What every anti-calvinist needs to know

If the apostles are the only ones toward whom to apply the meaning of the words in John chapter 6, then the hope that all Christians cling to is a false hope. What all does Jesus teach about those whom the Father enables to come to Jesus?

John 6:29(NASB)
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

John 6:35(NASB)
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

John 6:39-40(NASB)
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47(NASB)
47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 6:54(NASB)
54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

So, if these words were addressed to the whole crowd but applicable only to the apostles, then only the apostles are commanded to believe in Jesus, only the apostles can come to Jesus and not hunger or thirst, only the apostles have eternal life and will be raised up on the last day, only the apostles believe and have eternal life, only the apostles will eat His flesh and drink His blood and be raised up on the last day.

No, let the reader examine this chapter of the book of John and test the teaching for himself. Are these promises of Jesus and hopes applicable only to a small group of 12 men(minus of course Judas Iscariot) or are these promises and hopes applicable to all of the blood-redeemed people of God?

If one is going to limit the God-granted enablement of coming to Jesus to only the small group of the apostles, then he must also limit the promises and hopes in John chapter 6 to this same small group of apostles. I submit to the reader's judgment that the passage will not bear such an interpretation. I submit to the reader's judgment that the all of the promises and all of the hopes, including the promise that all those whom the Father enables will come to Jesus and be raised up by Jesus on the last day, are applicable to all who hear or read these words of Jesus and not to only the small group of the apostles.

 

Your teaching continues to strain scripture.

Luke 10:1  ¶After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
Luke 10:16  He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Luke 10:17  ¶And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

Jesus was given twelve of whom he set first in the church. But scripture is pretty plain that others were also sent before him.
</font>[/QUOTE]Dallas, I'm not arguing that the 12 were the only disciples, I'm arguing that they were the only apostles. There is a difference.

The apostles were given a unique authority and were inspired to preach and write the scriptures as eye witnesses of Christ's teachings. In John 6 these are the ones that are being discussed as being given to the son by the father just as in John 17.

I don't deny that later Jesus has other disciples, so I'm really not sure where you are going with this. </font>[/QUOTE]Chapter One

Ephesians
I. Apostolic salutation (vs. 1, 2).

vs. 1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
vs. 2: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Within this opening we find the following topics, which when taken rightly would be considered both doctrinal and practically beneficial:
personal Apostleship of Jesus wrought by the will of God
the will of God (we will not endeavor to break these down at this time, but we may find within each valid subheadings such as here we would certainly find: a. the purpose of God)
saints--showing a body called out and assembled, which body is, or would be identifiable, at Ephesus, or at any place where such a body has been called out, organized and assembled. The next clause ...and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: would show this idea of a visible and local body wherever found, where is it possible to find those of who it is said, “the faithful in Christ Jesus:” except that you see a local body of believers, obedient in doctrine, order, and polity to Christ Jesus, that is they have entered upon a mutual covenant to teach, learn and support the doctrine of God, the order of the church and the spiritual as well as when needed the physical benefit of the body of believers. In the capacity of universiality and invisibility it is impossible to recognize those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. This seems as a hard statement for us to take, but we must accept scripture as it is recorded, and the body of Christ, being a light in the world, then how are we to say such a faithful body exists, though invisible, thus being unseen; or that such a faithful body exists, though being universal, thus having as its members those who are walking according to the flesh and refuse to humble themselves beneath the doctrines and ordinances of the Church as delivered through Christ? These things do not go together and the one denies the other, the one makes the other impossible. In other words, apart from: 1) doctrine; 2) order; and 3) polity (being visible membership accepting these things in covenant); you have no Church. If the opposite of the church were true, then it is impossible to function in the world as Christ purposed His Church to function. We see this from Hebrews 1.1-2. These things being said, let us move on to the study of our scripture before us and deal further with this topic as it may arise.
saints which are at Ephesus
the faithful in Christ Jesus
In the first part of vs. 1 we find: a. Jesus Christ; next we note b. Christ Jesus; the two of these are worthy of mention as they note a difference in the relationship of the individual to Jesus; or to Christ. The first note would be found perhaps in our study of “personal apostleship” We see the language of Paul at this point refers to himself, the apostle of Jesus Christ, he later refers to “the saints and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. This is a hint to us of the relationship in the apostolic age; the contrast between those who were apostles and those who were saints and faithful. Thus first we shall deal with the office of an Apostle.

Section I: The Office of an Apostle

1. Is the calling into apostleship different than the calling into belief?
2. What constitutes this difference?
3. Are we still viewed in the mind of God through Christ as Apostles in this date of the Church Age?

An apostle is the Greek word “Apostolos” and signifies One sent forth. We find it first at Matt. 10.2 :

2Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5These twelve Jesus sent forth,...
Here at Mattew 10 we find Jesus calling those twelve desciples; these were not the full number which Christ had following him, there on the contrary always great multitudes thronging about him whereever he would go, but these were the number he called out from the shores of the Jordan River having received the Baptism of John, which was 1) unto repentance; 2) and that they believed upon the one that was to come after John (Matt. 3.1-12). Showing first: Baptism administered upon those seeking membership in the body of the church; and that Baptism of believers only, making that today the same as that which John administered to those coming to him as well as to Jesus (Matt. 3.13-17; Mk. 1.9-11; Luke 3.21,22; cf John 1.31-34). For the question of whether or not this body gathered together by Christ constitutes the church we point you to Scripture: I Corinthians 12.28; Ephesians 2.20; 3.5; 4.11.

So then that we find this group of men are sent forth by Christ, this group received their commission at this time from Christ; Matt. 10.5 & 6: “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
This body thus had the commission--having been sent.
This body possessed the instructions giving authority of what and where to preach: Matt. 10.5-7; In verse seven we hear the authority of what to preach: “ And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (This differentiates this sending forth from that of the body given after the resurrection of Christ; note: here they are to go only to the Lost sheep of the house of Israel and are only authorized to preach the kingdom is at hand; That commission of the present day says to us to go into all the world and preach the gospel, which is the gospel of Grace,). We note the power is also differentiated; note Matt. 10.8 “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” In Matt. 28.18: “ And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” In Mark 16 we find this same body, except for Judas Iscariot also given this commission in verses 15-18; a careful study of these will show us that sending forth of the twelve at Matthew 10 differed from that of the commission after the resurrection of Christ to that same body. In the first we recognize the offer to Israel of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven, as that king was now in their presence and the power of that kingdom was now being manifest among them, at Matt. 28 and Mark 16 we note the same power is either mentioned, or promised; however the command is to go into all the world. Further at Luke 24.46-49 we see the same command to preach among all nations, and the promise of the “power from up on high.” Here we see the Baptism of the church promised and at Acts 2, the day of Pentecost we witness the fulfillment of that promise, here we see the requirement of being witnesses of these things to be upon these men in order that they receive these “powers of ‘signs following’ in order that they might go into all the world and through the Spirit which dwelt in them, and in that body collectively after Pentecost, fulfill the commission of Christ to His Church.

The word apostle is used of Christ at Heb. 3.1, as he is one sent forth of the Father, then it is only right for him to be the first and lead apostle. Elsewhere, however, the word is used of those of whom Jesus called and sent forth during his ministry on earth, Paul is called to Apostleship by the risen and glorified Lord Acts 9, 22, 26. Of Barnabas we see the designation of Apostleship by the Holy Spirit Acts 13, 14, and 15. Of Matthias, who is chosen by lot to take the place of Judas Iscariot. Acts 1.16-26, though chosen by lots, and numbered among the eleven, this not without the authority of the Lord as will be seen by any who read these verses with care.


The simple and plain sense of 'apostle' is one sent. Now, it is true that after the death of Christ the definition also became one who witnessed the Resurrected Christ Jesus. This would have been true of Paul (the Damascus Road); the choice of Matthias another example, he must have been present with the others when Christ appeared to them.

Yet, apostle remains one sent. You are correct in that disciples are different, a disciple is plainly a student.

Yet, your distinction continues to make an elite group that our Lord has set first in the church for the purpose of establishing and organizing that church; the signs following were given in order that the testimony they gave would be supported by the power of God.

Bro Dallas

 

Ken, your taking the interpretation that I have offered too far. Remember that I have said some of these people very well could have believed in due time. It just wasn't granted to them to come to the Christ while he was in the flesh. This says nothing to their ability to believe upon Christ following his acention and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

It would be like if you had two children. One was 16 and the other was just 13 year old. The 16 year has just recieved his license to drive and you say to your 13 year old, who has been asking about driving, "You can't get a car and drive unless the state issues you a drivers license." Does this mean that the 13 year old will never get a car or a drivers license? No, its just not the time for him to get these things.

With the apostles its a bit different because no one else got the position of apostleship except for them (and Paul). Does that mean they are the only ones to recieve eternal life? Of course not. Others are saved by believing through their gospel.

Remember a key principle: What is true of the saints is true of the apostles, but what is true of the apostles may or may not be true of all saints.

 

When speaking about the author John it is very clear, as you even point out, that there is a distinction between the apostles and the rest of Christ's disciples. This is no small distinction, especially to the author John. If you read through his entire book it is quite clear he sets the 12 apart. In the context that we are discussing I believe a distinction is being drawn which can be clearly seen in verses such as:

"Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to observe the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some among you who don't believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would not believe and the one who would betray Him.) 65 He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father." 66 From that moment many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him. 67 Therefore Jesus said to the Twelve, "You don't want to go away too, do you?" 68 Simon Peter answered, "Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 And we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God!" 70 Jesus replied to them, "Didn't I choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is the Devil!" 71 He was referring to Judas, Simon Iscariot's son, one of the Twelve, because he was going to betray Him.

It is clear from this context that a distinction is being made just as it is in John 17.

Also, notice what Jesus says, "The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

The Spirit gives life through the words, not through some inward, irresistable call. I just thought I should point that out.

 

When reading John chapter 6, it has been postulated that the promises and hopes that Jesus gave were intended only for the apostles during His lifetime on this earth, and only then later applicable to the population in general. The reader can judge whether this is true or not.

Let's look at some verses in John chapter 6.

John 6:29(NASB)
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you [apostles] believe in Him whom He has sent.”

John 6:35(NASB)
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he [of the apostles] who comes to Me will not hunger, and he [of the apostles] who believes in Me will never thirst.

John 6:39-40(NASB)
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me [of the apostles] I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone [of the apostles] who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47(NASB)
47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he [of the apostles] who believes has eternal life.

John 6:54(NASB)
54 “He [of the apostles] who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

The highlighted portions in brackets are not a part of the Holy Text. They are supplied to give the meaning if the promises and hopes mentioned therein are applicable only to the apostles and not to the general audience whom Jesus addressed in John chapter 6.

I submit to the reader that the Holy Text will bear no such additions to it. It would be similar to a person standing before a crowd of 10,000 people and stating, "I will give $1 million to each of you", and then when the 10,000 people come forward to receive $1 million each, the grantor says, "No, I only intend to give the $1 million to this group of twelve that was in the crowd. But the rest of you will receive $1 million later after I die." Just imagine the disgust, if not outright rioting, that would ensue. This is what John chapter 6 is being used by the one calling himself Brother Bill to teach.

Further, if these promises and hopes were applicable only to the apostles, why did Jesus not state such, as I illustrated earlier in brackets? Look at what happened -

John 6:60,66(NASB)
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”
66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

If Brother Bill is correct, why did Jesus not say the following? - "Wait! These words are currently only applicable to this group of men called apostles. These words will be applicable to you later on. Just hang on for a while and then it will be your turn." The absurdity of Jesus saying such is obvious.

Let the reader judge if the Holy Text will bear such an interpretation. I submit that it will not. The promises and hopes, including the promise that all of those enabled by the Father to come to Jesus will be raised to eternal life by Him, were applicable the day that Jesus spoke those words to all who heard those words and were not limited in their application to only a handful of men out of the thousands assembled that day.

 

First, no, the words you quoted do not offend me, except they are from a translation that has too much of man's interpretation added to them.

Next, you seem to be saying that except a man hear (in audience) with these men the words of Jesus they cannot be saved. Is this what your meaning is?

I never deny the need for hearing the Word; but to be true to Scripture we cannot say that it is something coming from within man that gives life, if we believe scripture then we must concede that it is the Spirit that giveth life and that this Spirit is in the Word and the Word is Christ and to him it is given to reveal to whom he will the Father. The scripture, even the OT is able to be used by the Spirit of God to quicken whoever He wills.

Your circle creates confusion and perpetuates it. It is needed to support your view of 'election.' Which view I do not accept. Yes, Christ called twelve to himself as apostles, yes, one of these was the son of perdition, from these twelve he also chose three of whom he drew close to himself, who witnessed the transfiguration, none of the other twelve witnessed this, perhaps these three are the particularly elected and the others were only wannabees and mentioned in scripture simply because they always were hanging around the gang. Then we come to the NT, having left the Gospels and we find that one is called an Apostle who did not even witness the transfiguration; one who is used to write the majority of recorded inspiration. Maybe once Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father one of two things occurred:

</font>

• God informed him that He was supposed to 'draw' Saul of Tarsus to Himself, so then he had to force himself upon the will of Saul violently, certainly this is the result of an after thought.</font>
• He realized that Peter and the others were not accepted among the learned Jews nor Hellenists thus it became necessary for him to search for one who was trained (Phariseeically) in the Law that he might be able to reconcile the difficulties of the Law and Grace, from his heavenly vantage point, now he can see such a man traveling to Damascus and stop him in his tracks and force him to become what by nature he was not.</font>

Do not these scenarios also fit your concept of 'the elect of God'?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ May 10, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Straw man. Your throwing stones at the wrong target. The promises and hopes are for all who believe. His audience could not believe because they were hardened as John 12:37-41 CLEARLY show us. That hardening we learn from Paul in Rom. 11 is temporary and for a distinct purpose therefore these promises could apply to them once it has been granted to them to believe.

This is a blantant and intentional misrepresentation of my interpretation of this passage. Plus, I find it ironic that the criticisms you have for my interpretation could be applied to yours.

"For God so loved the [elect in the] World that he gave his only begotten son [for the elect] that whosoever [God elected] to believe shall not perish but have eternal life."

I could do the same thing with a dozen other verses, but I think I've made my point. "The highlighted portions in brackets are not a part of the Holy Text." Don't you hate when your own arguments come back to bite you in the bottom?

Like I've said twice, I'm not saying all of these things only apply to the apostles, I'm saying they only apply to those who believe and only the apostles have been given to believe and come to Christ while in the flesh. The rest of Israel were being hardened as John 12 clearly teaches.

Do you see the irony of this? The same exact argument could be rightly applied to Calvinism. How would you respond if it were? You would say, "No one steps forward to recieve it because they are totally depraved." Well, my response is, "No one steps forward to receive because they have been temporarily hardened." The difference is I have scripture to support my view, you only have the Calvinistic dogma.

Nice try.

 

No, I mean the Spirit works to give life by the spoken word not some inward irresistable call. Calvinists view of regeneration is that God gives life so that man will believe the words, but this verse seems to teach that life is in the words themselves, not in the prior inward irresistable calling.

I know you don't deny the need for hearing the Word, you just deny that it has any power to save unless it is proceeded by regeration, I believe this is one of the many texts that contradicts your views.

I never said that it is something coming from man that gives life. Don't you believe the words of the gospel are from God, not man?

Amen, I couldn't agree more and I don't understand how you think this contradicts what I've been saying.

 

Is it true that during the earthly ministry of Jesus only the 12 apostles(minus of course Judas Iscariot) believed and every other Jew was hardened by God, per the teaching of Brother Bill. To quote Brother Bill, "only the apostles have been given to believe and come to Christ while in the flesh. The rest of Israel were being hardened"(emphasis mine). Let the reader decide.

Does the reader believe that Lazarus, whom Jesus wept over, along with Lazarus' sisters, Martha and Mary, were hardened during Jesus' ministry? Apparently Brother Bill does as we do not find these three persons mentioned among the apostles during Jesus' earthly ministry.

And what about Mary Magdelene? According to Brother Bill's teaching she was apparently also hardened although she did follow Jesus and went to His empty tomb on that blessed Resurrection Sunday.

And what about Jesus' mother, Mary? According to Brother Bill's teaching he throws Mary in with the rest of the non-apostles who were hardened.

Further, what about all of these people? -

Acts 1:14-15(NASB)
14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,

Here we have about 120 people who are referred to as brethren immediately after the ascension of Jesus back to the Father and before the Day of Pentecost. These people certainly are not acting like hardened people but according to Brother Bill's teaching he has claimed that they were. Which makes it very interesting about Matthias as according to Brother Bill's teaching Matthias would have been hardened, yet we read of him being added to the eleven apostles.

My prayer is that the above will aid the reader in judging whether the teaching of Brother Bill is in accord with sound Biblical exegesis or not.

[ May 10, 2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

Once again Ken, you can't deal with my actual argument so you set up a straw man. Of course anyone knows that more than just the apostles believed in Jesus. DUH! Do you really think that is what I'm arguing???

I meant by what I said that only the apostles in Jesus' audience were granted belief AND the ability to come to Christ to be trained by him so as to gain the position of apostle. That does not mean that "every other Jew was hardened" but that most of Jews of that day were hardened and all of those in the audience of John 6 were hardened except for the 12. How do we know? Because they are the only ones of his audience who stayed. Mary, Lazurus and the others you point out obviously were not in that audience.

If you notice it specifically says they all left except the 12. So in this context the phrase "the rest were hardened" was in reference to the rest of the people in Jesus' audience at that time, not every single other Jew.
Plus, Mary, Lazurus and the others may have believed but they were not consided apostles by the first church nor the scripture so I really don't how you think that applies.

Come on Ken, you have got to be willing to at least try and understand what I'm saying instead of just nit-picking my words and misappling them to fit your straw man.

And my prayer is that you will start doing some sound Biblical exegesis and stop building strawmen.

 

It is interesting how words become changed from the page they are printed on to something entirely different. Let the reader examine this.

A charge has been made. To quote Brother Bill, "Mary, Lazurus(sic) and the others you point out obviously were not in that audience.

If you notice it specifically says they all left except the 12."

Does the reader know who all comprised the thousands that heard our precious Savior speak that day. Perhaps Mary, Lazarus, Martha, Mary Magdelene, and Mary the mother of Jesus were in that audience. We do not know.

Further the Holy Text does not say that "all" except the apostles quit following Jesus. What does the Holy Text say? -

John 6:66(NASB)
66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

Now perhaps Brother Bill was there that day and witnessed this(if he is that old) or else maybe he has received the inside scoop from the Holy Spirit about the events of that day beyond what is written. Regardless, it is quite a leap to say that out of, to pick a number, maybe 10,000 people who heard Jesus speak(based on 5,000 men previously being fed), 9,988 left from following Jesus that day. Now perhaps "many" does mean 9,988 people but I am not bold enough to presume that upon the Holy Text.

Further, let's look at a statement by Brother Bill: "That does not mean that 'every other Jew was hardened' but that most of Jews of that day were hardened and all of those in the audience of John 6 were hardened except for the 12."

Now previously, Brother Bill wrote, "only the apostles have been given to believe and come to Christ while in the flesh. The rest of Israel were being hardened".

Brother Bill would have us believe that when he wrote "The rest of Israel were being hardened", he was actually saying "most of the Jews of that day were hardened". He further states that everyone except the 12 apostles were hardened in John chapter 6. But I have just finished illustrating that he is presuming greatly upon the Holy Text to say such a thing.

Let the reader judge for himself/herself.

[ May 10, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

***DELETED***

Double Post

[ May 10, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

Ken, you're right. Its possible these people were here too, but the point I'm trying to make is that Jesus doesn't address them when the others walk away, so it doesn't matter if they were there or not. He said:

66 From that moment many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him. [I took many to mean all except the twelve, but your right it is POSSIBLE that others were standing by as well, but look at the rest]

67 Therefore Jesus said to the Twelve, "You don't want to go away too, do you?" 68 Simon Peter answered, "Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 And we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God!" 70 Jesus replied to them, "Didn't I choose you, the Twelve?

He didn't turn to Mary, Lazurus and the rest, he turned to the twelve who were given to be his apostles, that is what you are ignoring and avoiding by trying to refocus the debate on nit-picking every thing I write and drawing extreme views. We don't know who all was in Jesus' audience but whether Mary, Lazurus and the other "none apostles" were there doesn't matter, the principle of my argument doesn't change. The principle is that there are two group within Israel. The hardened and the remnant. The remnant were not hardened, the rest were. Within the remnant I guess you could subdivide that into two groups as well: The apostles (ie the twelve) and the Jewish believers (ie Mary, Lazurus and the rest). You are avoiding the issue by focusing on the subdivision of the remnant while ignoring the real arguement about the major division of those who are hardened and those who are not.

Truth is Ken, you have to acknowledge this division as well. If you are not willing to acknowledge the division between those who are enabled in this audience and those who are not, your system falls apart. In your system the division is between those who are Total depraved and those who are regenerated (enabled). The only difference is that I'm saying that they are not Totally depraved, instead they are temporarily hardened as the TEXT actually points out in John 12. So, much of your attacks are backfiring right back onto your system.

Now, will you deal with MY argument instead of nit-picking my words and building your straw men?

 

Now let the reader see this. Earlier, Brother Bill had made a clean cut delineation between the apostles and the rest of the Israelites during Jesus' earthly ministry. Now, having been painted into a theological corner, he says, " The remnant were not hardened, the rest were. Within the remnant I guess you could subdivide that into two groups as well: The apostles (ie the twelve) and the Jewish believers (ie Mary, Lazurus(sic)the rest)."

So now he confesses that his earlier statement was erroneous. Now he confesses that the apostles were not the only ones that were not hardened. Perhaps Brother Bill will confess other errors in his teaching of Arminianism as well.

Let the reader decide on the reliability of Brother Bill's idea of hardening vs. the Biblical teaching of human inability now that Brother Bill has confessed to having been found in error.

There should now be no doubt that when Jesus said that no one can come to Him unless the Father enables him He was speaking to everyone who hears or who reads His words, and not to just the apostles as Brother Bill now admits that he previously erroneously claimed.

 

All is quiet on the western front.

 

[Inappropriate personal comment removed. Watch it Bill.]

I've never said the Apostles were the only ones who weren't hardened. I've been debating this issue for months on this board and I can take you back to the archives and show you that I've always maintained that the remnant included all Jewish believers in the Lords day of which the apostles were among. I subdivided for your benefit because you insist on being nit-picky and ignoring the real arguments of this debate.

Perhaps Ken will now confess that his is purposefully ignoring the real arguments that have been presented because he doesn't know how to answer them so he would rather focus on misappling my words to build upon his straw man. I admitted that other Jewish believers could have been in the audience not because I believe there actually were, but because it DOESN'T MATTER. You want it to matter because you want to focus on that instead of the real argument at hand. Ken, don't think your fooling anyone here, it is very obvious that you are avoiding the issue.

Error implies I was proven wrong. I wasn't proven wrong. You pointed out that it could be one way or another and for the sake of appeasing a nit-picky debater I agreed it could, because it doesn't matter one way or another.

No, Ken you are wrong again. I didn't admit any error in regard to the apostles being the referant in this passage. We were talking about who was in his audience not who he was referring to remember. If we could start this thread over I wouldn't even say apostles, I would just say "remnant" as in reference to all Jews who were not hardened by God while Christ walked the earth. The reason I specifically focused upon the 12 is because that is what Jesus did in this chapter, therefore I think it is clear that he was refering specifically to them in this context. That doesn't mean it can't apply to other believers as well.

I would like everyone to notice the arguments that Ken continually ignores:

I wrote:
Jesus is speaking to hardened Jews just as John 12:37-41 explains. You believe Jesus' audience can't believe because they are born totally depraved. Where is that is scripture? No where.
I believe Jesus' audience can't believe because John later tells me that they can't believe because God hardened their hearts.

Ken replied:
Okay, One-Note Bill, there you go again! I guess you never dismount from that theological hobby horse of yours, do you?
I'll tell you which is right - the Bible is right and you are quite wrong on the issues you are debating in this forum. [Now that's a reply with some substance Ken
]

I wrote:
This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.
We can close down this argument now because the bible says they were unable to believe because God had hardened them and you said the Bible is right--so I guess we agree.

Ken replied:
Call it hardening, inability, depravity, whatever. The result is the same. You can argue into the air over semantics until you are blue in the face as far as I care. [More of that good indepth substance! ]

I wrote:
So you take the position that hardening and depravity are one in the same?

Ken replied:
Nope
[Please slow down Ken, your losing us

I asked:
Why would God harden the Pharisees spoken of in John 12 if they were already unable to believe because of Total depravity?

Ken answered:
??? [still waiting ]

I wrote:
Ken, you must understand that the historical context of John 6 was unique. Jesus was hiding the gospel from some Israelites and revealing it to a few. Some of the Jews were being chosen for 'noble purposes', others were being temporarlly hardened into 'common use' until God's purposes were accomplished. Listen to what Jesus said in Matt. 13:
9 Anyone who has ears should listen!" 10 Then the disciples came up and asked Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11 He answered them, "To know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given to him, and he will have more than enough. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 For this reason I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see, and hearing they do not listen or understand. 14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive.
Calvinists often wrongly use the phrase, "He who has ears should listen" as a support text for their views thinking that Jesus must be refering to the elect who have spiritual ears, but it is apparent that is not the context. Those who have ears are those in Israel who God has chosen to carry the message to the world, the rest are hardened.
Now, look back at the context of John 6 and notice how the betrayer is mentioned and Christ's choosing of the 12 is mentioned and ask yourself, "Could verses 44 and 65 relate to the context around it and the historical context of the day and be in reference to those God had granted to come and learn the message from Christ while in the flesh?"
Think about it. Jesus is speaking to Israel. We know that there are two types of people in Israel, the hardened and the remnant (Roman 10-11). The remnant were those Israelites that God chose not to hardened, but instead chose to use for the noble purpose of being a divine messenger.

Ken's reply:
We see here that Jesus had been addressing those who had been following Him and listening to His teaching, not just the apostles, for thousands of others were also listening(he had just finished feeding about 5000 men, not counting the women). Jesus then even asked the apostles if they wanted to go away, also. But it had been granted by the Father for the apostles to come to Jesus and they stayed. Even Judas Iscariot stayed as He was appointed by God to betray Jesus; so even though he had not been regenerated Judas stayed to fulfill his part in God's plan to bring about the salvation of His people when Jesus paid the full penalty for their sin on the cross. [Notice Ken this is when you start focusing the debate away from the real issue and you won't get off this point eventhough it doesn't even address my previous argument. Also notice the part I placed in bold for you. My response about the apostles was with this statement in mind.]

My reply to Ken:
I never said he was just addressing his apostles I said that he was refering to the apostles as the ones who were granted to come to him by the father, he was addressing the crowd. So, just as you explained here the rest were not able to come to Jesus in the flesh, but only the apostles were.

Ken responses:
You can read it for yourself but here is the summary.

HE SAID, ONLY THE APOSTLES
BILL WAS WRONG
HE SAID, ONLY THE APOSTLES
BILL WAS WRONG
HE SAID, ONLY THE APOSTLES
BILL WAS WRONG
HE SAID, ONLY THE APOSTLES
BILL WAS WRONG
HE SAID, ONLY THE APOSTLES
BILL WAS WRONG

I have explain in everyway I know how that the remnant includes more than just the apostles, but I was responding to your post and the context of John 6 in which Jesus speaks to the APOSTLES.

Now Ken, will you please get off your soap box and deal with my original questions and the comment of summary in my last post that once again you ignored:

I wrote:
Truth is Ken, you have to acknowledge this division as well. If you are not willing to acknowledge the division between those who are enabled in this audience and those who are not, your system falls apart. In your system the division is between those who are Total depraved and those who are regenerated (enabled). The only difference is that I'm saying that they are not Totally depraved, instead they are temporarily hardened as the TEXT actually points out in John 12.

This is the issue we are debating Ken. It's the issue you are trying to ignore and I'm not going to let you get away with it. So you better deal with it now.

[ May 12, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

To continue with the World War I analogy:

I think Bill just used mustard gas. Isn't that against some convention among nations or something like that?

Wait a minute. Maybe now we know where Saddam Hussein sent his chemical weapons!

 

The bottom line is, Brother Bill, that I do not buy into what I consider to be your flawed exegesis of John chapter 6 or your flawed idea of hardening as you try to get around the Biblical doctrine of man's inability. We can go around in circles on this from now until Doomsday but I have no intention of submitting to what I believe is false teaching on your part.

Have a great day.

 

Translation: I'm going to continue to avoid your argument by simply stated that I disagree with you and leaving it at that.

-sigh-

If you think what I'm teaching is false as you have said here, then tell me what is false about it. Please don't go back to the whole apostles are the only Jewish believers argument because I never was arguing that. Tell me what is false about the claim that John 6 shows us there is two distinct groups of people:

1. Those who have been enabled to come by the Father
2. Those who have not been enabled to come by the Father

We agree with this part, right?

You believe:
#1 are the elect and #2 are the non-elect right?

I submitted:
#1 are the remnant (Jewish believers--or more specifically narrowed down in this context; the apostles)
#2 are those Jews who have been hardened by the Father as spoken of in John 12.

Support for my view:
1. The phrase "given to me by the father" is used in John 17 to specifically refer to the apostles as those Christ was given to train and send out. Jesus turns and speaks directly to the 12 in this context pointing out that he chose (or enabled) them.
2. Not all believers are "given to Jesus" while he was in the flesh. That is to be trained by him personally. This was reserved for apostles.
3. Jesus' audience was Jewish and scripture teaches that they as a group were hardened and that Jesus was hiding the gospel from them (Matt. 13; John 12; Mark 4 etc)
4. The Bible also teaches that from the Jews God reserved a remnant who were not hardened (Romans 10-11). So we know in Jesus' audience there were those who were being hardened (unable) and those who were the remnant (enabled).

Now, Ken, I have laid it out as clearly as I can. How do you respond to these arguments.

Thank you and have a nice day as well.

 

1) I disagree. In John chapter 6 Jesus is talking to thousands of people, not just the apostles. What is applicable to one of the thousands is applicable to all of the thousands.

2) The elect were given to Jesus before this world began.

3) Hardened or unable - same result. Truthfully, I do not understand this focus you have on hardening.

4) Those who are punished in hell have not been enabled. Those who are go to heaven are enabled.