The unfair Jesus

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by npetreley, Aug 6, 2004.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    From John 5...

    1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. 5 Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?"
    7 The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me."
    8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your bed and walk." 9 And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked.


    Does anyone notice anything odd about this particular healing?

    1. The man does not ask to be healed by Jesus.

    2. When asked if he wanted to be made well, he responded as to why it was difficult to get into the pool. He did not understand that Jesus was asking him if he wanted His supernatural healing.

    3. The scripture says nothing about the man's faith in the ability of Jesus to heal him. Indeed, the following verses reveal that the sick man didn't even know who it was who healed him.

    4. Scripture says, In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. Yet Jesus singled out this particular man and healed him. If there is any clue as to why Jesus chose this one man, it is because he suffered for a long time. But it is clear that Jesus chose him as the object of His mercy. The sick man willed nothing whatsoever in order to be chosen.

    Was it "unfair" or wrong for Jesus to choose to have mercy on this one individual, and not all of the multitude of others waiting to get into the pool? Was Jesus obligated by His nature to at least offer healing to everyone else at the pool?
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you're reading things into the account that weren't intended by John the Gospel writer.
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like what?
     
  4. Skandelon

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

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope and Nope. That was easy. [​IMG]
     
  5. Me2

    Me2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    the focus here is not the supply of jesus nor his will to give.

    it is a matter of distinguishing the difference of man gaining from greed overagainst man asking out of helpless need.

    as always with God. the battle between spirit and flesh is that of man gaining from greed as opposed to man desiring out of helpless need.

    Jesus gave freely to the man in helpless need.

    as he does in the election of grace. the example is those asking out of helpless need overagainst those who try to take what they think they deserve without being in helpless need (death).

    and it is only one example of many used to teach this specific focal point.

    Me2
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Depends.

    Did Jesus ever say "God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten son that WHOEVER wants to be immediately healed just has to raise take up their bed and walk"???

    No?

    Did God ever say "I am not willing that ANY should be sick but that ALL should be immediately healed therefore I am sitting here waiting for someone to ask"????

    No?

    Did God ever say "I DRAW ALL mankind to ask to be healed because I want to immediately heal all who ask"???

    No?

    Did God ever say "BEHOLD I stand at the door and knock -- if ANYONE wants to be immediately healed they just have to open the door because I want to heal ANYONE who opens the door".

    No?

    Well then .. it was NOT "unfair" or "unjust" for Jesus to heal -- just one.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously you're not of the prosperity Gospel persuasion. ;)

    I will argue in a moment that Jesus never promised salvation to all, either. But that isn't the pivotal issue upon which my question rests.

    Jesus picked out a person to heal. That person did not in ask Jesus to heal him. That person was not aware of who Jesus was. That person did not in any way exercise his will to receive that healing. Yet Jesus singled him out and healed him without offering healing to any others there.

    Jesus COULD have healed EVERYONE there. But He chose not to. Is that unfair? No. Does Jesus not have the right to show mercy to whomever He wishes to show mercy? Yes, He does.

    Why, therefore, does anyone think it would be unjust for God to save whomever He will according to His good pleasure and ONLY according to His good pleasure?

    Neither did he say that whoever wants to believe of his own free will will be saved. He said whoever believes will not perish. He did not say anything about why they would believe, whether they chose to believe or they were chosen to believe.

    Neither did He say that he would draw all mankind to be saved.

    Neither did He say that He stands at the door and knocks, and anyone who wants to hear of his own free will, and then decides of his own free will to open the door will be saved.

    Neither did He say that He is not willing that any person, without exception, would perish - because if that was His will, no one would perish. What he said was that He is not willing that any [of whom?] perish. The "any of whom" is understood from context to be the elect.
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Quite to the contrary -- it is the ENTIRE point.

    Christ chose 12 disciples and apostles -- not a billion and 12 -- but we were not PROMISED that we can all live 2000 years ago and be in the inner circle all we have to do is accept - so it is fair.

    Christ took Enoch, Elijah and Moses to heaven in the OT - but He did not PROMISE that He is offering to all the opportunity to go to heaven without dying BEFORE the Rev 20 resurrection (the first resurrection)-- so the fact that He selects some and not others is fine.

    The problem your argument has is that He DOES make these promises (as I point out above) for salvation.

    The inner circle of 12 and the inner circle of 3 are NOT given in the form of the promises of salvation.

    Translation like Enoch and Elijah is NOT given in the form of the promises of salvation.

    There are so many examples of this - how can you miss it?

    In Christ,


    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    IF you have "I WILL DRAW ALL MANKIND" arguments for healing and translation and bodily assumption into heaven -- please show them.

    Otherwise we have a CLEAR case of expansive promise given in ONE case (salvation and drawing to God) and in NONE of the others that you suggest.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I have shown elsewhere, you have added "mankind". It is not in the text. Therefore you are challenging the point with a false premise.
     
  11. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Npetreley;
    How do you know that He didn't heal the others as well. It's clear to me that the New testament isn't near long enough to account for the acts of Jesus for three long years. I'm sure the disciples didn't write about every soul that He healed, every word He said. I wish they had but they didn't.
    It's not a matter of Fair but a matter of record that he healed all that asked of Him. If you were sick and about to die and you had seen Jesus come and heal one man don't you think the others would have noticed and asked Him to heal them as well. I know they did with out the scripture saying so.
    Want to know how people respond to things like this when they are desperate?. Go to a Mexican border town and when some child comes up and ask you to buy something from him buy it and watch what happens. You'll have so many around you begging you to buy that it might just scare you a bit.
    May God Bless You;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    As I have shown elsewhere, you have added "mankind". It is not in the text. Therefore you are challenging the point with a false premise. </font>[/QUOTE]I always exclude beetles and fish from that quote - so that it is just MANKIND. Leaving it "unqualified" in the absolute would allow for a much WIDER range of life to include. I think John makes it clear in John 1 -- MANKIND is the scope so no need to worry about those fish.

    In the mean time - the point remains. You make no attempt to "SHOW" anything like the expansive and unqualified promise of the Gospel in the case of healing, or the inner circle of 3 or translation or assumption or ...

    It is clear that these are not on par with the oft-repeated proclamation of God going out to ALL.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not MANKIND. Here are some translations for you...


    Amplified Bible

    John 12:32 And I, if and when I am lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw and attract all men [Gentiles as well as Jews] to Myself.


    NKJV

    John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."


    Darby

    John 12:32 and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me.


    Wycliffe

    John 12:32 And if I shall be enhanced from the earth, I shall draw all things to myself.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It may be that as Paul points out in Romans 2 -- Jews and Gentiles comprise "mankind". But I don't see how the fact that ALL mankind is divided between the class Jews and then non-Jews ... in any way helps Calvinism.

    What Calvinism "needs" is for the text to say "I DRAW ALL the FEW of Matt 7" or it needs to say "I draw A FEW of mankind" or it needs to say "I draw a FEW of the Jews and the Gentiles...

    It says NONE of the above - so what will you do?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does not need to say anything of the sort. If Jesus is saying that He draws both Jews and Gentiles, this is a revelation to the people of the time, who thought Jesus came only for the sake of the Jews. It says nothing about whether Jesus will draw each and every Jew and each and every Gentile.

    Indeed, it cannot possibly mean that Jesus will draw every human being, both every Jew and every Gentile. Why? For the simple fact that the Bible goes on to say that God deliberately blinds some people so that they will be condemned.

    You can provide a number of excuses as to why God would do such a thing to some of the people. You can claim that God drew some of these people but because they did not respond, He blinded them. In some cases that may even be true.

    But that's not what verses like Romans 11:5-7 say.

    Romans 11:5-7
    5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.


    According to what? According to the election of grace. Not according to their response to "drawing".

    7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

    Here, the only difference between the two groups of Jews are that one set is the elect, and the rest were those who were blinded.

    Now, I'm sure you can ADD things to this text to make it fit your soteriology, but anyone can ADD things to text to make the text fit anything they want. And you can re-interpret things like "all" to mean "all anything-you-want-goes-here". It's another thing altogether to take the text at face value.
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I draw "ALL JEWS AND GENTILES" is that what you want it to say. Me too! notice that most translators DO translate it as "I DRAW ALL men" ALL mankind - to Me. The word "Gentile" is not in the quote - but surely we know that ALL MANKIND is comprised of the Jew and the NON Jew..

    Nice to have agreement on something.

    Ok - this one goes in my "Calvinist future Scenario" -- Hope you don't mind being quoted.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. Skandelon

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

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being as objective as possible, I can see this being the case. But you go on to say some things that CANNOT BE TRUE.

    Whoa! Where does it say he blinds them SO THAT THEY WILL BE CONDEMNED. You know better Nick. Come on. Read the text. Hardened does not equal condemnation. Those hardened are not the non-elect of you system. They CAN'T BE.

    Dang skippy its true. Verses like Matt. 22:37 and Romans 10:21 which speaks of God holding out his hands to these people all day etc etc are all showing that God has patiently been revealing truth to these people for centuries in the face of their continued rebellion. More than any other group of people the Jews are without excuse because of the level of their revelation. (Why do you think Jesus says I came to make the blind seeing and the seeing blind?)

    You got this part right. The ONLY difference between the two groups being discussed here is that one group was chosen (elected) and the other was not, they were blinded.

    So you might assume then, as you obviously have, that the elect ones represent the elect of Calvinism, and the rest, those who have been blinded, represent the non-elect of Calvinism and therefore you must conclude that "the rest" will certainly not be saved. READ ON.

    Are "the rest" without hope? Can "the rest" be saved? Can those who have been "blinded," those who the scripture as said have "stumbled," be redeemed afterall?

    According to Paul they can:

    11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
    13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.


    "THE REST" who were blinded CANNOT be the non-elect of the Calvinistic system, because Paul believes they can be saved and that they have not stumbled beyond recovery. God was being merciful to them even in blinding them because they was to provoke them to jealousy so they might see their error and repent. His purpose has always been to save, not to condemn.

    Please show me what I have added. I have only read what the passage says, IN FULL. You would have to ignore the rest of the chapter to come to your conclusion.
     

Share This Page

Loading...