Reformed theologians, please help me

[Butch5]

Yes. I would agree with that. And I agree Jesus "came first" to the Jews. But what I don't agree with, is that somehow means the way to "eternal life" changed at that time. Why would Jesus coming first and through the Jews, trigger some kind-of different method to “eternal life”. Paul argues against this, I believe. Plus the thief on the cross was technically with God the very evening he died (prior to the disciples being sent) via his belief. I assume he was a Jew, but I don't see any Scriptural support that Jews have "eternal life" in any other way than the one and only way for all time "belief in Him". I understand that it wouldn't have made any logical sense to go around preaching a Risen savior, prior to Him actually rising with witnesses. That's why the Bible equates Abraham's belief to his credit for "eternal life".

Hi Chessman,

I'm not sure how you're understanding a different way of salvation, that is not my intention at all. What have I said that lead you to that conclusion?

 

[Butch5]

1 Cor 1:4 “

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus,â€</SPAN>

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Galatians 3:21-22 ESV)

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.
(Ephesians 4:7 ESV)

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
(1 John 3:1 ESV)

Hi Chessman,

I don't see where it says these were given to Christ. They talk about grace and the promise being given to believers, but I don't see anything about people being given to Christ.

Okay. I think they were given to Him. But others can be as well, pre and post resurrection. I don’t see the point here.

My point is that there is no basis to think people are given to Christ outside of that context. When Christ was on earth He said He only did what the Father told Him, and He said those the Father drew would come to Him. However, after the cross Jesus appeared to the apostles and said, 'all authority is given to me'. In John 12 He said He would be doing the drawing. So, now it is Jesus who is doing the drawing, not the Father. The Father has given authority to the Son.

Well I hadn't made it to that verse (37) yet. I was just trying to put the "whosoevers" and the "alls" into context based on the actual verses starting from John 6:1, not John 12 or John 17.

I understand, I was just using those passages to make the point.

 

[chessman]

I'm not sure how you're understanding a different way of salvation, that is not my intention at all. What have I said that lead you to that conclusion?

Butch, In all honesty this aspect of my disagreement with your principle probably relates more to your comment to me about Luke 23:34 or Romans 9, than John 6 and John 12.

However, I see the passage [Luke 23:34] relating only to those people of which Jesus was speaking. Keep in mind that Jesus was speaking of Jews who were being blinded.

I really, really disagree with how you used this same method for Jesus’ work on the cross in your reply to me about “father forgive them for they no not what they doâ€, above. Which is ironic since there clearly Jesus was technically speaking precisely in regard to the Roman soldiers (not the Jews), yet I believe He was stating a principle for all of us to understand. Gasping for air to even breath, much less speak, I find it hard to believe He would say what He did, only for a few Roman soldiers or even just toward the Jews. Nor would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke to write it in Scripture so that “we all might believeâ€. Same thing for John 6’s Scripture. It’s clearly not only in regard to Jews via Jesus words for “allâ€, “whoeverâ€, etc. But I do see your point that He’s using the Jews and blinding them within the setting of this teaching.
Where is the American section of the Bible, would be my broader question if we applied this principle to each and every book? I say this because of statements like these:

If you read the book of Romans you'll notice in chapter 2 verse 17 Paul turns his attention to the Jewish believers at Rome when he says, 'behold thou art called a Jew' and he begins a discourse with the Jewish believers which go on until chapter 11 verse 13 where he says, 'for I say to you Gentiles'. His argument in Romans 9 is in regard to whom God will use to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham. He says they are not all Israel which are of Israel, thus his argument is discussing the Jews, the offspring of Israel (Jacob).

I believe reading the book of Romans as if it were written only to Jews is a mistake (I know you didn’t say this, but see your quote below as well). If not for the Gospels and Paul’s writings, there’s not much to the NT. Yes, I understand the context is highly important and often written directly to Jews, even in the NT. Now more than ever, thanks to you. However, God’s principles don’t change from Jew to Gentile and where they are described, God applies them to me, just like a Jew. In respect to Romans 9, for example, Paul doesn’t sound like He’s talking only to Jews with:

Romans 9:1-5 ESV I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
​

Truth is truth. Truth is, I am Israel (in the since that I belong to Him), in God’s eyes.
Or even more clearly here through Paul’s use of “They†and “themâ€, even though he was a Jew:

Romans 9:30-33 (ESV) What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.â€
​

Paul’s use of the words “they†in reference to the blinded Jews does call them out. He does this where appropriate and true, but not everywhere in Romans.
Nor in John 6, in my opinion, is Jesus speaking only for the Jews to hear His message.

(Joh 6:40 KJV) Jesus spoke these words to the Jews

Yes, I’m sure the vast majority of the crowd were Jews. Maybe not technically all of them, however. But even if every single one in the crowd were Jewish, He still spoke (recorded) those word for me via the Bible. To the Jews but for me. Else, why have them be part of Scripture and protected? A better blinding to the Jews, would just be to never had said them at all, if that’s all He was doing.

 

[chessman]

I don't see where it [1 Cor 1:4, Eph 4:7, 1 John 3:1] says these were given to Christ.

Me either. Salvation is a "gift" of God. In that direction. From God to us, not the other way around, in any context or time period you want to study. And to hit home even more, in my own personal testimony. Jew or Gentile. That''s my exact point. We got on this subject because the article you posted mentioned Judas as being "given to Christ". My point was that He never was "given to Christ" or saved in the first place.

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.†He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
(John 6:70-71 ESV)

​

Here(within John 6:70-71), to imply that passage meant Judas was ever saved is irrational, in my opinon. Which seemed to be the article's point.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)
​

I don't see anywhere in John 6, where Judas is ever described as being saved to begin with (no matter how one thinks that comes about). Therfore, how could he be an example of how salvation does come about. The whole point didn't make sense to me. Though I do think a study of Judas versus say Abraham versus say the thief on the cross versus say me, goes a long long way in helping to resolve all the pedals of a TULIP and to your point, looking at the Flower Garden

 

[chessman]

I wasn't referring to that article but rather the other one. I was referring to the Kingdom of God paper I wrote, it explains how I understand the Kingdom. I think it will answer some of the questions you have about my position.

Oh, I misunderstood and thought you meant the other article. I missed this post/link somehow. No surprise. I'll take a look, hopefully today.

 

[Butch5]

Me either. Salvation is a "gift" of God. In that direction. From God to us, not the other way around, in any context or time period you want to study. And to hit home even more, in my own personal testimony. Jew or Gentile. That''s my exact point. We got on this subject because the article you posted mentioned Judas as being "given to Christ". My point was that He never was "given to Christ" or saved in the first place.

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
(John 6:70-71 ESV)

​

Here(within John 6:70-71), to imply that passage meant Judas was ever saved is irrational, in my opinon. Which seemed to be the article's point.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)
​

I don't see anywhere in John 6, where Judas is ever described as being saved to begin with (no matter how one thinks that comes about). Therfore, how could he be an example of how salvation does come about. The whole point didn't make sense to me. Though I do think a study of Judas versus say Abraham versus say the thief on the cross versus say me, goes a long long way in helping to resolve all the pedals of a TULIP and to your point, looking at the Flower Garden

Hi Chessman,

From your post I seems you're equating those given to Christ with salvation. The point of the article is that the two do not equate to the same thing. The goal of the giving is to produce fruit and eventually achieve salvation. If we look closely at the way the passage is worded we can see what Jesus is saying.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:39-40 KJV)

Notice that Jesus said of those who come to Him He should lose none. He didn't say He will lose none. The intention is that none be lost but that is not a certainty. We can see this because "should" implies intent, not a stated result. Then He says everyone who sees the Son and believes "MAY" have everlasting life. So here again we see that of those believing the intention is that they would have eternal life. The use of should/may implies that this is the intent of the giving of men to Christ, however, that is not a guaranteed outcome. It's no different than if I said, I may come visit you. By my using the word "may" I am letting you know that my intention to visit you is not certain at this point in time.

So we can see that being given to Christ is not equivalent to being saved. We can also see this in Jesus own words.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? {offend: or, scandalize, or, cause you to stumble}
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. (Joh 6:60-71 KJV)

Jesus said no one could come to Him unless they were drawn by the Father. Here we see that some of His disciples left Him. They couldn't have come unless they were drawn so it would seem they were drawn, yet they did turn away. Either they were saved and lost, or they were never saved. If they were saved and lost, then obviously being given to Christ does not guarantee salvation. If they were never saved then being given to Christ does not equate to being saved. Either way, being given to Christ does not guarantee salvation.

Additionally, Jesus said, of the twelve, "have I not chosen you"? Clearly Judas was one of Christ's chosen. Again, He could not have been one of the chosen if He had not been given to Christ by the Father. We know from Jesus' words in John 17 that Judas was lost. So again, we see that being given to Christ does not equate to being saved.

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

 

[Butch5]

Oh, I misunderstood and thought you meant the other article. I missed this post/link somehow. No surprise. I'll take a look, hopefully today.

OK great! I think it give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, In all honesty this aspect of my disagreement with your principle probably relates more to your comment to me about Luke 23:34 or Romans 9, than John 6 and John 12.

I really, really disagree with how you used this same method for Jesus’ work on the cross in your reply to me about “father forgive them for they no not what they do”, above. Which is ironic since there clearly Jesus was technically speaking precisely in regard to the Roman soldiers (not the Jews), yet I believe He was stating a principle for all of us to understand. Gasping for air to even breath, much less speak, I find it hard to believe He would say what He did, only for a few Roman soldiers or even just toward the Jews. Nor would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke to write it in Scripture so that “we all might believe”. Same thing for John 6’s Scripture. It’s clearly not only in regard to Jews via Jesus words for “all”, “whoever”, etc. But I do see your point that He’s using the Jews and blinding them within the setting of this teaching.
Where is the American section of the Bible, would be my broader question if we applied this principle to each and every book? I say this because of statements like these:

I believe reading the book of Romans as if it were written only to Jews is a mistake (I know you didn’t say this, but see your quote below as well). If not for the Gospels and Paul’s writings, there’s not much to the NT. Yes, I understand the context is highly important and often written directly to Jews, even in the NT. Now more than ever, thanks to you. However, God’s principles don’t change from Jew to Gentile and where they are described, God applies them to me, just like a Jew. In respect to Romans 9, for example, Paul doesn’t sound like He’s talking only to Jews with:

Romans 9:1-5 ESV I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
​

Truth is truth. Truth is, I am Israel (in the since that I belong to Him), in God’s eyes.
Or even more clearly here through Paul’s use of “They” and “them”, even though he was a Jew:

Romans 9:30-33 (ESV) What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
​

Paul’s use of the words “they” in reference to the blinded Jews does call them out. He does this where appropriate and true, but not everywhere in Romans.
Nor in John 6, in my opinion, is Jesus speaking only for the Jews to hear His message.
Yes, I’m sure the vast majority of the crowd were Jews. Maybe not technically all of them, however. But even if every single one in the crowd were Jewish, He still spoke (recorded) those word for me via the Bible. To the Jews but for me. Else, why have them be part of Scripture and protected? A better blinding to the Jews, would just be to never had said them at all, if that’s all He was doing.

Hi Chessman,

Thanks for the clarification. I need to further explain. What I am suggesting is that we look at the Scriptures in their historical context. I am not suggesting a different way of salvation to different groups or in different dispensations. I am also not suggesting that Just because something was said the Jews that it has no application to us today. The principles that God has laid out in Scripture are for our learning. The point I'm making is that it is imperative that we properly understand the Scriptures in order to derive those principles from God's word. Without proper exegesis we can derive all kinds of principles/doctrines from the Scriptures and believe they are Biblical when they are not. That is why I keep emphasizing the context and who is being addressed. For example, suppose you're reading a book on American history and it explains a strategic maneuver that was used. Suppose in that explanation it says, take your musket and do xyz. No one today reading that book is going to assume the maneuver can only be done with a musket. While the principle is applicable today, we wouldn't do it using a musket. We would understand the historical background in which the book is based. It is the same with the Scriptures. Yes, the principles are applicable, however, we have to remember it was written in the context of the 1st century Roman world, not a 21st century American world or a 16th century, French, English, and Switzerland, world. We have to understand it in that 1st century Roman world context to make sure we are understanding it correctly. We have good evidence as to what happens when we understand it outside its historical background. Just look around at the church today. There are over 19000 sects and denominations within Protestant Christianity alone. This comes from people interpreting the Scripture in 21st century mindset. When we interpret the Scriptures devoid of their historical context we can really get off course, this can be seen in the "works" debates that happen so often. I hear people say, works are anything a person does. Well, that may fit the definition of woks in 21st century America, but is that what Paul was talking about? If we look at what he says we have to conclude that, no, that is not what Paul was saying. That definition of works creates contradictions within Paul's own writings.

If you want we can go through Romans 9 also. I can show you another perspective on the passage that fits contextually without any problems and is outside of a Reformation understanding. We can also look at Ephesians 1 which is another passage used to support Reformed Theology.

 

[chessman]

When we interpret the Scriptures devoid of their historical context we can really get off course, this can be seen in the "works" debates that happen so often. I hear people say, works are anything a person does. Well, that may fit the definition of woks in 21st century America, but is that what Paul was talking about? If we look at what he says we have to conclude that, no, that is not what Paul was saying. That definition of works creates contradictions within Paul's own writings.

excellent point and example. But in John 6 Jesus' "eternal life" seems to mean just that. And "whoever" also seems much broader.

 

[Butch5]

excellent point and example. But in John 6 Jesus' "eternal life" seems to mean just that. And "whoever" also seems much broader.

Hi Chessman,

I agree it is eternal life that He talking about but in the larger context. Regarding "whosoever", I think it can be understood this way, when Jesus said whosoever, He could have meant it universally. He could have been stating His purpose, however, the message would still be constrained by time.