John 6:65 - what is "given"

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Sep 4, 2013.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    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.


    The immediate and overall context proves that it is the believing ability that was not given to those in verse 64.

    1. The words "given unto him" are being used synonomous with "draw" in verse 44.

    Note that Jesus says "Therefore I said unto you" demonstrating he is referring to John 6:44 almost word for word. Hence, "given unto him" is synonmous with "draw" in John 6:44. This is not a quote of John 6:45 but of verse 44 as anyone can easily see.

    2. The words "given unto him" refer to what must be obtained directly from the Father in order to come to Christ which is an expression of believing in Christ.

    The Holy Spirit is the author of the Word of God not the Father.

    The preached gospel comes directly from a human preacher not from the Father


    3. The preached gospel had been given to them but that is what they refused as they were false professors who did not believe in Him.

    4. John 6:65 refers to what they were NOT GIVEN rather than what they were given and refused to beleive.

    5. John 6:65 is explanatory of why those in verse 64 did not believe. Though the word had been given to them it refers to something the Father had not "given unto him" as explanatory of why they did not believe.

    6. From John 6:29 to John 6:65 it is consistently the work of the Father that Jesus attributes as the cause for all who come to Him:

    a. John 6:29 Believing is the work of God
    b. The Father giving those to Christ is the cause of all who come to him - Jn. 6;37-39
    c. The Father drawing is the cause of coming to Christ - Jn. 6:44-45
    d. The Father "given unto him" the cause of coming to Christ - Jn. 6:65

    7. Total inability to come to Christ in faith is not only implied by these necessary acts of the Father in order that such might come to Christ but is clearly stated as the reason in John 6:44.

    8. In all of these cases there are no active verbs but only passive verbs used to define what the Father does that permits all to come to Christ and yet the interpretations of my opponents all require active verbs to defend their interpretations.


    Now my opponents may isolate each one of the eight reasons from the other seven and pick it apart (another cult tactic) but it is utterly impossible to deny all eight of these without complete dishonesty.
     
    #1 The Biblicist, Sep 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
  2. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree, what is given is the word of God.

    Jhn 6:63 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.

    You can't simply leave out verse 63 because it doesn't suit you. :rolleyes:

    Jesus has just told them "his words" are spirit and life, but some believe not, therefore they cannot come, because they do not believe his words. This agrees perfectly with verses 44 and 45;

    Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
    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.

    In verse 44 Jesus said no man can come to him unless he is drawn by the Father, and then in verse 45 he explains exactly how this is done. Every man that has heard and learned from the Father, every man that has been taught by the Father comes to Jesus.

    The Father is the one who provides his word, but it is man who is responsible to listen and learn. This is shown over and over again throughout scripture.

    Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

    Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, but it is the man who has to hear. Jesus told his disciples to "take heed how ye hear" showing it is man's responsibility to hear and learn from the Father. To those that hear, more shall be given, to those who do not hear, even what is given them shall be taken away.

    Pro 2:1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
    2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
    3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
    4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
    5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.


    We have to receive God's word, we have to incline our ear and apply our heart, we have to cry after knowledge and lift up our voice, we have to seek as for silver and hid treasures...

    Only if WE do this shall we understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.

    So, the reason men are unable to come to Jesus is because they do not incline their ear, they do not listen to the Father.

    But those that do hear cannot boast, for if God had not given his word, no man could hear or learn from the Father.
     
    #2 Winman, Sep 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Verse 63 is the overt assertion that the word of God had been given to them but verse 65 is speaking about what had not been given to them and verse 64identifies what they did not have! It was not the word they did not have! It was FAITH they did not have. If you can't see that then you simply refuse to see the obvious!

    These were PROFESSED Disciples and you cannot be a PROFESSED disciple without first hearing and making a confession you believe the Word preached to them by John the Baptist and by Christ. Hence, they had been given the word but they had not been given true faith which only God can give.

    Moreover, the Father is not the one who gives the Word to them, but it is the preacher in connection with the Spirit that gives the word to them. This whole context is not talking about the work of the Son or the work of the Spirit but the work of the Father. You simply have to distort every aspect of the text to make your case. You must demand active verbs by your interpretation when they are all passive in connection with the Father's work. You have to demand the Spirit's work is really being described when it is the Father's work. You have to insist they had not been "given" the word when in fact they had been given the word as they are PROFESSED DISCIPLES. What they had not been "given" is the ability to come to Christ by faith.

    Did the Holy Spirit send the Son down from heaven as the bread of life or the Father - John 6:32-35?
    Did the Holy Spirit give all that comes to the Son or the Father - Jn. 6:37-39?
    Did the Holy Spirit draw all that come to the Son or the Father - Jn. 6:44-45?

    Who is it that is giving the word to them in John 6:63 the Son or the Father? THE SON IS

    Who is it that did not give unto them what they needed to come to the Son in faith in verse 65 - the Son or the Father? The Father!

    You are attributing what the Son did give in verse 63 to be what the Father did not give to them in verse 65 - your interpretation is complete nonsense and a complete contradiction to the context. Indeed, every bit of your interpretation is based wholly upon INFERENCES that you must READ INTO the texts while my interpretation is based wholly upon what the text actually says.
     
    #3 The Biblicist, Sep 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not God's fault they did not have faith, it is the unbeliever's fault. This is shown over and over in scripture.

    Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
    2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
    3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

    Scripture here warns us to beware "lest a promise left us" any person should seem to come short of it. This shows men are responsible as to whether they believe or not.

    Heb 4:1-3 is absolutely nonsensical if Calvinism is true (it isn't). In Calvinism the elect cannot fail to believe, so no warning is meaningful or necessary, and the non elect cannot possibly believe, so any warning to them is completely useless and vain.

    Absurd.
     
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist,

    You apply this passage as if it is addressing mankind's ability to believe in Christ in any and all contexts. That is a textbook example of the fallacy of 'proof texting.' You MUST look at the CONTEXT.

    Who was being granted/given to come to the Incarnate God in flesh? Who was given to learn from him? To be His apostles? To carry the inspired, authoritative truth? John 17, uses this same language of God "giving them to Christ" in direct reference to the 12, just as is referenced in John 6 following your proof text.

    The remnant of Israel, the 12, were GRANTED to come to Christ, while the rest were being HARDENED. That is why the rest were unable to believe, it has NOTHING TO DO with some inborn condition.

    Jesus spells it out very clearly, "For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
    “He has blinded their eyes
    and hardened their hearts,
    so they can neither see with their eyes,
    nor understand with their hearts,
    nor turn—and I would heal them.”

    Israel, as a people, were being blinded/hardened from the truth for a time, with the exception of a few (a remnant) who were granted to learn from Christ directly and thus become the authoritative voices for the future church.

    Context.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    You avoid every contextual fact I placed before you and jump out of the context as you must. Since you give absolutely no contextual based response to my last post the discussion is at an impass of your own making.
     
  7. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I show you scripture that only makes sense if a person is responsible for faith. That you cannot understand how this pertains to the discussion is incredible. A person cannot reason with you.

    If Calvinism was true, there would be no reason for warnings like Hebrews 4:1-3. It is unbelievable that you cannot see this. I cannot fathom how anybody could be so willfully blind.

    You are not a Biblicist, you wrest scripture to attempt to make it agree with Calvinism. It is impossible that you are not aware of this. I think you are completely aware this is what you are doing. There is no reason to speak to you.
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    My exposition was extremely contextually based. Go back and look at it. You will see that I consistently pointed out that it is the work of the Father that is the subject from John 6:29-65:

    1. Who sent Christ as the bread of life to "THE WORLD" (not merely Israel as your interpretation attempts to restrict it):

    33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


    2. Who gives "ALL" who come to Christ - Jn. 6:37-39

    3. Who draws "every man" who comes to Christ - Jn. 6:44-45


    All three of these GENERALLY STATED actions by the Father are not limited to Israel or the twelve but to "ALL" the Father gives to Christ and "every man" that comes to Christ as "NO MAN" can come to Christ not merely no jewish man.

    In John 6:63-65 we have a specific application of the general principles that have been listed. However, you are attempting to take the specific application in John 6:63-65 and make this the LIMITATION of the whole context when in fact that is not true but the very reverse.



    Your fallicy is that you take a specific application from a context of GENERAL APPLICATION in order to repudiate the General application. Then you play the jump and hop game to another context where again Christ sets forth a GENERAL APPLICATION (Jn. 17:2-3) and applies it to a specific application where you again repudate the general application by the specific application.

    Just because the GENERAL PRINCIPLE provided is then applied to a specific application does not deny the GENERAL PRINCIPLE or make the specific application the ONLY application it can be applied to.
     
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    The word "no man can" is universal repudiation of your above words. "No man can" not merely SOME men.

    Your illustration of the 12 verus Israel is a repudiation of "no man can" but an assertion that only "some man can."

    Your assertion that this has nothing to do with some inborn condition equally repudiates the universal assertion by Christ that "no man can."


    First, remember the term is found in the present tense "hardeneth" in both the Old and New Testament in direct relationship to this application. I have presented this two different times and you never responded either time.

    Second, don't confuse the condition of inability with the progressive reaction (hardeneth) of inability toward light as they are not the same. The same sun that "hardeneth" the clay melts the butter and the difference is in the nature of the substance rather than in the sun. The hotter the sun the quicker the butter melts and the clay hardeneth.

    Third, don't confuse recognition of light with reception of light. Satan recognizes truth when he sees it but that does not mean he receives it. The inborn unregenerate state comes into this world totally unexposed to light but as it is exposed to light it "suppresses" it (Rom. 1:18b) and with that the present tense "hardening" reaction begins and continues through the cycle spelled out in Romans 1:18 to verse 31 and in Psalms 1:2a through Psalms 1:2c.

    Fourth, this hardening process cannot be reversed by ("neither indeed can be" - Rom. 8:7) unempowered light but always resisted (Acts 7:51).
     
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Early in the same gospel the writer contradicts you, "He came to his own people, and even they rejected him." (John 1:11)

    He first is brought to the JEW and then the Gentile. Remember it is not until Paul is converted and Peter has his white sheet dream (after Christ is raised) that the gospel is sent to the Gentiles. That is the CONTEXT to which I'm referring. I'm not denying that Christ came to the WORLD, I'm merely pointing to the context of this particular passage and Christ's (the man in flesh) being given to a particular group of people while here on earth for a very specific purpose, while the rest of Israel was being blinded to the truth of who he was...because it was NOT granted to them....YET!

    The elect of the world, you mean? :tongue3:

    Again, no one is denying this...please re-read my argument.

    Indeed. But, by what means? HIS WORD?

    Words which his Israelite audience is being blinded/deafened from seeing or hearing? (See John 12:39, Acts 28:23-28, Mark 4, Matt 13, Rom 11)

    That is NOT what I'm arguing. Please re-read my argument until you understand it and then reply. I'm not trying to get you to agree, but you have to understand a position if you are going to debate it. We both agree that no one can come to Christ unless it is granted to them (which would go for Jews and Gentiles alike), but the point is that in this context the only ones not being 'granted' to respond to the WORD are the Jews because they are being hardened to it....but "the Gentiles, they will listen." (Acts 28:28)
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, not my argument. I don't believe it is only SOME, thus proving you have yet to understand my argument...

    Sorry, but I can't debate with someone who hasn't yet understood my perspective enough so as to engage it.

    One, our last conversation ended because the thread was closed by an Admin, not because I neglected to respond. Two, I'm not sure how this relates to my argument, much less debunks it?

    Oh, I understand YOUR VIEW of that distinction, but I'm disagreeing with that view on the basis that scripture specifically spells out for us the abilities of man's nature had they not had this 'progressive reaction,' yet you continue to hold to your view without any such biblical support.

    "For this people’s heart has become calloused;
    they hardly hear with their ears,
    and they have closed their eyes.
    Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts
    and turn, and I would heal them.
    ’[a]
    28 “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”​

    I actually agree with this, but the difference is that your view puts the REASON for nature of substance being receptive or not squarely on GOD, rather than on the substance (man). In other words, you give the substance the perfect excuse for its response to the sun...because its just that an IT (something being acted upon which has a predetermined reaction), not a "RESPONSE-ABLE" human being able to judge, discern and make choices for which he is held justly "responsible."

    And if man's responses to God's light were as predetermined as the natural properties of these inanimate objects when put in sunlight, then your point would be valid, but to presume such is nothing more than a game of question begging.

    Indeed. Why would I disagree with this?

    The question is whether Satan's rejection of truth is a decision of Satan or of God?

    He suppresses it by CHOICE or by design? And before you answer please define the word choice. Does clay or butter choose its reaction to the light, or did the creator of those properties choose that for them?
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    I understand your argument perfectly but disagree with it. You charge me as follows:


    Your charge is HALF true! I see in this context GENERAL TRUTHS that are applicable to all men at all times. The generic terms and general statements in John 6:37-39, 44-45; 65 demand this GENERAL application.

    However, there are SPECIFIC and IMMEDIATE applications to CERTAIN men also found in this context. I do not confuse one with the other as your intepretation does. I do not use one to deny the other as your intepretation does. I believe both and the context supports both.


    I see both a GENERAL application to all of God's elect and lost man in general. This is born out by the generic language "all....of all...whoseover....no man...him....him... every man.....unto him" found in John 6:37-65.

    However, in this same context there is an IMMEDIATE and SPECIFIC application to the audiance (Jn. 6:36, 41-43, 64, etc.).

    True the nation of Israel as a whole have developed in a hardened condition where they are objects of God's TEMPORAL judgment rather than salvation as a nation. However, God characterizes Israel as an individual elect, and just as all the elect, this hardening continues and brings them under temporal judgment until it is the day of their salvation (Rom. 11:25-28) when God intervenes and supernaturally does save them but there is no salvation for them till that time. Hence, His rejection and judgement considered as an "elect" is only temporal and he will not save them now. However, later he will save them according to his TIMING of election (Rom. 11:28).

    I understand your dispensational application as well as your further additional immediate limited application to SOME Jews in contradistintion to other Jews. I understand you think that John 6:29-65 only applies to a special class of people as a nation then living rather than to men in general. I understand your rational. I simply believe it is a mixture of HALF truth and HALF error which produces a complete false interpretation of the immediate context.

    I can include your dispensational application without denying the GENERAL application to all men past, present or future whether presently unregenerated or generated.

    Your specific error is that you use the immediate and specific application to deny the GENERAL application and its GENERAL language to all men presently living and thus all men in the future as well. Thus creating a "CLASS" of men that you restrict this language to. I get it and it is false!


    Hardening is the characteristic trait of the fallen nature in all men in all times but in different stages and will continue as long as God does not intervene by supernatural power. All unregenerated men will arrive at the same condition of the jewish people as a nation in hardness and rejection and will die and go to hell if they have not been given to come to Christ at a particular point in time due to intervening power of God.

    The salvation of ALL God's elect at all times is due to being given and drawn. Only the precise time they come to Christ is uncertain while their hardening process is certain up until that supernatural intervention by God.

    John 6:44 is UNIVERSAL in its nature regardless of the immediate application as "no man can" rather than just "some" special class of unregenerated men can't due to a special circumstance you have invented by eisgesis of this context.
     
    #12 The Biblicist, Sep 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2013
  13. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    I might just add that it was the selection of Paul (following the stoning of Steven)
    that would be the one to write authoritively for the Church [1 Tim 1:11, 2 Tim 2:7, Rom 11:13].

    Even Peter recognized this:
    And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul
    also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,
    speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
    that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
    2 Peter 3:15-16

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians that are "wrestling" with the Scriptures.
     
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't have time for a lengthy response at the moment but I had to point out the irony of the 'Calvinistic' believer arguing for a universal application based upon the use of these words when in other contexts that don't suit their purposes they are quick to apply them in a much more limited fashion. (i.e. 'all kinds,' 'no elect man,' 'every elect man,' 'unto him who is elect,' 'whosoever he elected.' etc.)

    Allow me to just remind you once again that I affirm the universal application of the truth that God must draw man for man to come. (I restate that because it still appears you didn't understand it) The point is to address those being drawn, verses those being hardened at this time and in this context.

    Paul teaches clearly that Israel is being hardened or cut off (not enabled, not drawn, not granted), while the Gentiles are being grafted in (enabled, drawn, granted). That is kind of significant to understanding the meaning of John 6, yet you seem to want to ignore that context and apply the presumed Calvinistic one (i.e. that God elects to irresistibly save some individuals and not others)...and yes that is presumed, never actually stated or demonstrated in the text.

    More later...have a great day!
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    I imagine you are referring to some other poster. I do not apply the the words "all" and "every man" in John 6:37-44 to all men without exception but only to all men under consideration - the elect.


    For the sake of argument, let us put aside your interpretation of John 6 in regard to your idea of a specific application for the moment.

    You assert that you do believe in the universal application of the truth that God must draw man for man to come to Christ - correct? Thus you see verse 44-45 equally applied to outside this immediate context to all who come to Christ at anytime anywhere. - correct?

    Now, all I am sayng is the same thing in regard to John 6:29, 37-40 as in verses 44-45. Although you may dispute John 6:29, you cannot dispute that John 6:37-40 has reference to "all" outside this context who come to Christ at any time anywhere. That is, the Father must give to Christ any man that comes to Christ just as the Father must draw any man that comes to Christ regardless of this immediate context and its immediate application. Surely, you cannot place limits on John 6:40 to only this immediate context??? And so neither can you on John 6:37-39 anymore than John 6:44-45.

    Hence, the only dispute between us is your understanding of the immediate application is it not? Or do you dispute my general application of above of John 6:37-40 as equal with your general application of John 6:44-45?????
     
  16. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but in the manner that Paul did in Romans 10 when he wrote, "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" (vs 14)

    The gospel is God's means to draw/appeal for men to come and that gospel hasn't even been fulfilled, much less sent to the world yet (in the context of John 6).

    IN THIS HISTORICAL CONTEXT, the truth is being hidden in parables, Jesus is telling his closest followers to keep things quite because it is not yet time and Israel is being hardened/cut off. We know it is not until he accomplishes the redemption of the cross and is raised up that he commissions his disciples (men chosen from Israel) to go into all the world to preach the gospel and make the appeal for all to come and be reconciled (all peoples are drawn, ref Rom 12:32).

    How are the gentiles going to come to the wedding banquet unless they are invited (drawn)? So, yes, in that sense, I agree that all men must be drawn/invited/appeal to come, but that need is fulfilled when Christ sends out the gospel to 'every creature' just a few chapters later.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    I am not concerned about your "spin" on scriptures but about the fact you acknowledge John 6:44-45 is a universal truth regardless of any immediate contextual application or regardless how you define that immediate contextual application. It is a universal application at any time any place in regard to men coming to Christ - agreed?

    Likewise, John 6:37-40 is universal in regard to "all" the father gives to come to Christ at any time and in any place! Agreed?
     
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I could just as easily refer to your interpretation as a 'spin' but what would be the point? To belittle my brother?

    Agreed...no one can come to Christ who isn't invited to come to him...or 'drawn' if you will.

    Actually, as I've explained elsewhere, I believe the terminology employed uniquely by John referring to the father 'giving to Christ' is a direct reference to "the twelve," which are referenced here in John 6 and again in John 17. That is not to say there isn't a since in which God grants salvation first to the Jew and then to the Gentile by sending the message first to one group and then the other....but such teachings can be convoluted when one attempts to apply a hyper-individualized hermeneutic.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    There is no belittling of your PERSON to claim your POSITION is a "spin" and it is. Why is it when anyone repudiates the POSITION of you fella's that you all attempt to make it a PERSONAL issue? Your next statement below demonstrates my point exactly!


    The word "invited" infers joint activity between two parties but John 6:44 and the term "draw" is completely passive in regard to the object. Your "spin" again. The term "no man can" denies it is merely an invitation as the Father does not need to "draw" anyone when you and I can simply invite them if that is the essence of "draw."

    Your whole view is nothing but a "spin" and completely unfaithful to the context and that is my perspective.
     
    #19 The Biblicist, Sep 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2013
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Falsehood #1, here John 6:65, God must allow people to come, thus it is dealing with those who do not come. OTOH, to draw deals with attracting people to come, and thus to allow people to come. So rather than being the same, they are opposites.

    Falsehood #2. God must allow a person, i.e. not harden his or her heart. Here we are looking at Judas being chosen as the betrayer and therefore not allowed to come to faith.

    Falsehood #3

    Falsehood #4. What God did not grant was the opportunity to believe, because Judas had been chosen for another purpose.

    Falsehood #5. John 6:65 is explanatory as to why Judas was not granted the opportunity to believe.

    Falsehood #6a. Believing is the work God requires, see NET footnote.

    Falsehood 6b. John 6:37 as all that the Father gives to Christ arrive in Christ and Christ will not cast them out. Thus the transfer from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son is in view. Coming to faith in not in view because if a person comes to faith, that does not put them "in Christ" only God does that.

    Falsehood 6c. The Father drawing provides the opportunity to come to faith in Christ.

    Falsehood 6d. Good golly miss molly. Now the Calvinist has redefined being given to Christ as giving faith to a lost soul. Twaddle

    Falsehood #7. Total inability of all men at all times is a Calvinist fiction. Jesus taught that men could harden themselves by the practice of sin such that they could not understand the gospel, i.e. Matthew 13. Jesus also taught God could harden men such that they could not come to faith in Christ, i.e. Romans 11 and John 6:65. OTOH, Jesus taught that 3 of the four soils could put their faith in the gospel to various degrees.

    Falsehood #8. So eight out of eight falsehoods to support the falsehoods of Calvinism.
     

Share This Page

Loading...