Let us discuss the meaning of John 6

Hi Iconoclast, lets address your claim that Titus 1:1-3 says:

"The scripture says they are given first before the foundation of the world.
They are given before they hear anything
They are given before they learn anything"

Verse one does not say that were even chosen, let alone given before the foundation of the world. Thus this scripture not only does not say that, it does not even say any of that.

Well maybe verse 2? It says (NASB) God promised "long ages ago" rather than "before the world began, but the majority of Modern translations agree the meaning is before time began. What did He promise? Eternal life. So before time began, God promised eternal life. But this verse too does not say individuals before creation were "given" to Christ. So no support for the claim here.

But maybe in verse 3? Nope, this verse says God, at the proper time, manifested His word (the Word became flesh) and so we must conclude when God chose the Word to be His Lamb before time began, that constituted a promise of eternal life. And now Paul is saying his command from Christ is to proclaim that promise.

So three for three, nobody was given to Christ, but the promise of eternal life was given in that Christ was chosen as God's Redeemer, His Lamb.

Hope springs eternal, maybe in 2 Timothy 1:9-10

Verse 9 says God saved us, then called us to a Holy calling. This does not refer to being called out from darkness into His light, that happens at salvation, this refers to the good works (our measure of faith) we are entrusted with as ambassadors of Christ following salvation.

Next we see that our salvation was not based on works we have done, but our salvation was according to His purpose and grace. We did nothing. Next (NASB) it says: "which was granted us in Christ from all eternity." What was granted? Salvation!
When did God make the promise of salvation? From all eternity! And who received the salvation? Us in Christ. So when we are spiritually placed in Christ, the baptism performed by the Holy Spirit, then we receive the salvation promised before time. So nothing here says we were given to Christ individually. Only that once spiritually in Christ, we receive the salvation promised before time. In summary this verse provides absolutely no support for being individually given to Christ before time.

But maybe in verse 10: No, again this says none of what you claimed was in scripture.
On the other hand, this verse supports my view. It says Jesus abolished death and brought life through the gospel which describes His birth, sinless life, death and resurrection as the Lamb of God, the unblemished sacrifice.

Next lets turn to Ephesians 1:4-5. Here Paul is telling us of the blessings those "in Christ" have been blessed with. Every spiritual blessing in the heavenly in Christ. So again we are talking to folks who are spiritually "in Christ" and they have received blessings. First blessing: He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. When God chose His redeemer before the foundation of the world, He chose the redeemed, not individually but corporately, the believing target group of His redemption plan.
So here we have something that might support your view, except that many verses require that we are individually chosen and given to Christ during our lifetime, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says we are chosen through belief in the truth, which is during our lifetime. Thus Ephesians 1:4 must refer to a corporate election rather than an individual election.

When do we receive the blessing of predestination to adoptions as sons? When we are "in Christ" and not before. And BTW, this refers to the second coming where in resurrected bodies we meet Christ in the air. Further, if we look at verse 6, we see again that all these things are bestowed on those who are "in the Beloved."
So no support, except a possible view of verse 4, which must be rejected because the view then creates conflict with verse after verse that says were are chosen during our lifetime for salvation.

Maybe we can find a speck of support in John 17:24. Who was given? His disciples. So this is not being given for salvation. Again, not a drop of support for the assertion. As close as we come is God giving glory to Christ before the foundation of the world.

And yes, Paul gives the right order in Romans 8, but we understand Romans 8 differently.

 

Well as I figured you would do this,lol

Van...do you believe that everytime a verse is mentioned it has to include every aspect of grace spelled out in detail each time it is mentioned..like the amplified bible.

So it would say...Cornelius got saved, that is he repented by God given faith,God had elected Him before time, God had engraven his name in the palm of His hand,God effectually called Him by the work of the Spirit,overcoming his ungodly rebellion,washing him by regeneration, Cornelius had no free will,but self will only,he was under satanic blindness ,until God opened his heart. His conversion did not surprise me since before time began I purposed to save him,individually,and send My Son to die for Cornelius in particular.This is My covenant to save all My elect sheep.one at a time ????

your response is ludicrous....

So...God promised eternal life to no one!!! He promised eternal life in a vacuum???

So now you address this here;

So God elected a train...and whosoever gets on the train is part of the target...right,lol. when God had already delcared that no one seeks Him,

oic

Van...you can put anything you want into the verses as if it is a poem if you want to, but i will not.....or maybe lets just see, let me try your hermineutical approach....

This verse does not say that there are no space aliens and dinosours, So maybe they could be saved,because jesus did not save anyone, he died so it is possible anyone can be saved,and we know god is not willing that any perish....so lets go by rob bells book love wins...and all might be saved...
yes..I can see how this method could come in handy

 

Van is correct, you can't just add your own presuppositions to a verse unless you have supporting scripture to back it up. His method is proper.

This is a perfect example of you adding your presupposition to scripture. Cornelius was not ungodly and rebellious whatsoever.

Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

This was before Cornelius heard the gospel and was saved. The scriptures do not say he was ungodly and rebellious, they say the exact opposite, that he was devout and feared God, that he gave "much" alms to the people, and prayed to God always.

But you see, you interpret scripture not by what it directly says, but by your presuppositions. And in this case your presuppositions are shown to be complete error.

Of course, these verses overthrow Total Depravity as Calvinism understands it, so you will attempt to explain this scripture away to keep your tradition.

 

Steve's #6 post is so very plainly biblical. Many others get tangled up in a multitude of words which depart from the Word of God.

 

Winman,
This is a perfect example of what you like to do.I was giving a purposefully ridiculas example using Cornelius ...and you seek to jump on my words.
you say;

even at this you are wrong-
The scriptures do not say he was ungodly and rebellious, they say the exact opposite, that he was devout and feared God, that he gave "much" alms to the people, and prayed to God always.

Are you saying he was never ungodly ? Were you saying he really did not need to be saved, when it says God brought salvation to him?
The fact that it says he was devout indicates he was exposed to some truth and was already prepared by God.He already had some knowledge of the true God,but was not yet saved. You jump on my words but avoid any solid interaction with jn 6.
Where did I not explain jn 6 accurately.
You post this to deflect from the issue at hand in my response to Van.

 

Hi Iconoclast, do you suppose no one noticed your response was all sound and fury, deflection and without merit? I showed that your claim was not found in the scriptures you referenced. So what do you do, ask beside the point questions, strawmen aimed at deflection. Goodbye Sir, as you said you think my view is wrong, and it seems to me nothing I can say will alter that view.

 

I was not attempting to deflect anything, simply pointing out your representation of Cornelius does not agree with what the scriptures actually say of him.
As for John 6, where you err is isolating vs. 45 from 44. Verse 45 explains how we are drawn.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man THEREFORE that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me.
Yes, we must be drawn to come, but we must also HEAR and LEARN of the Father to come. And how do we hear and learn of the Father? By the Word of God. And note the word "therefore" in vs. 45, this connects vs. 45 to vs. 44. You isolate vs. 45 from 44 which is error. Verse 45 explains how this drawing in vs. 44 is accomplished. Yes, we must be drawn to come, but we must also hear and learn of the Father to come which is man's role in salvation.

 

Faith is a gift ONLY in the sense that if it were not for God's grace, through the revealing and convinciton of the Holy Spirit, we would never know any real Truth nor THE Truth (Christ Jesus) - that it [salvation] may be of faith because of His grace.

It is important to understand what 'faith' is, and scripture describes it.
It is not some nebulous thing we are trying to grasp hold of.
Scripture makes 'faith' very specific and what we find in accordance with scripture is that it is either a noun which specifically regards our beliefs or Christ Jesus Himself (of whom our beliefs surrounds); or the verb form which speaks specifically to acting upon what we believe.

Thus the view of God 'giving us faith' as though it was something we never had nor could have in any measure (thus the reason for giving it) makes no sense from a biblical stand point. Biblically what is termed common faith by some, is by nature or at it's root - no different from saving faith since both are 'faith'. The distinction between the 2 types of faith in question of course centers stricly around the object of that faith.

Thus the person acknowledging they have nothing of themselves worthy to offer in exchange for salvation BUT that the person also acknowledges the Work of Christ and Himself as being the absolute suffienctsness on our behalf before and to God; in no way imparts saving qualities whatsoever to us or our faith, since it is God who saves and not faith itself. Faith itself has NO value and is the very reason faith does not save of or by itself. It must have an object of which infuses it with value, thus value (saving or not) comes from the object itself. It is also the value of that object which will determine the extent to which it endures.

Scripture is very specific that faith is not a work, and thus can not be seen as man doing something for his salvation. In fact the very point that faith has no value in and of itself, is the very point scripture speaks to. Our faith only gets it temporal or eternal value from the object to which it clings.

Note that Paul states if Christ had not risen our 'faith' would be in vain.
Why does Paul equate saving faith here, with a vain or empty faith.
Because they are SAME thing. The distinction and qualifier of faith is not the faith itself but the object of that faith.

What give faith the qualifier 'saving' is the object of faith - Christ Jesus. What makes faith not saving but vain is anything other than Him OR that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Ummm.. No. That is not what he said at all. I'll quote you his responce to you again to that accusation:

See?

 

Hello Van,
My initial response to your posts were right on.You never answered it.

No. What you did was speak around the clear teaching in each verse.You
have done this often so you are in the habit of doing so.
No strawman...just answers you cannot respond to.
Your view is wrong and you are correct that I would never see your view as remotely scriptural. Good bye to you, sorry I could not be of any help to you.

Allan....I agree that the object of saving faith is primary.The part of vans post I was commenting on is where he said...God credits our faith [as if it was inherent in fallen man ]....rather than saving faith being part of God's decree.In my first response to him I listed the all that are given shall come.
He twisted the order around like this;look at post 7 allan...I walk through his summary and show how he changes, or attempts to change the wording and meaning in Jn 6:37-44. In post8 his fourth sentence he just skips over the correction offered as if it was not correct. He never responds to the post because he cannot. His post started to drift,and I called him on it..I said

You can read and see it is so. Also in post 5 when he uses the phrase..in this manner... that means according to his wrong twist and unbiblical teaching.
You can read it.

 

Winman,
you said;

Every man THEREFORE that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me.
Yes, these are the elect sheep who are given ears to hear...exactly

Yes, the Spirit enables the lost sheep to hear and believe the word of God.

All that the Father gives to the Son...are taught of God ....and do come.Without the Spirit teaching them they would never come...yes

 

This debate is never ending because the scripture lends itself to either side of the issue depending upon the hermeutical approach and one's scriptural focus.

To bring it back to the point of inception:

Ephesians 1

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.​

Our God does not do things willy-nilly. We don't know the criteria by which the Triune God made His determination as to who are (or will be) the whosoever-wills.
So in effect I have to say from the scripture that it was not "unconditional election" but election after the counsel of his own will.​

Obviously, at the core, it had to do with our helpless/hopeless estate apart from His omnipotent intercession.
In that we are in His image and likeness may also have played a role in that determination.​

Granted this is in the realm of speculative theology.​

Generally speaking, the only real difference between a C approach and an A approach (IMO) concerning this counsel of his own will is that A's say He pre-disposed all with the potential ability to believe but only elected/chose those whom He knew would believe while the C approach says He pre-disposed only the elect without a condition to be able to believe. This counsel of course being from the foundation of the world.​

Personally, I don't like the "unconditional" part of the C approach.

Again it had not to do with any ability of our own, just the opposite, our helpless/hopeless estate apart from Him.

Another point that wrinkles my brow is when "total depravity" is made to say we are worthless in His sight. We are the bearers of the image and likeness of God. Granted, we are depraved sinners. Somewhat of a paradox.

Personally I like being a mugwump and reserving judgment until a later time. ​

There may be a third option. ​

It's possible.​

HankD​

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Here is a common misconception of John 6: John 6:44 says, No one can come to Me unless the Father......draws him. No one; Jew, Gentile, Scythian or Chinaman

What this actually says is no one is able to come to Jesus unless drawn by the Father. So being drawn enables but does compel a person to come to Jesus. But, on the other hand, anyone who comes to Jesus (per the meaning intended by the author) will be saved forever, raised up on the last day. So this verse does not support the mistaken view that everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus. If a person who is drawn, hears and learns from the Father i.e puts their trust in Christ, then that person "comes to Jesus" (per the meaning intended by the author.) Calvinists like to turn drawn by persuasion into dragged by compulsion, but that is just another redefining of a word, and in this case applying the physical meaning of draw to the metaphorical usage.

 

Hi HankD, I do not think we need to venture into "speculative theology" to study John 6. But we do need to set aside the "speculative theology" of the past.

What was the counsel of God's will? What He revealed in scripture or something invented by men? Lets look at 1 Peter 2:9-10. Peter is speaking to "born again" believers and this is what he says: (NASB) But you are a chosen race [so every born again believer has been "chosen"] a royal priesthood [we do not need Old Covenant Priests] a Holy Nation [set apart for God's purpose] a people for God's own possession [born again believers have become part of God's chosen people] so that you may proclaim excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. [How are folks called? Through the gospel!] Now when did this choosing (becoming a people) and transferring from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of Christ occur?

"for you [the born again believers] were once not a people [so they existed before they were chosen] but now you are a people of God; you had not received mercy [before you were chosen] but now you have received mercy [you have been chosen] Note that to receive mercy one would suppose one needed mercy, i.e. had been conceived in iniquity.

This two verses present by my understanding the "counsel of His will." He is choosing individuals during their lifetime for the purpose of them bringing glory to Him.

Now is it "speculative theology" as to whether a fallen unregenerate sinner, a man of the flesh can understand the milk of the gospel? No, the bible tells us. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 we see that a natural [fallen unregenerate not born again person] man cannot understand the "things" of the Spirit of God. Has he or she been converted, born again spiritually and indwelt with the Spirit? No. So whatever spiritual things are discerned with the aid of our indwelt spirit cannot be understood by a natural unregenerate person. In verse 16 we see that born again people are instructed by the Spirit, and as we learn, we grow in maturity.

Now we come to the heart of the matter, verse 1 Chapter 3. "And I brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men [born again folks who have learned and matured with the aid of the indwelt Spirit of God] but as to men of flesh as to infants in Christ. [So a man of flesh and a new born Christians who has not yet learned from the Spirit and grown in maturity can understand what Paul was telling them.] I [Paul] gave you milk [the fundamentals of the gospel] but not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it [they were able to receive milk like men of the flesh but not solid food because they had not grown past being babes in Christ.]

So all this belief about men in the flesh needing some enabling by the Spirit to understand the milk of the gospel is simply unbiblical. No speculative theology about it.

 

The scripture says All the Father gives shall come
not

This anti covenantal statement is a delibrate falsehood. As if you alone know what John intended to say...but needed help to say it....we had to wait for you to tell us what was John's intent. All false teachers explain that they see something that the whole church has missed.
The word of God stands as written..All the Father gives.....shall come...no more, no less. No man can come....unless the Father which has sent me draw Him.....This is another episode of the unbiblical story of the bible according to Van's philosophy, repackaging and re-inventing the biblical texts,,,,going against sound doctrine each and everytime. There is no verse immune from this re-writing. Perhaps we can look forward to a book...explaining away the bible, one verse at a time.

 

In Ephesians 1:11 what is predestined? Our inheritance. And when did we obtain it? When God put us spiritually in Christ. And what was the counsel of His will, His redemption plan from before the foundation of the world, the promise embodied in God choosing the Word to be His Christ, His Lamb of God.

 

Iconoclast, please stop posting falsehoods. I said anyone who comes to Jesus will be saved, that is 100%. Your constant misrepresentation of my posts is regrettable. So to put it in order for you, (1) God draws, (2) some hear and learn, (3) these the Father gives to Christ, (4) these (ALL THE FATHER GIVES ME)come to Christ (arrive in Christ). Those who come to Christ, are those who God puts in Christ. Once spiritually in Christ the person is born again, saved forever.

Folks, please pay no attention when Iconoclast responds to my posts, they attack strawmen of his invention.

 

Oops, sorry Van, I probably wasn't that clear.

The seculative theology I speak of comes in when we try to determine the criteria of selection of those to be saved involved in the counsel of his own will.

HankD

 

What about God choosing people so that they may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called them. So those that are called (having heard and learned from the Father) are chosen so that may proclaim the excellencies of God. Thus we are the "called, chosen and faithful." Calling comes before choosing because many are called but few (those that heard and learned) are chosen. That I believe is the counsel of His will, His redemption plan as revealed in scripture.