Reformed theologians, please help me

[Butch5]

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.

Hi Mondar,

Let me ask you a question. If I sai,d I've only come to the Americans, and then said whosoever writes to me will get an answer, wouldn't that be understood that whosoever, refers to Americans? I clearly stated that I had only come to Americans. There is no reason anyone would expect that statement to apply to someone of another nation. So, when Jesus said, I have only come to the lost sheep of Israel, why would anyone expect whosever to apply to anyone other than an Israeli? Whosoever is contained by Jesus' words, I am only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

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?

Yes, the passage says all will come, it doesn't say all will be saved.

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."

I see here that you've imposed the word faith on the text. The text says come to Christ, it doesn't say that is faith. I think we need to stay with the text especially since Jesus uses both "comes to Me" and "believes". If believes means to have faith then it is improbable that "comes to me" means faith.

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.

The passage doesn't say He "will" lose none, it says He "should" lose none. The Greek word lose (apollumi) is a subjective indicting probability not certainty.

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.

Notice Jesus changed his wording here. He didn't say everyone who is given to Him will be raised up but rather everyone who believes.

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.

I'm not speculating. Jesus plainly stated that He had only come to Israel. And in that context it was only Jews. His apostles were all Jews. Even when He sent out the 70 at first He told them not to go to the Gentiles but only to the Jews.

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.

It's not clear because the effectual call is being imposed on the text. As I pointed out not all of those called will be saved. The only thing that is stated as a fact is that those drawn will come, not that they will be saved. It is the contention of Reformed theology that these will certainly be saved, and John 6 does not state that.

I would like to ask you to read my posts to Chressman. John Six is dealing with a larger issue than just salvation. In my posts to him I have addressed these issues. I think it would help our discussion if you could read them.

 

[chessman]

The Greek texts I'm looking at say if. I'm not changing anything.

Butch5,
As I’ve said earlier, I’m open to being wrong on any subject. I try as best I can to look at the evidence logically and follow it where it leads. In this case, I’m wrong and you’re right. Ouch that hurtJ ESV-When, NASB-If, NIV-when, KJV-if, YLT-if, Greek-if. I put my statement in parentheses because I did think it parenthetical to the subject at hand. Maybe you agree? I feel the message of John 12:32 is the same either way (when or if) since Jesus had multiple times earlier in his ministry prophesied His later resurrection. He was speaking of a future event so when/if basically says the same thing (though I wish the translators would leave the Greek alone unless it does convey a different meaning to the English). I have no idea the motivation for some of the translations using “when” versus “if” and wish they wouldn’t do stuff like that. When doesn’t, in fact, seem like the more precise word to use based on the study I performed (but I’m no expert in Greek). Anyway, it got me thinking and re-evaluating whether I was similarly wrong about any other the conclusions I’ve made toward the other evidence(s) you’ve presented supporting your major point. I hope I’m even understanding your major point as:

Actually, no the passages [John 6] is not speaking of an effectual call. That is the point I was trying to make

Is this precisely your point or are you saying that nowhere in Scripture is “effectual call” describes as an Attribute of God's powers?

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,
As I’ve said earlier, I’m open to being wrong on any subject. I try as best I can to look at the evidence logically and follow it where it leads. In this case, I’m wrong and you’re right. Ouch that hurtJ ESV-When, NASB-If, NIV-when, KJV-if, YLT-if, Greek-if. I put my statement in parentheses because I did think it parenthetical to the subject at hand. Maybe you agree? I feel the message of John 12:32 is the same either way (when or if) since Jesus had multiple times earlier in his ministry prophesied His later resurrection. He was speaking of a future event so when/if basically says the same thing (though I wish the translators would leave the Greek alone unless it does convey a different meaning to the English). I have no idea the motivation for some of the translations using “when” versus “if” and wish they wouldn’t do stuff like that. When doesn’t, in fact, seem like the more precise word to use based on the study I performed (but I’m no expert in Greek). Anyway, it got me thinking and re-evaluating whether I was similarly wrong about any other the conclusions I’ve made toward the other evidence(s) you’ve presented supporting your major point. I hope I’m even understanding your major point as:

Is this precisely your point or are you saying that nowhere in Scripture is “effectual call” describes as an Attribute of God's powers?

Hi Chessman,

I too wish they translate what the text actually says. I have seen where translations completely miss the authors point when they translate a passage. It's made me have to look at passages of Scripture in a new way. Anyway, back to my point. I'm not looking at this from a salvation perspective as is most often taught to Christians. I'm looking at the word of God as a whole, one continuous revelation from God, from Genesis to Revelation. From the beginning, God's plan has been to establish the Kingdom of God. The Kigndom is the ultimate goal, everything leads to that point. Jesus even said, no man can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. We can see from His words that salvation is merely the way of entering the kingdom, the goal is the kingdom. The inheritance is the eternal land promise to Abraham. If one is going to have an eternal inheritance, one should be eternal. Thus eternal life is given as "part" of the kingdom. You see, I'm looking at a much bigger picture, in which salvation plays a role.

If you set aside salvation and look at the Scriptures through a kingdom lens, many passages of Scripture take on a whole knew meaning. Think of everything in the Scriptures as God working to bring His kingdom to fruition. When you do this passages about election and predestination take on a whole new meaning. God's choosing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, takes on a whole new meaning. Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and John 6 take on a whole new meaning. Romans 9 is a great example. From this perspective one can see Paul describing how God has chosen the Jewish people to be the conduit through which He would fulfill the promises to Abraham, of which is the promise, 'through you all nations shall be blessed.'

As I said, to see it this way requires one to set aside other doctrinal positions because it will not mesh with them. However, when looking at the Scriptures from this perspective so many passages that were formerly difficult suddenly make perfect sense and fit nicely into the discourse.

Regarding you question about the effectual call as the Calvinist uses it, I don't see in the Scriptures.

 

[chessman]

when looking at the Scriptures from this perspective so many passages that were formerly difficult suddenly make perfect sense and fit nicely into the discourse.

Butch 5,
Thanks again for this clarification. I mean that. I feel I will be a better Bible study student in the future because of it. I see nothing wrong with keeping God’s Kingdom building in mind with every Scriptural study. I don’t know, maybe a decade ago, it finally hit home with me that I should read and study Scriptures with Jesus in mind, even the OT. It has helped. I do see the logic and potential effectiveness (pun) for me to employ this additional element (Kingdom Building) into my Bible Study and Apologetics. However, I’ve never seen any contradictions within Scripture (including John 6 versus John 12) holding to the Doctrines of God’s Attributes which include His ability to effectively call/draw anybody He chooses (Jew or Gentile) into His Kingdom. Still don’t.

to see it this way requires one to set aside other doctrinal positions because it will not mesh with them.

What scares me about “set aside other doctrinal positions†is that I’ll insert my own human doctrines and attributes for God in their place. I’m prone to do that. And often the doctrines that I envision, without Scriptural support, are wrong. I could wind up with “an old Man in the sky†view of the Doctrines of God were it not for at least some Doctrines that I hold without compromise. But yes, I agree, not all of the various “church’s†or the “-isms†so-called doctrines are necessarily perfect in the sense they can be exampled by every single particular passage of Scripture, unless that’s the context intended. But they sure do beat no doctrines (not that that’s what you’re saying). You said, “set aside other†doctrines not “set aside all†doctrines.
I wish I know what specific Biblical confusions or contradictions of the original OP were.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

What seems to be your issue is that you don't seem to understand either Calvinism or Arminianism.

First if all Calvinists would also assert that they believe God doesn't actively tempt anyone, though he ordains all things whatsoever to occur he does so in such a way that maintains the voluntary actions of the agents, and perhaps through permission. There are different opinions on this, but a good Compatibilist would disagree with your conclusion.

Also you're not understanding what Romans 9 is about, you're reading it as if it's a chapter on the righteousness of God in electing or reprobating all humanity. In fact the context of Romans 9-11 is about the faithfulness of God and the purposes of God in rejecting Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles. Romans 9:19-21 is about the Potter's right over the clay who is Israel, this is an allusion to Jeremiah 18 where God says that he is the Potter and ISRAEL is the clay. Israel is that lump in which God is fashioning two different vessels from the same lump, those who would be the elect Remnant to proclaim the good news to the Gentiles (Apostles) and those who through their hardening salvation is coming to the Gentiles (see Romans 11).

God isn't just saying he is going to use a person to whatever end and no one can say anything back, his purposes for hardening Israel was to show more and more mercy to the Nations of the world! God doesn't just arbitrarily harden men, the only group in the NT that is specifically referred to as hardened by God is Israel.

I suggest you go back to Scripture and read these passages in their larger contexts.

Blessings.

 

[Butch5]

Butch 5,
Thanks again for this clarification. I mean that. I feel I will be a better Bible study student in the future because of it. I see nothing wrong with keeping God’s Kingdom building in mind with every Scriptural study. I don’t know, maybe a decade ago, it finally hit home with me that I should read and study Scriptures with Jesus in mind, even the OT. It has helped. I do see the logic and potential effectiveness (pun) for me to employ this additional element (Kingdom Building) into my Bible Study and Apologetics. However, I’ve never seen any contradictions within Scripture (including John 6 versus John 12) holding to the Doctrines of God’s Attributes which include His ability to effectively call/draw anybody He chooses (Jew or Gentile) into His Kingdom. Still don’t.

Hi Chessman,

Thanks, I'm glad I could help. I went through a period where I had been taught opposing doctrine from Scripture. I realized that they couldn't both be right. This lead me on a search for the truth. I took everything I believed and laid it one the table. There were no sacred cows, anything that I couldn't reconcile was tossed aside. I no longer hold any doctrine tightly and am willing to listen to anyone who can present a sound Biblical argument. My search lead me to the internet and I found the Pristine Faith Restoration Society. This is group of men who decided that they wanted to sift through all of the baggage of the Last 2000 years and see what the original faith was. They began tracing doctrine back through time to their origin. Any doctrines that could not be traced back to the apostles were rejected. This made a lot of sense to me. This lead me to the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. While these writers are not inspired the do tell us a lot about the early faith and what the early church believed. Some of them were actual students of the apostles themselves. For the early Christians the goal was the Kingdom of God.

I realize you probably don't see problems in what you've learned or you probably wouldn't accept it. However, I thin if you look closely as passages sued to support many doctrines, not just reformed you'll see that they are not really supporting what is claimed. John 6 for instance, we see it appears to many to support the effectual call. However, is that what Jesus is teaching. Is the purpose of His message to inform the Jews that only the one chosen can be saved, or is there another purpose? After all, to those who were given to Him, He didn't say, to you it is given to be saved but to those who are outside to be lost. He says, to you it is given to understand the things of the "Kingdom of God." We can see from these words that the giving of men to Jesus has to do with the kingdom of God.

What scares me about “set aside other doctrinal positions” is that I’ll insert my own human doctrines and attributes for God in their place. I’m prone to do that. And often the doctrines that I envision, without Scriptural support, are wrong. I could wind up with “an old Man in the sky” view of the Doctrines of God were it not for at least some Doctrines that I hold without compromise. But yes, I agree, not all of the various “church’s” or the “-isms” so-called doctrines are necessarily perfect in the sense they can be exampled by every single particular passage of Scripture, unless that’s the context intended. But they sure do beat no doctrines (not that that’s what you’re saying). You said, “set aside other” doctrines not “set aside all” doctrines.

I can relate to that. You don't want to wind up in left field. However, remember that many of the doctrines that exist are the doctrines of other men, what makes them right? The reason I said to set aside doctrines is because we approach the Scripture with preconceptions and many times don't even realize it. For instance our tendency to look at most passages and how they relate to salvation. I believe this is the reason much of Christianity misses the bigger picture. I mean look at all of the threads that revolve around salvation, can it be lost, who is saved, what is necessary to be save, can you be saved if you believe xyz, and so on and so on. Paul told the Hebrews to get past this.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil


KJV Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit. (Heb 5:11-3 KJV)

After saying this Paul went on to go into great detail about the Kingdom of God explaining how Christ is both priest and king.

I wish I know what specific Biblical confusions or contradictions of the original OP were.

I don't know, I contacted him and gave him info but have not heard anything about his progress.

 

[chessman]

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age,

You mean you don't see predestination and irresistible grace in that. Just kidding!

 

[Butch5]

You mean you don't see predestination and irresistible grace in that. Just kidding!

lol

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar,

Let me ask you a question. If I sai,d I've only come to the Americans, and then said whosoever writes to me will get an answer, wouldn't that be understood that whosoever, refers to Americans? I clearly stated that I had only come to Americans. There is no reason anyone would expect that statement to apply to someone of another nation. So, when Jesus said, I have only come to the lost sheep of Israel, why would anyone expect whosever to apply to anyone other than an Israeli? Whosoever is contained by Jesus' words, I am only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

This is about the term "whosoever" in verse 40.

This is a bad illustration and does not at all reflect the grammar of the passage. It makes it seem as if the term "whosoever" is indefinite. In this context it is impossible to understand the term as indefinite because the greek term is "pas" (all or every). When the term pas is used with a participle, it can be used of the group in the participle.

Actually, the ASV is a good translation and does not even use the term "whosoever."
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.
The ASV uses the term "every one" and that is a good translation.

When the term is pas (all or every) this would be a vastly superior illustration of the use of the term.
"There is going to be a nuclear holocaust and "whosoever" is in this room will not die, but survive.

Let me add that there are contexts where the term "whosoever" can be indefinite is certain contexts where the indefinite particle is used. One such context is John 4:14. However, the greek behind that text is very different from the greek behind John 6:40. Your illustration would apply to John 4:14 and its grammar, but is a completely wrong in John 6:40.

 

[mondar]

Yes, the passage says all will come, it doesn't say all will be saved.

This is in reference to John 6:37.
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.
It is obvious that all men everywhere are not saved in verse 37. The text is saying all those given by the Father will be saved. They are the ones that will come to Christ. Of them, each and everyone of them will be saved.

I see here that you've imposed the word faith on the text. The text says come to Christ, it doesn't say that is faith. I think we need to stay with the text especially since Jesus uses both "comes to Me" and "believes". If believes means to have faith then it is improbable that "comes to me" means faith.

This is in reference to verse 44.
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.
Of course while the verse does not have the term faith in it, nothing could be more obvious then that the terms "come to me" is speaking of faith. The context demands it. Just pay attention to the number of times John uses the term faith (or the verbal form "believe") in the text.
It is found in verse 35 and verse 36. Then also in verse 40 and again in verse 47.
The context easily demonstrates that there is obvious reason to think the terms "come to me" is speaking of faith.

The passage doesn't say He "will" lose none, it says He "should" lose none. The Greek word lose (apollumi) is a subjective indicting probability not certainty.

Concerning verse 39...
Butch, there is no such thing as the "subjective" in greek. Anyone who knows the language is going to see that right away. Of course I think what your talking about is the "subjunctive" mood in greek. The very apollumi is in the subjunctive mood, but the subjunctive mood does not carry the force you are suggesting. This can be seen in the sentence if you pay attention to the strong contrastive conjunction (alla). After the conjunction, when Christ says he will raise it up on the last day, this is a parallel statement as found in verse 40 which speaks of eternal life.

Butch, your post here looks bad to me. It looks like you are pretending to know greek and you are avoiding some obvious contextual issues.

Notice Jesus changed his wording here. He didn't say everyone who is given to Him will be raised up but rather everyone who believes.

I see no reason to break up this context into little bits and say it is totally disconnected as you are here. In verse 37 a group of people are given to Christ, and they come to Christ, this is the same group that believes and is given eternal life (40) and it is the same group that is drawn by the Father (44). To break up the passage and say none of those things go together seems to make Christ a wild schizophrenic that cannot speak in linear thought. It is one context. I do not buy it at all that there are different groups in each of these verses. What in the context could possibly bring you to that conclusion?

I'm not speculating. Jesus plainly stated that He had only come to Israel. And in that context it was only Jews. His apostles were all Jews. Even when He sent out the 70 at first He told them not to go to the Gentiles but only to the Jews.

Don't you notice how you break up the context, then jump all over to other texts and bring in things in those texts into the contexts here were it is not an issue. Yet in John 12, where it is specificly mentioned in the context, you ignore it. It seems to me you are speculating wildly.

It's not clear because the effectual call is being imposed on the text. As I pointed out not all of those called will be saved. The only thing that is stated as a fact is that those drawn will come, not that they will be saved. It is the contention of Reformed theology that these will certainly be saved, and John 6 does not state that.

I would like to ask you to read my posts to Chressman. John Six is dealing with a larger issue than just salvation. In my posts to him I have addressed these issues. I think it would help our discussion if you could read them.

Actually, I have seen enough now. I think I would prefer breaking off the conversation. The context seems amazingly obvious that the drawing of the Father is an effectual call.

 

[Butch5]

This is in reference to John 6:37.
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.
It is obvious that all men everywhere are not saved in verse 37. The text is saying all those given by the Father will be saved. They are the ones that will come to Christ. Of them, each and everyone of them will be saved.

It's not, the text says all will come. It doesn't say all who come will be saved. In fact we know one wasn't. Judas came and Jesus said he was lost.

This is in reference to verse 44.
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.
Of course while the verse does not have the term faith in it, nothing could be more obvious then that the terms "come to me" is speaking of faith. The context demands it. Just pay attention to the number of times John uses the term faith (or the verbal form "believe") in the text.
It is found in verse 35 and verse 36. Then also in verse 40 and again in verse 47.
The context easily demonstrates that there is obvious reason to think the terms "come to me" is speaking of faith.

Faith may be in the context, however, that doesn't mean "come to me" equates to faith.

Concerning verse 39...
Butch, there is no such thing as the "subjective" in greek. Anyone who knows the language is going to see that right away. Of course I think what your talking about is the "subjunctive" mood in greek. The very apollumi is in the subjunctive mood, but the subjunctive mood does not carry the force you are suggesting. This can be seen in the sentence if you pay attention to the strong contrastive conjunction (alla). After the conjunction, when Christ says he will raise it up on the last day, this is a parallel statement as found in verse 40 which speaks of eternal life

Butch, your post here looks bad to me. It looks like you are pretending to know greek and you are avoiding some obvious contextual issues..

Yes, I meant subjunctive, clicked the wrong word on the spell checker. I disagree, they are not parallel statements. Verse 39 speaks of those given and says should lose none. Verse 40 speaks of those who see and believe. Apollumi is translated should lose, thus it is not a certainty.

I see no reason to break up this context into little bits and say it is totally disconnected as you are here. In verse 37 a group of people are given to Christ, and they come to Christ, this is the same group that believes and is given eternal life (40) and it is the same group that is drawn by the Father (44). To break up the passage and say none of those things go together seems to make Christ a wild schizophrenic that cannot speak in linear thought. It is one context. I do not buy it at all that there are different groups in each of these verses. What in the context could possibly bring you to that conclusion?

I'm not breaking up anything. Jesus said, those who were given would come, and that of them He "should" lose none. Then He said that it was the will of the Father that all who see the son and believe "should" have eternal life and that He would raise them up. Where do you see this certainty that you speak of. Should, implies desired result not a definite outcome.

Don't you notice how you break up the context, then jump all over to other texts and bring in things in those texts into the contexts here were it is not an issue. Yet in John 12, where it is specificly mentioned in the context, you ignore it. It seems to me you are speculating wildly.

I'm not breaking up the context, it seems to me that you're rejecting it. Are you not applying this to the elect of all time? How is that in context? Jesus said He had only come to the Jews, His ministry was in Judea, He didn't go to the Gentiles and until the cross He kept His disciples from going to the Gentiles. It seems to me that to apply His words outside of this context is taking them out of context.

Actually, I have seen enough now. I think I would prefer breaking off the conversation. The context seems amazingly obvious that the drawing of the Father is an effectual call.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I get this response fairly often when I begin to point out these issues. I would encourage you to investigate further and really look at the words that were used and try to look at them outside of a Reformed perspective. I pointed out in my discussion with Chessman, there is a much larger picture here that is being missed because the focus is solely on salvation. To see it you'll need to step outside of that perspective and look from a different angle.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[HisSheep]

What seems to be your issue is that you don't seem to understand either Calvinism or Arminianism.

First if all Calvinists would also assert that they believe God doesn't actively tempt anyone, though he ordains all things whatsoever to occur he does so in such a way that maintains the voluntary actions of the agents, and perhaps through permission. There are different opinions on this, but a good Compatibilist would disagree with your conclusion.

Also you're not understanding what Romans 9 is about, you're reading it as if it's a chapter on the righteousness of God in electing or reprobating all humanity. In fact the context of Romans 9-11 is about the faithfulness of God and the purposes of God in rejecting Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles. Romans 9:19-21 is about the Potter's right over the clay who is Israel, this is an allusion to Jeremiah 18 where God says that he is the Potter and ISRAEL is the clay. Israel is that lump in which God is fashioning two different vessels from the same lump, those who would be the elect Remnant to proclaim the good news to the Gentiles (Apostles) and those who through their hardening salvation is coming to the Gentiles (see Romans 11).

God isn't just saying he is going to use a person to whatever end and no one can say anything back, his purposes for hardening Israel was to show more and more mercy to the Nations of the world! God doesn't just arbitrarily harden men, the only group in the NT that is specifically referred to as hardened by God is Israel.

Yes. You describe my position pretty well.

I'm sure we all agree that God is working His plan to conform a group of people to the image of His Son, right? I'd like to suggest that the unregenerate have a role to play in this process. We are to try to reach them with the gospel, but they will not hear.

My buddy Charles H. Spurgeon said that there are two symbolic types of unbelievers: “Jewsâ€, to whom the Gospel is a stumbling block and “Greeks†to whom it is foolishness. These two groups symbolize the only two types of disbelief (of the gospel) that exist… The former is caught-up in their religion, and won’t come to Christ. The latter is like a modern sort of science worshiper, who will only believe what he can see. (1 Corinthians 1)

Christ preached to these groups and was rejected and mocked. His followers today (and down through the ages) are conformed to Christ image (in part) by bearing the very same cross before those same two groups of people. In this way we are “following Christâ€.

We too, are mocked and rejected. (Except by the happy exceptions!) Through this rejection and mockery, we share in Christ’s suffering, and become a little more like Him.

Basically, we are wheat among the tares. The tares are temporarily left in place for the benefit of the wheat, and there is no chance that a tare will become wheat.

-HisSHeep

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yes. You describe my position pretty well.

I'm sure we all agree that God is working His plan to conform a group of people to the image of His Son, right? I'd like to suggest that the unregenerate have a role to play in this process. We are to try to reach them with the gospel, but they will not hear.

My buddy Charles H. Spurgeon said that there are two symbolic types of unbelievers: “Jews”, to whom the Gospel is a stumbling block and “Greeks” to whom it is foolishness. These two groups symbolize the only two types of disbelief (of the gospel) that exist… The former is caught-up in their religion, and won’t come to Christ. The latter is like a modern sort of science worshiper, who will only believe what he can see. (1 Corinthians 1)

Christ preached to these groups and was rejected and mocked. His followers today (and down through the ages) are conformed to Christ image (in part) by bearing the very same cross before those same two groups of people. In this way we are “following Christ”.

We too, are mocked and rejected. (Except by the happy exceptions!) Through this rejection and mockery, we share in Christ’s suffering, and become a little more like Him.

Basically, we are wheat among the tares. The tares are temporarily left in place for the benefit of the wheat, and there is no chance that a tare will become wheat.

-HisSHeep

This is another error that Calvinists make in regards to reading the gospels. They take the inability of the Jews at that time to believe and make that concept universal for all men including in today's world. When in fact this blindness and hardness was a specific judicial hardening in order that the gospel might go to the Gentiles. Those who were truly God's followers in Israel turned to Christ.. those who merely had an outward obedience to the law, yet refused to come to Jesus the Messiah to whom the Scriptures attested were cut off.

This hardeness also does not preclude the possibility of them coming still, the key was for them to repent, yet because they had a hypocritical outward obedience to the law yet their inner hearts were wicked they refused to come to Jesus and so have life. They rejected the plan of God for them.

 

[chessman]

Faith may be in the context, however, that doesn't mean "come to me" equates to faith.

Butch, as I’ve said, I feel I’m a better Bible Study student because of our conversation. Would you mind continuing it with me? Frankly, I feel like there are too many doctrines at play all at once to come to any resolution. It seems to me that a step by step study is called for here. So what I’ve done is use John 6 as an example passage/narrative to see if we can in fact base any doctrines on this narrative. So here goes starting at John 6:1 with a Kingdom Building aspect in mind, and very little else:

After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick.
[Feeds 5,000]
And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.â€
​

Whether you see this as typological toward Perseverance-of-the-Saint is debatable, I suppose. Certainly it’s not clear or declarative. So I’m setting my doctrines toward that aspect (P=perseverance) aside and moving on for now. Right?

When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!â€
​

But “the Prophet†they thought He was (a Jewish Messiah/earthly-king), was not correct. It was not part of Jesus’ Kingdom Plan that He be made an Earthly King (though they misunderstood this), nor one just for the Jews either. Agree?

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
[Jesus joined His disciples on the other side of the lake by walking on water]
On the next day the crowd … went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.
​

This crowd was still seeking to make Him an Earthly king, however, to give them earthly things (separation from Roman rule being foremost), not t “seeking Jesus†to believe He was God and certainly not God’s sacrifice for their sins. They thought their sins were taken care of via Jewish sacrifices. Maybe they were, maybe not. I’m setting that aside for the moment.

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.†Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?†Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.
​

Jesus IS talking about eternal life, to the Jewish crowd, clearly, correct? But they are talking/thinking about earthly power/wealth. But here Jesus does say that eternal life comes via a work of God and thusly contradicts their notion that they “must do something†to have “food that endures to eternal lifeâ€. So, within any context you’d have in mind here in John 6, or with any Kingdom Building plan in mind, Jesus here clearly describes eternal life as a work of God, not man. Would you agree that we can therefore hold to a doctrine that indicates from Jesus own words that “eternal life†is a “gift to you†(at least that crowd) and that it’s “the work of God†and that it is “yon believe in Him whom he has sentâ€?

I don’t see any other message or doctrine taught here other than God’s the one that does the work of salvation to eternal life and that it’s a gift. People are free to disagree of course, but put yourself in this crowd (and I think that’s a fair thing to do since after all, it is part of God’s revelation to us) and see if Jesus’ message doesn’t directly apply to your state of mind prior to your salvation just as much as it did to this particular crowd of people. I feel it does. What could I do, apart from God’s work to receive eternal life? Pretty much nothing other than to “believe in Him whom has been sentâ€. Now so far this says nothing about God sustaining His work or you persevering until the end (P) or any other letter within “TULIPâ€.

So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’†Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.†They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.
​

There’s nothing to indicate here that their idea of “believe you†was anything other than asking for another “feeding five thousand†type of miracle or making manna fall from the sky. Yet again, Jesus points out to them that they in fact do not have Eternal Life in mind but rather filling their stomachs. But again, we CAN get to a doctrine that eternal life “comes down from heaven†and “gives life to the worldâ€. So Jesus’ word “the world†would seem to apply to everyone (Jew, Gentile, pre-resurrection and post-resurrection) correct? It seems like His statement is universal and therefore sets His statements to follow using “whosoever†back to a universal application, not any specific group of people or time period. Correct?

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
​

So again, Jesus tells them they are not seeing the “big pictureâ€. He is God “I am†and they are not believing in that. Again, I see nothing taught here about whether they or anyone else will preserver (P) the end or anything really other than they must Believe in Him (as God) and for their “works†to have eternal life and that this is the universal method, not just for Jews. The “whoever†here is universal, correct?
I’ve said all the above to set the context for this next verse (John 6:36), so as not to be taking things out of context or applying “whosoever†in any way out of context, even with Kingdom Building in mind. I’ve set aside all other doctrines other than the one we all seem to agree on (eternal life is a Gift of God, not works). So here’s John 6:36:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
​

Butch, your statements here are

Yes, the passage says all will come, it doesn't say all will be saved.

and

the text says all will come. It doesn't say all who come will be saved. In fact we know one wasn't. Judas came and Jesus said he was lost.

So you seem to agree (via the Greek) that at least the “all†in this passage means just that, all people of all time (Jew, Gentile, pre-resurrection, post-resurrection, regardless if they are elected or predestined or preserver toward that destination or not). So it would seem that both you and Mondar agree to at least this stipulation (all means all). I agree as well. Yet Butch, you then basically are saying that the “whoever†in John 6:36 isn’t back to a universal set of humans, correct?
You’re also saying that it’s not talking about Eternal Life at all, but rather something else, correct? I understand that’s your position because of:
quote=Butch5;784132]Faith may be in the context, however, that doesn't mean "come to me" equates to faith.[/quote] What, in your view, does “come to me†then mean in verse 36, if not the same thing as verse 35 or the same subject Jesus has been talking about since verse 26 (eternal life)?

 

[Butch5]

Butch, as I’ve said, I feel I’m abetter Bible Study student because of our conversation. Would you mindcontinuing it with me? Frankly, I feel like there are too many doctrines atplay all at once to come to any resolution. It seems to me that a step by stepstudy is called for here. So what I’ve done is use John 6 as an examplepassage/narrative to see if we can in fact base any doctrines on thisnarrative. So here goes starting at John 6:1with a Kingdom Building aspect in mind, and very little else:

After this Jesus went away to the otherside of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. And a large crowdwas following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick.
[Feeds 5,000]
And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples,“Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.”
Whether you see this as typological towardPerseverance-of-the-Saint is debatable, I suppose. Certainly it’s not clear ordeclarative. So I’m setting my doctrines toward that aspect (P=perseverance)aside and moving on for now. Right?
When the people saw the sign that hehad done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into theworld!”
But “the Prophet” they thought He was (aJewish Messiah/earthly-king), was not correct. It was not part of Jesus’Kingdom Plan that He be made an Earthly King (though they misunderstood this),nor one just for the Jews either. Agree?

Hi Chessman,
Did you have a change to read that paper “TheKingdom of God”? I ask because if you did I will reference it, if not I mayhave to explain some things. Actually, yes, He was that prophet. Moses spoke ofthat prophet.
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee,of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; (Deu 18:15 KJV)
The prophet was to belike Moses. The thing that made Moses different from the other prophets was thathe gave them the Law. Peter said that Jesus was that prophet.


21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times ofrestitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holyprophets since the world began.

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your Godraise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in allthings whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear thatprophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many ashave spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25 Ye are the children of theprophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying untoAbraham, And in thy seed shall all thekindreds of the earth be blessed.

26 Unto you first God, havingraised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one ofyou from his iniquities.(Act 3:21-26 KJV)



Notice Peter saidthat Christ came to the Jews first. This is why I put Jesus’ words in a Jewishcontext.



What the Jewsmissed was that the Messiah would have to suffer before He reigned. We know theJews were expecting a conquering king, when Jesus came without an army theydidn’t see how He could be the Messiah. John the Baptist announced Jesus as theLamb of God. He saw the Spirit descend on Jesus, yet, he later sent hisdisciples to Jesus to ask him if He was the one or if there was another. Fromwhat I understand there was debate among the Jews as to whether there would oneor two Messiahs, one who would suffer and one who would conquer. Jesus didn’tanswer John directly but rather told of the miracles that were being done.Those miracles were prophesied in Isaiah as things that would be done by theMessiah.

Perceiving then that they were aboutto come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again tothe mountain by himself.

[Jesus joined His disciples on the other side of the lake by walking on water]
On the next day the crowd … went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.
This crowd was still seeking to make Him anEarthly king, however, to give them earthly things (separation from Roman rulebeing foremost), not t “seeking Jesus” to believe He was God and certainly notGod’s sacrifice for their sins. They thought their sins were taken care of viaJewish sacrifices. Maybe they were, maybe not. I’m setting that aside for themoment.
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say toyou, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate yourfill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but forthe food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will giveto you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said tohim, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answeredthem, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.
Jesus IS talking about eternal life, to theJewish crowd, clearly, correct? But they are talking/thinking about earthlypower/wealth. But here Jesus does say that eternal life comes via a work ofGod and thusly contradicts their notion that they “must do something” tohave “food that endures to eternal life”. So, within any context you’d have inmind here in John 6, or with any Kingdom Building plan in mind, Jesus hereclearly describes eternal life as a work of God, not man. Would youagree that we can therefore hold to a doctrine that indicates from Jesus ownwords that “eternal life” is a “gift to you” (at least that crowd) and thatit’s “the work of God” and that it is “yon believe in Him whom he has sent”?

I would agree with that, however, rememberat this point He’s not preached His death, burial, and resurrection. Believe onHim means to believe that He is the Christ the Son of God.

 

[Butch5]

I don’t see any other message or doctrine taught here other than God’s the one that does the work of salvation to eternal life and that it’s a gift. People are free to disagree of course, but put yourself in this crowd (and I think that’s a fair thing to do since after all, it is part of God’s revelation to us) and see if Jesus’ message doesn’t directly apply to your state of mind prior to your salvation just as much as it did to this particular crowd of people. I feel it does. What could I do, apart from God’s work to receive eternal life? Pretty much nothing other than to “believe in Him whom has been sent”. Now so far this says nothing about God sustaining His work or you persevering until the end (P) or any other letter within “TULIP”.

So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.
There’s nothing to indicate here that their idea of “believe you” was anything other than asking for another “feeding five thousand” type of miracle or making manna fall from the sky. Yet again, Jesus points out to them that they in fact do not have Eternal Life in mind but rather filling their stomachs. But again, we CAN get to a doctrine that eternal life “comes down from heaven” and “gives life to the world”. So Jesus’ word “the world” would seem to apply to everyone (Jew, Gentile, pre-resurrection and post-resurrection) correct? It seems like His statement is universal and therefore sets His statements to follow using “whosoever” back to a universal application, not any specific group of people or time period. Correct?

That’s good question, let me make sure I explain this carefully. Jesus said He gives life to the world. What we have to keep in mind is that at this point in time He was only dealing with the Jewish people. As He’ll say shortly on one can come to Him except those the Father draws. So, technically whosoever, could be universal, however, He restricting it at this time to those drawn by the Father. The restriction changes after the cross. Just before His ascension He told the apostles to go to the Gentiles and make disciples. I would argue that it is at this point in time that whosoever becomes universal. His sending them to the Gentiles brings to an end the time where they were only to go to the Jews. Does that make sense?

Jesus said to them

, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
So again, Jesus tells them they are not seeing the “big picture”. He is God “I am” and they are not believing in that. Again, I see nothing taught here about whether they or anyone else will preserver (P) the end or anything really other than they must Believe in Him (as God) and for their “works” to have eternal life and that this is the universal method, not just for Jews. The “whoever” here is universal, correct?

I would say, the whosoever here is going to be universal. I believe what is going on here is that Jesus is telling them who they can enter the Kingdom of God. However, we have to keep in mind that God is purposely keeping the mystery hidden until after the cross. So, even though He says, whosoever come to me, no one can come at this time unless the Father draws them.

I’ve said all the above to set the context for this next verse (John 6:36), so as not to be taking things out of context or applying “whosoever” in any way out of context, even with Kingdom Building in mind. I’ve set aside all other doctrines other than the one we all seem to agree on (eternal life is a Gift of God, not works). So here’s John 6:36:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Butch, your statements here are

Originally Posted by Butch5
Yes, the passage says all will come, it doesn't say all will be saved.
and

Originally Posted by Butch5
the text says all will come. It doesn't say all who come will be saved. In fact we know one wasn't. Judas came and Jesus said he was lost.

So you seem to agree (via the Greek) that at least the “all” in this passage means just that, all people of all time (Jew, Gentile, pre-resurrection, post-resurrection, regardless if they are elected or predestined or preserver toward that destination or not). So it would seem that both you and Mondar agree to at least this stipulation (all means all). I agree as well. Yet Butch, you then basically are saying that the “whoever” in John 6:36 isn’t back to a universal set of humans, correct?
You’re also saying that it’s not talking about Eternal Life at all, but rather something else, correct? I understand that’s your position because of:

Originally Posted by Butch5
Faith may be in the context, however, that doesn't mean "come to me" equates to faith.

What, in your view, does “come to me” then mean in verse 36, if not the same thing as verse 35 or the same subject Jesus has been talking about since verse 26 (eternal life)?

I need to clear up one thing. I don’t believe that “all that the Father gives me” pertains to all time. I understand it to pertain to the work that Jesus came to do on earth. I apply it to His earthly ministry. I see no reason to apply it outside of that context. There are several reasons for this. One, we see “nothing” from the apostles talking about anyone being given to Christ. Two, Jesus refers to His disciples in John 17 as, “those you have given me.” He speaks of those given, that is past tense, He makes no reference to any being given in the future in this. Three, in the prayer in John 17, Jesus does refer pray for future believers, however, He doesn’t refer to them as given to Him, but rather, as ‘those who will believe on their (apostles) word. I believe “all the Father gives me” was speaking of those men who Jesus trained and sent out to preach the message. It most likely included the 70 but definitely the 12.

Let me also add that, while I say Jesus ministry was to the Jews, I realize there was the occasional Gentile an proselyte that was also among them.

The passage is talking about eternal life, but there is a bigger picture. For one to have an eternal inheritance one should be eternal. However, it is the inheritance that is the bigger issue, that being the Kingdom.

 

[chessman]

What the Jewsmissed was that the Messiah would have to suffer before He reigned. We know theJews were expecting a conquering king, when Jesus came without an army theydidn’t see how He could be the Messiah

That's what I meant.

I would agree with that, however, rememberat this point He’s not preached His death, burial, and resurrection. Believe onHim means to believe that He is the Christ the Son of God.

That's what I meant as well.

That’s good question, let me make sure I explain this carefully. Jesus said He gives life to the world. What we have to keep in mind is that at this point in time He was only dealing with the Jewish people.

But that's not true. He's already dealt with the Samaritians and they "knew that He was the Saviour of the world".
John 4 " Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.†So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.â€
(John 4:39-42 ESV)

And the Centurion who Jesus had healed his son was not Jewish. From John 4 " The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.†And he himself believed, and all his household. This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee."
(John 4:53-54 ESV)

The everyone in John 3:20 doesn't seem to be restricted only to the Jews. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
(John 3:20 ESV)

 

[chessman]

Did you have a change to read that paper “TheKingdom of God”?

Yes, most of it. however, I found what I thought were errors such as :

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.

I never saw where this point was answered. To me, of course it matters whether Judas was saved or not. I believe the Biblical answer is that he was not saved (ever). He didn't fall away.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, most of it. however, I found what I thought were errors such as :



I never saw where this point was answered. To me, of course it matters whether Judas was saved or not. I believe the Biblical answer is that he was not saved (ever). He didn't fall away.

Hi 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.

Regarding the article you referenced above, the author, in saying it doesn't matter if Judas was saved is referring to "those given to Christ." His point is that Jesus uses the same terminology in John 6 and 17. Judas was one of those given to Christ. I think his making that statement is in relation to the objection many give saying, Judas was never saved. Whether Judas was save or wasn't saved has no bearing on whether or not He was given to Christ. In John 6 Jesus speaks of those given to Him, and in John 17 He speaks of those given to Him and He includes Judas in that group.

 

[chessman]

His sending them to the Gentiles brings to an end the time where they were only to go to the Jews. Does that make sense?

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 lifeâ€. 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".

I don’t believe that “all that the Father gives me†pertains to all time. I understand it to pertain to the work that Jesus came to do on earth. I apply it to His earthly ministry. I see no reason to apply it outside of that context. There are several reasons for this.

One, we see “nothing†from the apostles talking about anyone being given to Christ.

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)

Two, Jesus refers to His disciples in John 17 as, “those you have given me.†He speaks of those given, that is past tense, He makes no reference to any being given in the future in this.

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.

Three, in the prayer in John 17, Jesus does refer pray for future believers, however, He doesn’t refer to them as given to Him, but rather, as ‘those who will believe on their (apostles) word.

Okay. I think his prayer came true.

I believe “all the Father gives me†was speaking of those men who Jesus trained and sent out to preach the message. It most likely included the 70 but definitely the 12.

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.
Three, in the prayer in John 17, Jesus does refer pray for future believers, however, He doesn’t refer to them as given to Him, but rather, as ‘those who will believe on their (apostles) word.

I believe “all the Father gives me†was speaking of those men who Jesus trained and sent out to preach the message. It most likely included the 70 but definitely the 12.[/quote] 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.