Featured John 6:65 - what is "given"

Thus, by that definition, your interpretation is likewise a 'spin'...my spin however happens to be much more widely accepted among baptists historically than your spin...but that means nothing more than the top on which we both apparently spin things.

Providing defense for a widely held and respectable interpretation of the scripture, as I believe we both are, shouldn't be dismissed as a 'spin,' IMHO. It comes across as being derogatory and dismissive, but if that is not how you meant it, that's okay, let's move on...

I disagree. I can invite many people who passively choose to ignore my invitation...just look at all facebook invites.

The parable of the wedding banquet is a great parallel. They can't come unless they are invited, but not all who are invited actually come and of those who do come, only those clothed in righteousness through faith will be chosen to enter the wedding feast. The gospel goes out to all peoples, some ignore it completely...some respond but with false motives, etc,...others humble themselves and trust Christ. In John 6 the drawing power, the gospel, hadn't been fulfilled on the cross and sent into all the world. Instead, the truth of who Christ was is being hidden in parables and blinded from the eyes of Israel. Only a few preselected Israelites were given to Christ to learn from him and take the gospel to rest of the world....AFTER the resurrection! Then and only then does Christ 'draw all men to himself' by sending the disciples to proclaim the 'power of God unto Salvation, first to the Jew and then the Gentile.'

Untrue according to Paul, "HOW CAN THEY believe in whom they have not heard?"

 

Would you say that this is in the same context as those who were with Paul on the road to Damascus.

Paul was being called therefore, "it was given him," however those with Paul, " it was not given," therefore they heard not? That is understood not the voice.

 

What do you call the story of the wedding banquet then?

I thought you said it wasn't a parable? And what would you call the work of all the masters servants going into the highways and byways asking people to come to the wedding feast?

And? Not seeing how that distinction matters to this point...

Which verbs are those and why does that matter?

Are we still talking about the non parable of the wedding banquet?

Lost you...

 

Got you. You were saying John 6 is not a parable...but you do know that is not what I was saying either, right? I was referencing the parable as a rebuttal to your point...which you failed to answer, btw.

The argument you made about the objects of an invitation having to be 'active' was debunked soundly and you dropped that point, yet that was the very basis of your attempt to disassociate 'drawing' with 'inviting' or 'appealing' to others. I don't think you have made your case here...

Also, your argument, "The term "no man can" denies it is merely an invitation," was soundly defeated and unanswered:

I pointed out that Paul said, "HOW CAN THEY believe in whom they have not heard?" And you didn't reply.

Lastly, as I have argued previously (with you I think), in this context (where Jesus is making the case for why only a remnant have been entrusted with these mysteries, while the rest are being provoked and hardened) the terminology of drawing does indeed connote a more 'effectual' or 'compelling' meaning, IMO. God had set apart a number of people to be given to Christ while he was living on earth. These were the firstfruits of Israel, the remnant. He divinely appointed messengers of the gospel. As with Jonah, God would use more persuasive means (storm, fish, blinding light, signs, miracles, etc) to provoke and change their wills and ensure his message is spread throughout the world. That is a 'drawing' or compelling thing...and I'm not denying that. I'm simply putting into its proper historical context and meaning.

 

Your view is easily refuted by verse 67;

Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

If your view is correct and God supernaturally and irresistibly causes men to believe, then verse 67 is absolutely nonsensical. If your view is correct, how could his true disciples possibly fall away? If Jesus knew 11 of his disciples were elect (and he did), he would know it is impossible for them to fall away in unbelief. That is, if your view is correct (it isn't).

If Jesus knew that his disciples were false and not of the elect, then he knew they will most certainly will fall away and again his question in verse 67 is completely unnecessary and misleading.

NO, this question only makes sense if men themselves decide what they believe.

 

But if you consider that its through the MEANS of this "INVITATION" that people are enabled to respond (held responsible) and, even more significantly, that invitation is being withheld at the time John 6 happened and isn't even employed until Christ is raised up, at which time the SAME AUTHOR speaks of Christ 'drawing all men to himself.' (Jn 12:32) Like it or not but that is a very strong case against your perspective when viewed objectively.

Summary:
Fact: The gospel invitation being withheld from everyone except a few from Israel, and even they don't get it completely, when John 6 is recorded.

Fact: Christ concludes that no one can come unless drawn (invited/enabled -- Paul supports this view in Rom 10)

Fact: Christ doesn't send the gospel invitation until after he is raised up when the disciples are commissioned to go to every creature.

Fact: The same author who wrote John 6 wrote John 12 where he concludes that all men will be drawn to Christ after he is raised.

Conclusion: The powerful, life giving gospel is the means God uses to enable/draw men to himself, not merely inform those who have already been saved.

Of course the Father is the drawing power, but through WHAT MEANS DOES HE DRAW? Some secret, inward, irresistible working that scripture never once names or expounds upon? OR the GOSPEL, which is called 'the power of God unto Salvation' and is spoken of countless times as powerful, sharp, God breathed, inspired, given to us by God, etc???

You seem to want to separate the Father from His chosen means.

I am not following your argument. The gospel (Christ, cross, death, burial, resurrection, salvation even for Gentiles through faith, etc), is not FULFILLED and SENT until Christ is raised up. That is not my opinion, that is a FACT. Prior to this there is foreshadowing, mystery, prophecy, and such all pointing to Christ, but the gospel wasn't completed and sent until that point in history. That is significant considering how much scripture speaks of the gospels power and significance. You can't just dismiss it and pretend its used just to inform those who have already been saved when scripture never teaches that.

I have no idea what you are talking about or how that applies to my statement.

I wrote: Untrue according to Paul, "HOW CAN THEY believe in whom they have not heard?"

At least I can actually produce biblical support for the "means" of drawing, where as all you can provide is Calvin commentaries or other man made speculations based on a few proof texts used to prop up this concept of an inward, secret, irresistible working that makes people want to believe.

Paul teaches that faith comes by hearing. The gospel is the means to faith. Paul knows they can't come unless they are invited and at that time in history Israel was being 'cut off' (not invited) while the Gentiles were being 'grafted in' (invited). Read Rom 11 and he explains this very clearly.

 

Well, it is what it is. I believe in eternal security, but I also realize there are MANY scriptures that seem to argue against it. I am not one who wrests scripture to say what I desire it to mean, it says what it says.

I believe once a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit, (which was not the case in John chapter 6 as the Spirit was not yet given- Jhn 7:39), that a person cannot lose salvation.

The point is, Christ's question makes absolutely no sense unless man himself decides to believe. It is a choice. Albert Barnes who was a Calvinist realized that is what verse 67 is saying.

I did not need Albert Barnes to explain this verse to me, I am just showing you how real scholars understand this verse which completely refutes your view.

 

Perhaps you do not read well, I told you I believe in eternal security. That said, the scriptures show persons do not always believe.

Luk 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Jesus spoke of persons "which for a while believe" and in time of temptation fall away.

First of all, this completely refutes your view that God gave them faith unless you believe like Calvin that he takes it away from some persons. If this is true, no Christian is eternally secure, God could take your faith away.

Isn't that true?

But Jesus himself said some people only believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. If you go back and read my past posts, you will see that I have always said these persons were saved, but bear no fruit. I have ALWAYS said that.

I do not believe all those persons who turned away from Jesus and did not follow him again were necessarily lost. If they believed, then they were saved.

Nevertheless, this scripture proves that men have to believe for themselves. It makes absolutely no sense in your doctrine for Jesus to ask who shall leave and who shall not, as he is the one who determines who will believe and who will not in your system.

Can you explain to me how some men can believe "for a while" in Luke 8:13?? According to you, men are unable to believe, so God must regenerate them to believe. How then do they cease to believe? Do they become unregenerate again? Does God take their regeneration away?

Please answer these questions.

 

It is certain that OT saints did not have the indwelling Spirit and that the Spirit could leave a person. King Saul is a famous example.

1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

I am not saying that Saul was lost, I am saying I do not know. But Jesus promised he would send the indwelling Spirit, and he would abide with us forever.

Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

We know as early as John chapter 2 that all the disciples except Judas believed on Jesus, but none had the indwelling Spirit, else it would not make sense for Jesus to promise he would send the Spirit to them. Jesus said the Spirit dwelled with them, but would be IN THEM when he came in the future.

So, only in the NT do we have evidence of the indwelling permanent Spirit. This is scripture whether you like it or not.

You don't even understand the parables.

No, it is more likely that you cannot answer the questions I asked you. Jesus himself spoke of persons who only believed for a while. This refutes your view that God gives men faith unless you believe that God "takes away" faith from some.

I personally believe that if a person believed on Jesus that they are always saved. I believe the thorny soil and the rocky soil were saved but did not bear fruit. I have always said this.

But the facts are that the Spirit could leave a person in the OT, and it is also true that people could cease to believe, at least before the indwelling Spirit was given.

I understand completely why you do not answer, because YOU CAN'T.

 

You still beating that dead horse Skan?