Featured The Problem with Arminian Free Willism

The human heart is the problem. It is in an immutalbe state of unbeleif and resistance to God (Rom. 8:7-8). Notice that Paul says that those "in the flesh" cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). Hence, as long as they exist "in the flesh" they cannot please God due to immutability of their heart's rebellion agaist God. This "old" nature never changes even after new birth as it continues in an immutable state of sin and resistance (Rom. 7:18-20).

The only other alternative he offers in contrast to those "in the flesh" are those "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:9). One cannot be "in the Spirit" without regeneration as that brings a person into spiritual UNION with God (Rom. 8:9).

The reason God must give a "new" heart is because faith is the expression of the heart "for with the heart man believeth" (Rom. 10:8). God gives a believing heart. The giving of a "new" heart is a creative work of God "in Christ" (Eph. 2:10a). It is this "new" creature that expresses faith. That is why conversion is the fruit of regeneration not vice versa.

 

You are jerking the text out of its context.

1. Gentiles considered unclean and outside the realm of salvation by Jews are seeking Jesus in this context.

2. The Greek text has the word "all" without the definite article and that construction means "all classes/kinds" inclusive of Gentiles and Jews. Thus inclusive of the "other sheep" that are not in the Jewish fold.

3. Jesus has already given an extensive instruction on the word "all" in regard to those being given and drawn to Christ by the Father in John 6:36-45,64-65 and "ALL" given are "ALL" that come and take note of the phrase "and will raise him up at the last day" ties verses 39,40,44, and 54 together referring to the same "ALL" first introduced in verse 39. This sinks your ship completely and uttterly and totally.

You can't deal with these contextual factors. You have never dealt with these contextual factors. You best bet is to continue to ignore these contextual factors as that is the only way you can keep on perverting John 12:32.

 

That is also my position (1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14)

In both texs the Greek term translated "all" is found in the anarthous construction and therefore it means "all kinds/classes" not merely Jews. Thus all without distinction of kind rather than all without exception.

You simply ignore the clear contextual factors of John 6:36-45. Notice that the phrase that concludes verse 44 "and shall raise him up at the last day" is first used in this context in verse 39 tying verse 44 with "all" those in verses 37-39. He is referring to "ALL" those given to Christ by the Father and He gives them by drawing them to Christ (vv. 39, 44) as the flip side of coming to Christ is being drawn by the Father and yet "ALL" who come to the son NONE SHALL BE LOST (v. 39). They are the same persons and "ALL" given are "ALL" who come (vv. 37-39) and these "ALL" are those "raised up at the last day" to resurrection of life because "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" "OF ALL" the Father gave to him.

So only by jerking verses out of context, ignoring contextual factors, thus perverting the scriptures are you able to play this little game of deceit.

 

Anyone could defend anything by your haphazard jumping from proof text to proof text without proper regard for the immediate context for each proof text. This is the classic cult type of hermeutical defense.

you erect straw men arguments and then burn them - how convenient. I never stated anything like these arguments.

1. The term "all" has already been contextually defined previously in a fuller context in John 6:37-44 and nothing you can say can change that.

2. John 6:44 is contextually identified and connected with the "all" of John 6:39 by the last phrase in verse 44 and nothing you can say will change that.

3. John 6:44 is a contextual EXPLANATORY response to the rejection by those in verses 41-43 who are "murmuring" against him. They reject him because they were not drawn to him by the Father is the explanation and nothing you can say will change that contexual based fact.

Jumping out of one context into another context. The word "world" to a Jew, and he was talking to a Jewish scholar in John 3 and to Jews in John 16, can refer to "mankind" in general or all races outside of Judaism in particular. It is rarely used to mean every human being ever born and ever will be born.

Another straw man argument. The word "all" in the anarthous construct can mean all classes, all kinds, all without distinction. It is rarely used to mean all without exception and in this context cannot mean "all without exception" as His doctrine on drawing has been fully spelled out previously in John 6 and it excluded those in John 6:36 and those in John 6:41-43. It is the same "ALL" in verses 37-39 of which those in verse 36 and verse 41-43 are no part of as Jesus identifies them who will not come to him. Coming is the consequence of being given (Jn. 6:37) and being drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:44) and ALL given come and NONE that come shall be lost (v. 39).

Any knowledable Greek student knows fully well that the anarthous construct of "pas" can mean "all classes/kinds." You are simply advertising your own ignorance.

Why omit verse 41????? Because it would prove that verse 44 is His explanation to why they are murmurring against him and refusing to COME TO HIM! So simple, so clear that it takes willful refusal to acknowledge the obvious sense of the passage.





[

He is not talking to lost people. He is addressing the WHOLE CHURCH as their attitude and actions had shut him outside of the fellowship of this church. This illustrates perfectly how messed up your handling of scripture is.

 

For example???? What eisegetical inserts did I make with verses 37-39 in regard to the word "all"???? What eisgetical inserts did I make with the connective phrase first introduced in verse 39 with the "all" which also links verse 44 to the very same ones in verse 39??????? Please elaborate!

So you think by merely making this assertion that assertion overthrows the contextual based arguments I presented?????????? Wow! Your method of exegesis is the only way to go, as you don't have to prove anything, disprove anything but just assert, assert and assert!

He did say "OF ALL" the father gave NONE would fail to come and "OF ALL" I SHALL LOSE NOTHING! That pretty well restricts the "all" to less than every human being ever born unless you believe in UNIVERSAL salvation??????

Your reasoning falls apart as NONE "of all" given to the Son by the Father fail to "come" to Christ (v. 37)and NONE "of all" given to the Son shall be lost - v. 39. So again you are forced to teach universal salvation or admit the contextual use of "all" in verse 37-39 is limited to only those given by the Father to the Son.

 

This is an exercise of futility!

 

There is no argument to lose. When the very text states explicitly that Jesus is addressing His church in Revelation 3, but Bob keeps on denying it and insisting He is addressing the lost in spite of incontrovertable evidence He is addressing "the churches" and those who have "ears to hear" it is an exercise of futility to debate with anyone that blind.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


He does not "rebuke and chasten" lost people only His children. This letter is not addressed to lost people, but his church at Laodicea. He is not talking about salvation but restoring broken fellowship with saved people who he is rebuking and chastening. For Pete's sake, it is so clear that one has to be willuflly blind to keep on repeating the same falsehood over and over and over again and it is the same with his other proof texts JERKED out of context.

 

The hills are not provided by scripture but by your abuse of scripture. You repeat the same THOROUGHLY DISPROVEN interpretations over and over again. It does not take too much common sense to see that revelation 3:19-20 is not addressed to lost people but to saved church members as the context is crystal clear.

Likewise, with John 6:37-39! It does not take much common sense to see that the "ALL" of this context is restricted to ONLY those the Father gave Christ and NONE else. He clearly states that "ALL" given do actually come to Christ (v. 37). That is undeniable if honesty is still a virtue. He clearly states that "OF ALL" which are given "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING." Can't get it clearer than this and yet you keep on rejecting what is clearly stated. So it is an exercise of fultility to discuss ANYTHING with a person who won't acknowledge black and white. 100% who are given do come (v. 37) and 100% "of all" given NONE SHALL BE LOST - v. 39.

Hence, Christ has defined his meaning of "all" when it 5comes to those given and those COMING to Christ. Giving is the cause of coming. Hence, giving and drawing are inseparble as drawing is the cause of coming in verse 44. In verse 65 Christ repeats verse 44 and actually replaces "draw" with "give"!!! This is incontrovertible evidenc you are wrong. However, will you deal with the specifics??? No! YOu will play the part of a parrot and simply ignore the contextual based evidence and repeat your absolute perverted nonsense about this text. Hence, it is futile to reason with such a mind.