Drew, you are a wordy devil, but you’ve posted that kind of response before. The points you did raise are dealing with irresistible grace, not election, so you’re off track. The style with which you post often sways the reader, but this is a matter of style, not truth. You’ve seen rebuttals to your view of John 6 before, I know, I posted it but for the benefit of the reader I’ll re-post a few responses the readers of this thread should be aware of before they make up there minds…which brings me to another point.
It seems no matter how clear a text is man will resort to his tradition and do whatever it takes to defend that tradition. No one quoted Calvin, no one claimed to be representing Calvinist belief, yet we see this name tagging immediately. I wonder if I should really take the time to respond, since Drew’s presuppositions will not allow for God to sovereign.
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."
The three clauses a,b,c within each verse:
39a]This is the will of Him who sent Me,
40a]For this is the will of My Father,
39b]that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing,
40b ]that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life,
39c]but raise it up on the last day.
40c]and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.
So we know from the [a] verses that:
this is the will of the Father who sent Him and,
from the [ b ] verses that:
all the Father has given Him will behold the Son and believe in Him AND will have eternal life and not be lost and,
from the [c] verses that:
Jesus will raise them up on the last day.
WE can interpret the [ b ] verses as we do because of these verses:
44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-- 46not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
and verse 37
37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
Verse 44, 45, and 37 tells us that All the father teaches are drawn to Jesus and given to Jesus from the Father.
The negative seals it: No one can come unless drawn. All who come are therefore drawn, and all will receive eternal life.
The first error I noticed is that there is an assumption that designs the conclusion which is The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus'offer of salvation. If this is to justify the alleged 'free-will' consideration of the worthiness of God's salvation, how then can an ungodly person do so who has no ability to see (know/understand) the light (truth) of the gospel; And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, 2 Cor. 4:3,4. There is neither the explicit nor implicit understanding in John 6 that an ungodly person has such a freeness in their natural 'will' (desire) to judge the worthiness (personal value) of God's salvation in order to determine if it is what they want. Furthermore, the Apostle's teaching in Ephesians 1:4,5 cannot be clearer in regards as to whose 'will' is in control of man's salvation, ...as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.... It is God's 'will', not fallen man's, that accomplishes man's salvation and John 1:13 clearly states the receiving of this salvation is NOT according to the 'will' of man.
Verse 37 does not imply that those who come to Christ do so according to their own desires. John 1:13 refutes that explicitly. Verse 38 clearly tells us that not even the God of creation came to earth to consider His own 'will' as the controlling factor in man's salvation but what we must remember is that the Triunity of God covenanted before creation to create, establish and administer the Everlasting Covenant in which fallen man is brought into a salvific relationship with God. The 'free-will' theist literally places more authority for one's salvation in the 'will' of the ungodly than God Himself. It is a serious matter to give the ungodly more sovereignty than the most Godly of all.
The second error I noticed is the un-Biblical doctrine of 'possibilities' which are also given more sovereignty than the explicit statements of Holy Scripture as found in this comment, Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40. 1) Possibilities are NOT facts. That is why they are only possibilities. 2) Where does Scripture state the possibilities or that possibilities have more authority than facts clearly stated?
Verse 39 makes it clear that Jesus saves those whom the Father gives Him and of whom the Father gives Jesus for the sole purpose of salvation, none will or can ever not have that salvation. Again, upon what basis does the Father give anyone to Jesus? John 1:13 clearly removes the 'will' of the ungodly as the deciding factor and since Eph. 1:4,5 clearly state that one's salvation (election to salvation) is according to the Father's 'will', any attempt to subvert the Father's 'will' is the same as rejecting the authority of God's Word. The 'all that' is immediately related to 1) those whom the Father gives to Jesus and 2) those whom Jesus will never lose (salvifically) and 3) those who will be raised to everlasting life and 4) those who will believe which results in 5) everlasting life.
all who freely come to believe in Jesus is in neither the text nor the context and if they are saved apart from what you call an irresistable "tug", then God's word is both contradicted and made void since fallen man's 'will' is not involved in receiving salvation and God clearly states nobody can come to Him for salvation without that irresistable "tug".[/color]
"As I pointed out, the passage is explaining the unbelief of the Jews. Remember that the end of John 6 all these would-be disciples, other than the twelve, walk away. They were surface followers who were scandalized by the gospel message. That is why Jesus refers to their unbelief, and explains their unbelief in the words of John 6:37ff. The key issue that your entire presentation fails on is this: all that are drawn by the Father to the Son are raised by the Son on the last day. To be raised by the Son is to be given eternal life. Jesus gives eternal life to all those given to Him by the Father (6:39). See the connection? The effectual drawing of the Father to the Son is what guarantees the truth of 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.†Why? Because God draws them. Beautiful consistency is the hallmark of sound exegesis of the inspired Word." Taken from: http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html
The "unbelief" that James refers to is found in verse 36:
"But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not." (KJV)
While Calvin was right about election that only those chosen by God would be in the end the only ones saved. He missed the boat on what keeps the playing field level.
Which is what this thread is about, you agree with Calvin and therefore you agree that God the Father draws only the elect.
Irresistible Grace just does not cut it.
You followed Drew’s red herring…tricky devil isn’t he.
While God has chosen those to whom he will reveal the truth to, it is now each mans responsibility to accept or reject that truth. Calvinists will say NO! NO! that's not the way it is, those who are elect have no choice in the matter. In my opinion this is Gods way of keeping his choice Just. Although those he has not chosen will not respond, the possibility for those he has chosen to reject that truth; remains open.
Sorry friend, but you don’t know what you’re talking about, no Calvinist I know would agree with what you’re saying. When we are born again we run to God, we’re not drawn kicking and screaming, but understand the goodness of God and run into His loving arms.
READER: If you’re interested in learning what a Calvinist believes on this topic, ask a Calvinist, or you’ll find yourself repeating the errors like one given above.
This is true, but that doesn't mean that the person in question hasn't hardened their heart and rejected multiple "wooings" of the Holy Spirit already.
So God isn’t able to convict a person of sin? Does the Holy Spirit fail at His job in convicting sinners?
God said, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". I think this is because of how flippant Esau was with his birthright and Esau's heart in general. But this "hate" wasn't developed until well after Esau had done all these things, I think he rejected God's moving in his life. God doesn't go around hating sinners, he only hates those who once they see the truth and are prompted by His Holy Sprit repeatedly reject Him out of their stubborn wickedness.
I understand where you’re coming from but what you posted doesn’t line up with Romans 9. The text reads, “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)†We see it’s God’s calling , not anything we do, it’s in the Bible.
In the past I would really dig in to a topic like this, spend time reading and re-reading it, making rebuttal posts, etc. but it was often fruitless. I’ll be around I just don’t know how much I’ll post in here.
God bless,
jm
