Reformed theologians, please help me

[chessman]

However, I have heard at least one Reformed writer and speak use both terms together. That would be James R White of Alpha Omega ministries. I wish I could find where he did that, I would post the link.

It's not in here but it's a very interesting discussion. I pretty much agreed with everything James White said here about reformed Theology. If you can get over how many times he likes to say "I" or "me" in any conversation, his theology is not bad. Every question posed to him, he had a biblical answer for it that made tremendous common sense and directly answered the questions (good questions related to the OP too). But more importantly the answers made Biblical sense. Versus David Instone-Brewer's answers which were evasive at best and contradictory to Scriptures at worst. Oh the irony as well that Justin points out that the very question of the podcast Title “Was Jesus a Calvinist?†is an illogical/satiristic question since Calvin came more that 1500 years AFTER JesusJ But worth listening to for anyone that’s interested in the determinism of God on Earthly matters (good and bad).

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={D4E01CE8-0DDD-4C4A-BCF0-9E8B4D98166F}

Could be here as well, I haven't re-listened to see if he used these terms here? I wouldn’t see how, even if he did, that his position on the question would be much clearer than the above podcast.
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={D83C4909-3F7D-4B4B-A1D8-DEC88ABB89DE}
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={7E9A6DD3-A5FB-4401-AA69-4B1D304CA9E8}

 

[mondar]

Chessman, I think your arguing just to argue. To answer seems to waist time. Also, I still do not believe you that you are reformed (unless you accept some redefinition of the term).

 

[mondar]

Here's a part that I most troubling.

CHAPTER III. — Of God’s Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.


Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).

I don't believe any of this can be supported by Scripture properly exegeted. I believe the passages used to support these claims are taken out of context and some I think are simply presumptions.

If you want to see the scriptural support behind the Westminster Confession, you can use this link.
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc03.html
It is supported with scriptural, and very much in context.

Of course its a link to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith from 1689, but it does not matter because the words are the same as the Westminster Confession. Of course if your reformed, I would assume that you already know this.

 

[Butch5]

If you want to see the scriptural support behind the Westminster Confession, you can use this link.
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc03.html
It is supported with scriptural, and very much in context.

Of course its a link to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith from 1689, but it does not matter because the words are the same as the Westminster Confession. Of course if your reformed, I would assume that you already know this.

Hi Mondar,

I've heard the passages, I don't believe they're in context. For the most part they're single verses of Scripture. I don't usually see doctrines taught in a single verse of Scripture. Every verse is part of a larger thought. When one takes a sing,le verse and removes it from the authors argument they can make it say almost anything they want it to say. The fact that they are almost all single passages suggests to me that they are nothing more than proof texts. For instance the confession says,

6._____ As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

And uses John 6:64 as evidence. That is not what John 6:64 is talking about. None of John 6 supports the claim here. John 6 describes a temporary situation that existed during Jesus' earthly ministry.

That's why I made the statement that I don't believe it can be supported by properly exegeted Scripture.

 

[josefnospam]

I really hope this does not offend you. There is no value in anything anyone may do, say, or think. Stay focused on what he our Lord did. Anything that glorifies man takes away from what our Lord has done and that is exavtly what the enemey wants.Believe on him and him alone. He has done it all and he sent his son to save his people whom he choose before he made the world. His Grace is amazing and he will not fail to save alll he came for.

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar,

I've heard the passages, I don't believe they're in context. For the most part they're single verses of Scripture. I don't usually see doctrines taught in a single verse of Scripture. Every verse is part of a larger thought. When one takes a sing,le verse and removes it from the authors argument they can make it say almost anything they want it to say. The fact that they are almost all single passages suggests to me that they are nothing more than proof texts. For instance the confession says,



And uses John 6:64 as evidence. That is not what John 6:64 is talking about. None of John 6 supports the claim here. John 6 describes a temporary situation that existed during Jesus' earthly ministry.

That's why I made the statement that I don't believe it can be supported by properly exegeted Scripture.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
Of course the verses have to do with the truths in the statement of the Westminster, and it is obvious in the context. The Westminster statement talks about the effectual call. It affirms that the effectual call of God is the only way men come to salvation. This is no temporary situation. Mankinds nature has been evil from Adams fall. It was a fact that without the work of the Father, no man can come to the son. It is still a fact. To say that mans evil nature was only a temporary thing while Christ was on earth would be rather interesting doctrine. Maybe you failed to understand the Westminster and the context. The context speaks of this both here, and also in John 6:44-45. The context is huge in speaking of the effectual call, any honest exegete would see it.

 

[chessman]

Chessman, I think your arguing just to argue.

Nope. Just doing some Bible study, admonishment, encouragement, helping, patience-building, testing, holding-to-what’s-good and partial-abstaining:

1 Thessalonians 5:12-28 (ESV) We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. Brothers, pray for us. Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss. I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

To answer seems to waist time.

I’ve posted some rhetorical questions, yes. Where I have, I thought they helped the discussion along. But sorry to hear you feel that way about this one question below. I was honestly looking for some education/insight into this question as I believe it’s basically the original post’s question. I honestly thought (still do) you might have an insightful and factual answer to:

how it (Westminster) relates to the OP. So God’s Providence (according to the Westminster Confession, not me) “directly disposes†and does “extendeth itself even to the first Fall [sin], and all other sins of angels and men†using their words, not mine. Exactly how does article V, II clarify this, in your mind? That’s an honest question by the way. I may be missing something.

Regardless, how do you reconcile Article I when it says God’s Providence “directly disposes†and does “extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins?

Where you’ve discussed exegetically the Scriptures, I don’t recall ever disagreeing with you.

Also, I still do not believe you that you are reformed (unless you accept some redefinition of the term).

I was using your definition of “reformed†(“Westminsterian†or another 17th century confession), not mine to try and study the question at hand. However, the OP was to Reformed Theologians, not so much any particular reformed church as I understood the question. The question is not what I believe anyway. Very few people on Earth care what I believe. What I believe only matters to me and God. Just to illustrate, I believe you are always confident yet often wrong. Very similar to me. But that doesn’t matter to the OP question one bit. Which makes me wonder why you’ve now posted what you believe about me at least seven times and desire some moderation (even mine) within what could have been an excellent thread.

 

[chessman]

I really hope this does not offend you. There is no value in anything anyone may do, say, or think.

I take no offense nor do I mean any here. But I do wonder is there any value in the statement “There is no value in anything anyone may do, say, or think.�

 

[Butch5]

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
Of course the verses have to do with the truths in the statement of the Westminster, and it is obvious in the context. The Westminster statement talks about the effectual call. It affirms that the effectual call of God is the only way men come to salvation. This is no temporary situation. Mankinds nature has been evil from Adams fall. It was a fact that without the work of the Father, no man can come to the son. It is still a fact. To say that mans evil nature was only a temporary thing while Christ was on earth would be rather interesting doctrine. Maybe you failed to understand the Westminster and the context. The context speaks of this both here, and also in John 6:44-45. The context is huge in speaking of the effectual call, any honest exegete would see it.

Hi Mondar,

Actually, no the passages is not speaking of an effectual call. That is the point I was trying to make. This is what my reformed pastors did. They applied the Scriptures to their doctrines rather than the other way around. John 6:44-45 are not speaking of an effectual call either and that calling was temporary and is not happening now. It will take some time to explain as you will need to look at it from a differed prospect. The first thing to note is that Jesus, when on earth said that He had only come to the Jews. This context is important. The reason no one could come to Christ unless the Father drew them was because the Jews were being blinded. This is prophesied in Isaiah.

10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isa 6:10 KJV)

Jesus quotes this passage when telling His disciples that it is given to them to understand but not the others.

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mar 4:10-12 KJV)

Paul also speaks of the blinding of the Jews.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. (Rom 11:7-8 KJV)

He's quoting Isaiah,

10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. (Isa 29:10 KJV)

This blinding of the Jews was necessary to bring about the crucifixion. It was necessary that the Jews reject Jesus. Jesus said in the quote from Mark 4 that if the understood the would be converted. They were kept in the dark until after the crucifixion. Paul said that things were kept hidden because if the princes (I believe demons) of this world knew it they would not have killed Christ.

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1Co 2:6-8 KJV)

However, after the cross this wisdom was revealed. Jesus said,

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (Joh 12:32 KJV)

He said He would draw all to Himself. This shows that after the cross the specific draw of John 6 would end and a universal drawing would begin, thus the drawing of John 6 was temporary. John also tells us that Christ does indeed influence all.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (Joh 1:6-9 KJV)

Looking at these passages in the context of Jesus' ministry shows that they are not speaking of an effectual call to salvation. The call was to gather a group of men who would become disciples which Jesus could then send out to the world.

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar,

Actually, no the passages is not speaking of an effectual call. That is the point I was trying to make. This is what my reformed pastors did. They applied the Scriptures to their doctrines rather than the other way around. John 6:44-45 are not speaking of an effectual call either and that calling was temporary and is not happening now.

Actually, yes, the passage is speaking of an effectual call, and your reformed pastors told you correctly.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
The drawing of the father in 6:44 and the giving of faith in John 6:65 to the believer by the Father is explicit in the text. Its right there in black and white.

While it is true that God hardened the heart of Jews, and hardened Pharaoh's heart in Romans 9, that is not what the context is about.

You say the context is about Jewish people only, but the text says "no man can come to me."
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Now when you see the words "no man can come to me" does that mean...
1--- some men can come to Christ?
2--- most men can come to Christ?
3--- some Jewish men can come to Christ?
4--- some Gentiles can come to Christ but he hardens the hearts of Jews?
or 5--- No man can come to Christ.

The whole context of 6:37 - 44 is full of superlatives.
See verse 37
**** Joh 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Of the ones given to the Son by the Father, how man come to Christ?
1--- Some of them come to Christ?
2--- Most of them come to Christ?
3--- Some Jewish men can come to Christ?
4--- Some Gentiles can come to Christ, but he hardens Jewish hearts?
5-- All those given to Christ by the Father can come to Christ?

Of course the painfully obvious question in the text, is if "no man can come to Christ" in 6:44, then what is the text saying that all those given by the Father to the Son will come to Christ. Of course the answer is in 6:44 also, the text says, except the Father draw him. So then, coming to Christ (Faith) is an not a human act, but an act of the Father in drawing the elect in what Reformed theologians commonly call the "Effectual call."

There are yet more superlatives in the context. We could do the same game with verse 39.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Of the ones given to the Son, how many will be lost?
a few? Maybe some Jews who God hardens? OR again #5... He will loose none.

Then there is verse 40....
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Who gets eternal life? Again #5--- "everyone who beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him.
** Please note there are translations that use the term "whosoever" but the greek term is PAS--- all or everyone.

To speculate as you do that the passage is only about Jews is to avoid the grammer and syntax of the passage. The passage is not speaking of "all Jews" or "all Gentiles" but it is speaking of those the Father draws, the effectual call of the elect.

The whole context is loud and clear. This is not to deny that God hardens hearts, but that is in a different context, not this context. The point is... that... it is painfully obvious that the reformed use of John 6, is contextual, and correct in speaking of an effectual call. The Westminster is correct here.

This is not to say the Westminster is perfect, it does have one flaw I am aware of, but that is the subject for a different subject.

It will take some time to explain as you will need to look at it from a differed prospect. The first thing to note is that Jesus, when on earth said that He had only come to the Jews. This context is important. The reason no one could come to Christ unless the Father drew them was because the Jews were being blinded. This is prophesied in Isaiah.

10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isa 6:10 KJV)

Jesus quotes this passage when telling His disciples that it is given to them to understand but not the others.

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mar 4:10-12 KJV)

Paul also speaks of the blinding of the Jews.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. (Rom 11:7-8 KJV)

He's quoting Isaiah,

10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. (Isa 29:10 KJV)

This blinding of the Jews was necessary to bring about the crucifixion. It was necessary that the Jews reject Jesus. Jesus said in the quote from Mark 4 that if the understood the would be converted. They were kept in the dark until after the crucifixion. Paul said that things were kept hidden because if the princes (I believe demons) of this world knew it they would not have killed Christ.

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1Co 2:6-8 KJV)

However, after the cross this wisdom was revealed. Jesus said,

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (Joh 12:32 KJV)

He said He would draw all to Himself. This shows that after the cross the specific draw of John 6 would end and a universal drawing would begin, thus the drawing of John 6 was temporary. John also tells us that Christ does indeed influence all.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (Joh 1:6-9 KJV)

Looking at these passages in the context of Jesus' ministry shows that they are not speaking of an effectual call to salvation. The call was to gather a group of men who would become disciples which Jesus could then send out to the world.

 

[chessman]

Hi Mondar,

I’m new to this forum, so I’m asking if it is acceptable etiquette for me to reply to your post since you addressed it to Mondar? I’m assuming it is acceptable since that’s what a “forum†is by definition and there are PM methods or 1-on-1 debate methods for private discussions. It seems you’ve put some time/effort/thought into your point of exegesis of John 6. So here goes:

Actually, no the passages is not speaking of an effectual call. That is the point I was trying to make.

You’ve made an assertion here so I’m going to go through your post looking for the evidence that backs up your assertion since it seems that you’ve read of these passages, studied the issue (that’s now changed to effectual calling versus the OP’s question but whatever). The respectful thing to do would be to consider your point and evidence and discuss it. It does “seem†that’s exactly what Jesus is saying (effectual calling – Irresistible Grace-or just plain God’s drawing) is what Jesus means in John 6. My point is that there would need to be some counter evidence against the plain reading for this text to reinterpret its meaning. Especially from the long Traditional interpretations. You must have thought that they meant effectual-calling at one time, anyway, since you were in a reformed church. So something changed your mind about it. Let me see if there’s good evidence presented here to counter the “drawing of God being effectualâ€. I’m after the truth with only one admitted presupposition (Biblical truth).

This is what my reformed pastors did. They applied the Scriptures to their doctrines rather than the other way around.

Good point. But I don’t see how it is providing evidence against effectual-calling. But it’s at great principle to follow as long as we do understand that there have been lots of very smart people prior to us and they’ve done studying/analysis too. They might very well be right, or they could be wrong. Worth a listen to their evidence.

John 6:44-45 are not speaking of an effectual call either and that calling was temporary and is not happening now.

What makes it temporary or n/a now? I’m not seeing your evidence.
John 6:43-47 (ESV) Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It 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—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

It will take some time to explain as you will need to look at it from a differed prospect.

The first thing to note is that Jesus, when on earth said that He had only come to the Jews.

Where’s that passage? I’m familiar with OT fulfilled prophecy that He (God) came to the Jews, first. And Paul’s Romans passages 1:16 (post ascension) For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.†But where did Jesus contradict Himself in John 3:16 and say He came only for the Jews and not “whoseverâ€. But, even if He did, how does that change the effectiveness of God’s drawing His people (Jew or Greek or Gentile)? God’s calling effectiveness should not change post-ascension, for no good reason.

This context is important.

Yes. That’s always true. But it’s not a counter argument to any position/interpretation, unless the passage’s meaning within context is being changed by placing it “out of contextâ€. The context was pre-crucified Jesus speaking to a large group of mixed laypeople/followers just after performing signs to them (no disciples present) then to the disciples as a group including Judas. He’s explaining eternal life through Himself to both groups. That’s pretty much the “contextâ€. Why change it to Isaiah’s time?

The reason no one could come to Christ unless the Father drew them was because the Jews were being blinded. This is prophesied in Isaiah.

Okay seems that you are basically saying that a passage that clearly says “no one can come to the father unless [blank]†where the Scripture says; blank = the father who sent me draws him but
Butch says; blank = unless the Jews are not being blinded and then the father who sent me draws them.

That requires some pretty good and clear evidence in my book. It’s true that Jesus was speaking to Jews, thousands of them (not their leaders, rulers and prophets that were “blinded†in Isaiah’s time and the time that produced the Crucifixion of Jesus) but so what? It’s not even clear that there were not other people Gentiles and elect people. In fact the later passage, all the “twelve†were there also. It was obvious a mixture of some elect and some non-elect. It’s not clear that there couldn’t have been other people besides Jews in the crowds. But so what, even if they all were blinded Jews? If the “context†as you call it of Jesus feeding the 5,000, walking on water and explaining eternal life through His “bread†and “wine†has to be tied back to Isaiah, then why not the rest of John? What makes John 6 anymore exclusively “Jewish†than the rest of John’s Gospel? First, I don’t see anything here that’s exclusive to the Jews in the first place (just because Jesus quotes the OT that mentioned that the leaders and prophets would be blinded). But even it were taking about a Jew-drawing effectiveness versus a gentile-drawing effectiveness what difference does that make? I don’t see how the passage can be re-interpreted from Jesus saying “everyone†and “whoever†to actually meaning “Jews hearing Him speak†and excluding everyone else in the world. Regardless, God’s drawing power is just as effective for the the Jewish elect as it is the Greek elect as it was for Abraham or anybody else elect. I don’t see your point of evidence here (context is really OT Isaiah’s time), even if it were true, changing the effectiveness of God’s drawing power. Aren’t the Jews still being blinded to who Jesus really is, by the way?

Jesus quotes this passage when telling His disciples that it is given to them to understand but not the others.

I understand the Gospel, and I’m not Jewish. So was Jesus wrong? Jesus’ point is that some don’t understand and yet some do. Period. That’s true in any “contextâ€. It’s got nothing to do with their being Jewish or not. An un-called person of any nation or time is not going to understand the Gospel, period. Do only disciples understand the Gospel? Even the Jewish thief on the cross understood it, pre-resurrection.

For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. (Isa 29:10 KJV)

Note, that it’s the leaders and rulers that are “blindedâ€. How this changes the “everyone†or “whosoever†in John 6 is beyond me to understand, because I don’t see any evidence for it. But again, even if it did, how does that mean God’s a wimp when He draw’s people to Him. Why is God subject to any contingent being? Where’s that in the Bible?

This blinding of the Jews was necessary to bring about the crucifixion. It was necessary that the Jews reject Jesus.

Yes. So what? How does that change “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.�

Jesus said in the quote from Mark 4 that if the understood the would be converted. They were kept in the dark until after the crucifixion.

Yes, again, how does that change the method and/or the effectiveness of God’s calling? What and why would anyone want to change “God’s calling†into anything that’s not 100% effective. What is it, God’s suggestion? Or God’s post-blinding of the Jews calling? I don’t see your evidence. God is 100% effective in all that He does. And He does the drawing since we’re all dead in sin (Jew or Gentile).

Paul said that things were kept hidden because if the princes (I believe demons) of this world knew it they would not have killed Christ.

Yes, again, how does that change the method and/or the effectiveness of God’s calling?

However, after the cross this wisdom was revealed. Jesus said,

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (Joh 12:32 KJV)

So how is His “post-blinded-Israel-drawing†or “post-cross†drawing any more or less effective than His effectiveness prior? God’s God before the cross and after the cross. Weren’t the Apostle’s “drawn-effectively†during this period of blinding and prior to the ressurection? Wasn’t Abraham and even Isaiah “drawn-effectively� What difference does the time period make?

He said He would draw all to Himself. This shows that after the cross the specific draw of John 6 would end and a universal drawing would begin, thus the drawing of John 6 was temporary. John also tells us that Christ does indeed influence all.

Wow dude. How is what Jesus said in John 12 any different than John 6? Sounds like he’s simply repeating himself to me. But regardless the proof that your theory cannot be true (after examining the evidence you present) is a point you overlook in this passage:
John 6:61-65 (ESV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.†(For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.â€
Jesus says (repeats) that even after “they see the Son of Man ascending†(i.e. the ascension) that “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Fatherâ€. And He points out that He’s already said this same thing to them once. So Jesus Himself is arguing against you here. There’s nothing different about the effectiveness of how God draws people or grants people salvation pre or post cross! Paul proves this as well with His description of Abraham’s faith.

Looking at these passages in the context of Jesus' ministry shows that they are not speaking of an effectual call to salvation.

Calling upon “context†is not an argument unless in fact somebody is actually changing a passage’s meaning from what it meant in that context to mean something different by applying it in a different context. Which seems like exactly what you are doing, not Mondar. Effectual-calling seems proper in the context or time of John 6, Isaiah 29 or A.D. 2013. You can’t j say “out of context†and say that’s evidence. At least logically. You’ve got to show how someone is changing the meaning.

The call was to gather a group of men who would become disciples which Jesus could then send out to the world.

How are you changing “have eternal life†into “send out to the worldâ€. The context of both passages is how to obtain eternal life NOT evangelize the world.

 

[HisSheep]

Hi Beartheweak,

I've been away from the forum for a long time. I am very happy to see that mondar is still here. I've always found him to be spot-on.

I’m afraid I can't stick around to carry on a discussion, because I have to catch a flight in the AM. While I'm at home, I don't often have time to hang around on the forum. Anyway, let me just add this little bit to the discussion and then go to bed...

I am absolutely a reformed guy, and I can’t help but notice that these kinds of discussions always include the concept of “free willâ€. I reject the concept of “free-willâ€. The bible splits no hairs on this. Before we are born again, we are slaves to sin. After we are born again, we are slaves to Christ. This means that at all times we are slaves, doing the will of our respective masters. You guys know the scriptures that confirm this, I'm sure.

At no time is our will free. I cannot find any scripture that affirms the freedom of the will of man. I think people, out of sheer carnality, just assume that they have free will. I thought this way too, until I read a book by Ray Stedman (who was not a reformed guy by the way) that really got me to thinking. He said something like this (paraphrasing):

If you want to know what happened to you when you got born again, read about the crossing of the Red Sea. What happened to Israel happened to you. You were freed from bondage to sin in Egypt. You were baptized in the Red Sea. The enemy couldn’t touch you anymore. Your walk with the Lord began.

It occurred to me as I took his advice and read the account with this thought in mind that my Christian walk is corollary to Israel’s walk. I have the bread from Heaven, God’s provision, I have the pillar of fire, I have the cloud by day, I have the rock (Christ) flowing with water (Spirit) and I am bound for the Promised Land. (1 Corinthians 10) God goes before me and He will conquer my enemies on my behalf (2 Chronicles 20). He will never leave me nor forsake me.

My walk is not a corollary to a SINGLE Israelite (or I may be cut off, like Achan or the many others). I began to see the Nation of Israel as the “type†of the individual Christian who is the “antitype†in this scenario. So, Israel is symbolic of a single Christian.

God promised to deliver the NATION of Israel to the Promised Land. He never promised that each Israelite would make it there. The “bad†parts of the Nation would be “cut off†before reaching Canaan.

Likewise the bad parts of the Christian will be “cut off†before we reach the Promised Land. This is why the New Testament implores us Christians to:

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5)

Israel (The Nation) was NEVER given a choice. They didn’t choose God. God chose THEM! Surprise! In fact, they were downright ornery and difficult; complaining and grumbling and distrusting all the way! On several occasions they longed for their days of bondage. I have felt that too! That’s me!... Isn’t it you too?!

There are verses that SEEM to indicate that we make a choice for Christ/God, like this one:

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:15)

We tend to glom onto these types of verses and draw the conclusion that we are like an individual Israelite and that we can “choose†God. But with the “Israel is a type†view that I have tried to describe here, that verse speaks to the PARTS of me that are rebellious. And there are many of them, I can tell you!

Although not prevalent, this is not a novel view: A couple of years later I was reading the highly esteemed C.S. Lewis when I ran across this quote:

“When you accepted the exodus of Israel from Egypt as a type of the soul’s escape from sin, you did not on that account abolish the exodus as a historical event.†- C.S. Lewis, the Allegory of Love, ch.5, sec.2

Over time, I have come to notice that this view make the entire Old Testament come alive for me like never before. There is no part of it that doesn’t fit perfectly into this model. Oh the richness of it!

Again I must point out: Israel did not choose God. God chose Israel. Likewise, God chooses Christians. If it were up to Israel, they would have stayed in Egypt. If it were up to me, I would have stayed in my chains too. I loved my chains. A part of me still longs for them!

Just a few more things… Even if you must hold out a bit of free will in temporal matters. Consider what Martin Luther said about free will in regard to eternal matters (the real point of the discussion):

If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly†- Martin Luther in his “The Bondage of the Willâ€

And consider what Scripture says about the effectiveness of the will of man regarding spiritual rebirth:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

Must go to bed! Good night and God bless.

-HisSheep

 

[Butch5]

Hi Chrssman,
I’ve answeredyour questions, however, I’m giving you a link to an article that will explainmy position. I think this will be better than simply answering questions.

John 6

What makes ittemporary or n/a now? I’m not seeing your evidence.
John 6:43-47(ESV) Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble amongyourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. AndI will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And theywill all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from theFather comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is fromGod; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believeshas eternal life.

What make it temporary is Jesus’ statement in John 12, ‘if I am liftedup I will draw all unto me.’

Where’s thatpassage? I’m familiar with OT fulfilled prophecy that He (God) came to theJews, first. And Paul’s Romans passages 1:16 (post ascension) For I am notashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation toeveryone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Butwhere did Jesus contradict Himself in John 3:16and say He came only for the Jews and not “whosever”. But, even if He did, howdoes that change the effectiveness of God’s drawing His people (Jew or Greek orGentile)? God’s calling effectiveness should not change post-ascension, for nogood reason.

The passage is,
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep ofthe house of Israel. (Mat 15:24 KJV)
My argument is that this is the background in which Jesus’ statements inJohn 6 need to be understood. Let me make a clarification. I didn’t say Jesusonly came “for” the Jews. I said He came “to” the Jews. I don’t believe the reformed position even considersthis Jewish background in its interpretation of the passage.

Yes. That’salways true. But it’s not a counter argument to any position/interpretation,unless the passage’s meaning within context is being changed by placing it “outof context”. The context was pre-crucified Jesus speaking to a large group ofmixed laypeople/followers just after performing signs to them (no disciplespresent) then to the disciples as a group including Judas. He’s explainingeternal life through Himself to both groups. That’s pretty much the “context”.Why change it to Isaiah’s time?

I’m notchanging it to Isaiah’s time. Isaiah is speaking of Christ’s time. One has toask what is the purpose of this blinding that is taking place?

Okay seems that you are basically saying that a passage that clearly says“no one can come to the father unless [blank]” where the Scripture says; blank= the father who sent me draws him but
Butch says; blank = unless the Jews are not being blinded and then thefather who sent me draws them.

That requires some pretty good and clear evidence in my book. It’s true thatJesus was speaking to Jews, thousands of them (not their leaders, rulers andprophets that were “blinded” in Isaiah’s time and the time that produced theCrucifixion of Jesus) but so what? It’s not even clear that there were notother people Gentiles and elect people. In fact the later passage, all the“twelve” were there also. It was obvious a mixture of some elect and somenon-elect. It’s not clear that there couldn’t have been other people besidesJews in the crowds. But so what, even if they all were blinded Jews? If the“context” as you call it of Jesus feeding the 5,000, walking on water andexplaining eternal life through His “bread” and “wine” has to be tied back toIsaiah, then why not the rest of John? What makes John 6 anymore exclusively“Jewish” than the rest of John’s Gospel? First, I don’t see anything herethat’s exclusive to the Jews in the first place (just because Jesus quotes theOT that mentioned that the leaders and prophets would be blinded). But even itwere taking about a Jew-drawing effectiveness versus a gentile-drawingeffectiveness what difference does that make? I don’t see how the passage canbe re-interpreted from Jesus saying “everyone” and “whoever” to actuallymeaning “Jews hearing Him speak” and excluding everyone else in the world.Regardless, God’s drawing power is just as effective for the the Jewish electas it is the Greek elect as it was for Abraham or anybody else elect. I don’tsee your point of evidence here (context is really OT Isaiah’s time), even ifit were true, changing the effectiveness of God’s drawing power. Aren’t theJews still being blinded to who Jesus really is, by the way?

I think we needto forego the word elect. My point is the context is Israel, if Jesus saidwhosoever, within the context of Israel then whosoever means whosoever ofIsrael and not the whole world. If I said I was speaking to America and I saidwhosoever we would understand that to be whosoever in America. Ok, now beforewe get into, ‘he didn’t just come for the Jews’ let me explain that we need tounderstand this chronologically. The Gospel came to the Jews first, when Jesuswas here the Gospel had not gone to the Gentiles yet.
Regarding thequote from Isaiah it does apply to all of John’s Gospel. It applies to Jesusearthly ministry. The drawing that is being spoken of is not being drawn forthe purpose of salvation but rather as Jesus says to bear fruit. Jesus was puttingtogether a team if you will, that He could train and send out to continue His workafter the cross. That is why the drawing changes after the cross. After thecross the team has already been assembled. At this point the drawing becomes universal.

I understand the Gospel, and I’m not Jewish. So was Jesus wrong? Jesus’ point is that some don’t understand and yet some do. Period. That’s true in any “context”. It’s got nothing to do with their being Jewish or not. An un-called person of any nation or time is not going to understand the Gospel, period. Do only disciples understand the Gospel? Even the Jewish thief on the cross understood it, pre-resurrection.

Don’t approach it from a reformed perspective. Remember the context is Israel. You can understand the Gospel because it has been revealed. At the time Jesus made these statements it had not been revealed. That’s why Paul said it was the hidden wisdom of God. After the resurrection Jesus tore the lid off. Luke records that after the resurrection Jesus appeared to the Apostles and opened their understanding of the Scriptures.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (Luk 24:40-49 KJV)
Paul also addresses this in Epheisans 3


For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Eph 3:1-6 KJV)

The mystery had been kept hidden until after the cross. Once Jesus went to the cross the drawing changed.

 

[Butch5]

Note, that it’sthe leaders and rulers that are “blinded”. How this changes the “everyone” or“whosoever” in John 6 is beyond me to understand, because I don’t see anyevidence for it. But again, even if it did, how does that mean God’s a wimpwhen He draw’s people to Him. Why is God subject to any contingent being?Where’s that in the Bible?

Looking atJesus statement in Mark we can see that it is more than just the leaders. Jesusapplies it to the people. Again, we need to stay in chronological order. Thisdoesn’t make subject to any being, it is God carrying out His plan in time.

Yes. So what? How does that change “No one can come to me unless theFather who sent me draws him.”?

Because thecontext of that statement is Israel

Yes, again, howdoes that change the method and/or the effectiveness of God’s calling? What andwhy would anyone want to change “God’s calling” into anything that’s not 100%effective. What is it, God’s suggestion? Or God’s post-blinding of the Jewscalling? I don’t see your evidence. God is 100% effective in all that He does.And He does the drawing since we’re all dead in sin (Jew or Gentile).

The drawing isnot about being dead in sin. It’s about putting together a team if you will tocontinue Christ’s work of spreading the gospel

So how is His “post-blinded-Israel-drawing” or “post-cross” drawing anymore or less effective than His effectiveness prior? God’s God before the crossand after the cross. Weren’t the Apostle’s “drawn-effectively” during thisperiod of blinding and prior to the resurrection? Wasn’t Abraham and evenIsaiah “drawn-effectively”? What difference does the time period make?

We need to losethe word effectively, it’s not in Scripture. My argument has nothing to do withthe effectiveness of God’s drawing but rather the purpose of God’s drawing. Thiseffectual call is a man made doctrine. The Scriptures simply say called.

Wow dude. How is what Jesus said in John 12 any different than John 6?Sounds like he’s simply repeating himself to me. But regardless the proof thatyour theory cannot be true (after examining the evidence you present) is apoint you overlook in this passage:
John 6:61-65(ESV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples weregrumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then whatif you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It isthe Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that Ihave spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who donot believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did notbelieve, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why Itold you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Jesus says (repeats) that even after “they see the Son of Man ascending” (i.e.the ascension) that “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by theFather”. And He points out that He’s already said this same thing to themonce. So Jesus Himself is arguing against you here. There’s nothing differentabout the effectiveness of how God draws people or grants people salvation preor post cross! Paul proves this as well with His description of Abraham’sfaith.

The passagesare very different. No one can come unless the Father draws, is very differentthan, if I am lifted up I will draw all.
Again, were nottalking about salvation. We can see from Jesus’ words in John 17 that salvationwas not a guarantee of this drawing because Jesus said Judas was lost. Judaswas one of those who was Given to Christ by the Father. He also speaks of thosegiven to Him in the past tense, another indication that the specific drawinghad ended. In this passage below look how many times Jesus refers to those youhave given (past tense) me.



These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes toheaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son alsomay glorify thee:

2 Asthou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 Andthis is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and JesusChrist, whom thou hast sent.

4 Ihave glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest meto do.

5 Andnow, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I hadwith thee before the world was.

6 Ihave manifested thy name unto the menwhich thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have keptthy word.

7 Nowthey have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8 For Ihave given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them,and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed thatthou didst send me.

9 Ipray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 Andall mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 Andnow I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.Holy Father, keep through thine own name thosewhom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept,and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might befulfilled.

13 Andnow come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might havemy joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 Ihave given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are notof the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 Ipray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thoushouldest keep them from the evil.

16 Theyare not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, evenso have I also sent them into the world.

19 Andfor their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified throughthe truth.

20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on methrough their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, thatthey also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.(Joh 17:1-21 KJV)



Jesus speaks of them being given in the past tenserepeatedly. Notice also that when He pray, He prays for those who will believeon their word. He doesn’t mention anything about anyone being given in thefuture. Neither do any of the apostles speak of people being given to Jesusafter His earthly ministry.

Calling upon “context” is not an argument unless in fact somebody isactually changing a passage’s meaning from what it meant in that context tomean something different by applying it in a different context. Which seemslike exactly what you are doing, not Mondar. Effectual-calling seems proper inthe context or time of John 6, Isaiah 29 or A.D. 2013. You can’t just say “outof context” and say that’s evidence. At least logically. You’ve got to show howsomeone is changing the meaning.

I’ve shown the context. Effectual calling isn’t even a Scriptural concept how can that be thecontext of John 6. Where is Jesus teaching that when God calls a person, theyhave already been chosen and that they will answer that call? That is “not”what John 6 is about. We see from Jesus Himself that Judas eventually rejectedthat call.

How areyou changing “have eternal life” into “send out to the world”. The context of both passages is how to obtain eternal life NOT evangelize the world.

Look at the big picture. Christians have been taught to proof text. Jesus’ message was theKingdom of God, not how to be saved. Being saved is a part of the message, butit is just that, a part. Jesus had a much larger message that he was preaching.Today much of that message is overlook because people are fixated on beingsaved.

 

[mondar]

Butch,
I missed your reference to John 12. Your reference is not in context. You use this improper reading of John 12 and then force that reading upon a clear context of effectual calling in John 6.

You focus up this verse....
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.
Of course your mistake is reading the word "all men" in a way in which you understand it to mean "each and every man that ever lived." This reading is not likely in this context at all.

Oddly enough, you mentioned how God reprobates people by hardening their hearts and attached it to John 6. Yet a reference to that hardening is right in this passage.
Joh 12:37 But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him:
Joh 12:38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Joh 12:39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,
Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them.

In fact this context does have the Jewish/Gentile issues you attributed to John 6. Notice these verses.
Joh 12:20 Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worship at the feast:
Joh 12:21 these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
Joh 12:22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh, and Philip, and they tell Jesus.
Notice the context does not tell us if Jesus saw these greeks or not. Actually, his reply in 12:40 is his answer to the greeks. He said he will draw all men to himself. This did not mean each and every individual man, that can be seen by the later verses with reference to his hardening certain hearts. The word "all men" in verse 40 refers to "all kinds of men" in that context. It refers to even those greek speaking gentiles in verses 21-22.

The conclusion is then that you misread John 12, and made the drawing of God in the cross to be upon each and every man that ever lived, and then imported that wrong reading into John 6 which states that God draws those he gave to Christ, and only those he gave to Christ because "no man can come to me."
* Was God drawing even those from the OT who were already being punished in sheol or hell who died before Christ ever went to the cross? Is there some chance those people who are already being punished are drawn and going to come to Christ? Do you believe in a 2nd chance?

 

[Butch5]

Butch,
I missed your reference to John 12. Your reference is not in context. You usethis improper reading of John 12 and then force that reading upon a clearcontext of effectual calling in John 6.

You focus up this verse....
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men untomyself.
Of course your mistake is reading the word "all men" in a way inwhich you understand it to mean "each and every man that ever lived."This reading is not likely in this context at all.

Oddly enough, you mentioned how God reprobates people by hardening their heartsand attached it to John 6. Yet a reference to that hardening is right in thispassage.
Joh 12:37 But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believednot on him:
Joh 12:38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which hespake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lordbeen revealed?
Joh 12:39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,
Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest theyshould see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, AndI should heal them.

In fact this context does have the Jewish/Gentile issues you attributed to John6. Notice these verses.
Joh 12:20 Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worshipat the feast:
Joh 12:21 these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, andasked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
Joh 12:22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh, and Philip, and theytell Jesus.
Notice the context does not tell us if Jesus saw these greeks or not. Actually,his reply in 12:40 is his answer to the greeks. He said he will draw all men tohimself. This did not mean each and every individual man, that can be seen bythe later verses with reference to his hardening certain hearts. The word"all men" in verse 40 refers to "all kinds of men" in thatcontext. It refers to even those greek speaking gentiles in verses 21-22.

The conclusion is then that you misread John 12, and made the drawing of God inthe cross to be upon each and every man that ever lived, and then imported thatwrong reading into John 6 which states that God draws those he gave to Christ,and only those he gave to Christ because "no man can come to me."
* Was God drawing even those from the OT who were already being punished insheol or hell who died before Christ ever went to the cross? Is there somechance those people who are already being punished are drawn and going to cometo Christ? Do you believe in a 2nd chance?

Hi Modar,



There is no problem with what I said. The problem comes if you try tounderstand it from a Reformed perspective. As I said, it requires you lookingat it differently. When one is conditioned to look at these passages from acertain perspective that is what they see. I saw them the same way when I wasreformed. It took stepping outside of that perspective to see thingsdifferently. Did you read the article I posted to Chessman? it goes intogreater depth on this topic than can readily be done on a forum.



In order to understand what I said, you'll need to look at the big picture.It's not all about salvation. The bigger picture is God establishing thekingdom of God. Salvation is a part of the kingdom but it is only a part. Jesusdidn't just come to save men; He also came to restore all things. You said Hedidn't mean he would draw all men because some were hardened. This goes to mypoint of the bigger picture. The hardening was not so that these people wouldnot have a chance to be saved. It was so that God could achieve His purpose ofbringing about the crucifixion. Remember, 3000 of these Jews who had beenhardened and cried out crucify Him were later saved on the day of Pentecost.This is evidence that the hardening was not to remove a change of salvation butrather was to accomplish God's purpose which was to bring about thecrucifixion.

Regarding John 12 we know the drawing was all because John has already toldus that Jesus gives understanding to every person who is born.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of theLight, that all men through himmight believe.

8 He was not that Light, but wassent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light,which lighteth every man that comethinto the world.

(Joh 1:7-9 KJV)

He says that through Christ all (plural) might believe and then goes on tosay that Christ lights every (singular) person that comes into the world. Inthis context all is every person. He says through Christ “All†might be savedand explain how that is. It is because Christ give understanding to everyperson coming into the world. It stands to reason then that when Christ say Hewill draw all, all means everyone.

Please read the article, I think it will explain things better than Ican on this forum. I will be glad to answer your questions, but, I thinkyou'll get a much better understanding from the article. Remember, you have tolook at it from a different perspective, everything is not about salvation, butrather God's bring His plan, the promises made to Abraham, to fruition.

 

[chessman]

I’ve answered your questions, however, I’m giving you a link to an article that will explain my position. I think this will be better than simply answering questions

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions and clarify your point. It shows respect not just to me but toward the convictions you have toward the revelation of God through His Word. I feel that I do now understand better what you are saying. And I’ve studied what you’ve said and the link provided and find it incorrectly interprets the message(s) of Scripture. I find to many errors and “stretching†away from the plain meanings of the messages within the text (either in direct context, broader context or even the original languages) to buy-in to this concept. I have to say, that I have learned some aspects of John’s Gospel (it’s setting within a Jewish environment) that I hadn’t really considered as thoroughly as I should have. However, to “stretch†this aspect of John’s writing in John 6 to the point where Salvation is not the topic (when Jesus specifically says otherwise “eternal lifeâ€) is beyond what I can reasonably stand. Here’s why:
From the link:

“It matters not whether we argue that Judas was not really saved. The language Jesus used of His 12 disciples (those whom the Father gave Him) is the same in both John 6 & John 17! And Judas is clearly included in those who were given to Jesus by the Father! If you argue that Judas was not really saved, then none of those given Jesus by the Father in John 6 are necessarily saved. If Judas WAS really saved, then the case is closed! If Judas can fall away, so can you! The answer is that Jesus made a general statement.â€
​

Of course it matters whether Judas was really saved or not. Yes both John 6 and John 12’s topic of discussion is “eternal life†. Judas is clearly excluded by Jesus John 6:64-65 But there are some of you who do not believe.†(For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) [see Verse 71 if you like to read ahead] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.†So here we see Jesus knows there are some that believe and some that don’t. Some “who would believe†and some that do not. Coming from the Person that created the entire universe, healed blind, etc. I don’t find it hard to believe He could in fact know “who it was who would believe or who would betray†ahead of their actions. I also feel that it’s fair not to give eternal life to those that would “betray Himâ€. Regardless, does it say that Judas was MADE, CAUSED or “IMPOSEDâ€, (from the OP) not to believe? No it doesn’t. Just because Jesus “knew from the beginning who those were who would not believe but rather betray him doesn’t mean He imposed their unbelief or betrayal upon them. John certainly knows how to write it up that way if that had been what he meant to say. He could have said, for example, It is the Spirit who gives [takes] life or the Father who sent me draws [causes] him [to not believe]. But it doesn’t say that. i.e. It says those that are elect people are drawn, plainly and consistently with ALL other biblical text. Non-elect people are simply not drawn (left in their sin) because Jesus knows who would believe or not. Since I know of no other Scriptures that teach otherwise, I’m not looking to put John 6 or John 12 into any other category than the Gospel message for all mankind, not just the Jews. Frankly, I don’t know why anybody would unless their “church†or “-ism†were pressing them to.

What make it temporary is Jesus’ statement in John 12, ‘if I am lifted up I will draw all unto me.

Jesus didn’t make a “statement†in John 12. He made a much broader revelation of Himself and His purpose than just a “statement’. Talk about context. You can’t just take a snippet of a verse and copy and paste it into another section of the Bible. You’ve got to read the whole passage from the beginning of the topic all the way to the end of the topic. But again, you are right. This can all get into a broad, complex and time tested topic(s). We’re never going to “solve†it here. But to your particular point:

John 12:31-33 (ESV) Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.†He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.
​

36-50 When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?â€
Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.â€
Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.
And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.â€

The reason Jesus said “when (and it’s not “if†by the way) I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself†is to “show by what kind of death he was going to die†not to spin Soteriology on its head!
And the reason John mentions Isaiah is to show the fulfilled Prophecy of Isaiah through Jesus, not to change Soteriology. The reason God “blinded their eyes†was Yes, absolutely to “finish†the work of Christ. Christ “finished it†He didn’t change it on the cross!

I’m not changing it to Isaiah’s time. Isaiah is speaking of Christ’s time. One has to ask what is the purpose of this blinding that is taking place?

Not really. Scripture tells us directly what the purpose of their blinding was. That specific purpose was so Christ would finish His work. To avoid the Jewish leaders (who were still in their sin of course and deserved death, as we all do) from repenting at that particular time/place. I get that and that’s not new to me or Reformed Theology. But it doesn’t mean God’s salvation method was any different pre-Christ or Post-Christ. And it also doesn’t mean that some of the Jews at that time couldn’t believe (same way you and I do and the same way Abraham did) as Verse 41 makes plain. Even then some Jews, “Loved the Glory that came from man†and some “Loved the Glory that came from Godâ€.

I think we need to forego the word elect. My point is the context is Israel, if Jesus said whosoever, within the context of Israel then whosoever means whosoever of Israel and not the whole world.

I don’t think the “context†of John 6 is just Israel and find to many places within the evidence that you’ve presented that disagree with the plain meaning of some many Scriptures, even some within the same chapters. But that’s fine we can disagree.

The Gospel came to the Jews first, when Jesus was here the Gospel had not gone to the Gentiles yet.

I’m not sure how technical you mean this statement. The Gospel is based on the resurrection so technically your half right and half wrong. The “Gospel†didn’t come to anyone (Jew or Gentile) until Jesus was raised from the dead. Once raised, immediately that good news message (Jesus raised from the dead) was preached to all nations and it’s spread like wildfire ever since. However, how that somehow means God doesn’t “draw†His elect the same pre-resurrection (or pre-Gospel) as He does post-resurrection (Post-Gospel) is beyond me to understand. Especially since Paul anticipates this “notion†and put’s it to bed directly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

Romans 4:9-10 (ESV) Is this blessing then only for the circumcised,[answer is given as no later] or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
​

Paul (and clearly Paul is not just writing to Gentiles but also Jews, just as John is writing to Gentiles as well as Jews) clearly states then in Romans 9:But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

And of course Paul clearly defines what He means by Faith and Grace with

“Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
​

Paul clearly meant by “the Word of God†here to be the Hebrew texts as he does some quoting from it to show that the God’s salvation method was just as applicable to Abraham (and therefore his time period) as it was to Gentiles (and our time period). There’s only one method toward salvation and only one “drawingâ€:

As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’â€
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’â€
​

Regarding the quote from Isaiah it does apply to all of John’s Gospel. It applies to Jesus earthly ministry. The drawing that is being spoken of is not being drawn for the purpose of salvation but rather as Jesus says to bear fruit.

then why does he say “have eternal life†if He didn't me salvation?

Once Jesus went to the cross the drawing changed.

Okay. Thanks. I appreciate the time/effort but I'll have to reject this.

The statement here might very well conflict with some of the various “-isms†or church confessions, but I don’t see where there’s any Biblical support for this assertion. And I looked at what you’ve said.

I’m also unsure as to why there would be any motivation to say such a thing in the first place. I asked Beartheweak at least five times to post the Scriptures that conflict with each other that caused his confusion. He never did. He mentioned James 1 and Romans, but nothing specific about how they seemed to conflict. Those passages have been addressed pretty clearly in previous posts so were back to, no conflicts within a Reformed Theology. I don't even understand why someone would want to find a different "drawing" for the Jews than for a post-ressurection Gentile. Why?

 

[Butch5]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions and clarify your point. It shows respect not just to me but toward the convictions you have toward the revelation of God through His Word. I feel that I do now understand better what you are saying. And I’ve studied what you’ve said and the link provided and find it incorrectly interprets the message(s) of Scripture. I find to many errors and “stretching” away from the plain meanings of the messages within the text (either in direct context, broader context or even the original languages) to buy-in to this concept. I have to say, that I have learned some aspects of John’s Gospel (it’s setting within a Jewish environment) that I hadn’t really considered as thoroughly as I should have. However, to “stretch” this aspect of John’s writing in John 6 to the point where Salvation is not the topic (when Jesus specifically says otherwise “eternal life”) is beyond what I can reasonably stand. Here’s why:
From the link:

“It matters not whether we argue that Judas was not really saved. The language Jesus used of His 12 disciples (those whom the Father gave Him) is the same in both John 6 & John 17! And Judas is clearly included in those who were given to Jesus by the Father! If you argue that Judas was not really saved, then none of those given Jesus by the Father in John 6 are necessarily saved. If Judas WAS really saved, then the case is closed! If Judas can fall away, so can you! The answer is that Jesus made a general statement.”
​

Of course it matters whether Judas was really saved or not. Yes both John 6 and John 12’s topic of discussion is “eternal life” . Judas is clearly excluded by Jesus John 6:64-65 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) [see Verse 71 if you like to read ahead] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” So here we see Jesus knows there are some that believe and some that don’t. Some “who would believe” and some that do not. Coming from the Person that created the entire universe, healed blind, etc. I don’t find it hard to believe He could in fact know “who it was who would believe or who would betray” ahead of their actions. I also feel that it’s fair not to give eternal life to those that would “betray Him”. Regardless, does it say that Judas was MADE, CAUSED or “IMPOSED”, (from the OP) not to believe? No it doesn’t. Just because Jesus “knew from the beginning who those were who would not believe but rather betray him doesn’t mean He imposed their unbelief or betrayal upon them. John certainly knows how to write it up that way if that had been what he meant to say. He could have said, for example, It is the Spirit who gives [takes] life or the Father who sent me draws [causes] him [to not believe]. But it doesn’t say that. i.e. It says those that are elect people are drawn, plainly and consistently with ALL other biblical text. Non-elect people are simply not drawn (left in their sin) because Jesus knows who would believe or not. Since I know of no other Scriptures that teach otherwise, I’m not looking to put John 6 or John 12 into any other category than the Gospel message for all mankind, not just the Jews. Frankly, I don’t know why anybody would unless their “church” or “-ism” were pressing them to.

Hi Chessman,

Again, I need to point out the bigger picture. you're using the words "elect are drawn" in the case of salvation. I am using them in the case of purpose. God's assembling a team, if you will, that will carry one Christ's work after the cross. Again, salvation is a part of that but is not the sole goal. I still don't think you're look at the big picture. I've been studying this for years so it is familiar to me. However, this being new to you there are connections you're likely not seen yet. Forget about salvation for a while and focus on God establishing a kingdom that will last for eternity. If you look at my argument in that light it should become clearer.

You're posting that section from the article suggests to me that you're still focused on salvation. The wording in John is clear. Judas was one who was given to Christ, whether or not he was saved is a separate issue. God gave those 12 men to Christ and Christ trained them to go and spread the Gospel. We see that Judas did follow Christ for a while but in the end turned away. So, even though he was given to Christ he did not remain. I believe this point of the drawing in John 6. Is salvation a part of this? Yes, however, as I said it is not the sole reason for this drawing, I argue it's not the primary goal of this particular drawing. Again, keeping in mind that the Kingdom of God is the ultimate goal. If we look at Jesus Gospel, He didn't preach, believe I am going to die for you sins and you'll be saved. He preached the kingdom of God. What one was to believe is "thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus said it was upon this rock that He would build His church. A search of the Gospels reveals the Kingdom of God/Heaven mention about 85 times salvation just a few times. It becomes clear that Jesus was preaching much more than just salvation.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
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.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:15-18 KJV)

Peter's confession is an acknowledgment of Psalm 2

LXE Psalm 2:1 Wherefore did the heathen rage, and the nations imagine vain things?
2 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered themselves together, against the Lord, and against his Christ;
3 saying, Let us break through their bonds, and cast away their yoke from us.
4 He that dwells in the heavens shall laugh them to scorn, and the Lord shall mock them.
5 Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his fury.
6 But I have been made king by him on Sion his holy mountain,
7 declaring the ordinance of the Lord: the Lord said to me, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel.
10 Now therefore understand, ye kings: be instructed, all ye that judge the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice in him with trembling.
12 Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him.
(Psa 2:1-12 LXE)


However, the idea of "effectual calling" is inferred from Jesus' words in John 6. Jesus is not stating a teaching that comes from God that only certain people can be saved.

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. (Mat 26:63 KJV)

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (Joh 20:31 KJV)

According to John eternal life comes through believing that Jesus is the Christ. This is the Gospel message that was preached.

22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. (Act 26:22-23 KJV)

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Act 8:36-37 KJV)

Another reference to Psalm 2

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; (Act 2:29-30 KJV)

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Act 2:36 KJV)


Here again Peter references Psalm 2

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

(Act 4:25-26 KJV)

KJV Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Act 8:12 KJV)

There are many more passages that could be quoted. The point is to show the bigger picture, which is the kingdom of God. Today, Christianity focuses primarily on the salvation of man, which as I said is a part of the message, however, it's not the totality of the message as many seem to believe. I am including another link, this one is to a paper I've written, it will explain what I believe regarding the Kingdom of God. It is rather lengthy but it looks are the bigger picture.

The Kingdom of God (A Biblical Perspective)

 

[Butch5]

Hi Chessman,

Jesus didn’t make a “statement” in John 12. He made a much broader revelation of Himself and His purpose than just a “statement’. Talk about context. You can’t just take a snippet of a verse and copy and paste it into another section of the Bible. You’ve got to read the whole passage from the beginning of the topic all the way to the end of the topic. But again, you are right. This can all get into a broad, complex and time tested topic(s). We’re never going to “solve” it here. But to your particular point:

John 12:31-33 (ESV) Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.
​

36-50 When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”
Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.
And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”

The reason Jesus said “when (and it’s not “if” by the way) I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” is to “show by what kind of death he was going to die” not to spin Soteriology on its head!
And the reason John mentions Isaiah is to show the fulfilled Prophecy of Isaiah through Jesus, not to change Soteriology. The reason God “blinded their eyes” was Yes, absolutely to “finish” the work of Christ. Christ “finished it” He didn’t change it on the cross!

The Greek texts I'm looking at say if. I'm not changing anything. Jesus stated there that if lifted up he would draw all men. You said you don't see a difference in the calling. I can't understand how you can't see a difference, one is specific {no one except) done by the Father and the other is a general (all) done by the Son. Not only are they different the caller is different. Notice Jesus, while on earth doe the will of the Father, thus the Father is the one calling. After the resurrection all power and authority is given to Christ and now it is He who is doing the drawing.

 

[Butch5]

Not really. Scripture tells us directly what the purpose of their blinding was. That specific purpose was so Christ would finish His work. To avoid the Jewish leaders (who were still in their sin of course and deserved death, as we all do) from repenting at that particular time/place. I get that and that’s not new to me or Reformed Theology. But it doesn’t mean God’s salvation method was any different pre-Christ or Post-Christ. And it also doesn’t mean that some of the Jews at that time couldn’t believe (same way you and I do and the same way Abraham did) as Verse 41 makes plain. Even then some Jews, “Loved the Glory that came from man” and some “Loved the Glory that came from God”.

You're going to salvation.

I don’t think the “context” of John 6 is just Israel and find to many places within the evidence that you’ve presented that disagree with the plain meaning of some many Scriptures, even some within the same chapters. But that’s fine we can disagree.

Again, we need to stay within the time frame, the gospel had not gone to the Gentiles as this point. We've got to understand it how the Jews would have. Revelation was given over time, yes we can read the end of the book and impose that back on the characters in the beginning but that's not it's done. When we read a book we expect it to be revealed as we proceed through it. We don't expect the detective to know who the criminal is in chapter one. If we approach the Scriptures the same way and follow the events chronically we can watch things unfold. We don't need to impose the words of the apostle's later writings on events that happened prior. Can those later writings help us clarify things, yes, however, they still had to deal with the revelation they had at that time. When Jesus was walking on earth the Jews didn't the advantage of reading Hebrews to get a better understanding of how Christ fit in their Law.

I’m not sure how technical you mean this statement. The Gospel is based on the resurrection so technically your half right and half wrong. The “Gospel” didn’t come to anyone (Jew or Gentile) until Jesus was raised from the dead. Once raised, immediately that good news message (Jesus raised from the dead) was preached to all nations and it’s spread like wildfire ever since. However, how that somehow means God doesn’t “draw” His elect the same pre-resurrection (or pre-Gospel) as He does post-resurrection (Post-Gospel) is beyond me to understand. Especially since Paul anticipates this “notion” and put’s it to bed directly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

Romans 4:9-10 (ESV) Is this blessing then only for the circumcised,[answer is given as no later] or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
​

Paul (and clearly Paul is not just writing to Gentiles but also Jews, just as John is writing to Gentiles as well as Jews) clearly states then in Romans 9:But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

And of course Paul clearly defines what He means by Faith and Grace with

“Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
​

Paul clearly meant by “the Word of God” here to be the Hebrew texts as he does some quoting from it to show that the God’s salvation method was just as applicable to Abraham (and therefore his time period) as it was to Gentiles (and our time period). There’s only one method toward salvation and only one “drawing”:

As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
​

Chessman, Jesus resurrected ins not the Gospel, it's a part of it but not the Gospel. The Gospel is the Kingdom of God.

KJV Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Mat 24:14 KJV)

It is the Gospel of the Kingdom that will be preached in all nations. This gospel came to the Jews first. That is why Jesus' statements should be applied in that context. I'm not saying some things don't apply to the Gentiles, they do. However, we need to understand the process and how that occurs.

Regarding the passages you posted from Romans, here Paul is addressing the Jewish believers in the Church at Rome. He begins in chapter 2

KJV Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, (Rom 2:17 KJV)

and continues this discussion through chapter 11 where he turns his attention to the Gentiles.

Romans 11:13 (KJV)
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

In this section of Scripture Paul addresses issues dealing with the Jewish people. the quote you posted from Hosea is not speaking of the Gentiles, it is speaking of the Jews.

KJV Hosea 1:1 The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.
6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel. (Hos 1:1-11 KJV)


The passage Paul quotes speaks of the Jews again being called God's people. Also take note in this passage God say He will have mercy on Judah and no mercy on Israel. That aligns with what Paul said in Romans 9, 'He will have mercy one whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. This whole section of Scripture is speaking about Israel. Reformed theology claims Romans 9 as a proof text, but again, it's not saying what they claim. That's why I keep saying we got to look at the bigger picture.

then why does he say “have eternal life” if He didn't me salvation?

Because salvation is a possible outcome of that drawing, Salvation is God's intention in that drawing, but, so is securing a group of men for Christ to train and send in to the world.

Okay. Thanks. I appreciate the time/effort but I'll have to reject this.

If you're trying to understand this within a Reformed construct it will not work. You have to approach this with an open mind. It seems from some of your statements that you are still looking from a Reformed perspective. If that's the case then it will appear to be in conflict with other passages of Scripture. However, when you remove that Reformed construct it creates no problems with the Scriptures, rather it eliminates many of them. For instance the predestination election debate goes away. I have no trouble at all fitting this into my theology. I don't have to argue that all doesn't mean all, I don't have to explain a choosing before time, which obviously can't be done. I don't have to rely on mysteries to explain doctrines and so on. I see this debate going back and forth, over and over, God chose people before time began, no, He looked down the corridors of time and chose those who would choose. The Calvinist can't explain the choosing and has to deal with the passages that are against this reading and the Arminian can't supply any Scripture to prove God looked down through the corridors of time. So, the debate goes on and on. It's not a problem in my theology, it all meshes nicely.

The fact that all of these issues reconcile nicely strongly suggests that what I understand on the subject is correct.

The statement here might very well conflict with some of the various “-isms” or church confessions, but I don’t see where there’s any Biblical support for this assertion. And I looked at what you’ve said.

I’m also unsure as to why there would be any motivation to say such a thing in the first place. I asked Beartheweak at least five times to post the Scriptures that conflict with each other that caused his confusion. He never did. He mentioned James 1 and Romans, but nothing specific about how they seemed to conflict. Those passages have been addressed pretty clearly in previous posts so were back to, no conflicts within a Reformed Theology. I don't even understand why someone would want to find a different "drawing" for the Jews than for a post-ressurection Gentile. Why?

[/quote]

There's no motivation to change anything, it's simply a matter of following God's plan in chronological order. Just as God worked with the Jews progressively, He did so in the NT as well.