Featured The "him" of John 6:44

1) Hermeneutics 101 teaches us to use scripture to interpret scripture.

2) Chapter 12 of the same book would be considered the same context considering that its the same audience, topic and speaker.

3) One might wonder why you are not willing to address the CLEARLY stated REASON that his audience wasn't able to believe..does it just not fit your presumptions so you choose to ignore it on the basis that it not in the same chapter? Why not explain why the context/topic/speaker is different and thus wouldn't apply to the question at hand?

4) I am fine with addressing the context of Chapter 6 alone, if indeed you are willing to acknowledge that at this time in history Israel was uniquely HARDENED in their unbelief. Israel was being 'cut off' while the Gentiles were being 'grafted in' (Rm 11; Acts 28:28). That means that God is blinding the eyes of the Jews (with the exception of a few), in order to bring in the Gentiles. I'd say that is a pretty important historical piece of information to have when interpreting Jesus' words in John 6, don't you?

Actually, I would just like to discuss this passage in its OWN HISTORICAL context, which is better understood in the light of all scripture...not just proof texts plucked out to support a particular view point. John 12, Acts 28, Rom. 11, Mark 4, Matt 13, and many other passages speak of the historical context of that day by which God was ACTIVELY blinding the Jews of that day in their rebellion so as to (1) prevent them from coming to faith and (2) to accomplish redemption for the world (Gentiles).

That is important to this discussion and this context, period.

Indeed, thus the warning to all mankind not to allow their hearts to grow hardened as the Jews did while in the wilderness (Heb. 3). A warning that loses all meaning if all men are born "hardened" (i.e. unable to see, hear, understand or believe unless first regenerated).

No, that is not my implication, it is Paul's and Christ's assertion:

"27 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.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"" Acts 28​

Romans 11 is even more blatant about this distinction. And in Mark 4 (Matt 13) Jesus actually says he is speaking in parable to prevent the Jews from coming to faith. Why would he need to do that if they were born totally unable to believe? He did it because he was BLINDING them so as to accomplish redemption on the cross and the grafting in of the Gentiles.

 

Matthew 23:
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[Psalm 118:26]”

47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

1 Thessalonians 2:
3 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. 14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.[Or them fully]


Jesus and Paul tells us why He has hidden the truth from them not just because they were wise in their own eyes so they refused to listen and learn also because of their murdering ways, but praise God.

Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

2 Corinthians 3:
14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

 

Ok, where to start?... Please allow me to focus on a few key points so as to keep this from turning into a novel. If I skip something you really want me to reply to just let me know and I'll be happy to do so, okay?

It doesn't matter if that is or isn't the TOPIC being discussed. It matters because it explains their condition. The "HISTORICAL CONTEXT" is what is happening at that time and it is through the lens of that historical context that we better understand any topic being addressed.

The FACT (non opinion) that Israel is being actively/judicially hardened by God, thus making them 'unable to see, hear, understand and repent' is a significant point in a debate about the natural condition of man from birth. If you can't objectively acknowledge that then we may not be able to move any further in this discussion. Not trying to be mean or dismissive, but this is just a point that can't be fluffed off as not relating to the context at hand.

Changing topics? I don't understand???

Judicial Hardening = God's active blinding people from seeing, hearing or understanding the truth lest they believe it...

Total Inability (Calvinism) = People are born totally unable to see, hear, or understand the truth and thus believe it...

How are these two unrelated exactly?

1. How does one 'grow blind' when they are born totally blind from birth? And why would God blind/hardened people to prevent them from faith if indeed their natural condition from birth is such that they are totally hardened (blind/deaf) already?

2. John 6 is dealing within the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of Israel as a whole not being drawn, but being CUT OFF (see Rm 11). The exception is the 12 (also specifically mentioned in Jn 6). They were being DRAWN/ENABLED to come despite the fact that the rest of Israel was being HARDENED in their rebellion. Why? Was Paul chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship because he deserved it? No. He deserved to be hardened too and used for 'common purposes' just like the rest of his brethren of the flesh. God set apart a remnant from Israel to take the message of redemption to the rest of the world. Its through the means of this appeal for reconciliation that all men are drawn or enabled to come to Christ, yes even the Gentile people.

John 12:15: Fear not, daughter of Zion
John 12:19: The Pharisees therefore said among themselves

John 12:34: The people answered him

"Not the Greeks, but the Jews, and these not such as were friends to Christ, but cavillers at him" - John Gill

John 12:36: These things spake Jesus, and departed;

"from those Jews, as being unworthy of any further conversation with him; and from Jerusalem, very likely to Bethany, whither he frequently retired, especially at night, during the few days before the passover" -John Gill

I quote from a known Calvinistic scholar to prove my point. I know if no Commentary that teaches that Jesus is speaking of Gentiles when quoting from Isaiah about the hardening of Israel in John 12:39-41. Can you produce even one?

Interesting you say that considering that John 12 actually uses the word 'believe' and John 6 doesn't. Both have doctrinal significance, which is best understood in the correct historical context.

Can you explain the differing stages starting with TOTAL INABILITY from birth because Paul indicates that had they not 'become hardened' they might 'see, hear, understand and turn.' (Acts 28) But your dogma suggests that would never be possible for any one due to their inborn condition. Who is right?

Choice? Really? They had more than one option? Did they inherit that depraved nature (with its preset "choices") by accident or did God curse them with it due to the Fall? I'm fine with Adam's choice being OUR choice, but you can't deny that it was God's choice to punish all mankind by making them unable to respond willingly to his appeal for reconciliation (Total Inability). It's not as if God was caught by surprise by that condition...he actually had to be the one who chose to punish man with that curse, right?

And they cannot will to believe because God cursed all man from birth due to the Fall, right? So, don't you have God deciding to make all mankind unable to willingly respond to His own appeal to be reconciled and then holding men RESPONSIBLE for their response to that appeal? How does one hold someone one responsible for something they are unable to respond to?

I'll pick up your last point in a new post since this is getting long...

 

But here is the difference that separates us:

You have Christ withholding truth for the purpose of condemnation, I have Christ withholding truth temporarily for the purpose of redemption and mercy.

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Rm 11:32

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:16-17

Even in hardening the Jews His divine purpose is redemption of the JEW, as Paul clearly explains in Romans 11, "13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them."

The same people Paul speaks of as being cut off, rejected, and hardened in Romans 9 are the same people he hopes to provoke to envy and save in chapter 12. He expects them to be able to 'leave their unbelief and be grafted back in.' How can that be a non-elect reprobate of the Calvinistic system? How can the hardened non-elect ones be 'grafted back in' or 'provoked to envy and saved?'

Context...

Paul is made from the same lump (Israel) as another random Pharisee who is being hardened, right? Paul is chosen for the noble purpose of being an apostle, while the fellow Pharisee who stood next to him while stoning Stephen remains hardened in this rebellion, right? The Pharisee cried out 'crucify him' and was used for a 'common purpose,' not a noble one like Paul. God has every right to do this.

KEY QUESTION: Does this mean however that the Pharisee who was hardened in his rebellion and used for the common purpose of crying out 'crucify him' is destined from birth to condemnation and without any hope of reconciliation? I'll allow Paul to answer that question for you:

"Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. ​

Explain how those so call non-elect, hardened reprobates that God doesn't chose for salvation can be 'grafted in' if they 'do not persist in unbelief?' How can they be provoked to envy and saved? And what does provoking them even matter if the WILL must be regenerated?

 

In my experience the strongest points of one's arguments are not reflected in what his 'opponent' addresses but in what he ignores....

Here are some points from my last post I'd like you to address, if you will:

The FACT (non opinion) that Israel is being actively/judicially hardened by God, thus making them 'unable to see, hear, understand and repent' is a significant point in a debate about the natural condition of man from birth...(and thus the means by which God enables them to respond)
-----------
Changing topics? I don't understand???

Judicial Hardening = God's active blinding people from seeing, hearing or understanding the truth lest they believe it...

Total Inability (Calvinism) = People are born totally unable to see, hear, or understand the truth and thus believe it...

How are these two unrelated exactly?​

1. How does one 'grow blind' when they are born totally blind from birth? And why would God blind/hardened people to prevent them from faith if indeed their natural condition from birth is such that they are totally hardened (blind/deaf) already?

2. John 6 is dealing within the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of Israel as a whole not being drawn, but being CUT OFF (see Rm 11). The exception is the 12 (also specifically mentioned in Jn 6). They were being DRAWN/ENABLED to come despite the fact that the rest of Israel was being HARDENED in their rebellion. Why? Was Paul chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship because he deserved it? No. He deserved to be hardened too and used for 'common purposes' just like the rest of his brethren of the flesh. God set apart a remnant from Israel to take the message of redemption to the rest of the world. Its through the means of this appeal for reconciliation that all men are drawn or enabled to come to Christ, yes even the Gentile people.​

"26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 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.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!""

Then why does Paul draw this stark distinction in the conditions of these peoples?

Actually, that is the heart of this debate. You don't want to debate our view of John 6, you want to debate YOUR view and given presumptions of John 6 while dismissing ours out of hand. That is not debate, that is diatribe.

 

This is the problem. You want to debate John 6 without dealing with what WE BELIEVE about John 6, which really means you don't want a debate...

I see no reason to start a new thread when everything I have presented is intricately related to John 6 and the debate regarding the nature of man and the means God employees to enable response. To do so would be admitting otherwise and I refuse...with all due respect.

 

To bad I can't address your hermeneutical error as apparently that would be off topic.

1. All given to come to Christ, while here in flesh, is in reference to the twelve (later specified in that very text).

2. Israel is being hardened with exception of this this 'remnant' of Israel (the twelve) set apart for the noble purpose of bringing the the gospel appeal for reconciliation to the rest of the world. That means some of his audience is being cut off, not drawn, not enabled to come, while some are (the twelve).

3. The gospel is the powerful means God uses to "enable" men to come to faith and that isn't sent to all the world until AFTER he is raised up and has accomplished redemption on the cross. Until then these people are being blinded from the truth... (i.e. not drawn or enabled to come)

How these points are 'off topic' and unrelated to the discussion at hand is BEYOND ME.

 

Yet you deem OUR VIEW of that immediate context as 'off topic' proving that you don't want a debate on the subject...which is fine. Just say so...or write a book instead of posting in a debate forum... :smilewinkgrin:

 

Hi Skan, why has this thread not been moved to the CA forum. Biblicist made the same bogus claim over there, and then reposts the same point as a thread starter over here. So the thread is off topic, and spam.

Yes, the context demands that the second "him" refers to the one who comes to Me. It is inescapable. Thus an appeal to Greek grammar and as pointed out by Greektim, a bogus appeal.

You can pretty much take to the bank if Iconoclast, or Luke or Biblicist open a thread, they are putting forth a view which supports Calvinism.

So what is the point of having a forum for these threads if the Moderators do not move the rule breaking threads?