keep it under wraps?

 

[Winman]

So you no longer have a sin nature/flesh still in you, no more priniple of sin that paul experienced, nor no need to crucify the flesh daily, your act to keep it under wraps?

You are changing the subject. You said that Paul said Christians are weak and could not live for Jesus as they ought to do. I have asked you several times now to show me this scripture.

If you will show me this scripture I will be glad to answer your questions. I asked first.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, I think we have a non-normative situation in the Gospels. Was Judas truly called to be a disciple? Well, both of us (unless I misunderstand your position) agree in the perseverance of the saints -- that a true child of God cannot lose his salvation. Only saints can be true disciples of Christ. If that is true then it was never God's intention for Judas to be a true disciple, c.f. 1 John 2:19. God intended all along for Judas to be the "son of perdition". Luke 22:3 tells us that, "Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot". This is not descriptive of a believer.

So, yes, God's call to follow Christ (as a disciple) is unto salvation. It is my opinion that God never called Judas to be a true, genuine disciple.

I concur. Thanks

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't know, I just know that your rebuttal is...well...new to me and doesn't make much sense from my perspective. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, but its not clicking. Sorry

The issue has been very very clear and now you are simply stalling, redirecting and changing the subject. It simply proves to me that you are being anything but objective in this debate and this debate is a waste of time as you are neither being honest or straightforward. Now, I realize you are going to take these comments and run with them because that is to your advantage in this little game you are playing but that is fine. I know and God knows what is going on here and that is all that counts.

So our discussion is finished. I will take up the discussion with the unbiased readers that have been following us.

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue has been very very clear and now you are simply stalling, redirecting and changing the subject. It simply proves to me that you are being anything but objective in this debate and this debate is a waste of time as you are neither being honest or straightforward. Now, I realize you are going to take these comments and run with them because that is to your advantage in this little game you are playing but that is fine. I know and God knows what is going on here and that is all that counts.

So our discussion is finished. I will take up the discussion with the unbiased readers that have been following us.

Dear reader, if you have followed this discussion between Skandelon and myself you have seen how he has clearly made an attempt to deny that John 6:39-65 and John 17:2-3 is general truth applicable to those given by the Father to the Son for eternal life and thus individual election to salvation. Instead, he put forth the argument that these passages were primarily concerned with election to the apostolic office and primarily restricted to the apostles and their future mission to the gentiles.

In response, I denied these passages had reference to election to apostolic office because they dealt with coming to Christ for eternal life with absolutely no reference to election to office of any kind. He countered by asserting that calling to salvation and calling to apostolic office or any service were inseparable.

I countered by eight contextual reasons why his position was not tenable but contrary to the context. One primary reason that exposed his last argument that calling to salvation and calling to service were inseparable was the example of Judas. Judas proves that call to apostolic office by the Father and the Son is not tied to salvation as Judas was lost when he was chosen to be an apostle. However, in the context we are debating, NONE ARE LOST who are given by the Father to the Son, and so election to apostolic office cannot possibly be in view as Judas was chosen by the Father to apostolic service as a LOST man. Hence, a direct contradiction to the whole premise upon which Skandelon builds his argument and defense of corporate election.

In addition to this insurmountable problem to his theory is another equally insurmountable problem. The call to initially follow Christ is separated by both time and design from the call to apostolic service. In addition not all called to follow Jesus were called to apostolic office and therefore, it is impossible to PRIMARILY restrict John 6:37-65 or John 17:2-3 to election of a few Jews to the apostolic office inseperable with salvation. Instead being chosen or given to Christ for eternal life (Jn. 17:2-3; 6:37-40) is the primary focus while being chosen to apostolic office is completely separate and not even mentioned in John 6.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ridicule has been the only response by some to repetition of John 6:29-65 while completely avoiding the detailed responses that were included to answer their arguments against my exposition.

1. We have given detailed reasons why "cometh to me" in John 6:29-65cannot possibly be interpreted to mean either PHYSICAL or SPIRITUAL arrival "in Christ" as their interpretations are based upon confusing the definition of faith with repentance and regeneration.

2. We have given detailed reasons why "cometh to me" in John 6:29-65 cannot possibly be interpreted any other way but coming to Christ by faith.

Not one of these detailed reasons were addressed only ridicule empty of substance was the response.


If "cometh to me" refers to the act of coming to Christ by faith then their whole interpretation of this passage is destroyed and they realize that. That would mean that faith in Christ is not something inherent in human nature or ability but is due to being "given" and "drawn" to the Son by the Father.

1. Given by the Father refers to His eternal will of elective purpose - vv. 38-39

2. Drawn by the Father refers to His power in giving the ability to believe - vv. 44-45,64-65.

Arminians must deny that "cometh to me" means come to Christ by faith at all costs or their ship simply sinks.

 

[Winman]

1. Given by the Father refers to His eternal will of elective purpose - vv. 38-39

I would agree with this, however I believe God in his foreknowledge knows those who will believe his word (the truth- 2 The 2:13) and these are the persons he gives to Jesus.

2. Drawn by the Father refers to His power in giving the ability to believe - vv. 44-45,64-65.

No, "drawn" means to attract or entice. I believe God draws sinners by love. When a man hears that God loved him even when he was a sinner and sent his Son Jesus to die for him, a man is naturally drawn to God and Jesus.

And God does not "zap" people to believe, Jhn 6:45 clearly explains that God teaches men, this is how they are enabled to believe. No man can believe what he does not know and has never heard (Rom 10:14). It is the knowledge taught man by God the Father through his scriptures that enables a man to believe.

That said, the man is responsible to both HEAR and LEARN from the Father.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Every man that has "heard" and has "learned" of the Father comes to Jesus. So it is knowledge that enables men to come to Christ. That is what teaching imparts- KNOWLEDGE. The scriptures do not say God zaps men with faith as Biblicist would falsely argue.

As for coming to Christ, I agree it is synonymous with believing on Jesus. It shows that a man who truly believes in Jesus will move toward him.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would agree with this, however I believe God in his foreknowledge knows those who will believe his word (the truth- 2 The 2:13) and these are the persons he gives to Jesus.

.

What you have done is a wonderful work of eisgesis. You departed from the context when it pleased you and woven your repetitive "I believe" into the text where it suited you to reverse and deny what the text actually stated to the reverse.

There are several reasons your interpretation based on prescience cannot be correct.

1. There is not a syllable about the foreknowledge of God found in this text.

2. A prescience interpretation would necessarily reverse the cause and effect relationship found in this text to read "all that cometh to me shall be given me by the Father" as your interpretation demands coming is the cause not the consequence of being given due to foreknowledge.

3. Foreknowledge in regard to God eternal purpose of election to salvation is causative only because it is based upon God's eternal purpose (Rom. 8:28-29) as "according to His purpose" is presented as the basis for foreknowledge in Romans 8:28-29. Because God works "all things according to His purpose" all things are foreknown by God in regard to His salvation purposes. That is, "foreknew" in Romans 8:29 has its basis in "according to His purpose" rather than the reverse as your interpetation demands. In other words God knows in advance BECAUSE HE PURPOSED in advance to choose them to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13). Just as a builder knows in advance where every room, door, light socket is found in a house yet unbuilt because of the BLUE PRINT that purposed where they would be found. God foreknew the elect because He purposed to give them to Christ and purposed to enable them to believe.

No, "drawn" means to attract or entice.

This is simply not true. In every single case where this term is found in scripture "draw" refers to power exerted upon an object that is effectually drawn to the one exerting that power. In this context "cometh" is the consequence of being drawn and it is always effectual as the only ones that do not come to Christ are those never drawn by the Father - Jn. 6:64-65 - whereas "ALL" (Jn. 6:45a) drawn as defined by the prophetic context do come. John 6:64-65 prove that not "all" men without exception are drawn by the Father as Winman asserts. These men were NEVER drawn by the Father and that is the obvious and explicit application of verse 65 to those in verse 64. That little fact completely exposes the fallicy of his entire interpretation of this text and context.

Furthermore, the preceding context has already defined the limitations of who will come to Christ "ALL that the father gives" and in every case it is effectual in coming to Christ (Jn. 6:37-39). NONE OTHERS COME TO CHRIST because none others are given by the Father for that purpose. John 6:44-45 simply defines why "ALL" given to Christ effectually come to Christ because they are drawn whereas those in John 6:64 NEVER WERE DRAWN or "GIVEN" that ability to come to Christ.

I believe God draws sinners by love. When a man hears that God loved him even when he was a sinner and sent his Son Jesus to die for him, a man is naturally drawn to God and Jesus.

That is simply not true as the most famous verse about God's l ove for sinners found in scripture is John 3:16 but Jesus paints a completely different picture in regard to consequences of hearing that message:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

He came unto His own and His own received him not is natural fallen man's response to God's love. The only ones that come to the light are those whom God works in first to change that natural enmity against light:

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

this is how they are enabled to believe.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

You are reversing what these "prophets" taught because they were speaking of the INTERNAL work of writing the Law of God on the heart which they denied was a cooperative effort between man and God but was the sole work of God and was limited to "ALL" the New Covenant people of God (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33-34; Ezek. 36:26-27; Heb. 8, 10' 2 Cor. 4:6-7)

The issue is not that God uses EXTERNAL means to bring the gospel UNTO "all" that are given to the Son (Rom. 10:14) but this text deals with what happens INTERNALLY by the sole work of God that no human participates in or can do but God. What you are attempting to do is to include what these prophets specifically excluded in regard to this internal work by God alone. What you are attempting to do is include all mankind when the prophets excluded all mankind except for the covenant elect. What you are attempting to do is to define drawing only as potential for all mankind when these prophets demanded it was effectual in "all" who were the objects of this work.

Every man that has "heard" and has "learned" of the Father comes to Jesus. So it is knowledge that enables men to come to Christ. That is what teaching imparts- KNOWLEDGE. The scriptures do not say God zaps men with faith as Biblicist would falsely argue.

First you are ignorning the prophetic context of this quotation by Christ. Second, you are ignoring that the prophetic quotation asserts "ALL" not SOME are taught by God as you interpret it. Third, you are making Christ's interpretation of the text conflict directly with the assertion of the text. The "ALL" of the prophetic quotation is the "every man" of Christ's interpretation as they are both the same Greek term. Fourth you are making an optional distinction in Christ's interpretation not supported by the prophetic quotation when Christ is merely defining what "taught" in regard to "ALL" who are thus taught by God. No man is "taught" by God who merely has "heard" but has not learned and no man that has "learned" has failed to have "heard."

In every way you are practicing eisgeis and turning this text and its context upside down and completley opposite to what it clearly teaches in the prophetic contexts from which it is drawn and in this context which clearly and explicitly denies that Christ draws "all' men without exception as those in John 6:64 are explicitly said to have NEVER been drawn by the Father in John 6:65 and no amount of eisgesis can deny that those in verse 64 were drawn by the Father. It is self-evident that verse 65 is given as the explanation by Christ why those in verse 64 "FROM THE BEGINNING" never believed, thus never came to Christ in the sense that the previous context defined coming to Christ.

As for coming to Christ, I agree it is synonymous with believing on Jesus.

With that admission you have totally destroyed all of your former eisgetical commentary and your Arminianism completely as "comng to Christ" is completely RESTRICTED in John 6:37-39 to onlythose "given" by the Father to Christ and being given is the condition for coming not coming as the condition for being given as your "foreknowledge" theory demands.

 

[The Biblicist]

There are several reasons your interpretation based on prescience cannot be correct.

1. There is not a syllable about the foreknowledge of God found in this text.

2. A prescience interpretation would necessarily reverse the cause and effect relationship found in this text to read "all that cometh to me shall be given me by the Father" as your interpretation demands coming is the cause not the consequence of being given due to foreknowledge.

3. Foreknowledge in regard to God eternal purpose of election to salvation is consequential but never causative (Rom. 8:28-29) as "according to His purpose" is presented as causative in relationship with "foreknew".




This is simply not true. In every single case where this term is found in scripture "draw" refers to power exerted upon an object that is effectually drawn to the one exerting that power. In this context "cometh" is the consequence of being drawn and it is effectual as only those never drawn by the Father fail to come - Jn. 6:64-65 - whereas "ALL" (Jn. 6:45a) drawn as defined by the prophetic context do come.

Furthermore, the preceding context has already defined the limitations of who will come to Christ "ALL that the father gives" and in every case it is effectual in coming to Christ (Jn. 6:37-39). NONE OTHERS COME TO CHRIST because none others are given by the Father for that purpose. John 6:44-45 simply defines why "ALL" given to Christ effectually come to Christ because they are drawn whereas those in John 6:64 NEVER WERE DRAWN or "GIVEN" that ability to come to Christ.




That is simply not true as the most famous verse about God's l ove for sinners found in scripture is John 3:16 but Jesus paints a completely different picture in regard to consequences of hearing that message:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

He came unto His own and His own received him not is natural fallen man's response to God's love. The only ones that come to the light are those whom God works in first to change that natural enmity against light:

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.





You are reversing what these "prophets" taught because they were speaking of the INTERNAL work of writing the Law of God on the heart which they denied was a cooperative effort between man and God but was the sole work of God and was limited to "ALL" the New Covenant people of God (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33-34; Ezek. 36:26-27; Heb. 8, 10' 2 Cor. 4:6-7)

The issue is not that God uses EXTERNAL means to bring the gospel UNTO "all" that are given to the Son (Rom. 10:14) but this text deals with what happens INTERNALLY by the sole work of God that no human participates in or can do but God. What you are attempting to do is to include what these prophets specifically excluded in regard to this internal work by God alone. What you are attempting to do is include all mankind when the prophets excluded all mankind except for the covenant elect. What you are attempting to do is drawing only potential when these prophets demanded it was effectual in "all" who were the objects of this work.






First you are ignorning the prophetic context of this quotation by Christ. Second, you are ignoring that the prophetic quotation asserts "ALL" not SOME are taught by God as you interpret it. Third, you are making Christ's interpretation of the text conflict directly with the assertion of the text. The "ALL" of the prophetic quotation is the "every man" of Christ's interpretation as they are both the same Greek term. Fourth you are making an optional distinction in Christ's interpretation not supported by the prophetic quotation when Christ is merely defining what "taught" in regard to "ALL" who are thus taught by God. No man is "taught" by God who merely has "heard" but has not learned and no man that has "learned" has failed to have "heard."

In every way you are practicing eisgeis and turning this text and its context upside down and completley opposite to what it clearly teaches in the prophetic contexts from which it is drawn and in this context which clearly and explicitly denies that Christ draws "all' men without exception as those in John 6:64 are explicitly said to have NEVER been drawn by the Father in John 6:65 and no amount of eisgesis can overturn that contextual clear application of John 6:44 to those in verse 64.






With that admission you have totally destroyed all of your former eisgetical commentary and your Arminianism completely as "comng to Christ" is completely RESTRICTED in John 6:37-39 to onlythose "given" by the Father to Christ and being given is the condition for coming not coming as the condition for being given as your "foreknowledge" theory demands.

What Winman and others of his opinion miss is that external means used by God are for external purposes. They bring the gospel UNTO the elect but they cannot change the insides of a person. Change on the inside is described as supernatural and restricted to God alone. Winman wants to humanize every aspect of salvation and makes fun of the supernatural aspect by saying "zap" someone. HOwever, that is precisely what occurs INTERNALLY when God saves anyone. There is a SUPERNATURAL act of God peformed inside a sinner that nothing external can acheive. The scriptures explicitly define that internal supernatural work under many terms "created" (Eph. 2:10a) writing the law upon the heart (2 Cor. 3:3; Ezek. 36:26-27; Jer. 31:34) and in each case these texts deny all external means and men are responsible for that internal "zap" or supernatural work:

1. Ephes 2:8-9 - "not of ourselves....not of works"
2. Jer. 31:34 - "no man shall teach"
3. Mt. 16:17 - "flesh and blood hath not revealed it"
4. 2 Cor. 4:6-7 "God commanded....not of us"

However, my opponents not only ignore these explicit exclusions of external means and men to achieve this supernatural internal operation by God alone but explicitly deny and reverse these texts to include what they explicitly exclude.

 

[Skandelon]

The issue has been very very clear and now you are simply stalling, redirecting and changing the subject. It simply proves to me that you are being anything but objective in this debate and this debate is a waste of time as you are neither being honest or straightforward. Now, I realize you are going to take these comments and run with them because that is to your advantage in this little game you are playing but that is fine. I know and God knows what is going on here and that is all that counts.

So our discussion is finished. I will take up the discussion with the unbiased readers that have been following us.

Brother, the view I'm espousing is a very well established, orthodox view of scripture. It is held by more biblical scholars than hold to the Calvinistic interpretation. I know, I know, that doesn't establish validity as the majority can be mistaken, but the reason I point it out is because you speak of me and this interpretation as if I'm making it up as I go or something. You accuse me of dishonesty and question my character simply because I point out our differences and what I feel is you misunderstanding about what I'm attempting to argue. That isn't necessary.

It is okay to disagree with others without being disagreeable. We can be cordial and kind and still interpret these things differently. In fact, I dare say that if your view is correct then I'm only doing what God has decreed for me to do, right?

You are a very systemized thinker, it seems from your commentary, and I can relate to that as I used to take that approach. The down side to that approach is that it is difficult to understand those who are not speaking from within your system's presumptions about a particular text. I think that is what is happening with us. We are talking past each other because you can't see the text from my perspective because you've never really understood it. I used to hold your perspective so I get where you are coming from. I see what you are seeing and I remember when I held to that view it was difficult for me to see things from another perspective. That is not a insult, just an observation based on some of the things you are still arguing regarding our perspective. It just doesn't appear that you are understanding what I'm attempting to explain. Maybe I'm not good at explaining it, but there are plenty of commentaries out there which do a better job.

I wish you all the best....blessings!

 

[Skandelon]

Instead, he put forth the argument that these passages were primarily concerned with election to the apostolic office and primarily restricted to the apostles and their future mission to the gentiles.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my last post. You tend to think so systematically that you have already systematized my view, in a way.

I was not, and am not attempting to argue that John 6 is primarily concerned with election ot the apostolic office, nor that its restricted to apostles and their future mission to the gentiles. That is such a far cry from what I'm attempting to demonstrate about this approach.

I'm attempting to highlight the HISTORICAL CONTEXT, which involves:

1. Christ being here on earth in the flesh (a) to train a preselected few from Israel as apostles to start his Church and (b) to accomplish redemption on the cross.

2. Israel is being hardened/blinded/cut off from the truth of Christ's teachings, so as to accomplish His redemptive purposes. (They won't kill a man they believe in thus they are being blinded from the truth by use of parables, spirit of stupor, cutting off, etc.)

Understanding those FACTS (not opinions, but established facts of scripture), is important when attempting to interpret the words of Christ, who is addressing a Jewish audience along with his Jewish apostles while still here in the flesh.

That doesn't mean it is not applicable to us all, or that the truth is limited to only Jews. It simply helps to understand the context and thus the intent of why he might say some are enabled to come and others are not.

That being said, I've not once EVER denied that for ANY man at ANY time and of ANY nationality to come to Christ and be saved, he first must be DRAWN. So, to accuse me of believing that this truth only applies to apostles or to some Jews, or whatever, is a gross misrepresentation of what I'm attempting to explain about the historical context and thus the intent of the author from our perspective on this passage. If you understood our view, you would know that, and the fact that you continue to say things like this shows that you have not yet grasped our perspective. Maybe that is my fault, or the fault of trying to unpack this stuff on a forum where you are engaging with many different perspectives and approaches which can confuse the issues. I don't know, but there is no reason to get personal or to presume a negative intent about those who may disagree.