Featured Objections answered

My response to you listed eight clear reasons your interpretation is simply impossible. My last post was clearly divided into four easy bold points that show the clear contextual development of John 6:29-65. Let me give you some friendly advice. Stop playing like your objectively seeking the truth when it is obvious you are not. You can't OBJECTIVELY answer the objections and the primary one concerning Judas you have NEVER TRIED to answer. Beware because you are in the misdst of further hardening your own heart against truth.

 

Readers, here are eight clear easy contextual based reasons why Skandelon's interpretation is worth nothing and does not explain but actually contradicts the context.

 

Readers, here again are four simple points clearly outlined why this context from John 6:29 to John 6:65 clearly is designed to prove that ability to savingly believe or come to Christ in faith is the sole work of God.

 

Yeah! It is amazing when a person cannot objectively deal with contextual based evidence that exposes their interpretation for what it is that all of a sudden they are the objective party in the debate and they have already provided objective answers when in fact they have not but are simply making excuses and running for cover.

 

You are guilty of the very thing you are FALSELY charging us. My posts contain a specific response to objections raised and none of you have even attempted to respond. Each of your responses below have been specifically answered and proven false and you NEVER respond to the evidence that proves them wrong but just reassert the same disproven objections over and over again.

I provided a specific post that contained detailed contextual evidence that exposes your definition to be absolute nonsense and YOU NEVER HAVE RESPONDED EVEN ONCE.

1. John 6:35-36 uses "come to me" as a parallelism with "believe on me" to explain the parallel metaphors "thirst....hunger" proving these are metaphors connected directly with the metaphor "I am the bread of life" and thus "come to me" and "believe on me" are parallel expressions for metaphorically PARTAKING OF CHRIST as the bread of life! Your response? NONE!

2. Heb. 11:6 INCLUDES "cometh" with "faith" and your response? NONE!

3. Matthew 11:30 demands "come unto me" is partaking of rest from sin which Romans 5:1 asserts is obtained "by faith. Your response? NONE!

4. John 17:2-3 being "given" by the Father to the Son is the stated condition for obtaining eternal or spiritual life thus condemning your interpretation of "given" and your response? NONE!

5. John 6:36 are those who traveled to Christ, as they stood physically right before him but did not come to him as they were not part "of all" given in verse 37 "of all" which NONE FAIL TO COME TO HIM and thus your definition of mere "travel" is exposed as complete nonsense. Your Response? NONE!

All you do is what a dumb parrot does, ignore the evidence that destroyes your theory and just repeat the same nonsense. My posts contain these contextual based evidences WHICH YOU NEVER RESPOND TO but merely ignore and repeat the same nonsense again and again.

 

John 17:2 completely repudiates your intepretation of "given" to mean "arrival in him" as anyone with any common sense can clearly see that being "given" by the Father in verse 2 is the condition for obtaining eternal or spiritual life which is UNION with God just as spiritual death is being "alienated from the life of God" - Eph. 4:18.

Instead you REVERSE the cause and effect or conditon and consequence thus you repudiate the Word of God by your false definitions.

The text does NOT say "as many as were given eternal life (spiritual union) will be given to the Son by the Father" as your false definition demands.

Again, the evidence presented to overthrow your first point equally overthows this point. John 6:35 defines coming to Christ to be what satisfies "thirst" which comes by PARTAKING Christ as "the bread of life" and thus satisfies "hunger." "Thirst" and "hunger" are metaphors that both convey the very same thing (PARTAKING OF) in regard to the only other metaphor in this text "I am the bread of life." Thus "cometh to me" and "believeth on me" are equally parallel to "thirst" and "hunger."

Your defintion of "arrival to another location" is nonsensical as "cometh" is introduced and defined by PARALLEL METAPHORS that demand it means PARTAKING OF the bread of life by faith just as "cometh" in Hebrews 11:6 is INSEPARABLE FROM FAITH.

This is absurdly rediculous and a failure to understand or rightly interpret Romans 4:5-6 in its context. The ONLY "faith" God credits for righteousness is the faith that has for its object the finished satisfactory substitutionary work of Jesus Christ as the beginning of this context CLEARLY STATES (Rom. 3:24-26) and the close of this context CLEARLY REPEATS AGAIN (Rom. 4:23-25)

Either you don't read the context of posts or you are so blind you can't understand them or you don't care but one thing is certain, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Let us examine Van's definition of coming in a little more detail. First he claims it means "to travel" to Christ, however those in verse 36 had traveled to Christ but had not come to Christ as Christ defines come in verse 37-39. Hence, this proves PHYSICAL travel to Christ cannot possibly be the meaning in this context.

Van must define faith as merely "a mental change of mind" which is not the Biblical definition of "faith" (Heb. 11:1). The Bible defines "repentance" in part as a "change of mind" but not faith. Faith is not to be confused with repentance as Van clearly confuse the two by his negative definition of faith as "a mental change of mind." He obviously does not even know or understand the difference between the definition of repentance versus faith!!!

Faith cannot be defined apart from embracing the very "substance" of which provides the basis for "hope" - Heb. 11:1 The "substance" of which the "hope" of the gospel is based is THE GOSPEL PROMISE OF ETERNAL LIFE BASED UPON THE FINISISHED SATISFACTORY WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.

This hope does not come through mere mental gymnastic but is received ONLY BY DIVINE REVELATION as a creative act and command of God within "ALL" who are given to the Son by the Father.

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us

The "substance" of our "hope" is something God must "GIVE" to us rather than merely "a change of mind." It is something that is given by God by "power" due to a CREATIVE COMMAND just as light was commanded into existence.

Mt. 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1. Who did not reveal this to Peter? - "flesh and blood hath not revealed it"

2. Who did reveal this to Peter? - "my Father"

3. What location is the revealer found? - "in heaven"

Van has no concept of faith much less of repentance as he confuses the definition of repentance with faith. Last "faith" is a "FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT" and not a fruit of "the flesh."

Second, Van now moves from the definition of physical arrival and change of physical location to SPIRITUAL TRAVEL where a person OUTSIDE of christ is changed from that location to "IN Christ." Thus it is a SPIRITAL ARRIVAL TO A NEW LOCATION.

He not only confues the definition of repentance with faith but now he confuses the work of regeneration with faith. Regeneration is what UNITES the spiritually dead elect with the LIFE OF GOD.

1. First we must be "CREATED in Christ" (Eph. 2:10b)which is outside the power of any man to do. Hence, God alone places us "in Christ" by a creative act that the context denies originates with us or our works (v. 9). In context refers solely to the work of God "for we are his workmanship" (Eph. 2:10a) in direct contrast to our works "not of works lest any man should boast" (Ephes. 2:9) which refers in context to "the gift of God (Ephes. 2:8b) which refers back to "saved by grace" (Eph. 2:8a) which is the description of being quickened/regenerated in Ephesians 2:5 (note "saved by grace" is first introduced in verse 5 to defined being "quickened" by God which is first introduced in verse 1. So arrival "in Christ" is a creative work of God "not of ourselves" (v. 9) but the workmanship of God who ALONE can create.

So Van is arguing that arrival in Christ (regeneration/creation in Christ) means "come to me" thus regeneration and come to Christ are one and the same thing if Van's logic is followed. So lets read that defintion into the words of Christ in John 6:35-45 and see what we have:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that created in me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall be created/regenerated/quickened in me; and him that is being created/regenerated/quickened in me I will in no wise cast out.
44 No man can be created/regenerated/quickened in me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
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, is being created/quickened/regenerated in me.


First note that this definition demands this creation/quickened/regenerated in Christ action is made to be a PROGRESSIVE incompleted action as the word is found in the PRESENT TENSE of incomplete action "cometh". That is sufficient to prove Van's definition is completely false as there is no such thing as a PROGRESSIVE INCOMPLETED CREATIVE ACT. Regeneration and being created in Christ are all AORIST TENSE actions.

Second, Van's definition makes regeneration something man does because it is man that must "come to me" or "come to Christ. Jesus said "Come unto me" (Mt. 11:30) thus Van's definition is making regeneration/creation/quickening in Christ an act of man rather than act of God. If not, then please explain the command given by Christ to His hearers to "come unto me"??? If coming were the creative/regenerative/quickening act of God alone then no man would be commanded to do it!!!!




3. Van argues that "cometh" (present tense incompleted action" is relocation in Christ by God. However, it is regeneration that unites us spiritually to Christ as the unregenerated state is being "alienated from the life of God" and quickening/regeneration is the reverse or being UNITED to God through the Spirit and thus in union with spriitual life.

Ephesians 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

CONCLUSION: Van confuses the definiton of repentance with faith. Van confuses the definition of regeneration with faith. Van's definition when used in John 6:37-45 repudiates the Biblical doctrine of regeneration which is not a progressive incompleted ongoing action but is always presented by COMPLETED ACTION VERBS. Van's definition makes regeneration an act of man or at best a partnership act with God. Van does not know what he is talking about.

 

You reveal who you are serving as you stoop to use his tool - ridicule because you know you cannot provide sound exegetical based responses to the evidences placed before you (Mt. 16:23).