[psalm63adam]

Just as I looked at Romans 9-11 and stated what I believed in context what that passage was saying, I want to look at John 6, a passage used incessantly by Calvinists. Prepare for the barrage (I've been thinking this through some time over the last several months):

John 6:37-44
37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

From these passages Calvinists claim to get their doctrine of total depravity (no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him). Also, perseverance of the saints is inferred from Jesus statement that He will raise all who come at the last day.

Let’s raise two issues that I believe Calvinists miss in this passage, as well as Romans 8, Eph. 1, and others.

The first issue is the distinction between a general statement in Scripture, and a specific (all inclusive or all exclusive) statement. Much of the time in Scripture we find statements that are generally true, but if you take the language extremely literally, these statements are not true. Here are a few examples just to illustrate.

Matt 2:3
3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Acts 21:31
31While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.

Matt 3:5-6
5People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Scripture is filled with these types of generalizations. But, why don’t we bring this to John 6? Here is an example directly from this chapter. Compare the following verses:

John 6:39
39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 17:12
12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

If you’re a Calvinist, you have a real problem or paradox here. If you insist that statements in John 6 are "all inclusive," and there can be no exception to the rule, then what do you do with the exception that Jesus specifically mentioned in John 17? 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 are necessarily saved. If Judas was really saved, then the case is closed! If Judas can fall away, so can you!

We should also note that when biblical writers wanted to make a statement that was absolute (all inclusive or all exclusive), they typically used specific language that required this interpretation. For example, when Paul wanted to be specific regarding "all have sinned," he said "there is none righteous, no not one." When John wanted to indicate that every single person has received light from God, he said "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.." Unless such clear specific language is used, the statement CAN be a general statement and not necessarily all inclusive or all exclusive. In other words, while the statement is true, it leaves open the possibility of exceptions to the rule, particularly if other passages lay out these exceptions clearly, (such as those that speak of falling away). So, the first premise is that such statements in John 6 may be general, and allow exceptions to the rule unless the language specifically forbids this.

My second premise centers around the peculiar circumstances of John 6 (in other words, the context). This teaching occurred in a Jewish setting, before Christ died on the cross. There was a specific dynamic occurring during Jesus' public ministry that is not happening now. That dynamic is the partial blinding of Israel so that the crucifixion could occur. John 6 must be understood against the background of the following passages.

Mark 4:10-12,33-34
10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[1] "
33With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Jesus spoke to the Jewish crowds in parables for the expressed
purpose of keeping them in the dark! He spoke in riddles. But, He told the true meaning of these parables to His followers! Why? If not, the crowds might have believed on Him! If the religious leaders had understood these parables, they would never have crucified Him! Paul states this clearly in the following passage.

1 Cor 2:7-8
7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The crowds of people definitely had power. The leaders were frightened of the crowds. And any uprising of the people would most certainly bring down the anger and wrath of the Romans on the leaders of the Jews! That is why the Pharisees were so freaked out on Palm Sunday, when some of the people who were worshiping cried out "Hosanna" at the entrance of Jesus into the city of Jerusalem for Passover. The only way the crucifixion could be carried out was if the crowds and the leaders rejected Jesus! So, Jesus' words and actions were designed to force the Jews to reject Him! This is very apparent in John 6. The riddle about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and about His being the "bread from heaven" was more than most could bear! The whole "Bread of Life Teaching" was intended to drive away the Jewish crowd!

Now, you may think that this is absurd, given the fact that I believe that God desires to save all men. But, let me quickly point out that after the crucifixion and resurrection, this situation existed no longer, and many of the Jews who had been hardened against Jesus, who were part of the mob that cried "away with him, crucify him," were also converted on the Day of Pentecost, and 3000 of them were baptized and added to the Church at Jerusalem! This is proven from Acts 2.

Acts 2:22-24,36-41
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[1] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

No longer did God blind the Jews! (Although many of them continued willfully in their blindness). Some of the very same Jews who abandoned Jesus in John 6, and cried "away with Him," turned to Christ and were saved on the Day of Pentecost. John 6 needs to be understood within this framework.

God elected (“called”) certain Jews to be saved during Jesus' ministry, as the core of His church. He spent a total of three years preparing them to be missionaries to the entire world. All the while, He kept the crowds and the religious leaders in the dark about what His real purpose was, by using parables. Mark said that without a parable He did not speak to them! In this way they were "blinded" to the Gospel.

Now let’s look at the Calvinist’s alleged "proofs" from this passage. Verse 37 says, "37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. " Calvinists often claim that this means God draws only the elect. But, that is not what it says. It says no one can come unless called. But, Jesus also said, "Many are called, but few are chosen (elect)" (Matt. 22:14). And as we shall see later, ALL are called!

Calvinists also claim that God's giving the elect to Christ prior to their coming shows that the work of grace precedes our choice to come. But, elsewhere we learn that God's giving them to the Son is based on His foreknowledge. It occurred before our birth, before the foundation of the world. (Rom. 8:29 & 1 Pet. 1:1,2).

Eph 1:4
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

He is not speaking of some imaginary heart change and renovation before we
are saved, but of God's election, based on His foreknowledge. Of course that occurs before we come.

Calvinists also point out that we cannot be cast out, claiming this proves the "perseverance of the saints." But, cast out of what??? This is a figure of speech. He is saying that those who come to Him He will not turn away. Furthermore, even if He is speaking of being cast out of the family of God (which is not implied in the text), this in no way precludes one's voluntarily leaving and forsaking God! God never casts anyone out of His family. But, they can leave of their own free will.

Next, they point to verses 39 and 40 as proof that none will be lost. "39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

But, what about Judas? Jesus said clearly in John 17 that Judas was given Him by the Father! Yet, Judas was lost. Jesus said so! Furthermore, the passage is NOT an all-inclusive affirmation! Jesus said that it was the Father's will that none be lost and that He raise all up at the last day. This sets the stage for the rest of the verses in this chapter, which speak about raising up the saints at the last day. They are understood in light of this statement, that such is the Father's WILL or desire. Jesus used the same word (will) when He said, "NOT MY WILL but Yours be done." Peter said "God is not WILLING that any should perish!"

1Thes 4:3
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;

God's will is that we abstain from fornication! But, do some Christians fornicate? Absolutely! God's will is NOT always carried out!

Again, Calvinists point to verse 44, 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

But, God draws all men at some particular time in their lives (John 12:32). Jesus is merely saying that it is impossible to come without God intervening. He is not excluding anyone from this drawing. He did not say that all who are drawn will come, only that coming requires first being drawn. The Father's giving some to Christ is strictly speaking of election based on foreknowledge, not on an actual act that happens before one's conversion.
Jesus had just said that His raising up believers at the last day was the Father's will or desire. (And we saw that God's will is not always carried out). The rest of the verses in this chapter that repeat part of this statement imply what was stated in verse 39, that none perishing, and all being raised at the last day is God's will or desire, but that is not necessarily a universal fact!

Calvinists want to press the language to the extreme when it suites them, like here and in Rom. 8, but do precisely the opposite when it comes to God's drawing all men, or that the atonement is for all, or that God desires to save all! Let’s look down a few verses.

John 6:63-66
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[1] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Notice two things here: First, Jesus had foreknowledge about who would believe and who would not, and this was a factor in this teaching! Secondly, Jesus told them the reason; He said, " unless the Father has enabled him." He indicated that a peculiar kind of "drawing" was going on in this circumstance. The Jews were being blinded by the riddle about eating His flesh and drinking his blood. Some of these Jews were being drawn, but not all! That this was a unique situation is proven from Jesus' own words later in John.

John 12:32
32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Note Jesus did not say He was already drawing all men. He was not! God was only drawing a select few at this time. He said that after He was "lifted up" (crucified) He would draw "all men unto me." Prior to the crucifixion, God drew only a select few in order to establish His core Church, and train them to take the Gospel to the nations. After the crucifixion, God drew all men, as evidence in Acts 2, where many of those who had not been called prior to the crucifixion, who had not believed because they could not, repented and were saved. Did you think that 3000 Jews being saved on the Day of Pentecost was because of Peter's great preaching??? It was pretty good. But I've heard better! It was the drawing of Christ through the Holy Spirit! Same with the 5000 more Jews saved a short time later! After Pentecost, the drawing of all men began! John 6 is limited by this context, and applicable only to the Jewish people during Jesus' public ministry!

[ChrisHarbison]

*Problem*

Originally Posted by Scum

From these passages Calvinists claim to get their doctrine of total depravity (no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him).

Minor problem, but no big deal, this is referring to election, not deparvity as depravity states that man is evil. Again, minor problem, just needed clarifying.

I am reading your post and working on a response, I just wanted to clarify this.

[ChrisHarbison]

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Just as I looked at Romans 9-11 and stated what I believed in context what that passage was saying, I want to look at John 6, a passage used incessantly by Calvinists. Prepare for the barrage (I've been thinking this through some time over the last several months):

John 6:37-44
37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

From these passages Calvinists claim to get their doctrine of total depravity (no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him). Also, perseverance of the saints is inferred from Jesus statement that He will raise all who come at the last day.

Let’s raise two issues that I believe Calvinists miss in this passage, as well as Romans 8, Eph. 1, and others.

The first issue is the distinction between a general statement in Scripture, and a specific (all inclusive or all exclusive) statement. Much of the time in Scripture we find statements that are generally true, but if you take the language extremely literally, these statements are not true. Here are a few examples just to illustrate.

Matt 2:3
3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Acts 21:31
31While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.

Matt 3:5-6
5People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Scripture is filled with these types of generalizations. But, why don’t we bring this to John 6? Here is an example directly from this chapter. Compare the following verses:

I don't see how these are generalizations at all. Matt. 2 says that all of Jeruselem was distrubed along with King Herod. Why is that a generalization? The city heard about the birth of the supposed Messiah from 3 strange noblemen, not firsthand on a chariot of fire come to conquer the Romans like they wanted. Acts 21 isn't a generalization. Do you not think that the whole city was in an uproar? Matt. 3 people went out from all of Judea is a generalization? How?

John 6:39
39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 17:12
12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

If you’re a Calvinist, you have a real problem or paradox here. If you insist that statements in John 6 are "all inclusive," and there can be no exception to the rule, then what do you do with the exception that Jesus specifically mentioned in John 17? 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 are necessarily saved. If Judas was really saved, then the case is closed! If Judas can fall away, so can you!

Except for the mere fact that John 6 is talking about the Church and John 17 Jesus is talking about His disciples only. Therefore this does not cause a problem for the Calvinist perspective at all and your conclusion is therefore moot based on a false assumption of a premise.

We should also note that when biblical writers wanted to make a statement that was absolute (all inclusive or all exclusive), they typically used specific language that required this interpretation. For example, when Paul wanted to be specific regarding "all have sinned," he said "there is none righteous, no not one." When John wanted to indicate that every single person has received light from God, he said "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.." Unless such clear specific language is used, the statement CAN be a general statement and not necessarily all inclusive or all exclusive. In other words, while the statement is true, it leaves open the possibility of exceptions to the rule, particularly if other passages lay out these exceptions clearly, (such as those that speak of falling away). So, the first premise is that such statements in John 6 may be general, and allow exceptions to the rule unless the language specifically forbids this.

What does the original text suggest? Does the Greek suggest this type of general statement opposed to an all inclusive one? You did mention anything about that.

My second premise centers around the peculiar circumstances of John 6 (in other words, the context). This teaching occurred in a Jewish setting, before Christ died on the cross. There was a specific dynamic occurring during Jesus' public ministry that is not happening now. That dynamic is the partial blinding of Israel so that the crucifixion could occur. John 6 must be understood against the background of the following passages.

Mark 4:10-12,33-34
10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[1] "
33With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Jesus spoke to the Jewish crowds in parables for the expressed
purpose of keeping them in the dark! He spoke in riddles. But, He told the true meaning of these parables to His followers! Why? If not, the crowds might have believed on Him! If the religious leaders had understood these parables, they would never have crucified Him! Paul states this clearly in the following passage.

1 Cor 2:7-8
7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I really don't see the relevance at all. Anyone can see obviously that the entire point of blinding the pharisees was just that, so they would not believe and would crucify Him thus fulfilling Scripture. You've hardly explained a problem with Calvinist thought thus far.

The crowds of people definitely had power. The leaders were frightened of the crowds. And any uprising of the people would most certainly bring down the anger and wrath of the Romans on the leaders of the Jews! That is why the Pharisees were so freaked out on Palm Sunday, when some of the people who were worshiping cried out "Hosanna" at the entrance of Jesus into the city of Jerusalem for Passover. The only way the crucifixion could be carried out was if the crowds and the leaders rejected Jesus! So, Jesus' words and actions were designed to force the Jews to reject Him! This is very apparent in John 6. The riddle about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and about His being the "bread from heaven" was more than most could bear! The whole "Bread of Life Teaching" was intended to drive away the Jewish crowd!

Again, how is this hurting Calvinism. At worst it's a severe blow to Arminianism. "...designed to force the Jews to reject Him!" doesn't sound like something an Arminian would believe.

Now, you may think that this is absurd, given the fact that I believe that God desires to save all men. But, let me quickly point out that after the crucifixion and resurrection, this situation existed no longer, and many of the Jews who had been hardened against Jesus, who were part of the mob that cried "away with him, crucify him," were also converted on the Day of Pentecost, and 3000 of them were baptized and added to the Church at Jerusalem! This is proven from Acts 2.

Acts 2:22-24,36-41
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[1] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

No longer did God blind the Jews! (Although many of them continued willfully in their blindness). Some of the very same Jews who abandoned Jesus in John 6, and cried "away with Him," turned to Christ and were saved on the Day of Pentecost. John 6 needs to be understood within this framework.

Precisely, the Scriptures had been fulfilled. The purpose of the Jews unbelief had been completed. Now it was God's time to save them. This poses a problem how?

God elected (“called”) certain Jews to be saved during Jesus' ministry, as the core of His church. He spent a total of three years preparing them to be missionaries to the entire world. All the while, He kept the crowds and the religious leaders in the dark about what His real purpose was, by using parables. Mark said that without a parable He did not speak to them! In this way they were "blinded" to the Gospel.

Exactly, again, not very Arminian .

Now let’s look at the Calvinist’s alleged "proofs" from this passage. Verse 37 says, "37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. " Calvinists often claim that this means God draws only the elect. But, that is not what it says. It says no one can come unless called. But, Jesus also said, "Many are called, but few are chosen (elect)" (Matt. 22:14). And as we shall see later, ALL are called!

Many are called = ALL are called???

The verse you're referring to:
"And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65 (ESV))

Your correlation is absurd. John 6:65 and Matt. 22:14 placed side by side cause no problem for Calvinists at all. The correlation doesn't say or even imply what you suggested at all.

Calvinists also claim that God's giving the elect to Christ prior to their coming shows that the work of grace precedes our choice to come. But, elsewhere we learn that God's giving them to the Son is based on His foreknowledge. It occurred before our birth, before the foundation of the world. (Rom. 8:29 & 1 Pet. 1:1,2).

Foreknowledge. Read the Greek. The Greek word is referring to an intimate type of personal knowledge, not factual knowledge. In other words, the he pre-knew his Church individually as people, not as choices for facts. You misinterpreted Romans 8:29. The same Greek word is used the exact same way in 1 Pet. as in Rom 8. You misinterpreted it too.

Eph 1:4
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

He is not speaking of some imaginary heart change and renovation before we
are saved, but of God's election, based on His foreknowledge. Of course that occurs before we come.

No, not based on foreknowledge of facts, based on foreknowledge of people as I've already pointed out. God chose us because he foreknew us intimately, not because He foreknew a fact about us. The rest of Eph. 1 makes it quite clear that God's choice of us was based upon His perfect will.

Calvinists also point out that we cannot be cast out, claiming this proves the "perseverance of the saints." But, cast out of what??? This is a figure of speech. He is saying that those who come to Him He will not turn away. Furthermore, even if He is speaking of being cast out of the family of God (which is not implied in the text), this in no way precludes one's voluntarily leaving and forsaking God! God never casts anyone out of His family. But, they can leave of their own free will.

Well at least you're a consistant Arminian . That's respectable. However, "He who comes to me I will never drive away" is talking about conversion, not keeping one's salvation. When one comes to Christ in faith for conversion, Christ will accept on the basis of that faith and not drive them away. This is what the text implies, not what you say the Calvinists believe about it. Your premise again is false making your arguement that way.

Next, they point to verses 39 and 40 as proof that none will be lost. "39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

But, what about Judas? Jesus said clearly in John 17 that Judas was given Him by the Father! Yet, Judas was lost. Jesus said so! Furthermore, the passage is NOT an all-inclusive affirmation! Jesus said that it was the Father's will that none be lost and that He raise all up at the last day. This sets the stage for the rest of the verses in this chapter, which speak about raising up the saints at the last day. They are understood in light of this statement, that such is the Father's WILL or desire. Jesus used the same word (will) when He said, "NOT MY WILL but Yours be done." Peter said "God is not WILLING that any should perish!"

This is a repeat and I addressed it at the top. John 6 and John 17 are not addressing the same group of people making your arguement false based on false premises.

1Thes 4:3
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;

God's will is that we abstain from fornication! But, do some Christians fornicate? Absolutely! God's will is NOT always carried out!

God makes decrees and God makes laws. Decrees cannot be broken, laws can. It is a decree that all of his Church come to Him, it is a law that one remains sexually pure.

By your logic above, the following is true: God's will is that we are perfect, no one is perfect, therefore God's will is never carried out. Is this true?

Again, Calvinists point to verse 44, 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

But, God draws all men at some particular time in their lives (John 12:32). Jesus is merely saying that it is impossible to come without God intervening. He is not excluding anyone from this drawing. He did not say that all who are drawn will come, only that coming requires first being drawn. The Father's giving some to Christ is strictly speaking of election based on foreknowledge, not on an actual act that happens before one's conversion.
Jesus had just said that His raising up believers at the last day was the Father's will or desire. (And we saw that God's will is not always carried out). The rest of the verses in this chapter that repeat part of this statement imply what was stated in verse 39, that none perishing, and all being raised at the last day is God's will or desire, but that is not necessarily a universal fact!

Once again, this poses no problem at all. Simply because there is a general call to Christ doesn't in any way presume that that general call is effectual. I hardly can see from this how you determined election by foreknowledge. You forced that into the text. It's not there at all.

Calvinists want to press the language to the extreme when it suites them, like here and in Rom. 8, but do precisely the opposite when it comes to God's drawing all men, or that the atonement is for all, or that God desires to save all! Let’s look down a few verses.

John 6:63-66
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[1] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Ahh...once again, Jesus is talking about the disciples here, NOT about the Church or who would be saved.

Notice two things here: First, Jesus had foreknowledge about who would believe and who would not, and this was a factor in this teaching! Secondly, Jesus told them the reason; He said, " unless the Father has enabled him." He indicated that a peculiar kind of "drawing" was going on in this circumstance. The Jews were being blinded by the riddle about eating His flesh and drinking his blood. Some of these Jews were being drawn, but not all! That this was a unique situation is proven from Jesus' own words later in John.

John 12:32
32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

No, once again your reading your own conclusion into the text by forcing a subject in that's not there. This part of the chapter is talking about the disciples, not everyone else.

Note Jesus did not say He was already drawing all men. He was not! God was only drawing a select few at this time. He said that after He was "lifted up" (crucified) He would draw "all men unto me." Prior to the crucifixion, God drew only a select few in order to establish His core Church, and train them to take the Gospel to the nations. After the crucifixion, God drew all men, as evidence in Acts 2, where many of those who had not been called prior to the crucifixion, who had not believed because they could not, repented and were saved. Did you think that 3000 Jews being saved on the Day of Pentecost was because of Peter's great preaching??? It was pretty good. But I've heard better! It was the drawing of Christ through the Holy Spirit! Same with the 5000 more Jews saved a short time later! After Pentecost, the drawing of all men began! John 6 is limited by this context, and applicable only to the Jewish people during Jesus' public ministry!

Red:
I highly doubt that

As for the rest, simply because 3000 were saved doesn't prove your argument.

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48 (ESV))

The same calling drew the Christians here in Antioch, however, Paul seems to think that those who were appointed to life in Christ believe. If this is the case, this poses a problem for your arguement.

My goodness that was long...I'm going to bed now .

[Chrysostom]

I'll try to cover every argument. If I miss anything, let me know.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

From these passages Calvinists claim to get their doctrine of total depravity (no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him). Also, perseverance of the saints is inferred from Jesus statement that He will raise all who come at the last day.

I think that at least four of the five points are taught (and I think that limited atonement is tacitly there).

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Let’s raise two issues that I believe Calvinists miss in this passage, as well as Romans 8, Eph. 1, and others.

The first issue is the distinction between a general statement in Scripture, and a specific (all inclusive or all exclusive) statement. Much of the time in Scripture we find statements that are generally true, but if you take the language extremely literally, these statements are not true. Here are a few examples just to illustrate.

Matt 2:3
3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Acts 21:31
31While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.

Matt 3:5-6
5People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Scripture is filled with these types of generalizations. But, why don’t we bring this to John 6?

All three of these are dealing with corporate entities. John 6 is dealing with why individuals don't believe, even though they've heard the Word and been given proof.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Here is an example directly from this chapter. Compare the following verses:

John 6:39
39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 17:12
12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

If you’re a Calvinist, you have a real problem or paradox here. If you insist that statements in John 6 are "all inclusive," and there can be no exception to the rule, then what do you do with the exception that Jesus specifically mentioned in John 17? 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 are necessarily saved. If Judas was really saved, then the case is closed! If Judas can fall away, so can you!

John 17 is talking about the choosing of the apostles; John 6 is talking about the election of individuals unto eternal life. Note that, later in the chapter, Jesus specifically says that Judas is not one of the people who has been drawn, given, or granted (64-65).

I'd also like to point out that you have yet to deal with John 6, on its own ground, in its own context. Up until this point, you've just discussed other passages.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

My second premise centers around the peculiar circumstances of John 6 (in other words, the context). This teaching occurred in a Jewish setting, before Christ died on the cross. There was a specific dynamic occurring during Jesus' public ministry that is not happening now. That dynamic is the partial blinding of Israel so that the crucifixion could occur. John 6 must be understood against the background of the following passages.

Ah! Now we're getting to the text itself (I assume).

Originally Posted by Scum.™

If the religious leaders had understood these parables, they would never have crucified Him! Paul states this clearly in the following passage.

1 Cor 2:7-8
7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I think that's overstating the relationship between Paul's statement and the understanding of the specific parables, but I see your point.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

The crowds of people definitely had power. The leaders were frightened of the crowds. And any uprising of the people would most certainly bring down the anger and wrath of the Romans on the leaders of the Jews! That is why the Pharisees were so freaked out on Palm Sunday, when some of the people who were worshiping cried out "Hosanna" at the entrance of Jesus into the city of Jerusalem for Passover. The only way the crucifixion could be carried out was if the crowds and the leaders rejected Jesus! So, Jesus' words and actions were designed to force the Jews to reject Him! This is very apparent in John 6. The riddle about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and about His being the "bread from heaven" was more than most could bear! The whole "Bread of Life Teaching" was intended to drive away the Jewish crowd!

Even assuming that this speculation is true, I don't see how it's going to help you very much. Jesus's statement regards the requirement of God's drawing, and it must stand true. He didn't just tell them a weird tale about needing to eat His flesh and drink His blood. This can be easily explained in Arminian terms, and be used for the purpose of hardening Jews (although, I would point out that, if you desire to say that God intentionally hardened the Jews, you cannot complain about the doctrine of reprobation). However, what shall we do of the discussion of drawing? The reason that they weren't believing was not just that He was telling them strange stories and hardening them, nor was it just that they weren't eating and drinking His flesh and blood. The primary reason, Christ says, is that they needed to be drawn.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Now, you may think that this is absurd, given the fact that I believe that God desires to save all men. But, let me quickly point out that after the crucifixion and resurrection, this situation existed no longer, and many of the Jews who had been hardened against Jesus, who were part of the mob that cried "away with him, crucify him," were also converted on the Day of Pentecost, and 3000 of them were baptized and added to the Church at Jerusalem! This is proven from Acts 2.

I agree to some extent. However, I still don't think this allows you to criticize the doctrine of reprobation (except on the grounds that you don't think it's taught in the Bible, obviously). Do you? If so, I'll try to argue it further.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

No longer did God blind the Jews! (Although many of them continued willfully in their blindness). Some of the very same Jews who abandoned Jesus in John 6, and cried "away with Him," turned to Christ and were saved on the Day of Pentecost. John 6 needs to be understood within this framework.

You haven't yet given enough argumentation from John 6 directly in order to make this a requirement.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Now let’s look at the Calvinist’s alleged "proofs" from this passage. Verse 37 says, "37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. " Calvinists often claim that this means God draws only the elect. But, that is not what it says. It says no one can come unless called. But, Jesus also said, "Many are called, but few are chosen (elect)" (Matt. 22:14).

Note again that you're still not dealing with the text itself; instead, you're going to another passage. The obvious answer is that Matthew 22:14 is referring to a different sense of calling than John 6:37, 44. The parallel in John 6:65 refers to the calling/drawing/giving of the previous two references as God granting something, while Matthew 22:14 is talking about the offering of the Gospel.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

And as we shall see later, ALL are called!

In context, Jesus's statement in John 6:37 requires that not all are called, because He is explaining why some do not believe (36)!

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Calvinists also claim that God's giving the elect to Christ prior to their coming shows that the work of grace precedes our choice to come. But, elsewhere we learn that God's giving them to the Son is based on His foreknowledge. It occurred before our birth, before the foundation of the world. (Rom. 8:29 & 1 Pet. 1:1,2).

Again, you're just looking to different texts. I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a study of John 6 itself, and not how to make John 6 fit into what you already think about theology

The fact that God's predestination accords with (1 Pe 1:2)/is based on (Rom 8:29) "foreknowledge" does not, on its own, cause any problem for the unconditionality of election. You must first demonstrate that the "foreknowledge" in view in those passages is foreknowledge based on a person and not foreknowledge based on God. You must also demonstrate exactly what about a person is foreknown, and how this squares with John 6.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Calvinists also point out that we cannot be cast out, claiming this proves the "perseverance of the saints." But, cast out of what??? This is a figure of speech. He is saying that those who come to Him He will not turn away. Furthermore, even if He is speaking of being cast out of the family of God (which is not implied in the text), this in no way precludes one's voluntarily leaving and forsaking God! God never casts anyone out of His family. But, they can leave of their own free will.

The problem here is that God is the one being said to do all the action. God is giving. God is granting. God is making us come. God is drawing us. So, when He says that God will never cast them out, this simply solidifies the rest of the teaching: God is the one in charge of whether we stay or come, and God is not going to make us come, then thrust us away; therefore, the saints shall persevere. You must insert the authority of the human will into this passage, rather than see it actually taught.

Additionally, this conclusion is confirmed by Christ's task: to "lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day." That is, Christ's job is to save each of those whom God will draw; His job is to guarantee their salvation. Again, we see the prominence of God's power in salvation, as God draws and gives, and Christ's task is to save each and every one of them. Christ's job is to lose not a single one. That is, God is the one bringing us to salvation, not casting us out in salvation, preserving us in salvation, and completing our salvation ("raise it up on the last day").

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Next, they point to verses 39 and 40 as proof that none will be lost. "39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

But, what about Judas? Jesus said clearly in John 17 that Judas was given Him by the Father! Yet, Judas was lost.

Again, you're just looking to external passages, rather than dealing cogently with this text. I've already discussed the case of Judas.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Jesus said so! Furthermore, the passage is NOT an all-inclusive affirmation! Jesus said that it was the Father's will that none be lost and that He raise all up at the last day. This sets the stage for the rest of the verses in this chapter, which speak about raising up the saints at the last day. They are understood in light of this statement, that such is the Father's WILL or desire. Jesus used the same word (will) when He said, "NOT MY WILL but Yours be done." Peter said "God is not WILLING that any should perish!"

1Thes 4:3
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;

God's will is that we abstain from fornication! But, do some Christians fornicate? Absolutely! God's will is NOT always carried out!

This argument assumes that there is only one sense in which the Bible refers to God's will. I can see at least two (God's precepts and decree). Clearly the force of Jesus's statement in John 6 requires that He is not laying out an ethical precept but a direct command or task. Jesus's task is to save each and every one of those drawn or given Him by the Father. Elsewhere, it seems that Jesus was successful (John 10; Hebrews 1:3b; Hebrews 10:14).

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Again, Calvinists point to verse 44, 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

But, God draws all men at some particular time in their lives (John 12:32).

You cite John 12:32 as a face-value proof-text, rather than exegeting it. The passage in question speaks first of Jews, but this statement is made to an audience including Greeks (20). The addition of Gentiles to Jews is a major theme in John's writings; you must consider whether or not the "all" here refers to Jews plus Gentiles.

You also have provided no reason to think that John 12:32 teaches that each individual will be drawn at some point during his or her life; even a face-value, out-of-context reading does not render this conclusion, though it is surely not opposed, either.

You have not considered how your reading allows John to draw the conclusion about the statement in 32 that he does in 33.

There are many more considerations that need to be examined before drawing your conclusions from this text. I think these serve as a good enough representative sample to show that you've not provided a sound basis to use the verse as you have.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Jesus is merely saying that it is impossible to come without God intervening. He is not excluding anyone from this drawing. He did not say that all who are drawn will come, only that coming requires first being drawn.

The problem is context. Jesus is explaining why some do not believe (36).

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Calvinists want to press the language to the extreme when it suites them, like here and in Rom. 8, but do precisely the opposite when it comes to God's drawing all men, or that the atonement is for all, or that God desires to save all! Let’s look down a few verses.

We're trying to examine each passage in context, and see what its intent is. We're not frivolously assuming that words are to be taken as absolute just because it is convenient, as you imply here.

Additionally, even if this is a good criticism, it cuts both ways. You seem to think (without substantial argument) that we arbitrarily press one set of passages and not another; yet, I can claim right back that you arbitrarily press the other set of passages and not ours.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

John 6:63-66
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[1] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Notice two things here: First, Jesus had foreknowledge about who would believe and who would not, and this was a factor in this teaching!

Yes, of course. I don't see how that helps one side either way. Was Judas not going to come become God didn't draw him (as verse 65 teaches, and Calvinists maintain), or because he wasn't going to exercise his autonomous choice in the right way?

Originally Posted by Scum.™

Secondly, Jesus told them the reason; He said, " unless the Father has enabled him." He indicated that a peculiar kind of "drawing" was going on in this circumstance. The Jews were being blinded by the riddle about eating His flesh and drinking his blood. Some of these Jews were being drawn, but not all! That this was a unique situation is proven from Jesus' own words later in John.

I really have no idea how this makes this circumstance unique. I don't see how you've gotten from "unless the Father has enabled him" to "He indicated that a peculiar kind of 'drawing' was going on in this circumstance." I also don't see how, from the context, you've gotten the hardening of the Jews. You quoted from Mark's Gospel to establish that Jesus, at some times, aimed to harden some people through parables. You've not established that John has this motif in mind generally, that John thinks this relates only to the Jews before His crucifixion, or that John 6 specifically has this in mind.

Originally Posted by Scum.™

John 12:32
32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Note Jesus did not say He was already drawing all men. He was not! God was only drawing a select few at this time. He said that after He was "lifted up" (crucified) He would draw "all men unto me." Prior to the crucifixion, God drew only a select few in order to establish His core Church, and train them to take the Gospel to the nations. After the crucifixion, God drew all men, as evidence in Acts 2, where many of those who had not been called prior to the crucifixion, who had not believed because they could not, repented and were saved. Did you think that 3000 Jews being saved on the Day of Pentecost was because of Peter's great preaching??? It was pretty good. But I've heard better! It was the drawing of Christ through the Holy Spirit! Same with the 5000 more Jews saved a short time later! After Pentecost, the drawing of all men began! John 6 is limited by this context, and applicable only to the Jewish people during Jesus' public ministry!

Again, you need to deal with all the contextual issues in John 12 that I raised, before you jump to Arminian-esque conclusions.


In sum: This seems to be more an exposition of how to try to fit John 6 into Arminian preconceptions, than how to understand John 6 on the basis of its explicit teaching, within its context, both in the flow of the passage itself and its relation to the rest of the Gospel of John.

[Dice]

First of all thank you for taking the time to work out and explain your perspective. I know you don't have a lot of time to do so, and composing the words (and verses) that accurately express what is going on in your mind when you read the bible can be a difficult thing.

I think some good points have been made here, and since you created this topic I would assume that means you are committing to it, so I won't bother burdening you with similar objections from a different voice to respond to. I was going to ask a few things but seeing as how your view of the nature of foreknowledge has already been requested once (and assumed once), I have but two questions:

-What is your view of verse 45?

-By your explanation of this passage, I am left wondering: How is it fair for God to act by such direct, effective, calvinistic means to bring these people unto Him, but not work by that same measure of grace with all? I have long wondered this in view of arminianism.

By calvinism God has the absolute standard of His plan and glorifying Himself by which He chooses some. But under arminianism where God desires all to be saved, it appears that the prophets and apostles all get special treatment to just about forcefully bring them unto Him, and the rest are left to believe by blind faith in the words of a preacher.

Some have told me that He acted in such direct means with a few to accomplish the purpose of the gospel unto all men. But if He was willing to go to such lengths with them to accomplish His purpose of saving all, why is He not willing to go to such lengths with all to accomplish that purpose?

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by ChrisHarbison

*Problem*


Minor problem, but no big deal, this is referring to election, not deparvity as depravity states that man is evil. Again, minor problem, just needed clarifying.

I am reading your post and working on a response, I just wanted to clarify this.

Yet it all starts at total depravity, doesn't it? Man is unable to respond to God in any way, therefore God has to draw these people to Him.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Adam

From these passages Calvinists claim to get their doctrine of total depravity (no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him).

Originally Posted by Chris

Minor problem, but no big deal, this is referring to election, not deparvity as depravity states that man is evil. Again, minor problem, just needed clarifying.

uh, try Total Depravity plus Irresistible Grace...

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Luke]

Adam:
I'll reply to you tonight. I have a Greek final in 30 minutes.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by ChrisHarbison

I don't see how these are generalizations at all. Matt. 2 says that all of Jeruselem was distrubed along with King Herod. Why is that a generalization? The city heard about the birth of the supposed Messiah from 3 strange noblemen, not firsthand on a chariot of fire come to conquer the Romans like they wanted. Acts 21 isn't a generalization. Do you not think that the whole city was in an uproar? Matt. 3 people went out from all of Judea is a generalization? How?

You are honestly going to tell me that every single man, woman and child in the city of Jerusalem was disturbed along with King Herod? That there wouldn't be one person in all of Jerusalem who was not disturbed? Or that every man woman and child in Ephesus were in an uproar, jumping up and down, going crazy? I'll give you that Matthew 3 may not be a generalization, although going back to the Greek, it looks like it simply says "all Judea", not "people from all Judea" (signifying an entirety of Judea vs. people from all parts of Judea).

Except for the mere fact that John 6 is talking about the Church and John 17 Jesus is talking about His disciples only. Therefore this does not cause a problem for the Calvinist perspective at all and your conclusion is therefore moot based on a false assumption of a premise.

My rebuttal is simple, from John 17:

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

What does the original text suggest? Does the Greek suggest this type of general statement opposed to an all inclusive one? You did mention anything about that.

I think it suggests a general statement - from what I've read.

I really don't see the relevance at all. Anyone can see obviously that the entire point of blinding the pharisees was just that, so they would not believe and would crucify Him thus fulfilling Scripture. You've hardly explained a problem with Calvinist thought thus far.

Again, how is this hurting Calvinism. At worst it's a severe blow to Arminianism. "...designed to force the Jews to reject Him!" doesn't sound like something an Arminian would believe.

My point is that Jesus's words were designed to force the Jews to reject Him, not that he foreordained that the Jews would reject Him - again you're reading into my thoughts with your Calvinist lenses on.

Precisely, the Scriptures had been fulfilled. The purpose of the Jews unbelief had been completed. Now it was God's time to save them. This poses a problem how?

You are dealing with only bits and pieces of my post. Deal with the whole premise as a whole please. As I stated, John 6 happened before Christ was crucified, obviously. This "drawing" that he speaks of is concerning his disciples and those who would follow Him while He was living.

Exactly, again, not very Arminian .

Why? If I believe that God elects people based on his foreknowledge, this poses no problem to me at all, especially given my premise that this drawing out or calling was for a limited time and for a certain purpose, not for all time and for the same purposes as today.


I will respond more later - I have a lot of work to do.

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by Luke

Adam:
I'll reply to you tonight. I have a Greek final in 30 minutes.

Grace & Peace
Luke

Holy crap, people. Do you think I honestly have the time to respond to four different Calvinist's long posts?

I am not in college! I do not have oodles and oodles (what a strange word) of time on my hands to respond to tons and tons of responses. I will try to respond when I can, but don't expect a quick answer! Remember that my original post is something I've been working on for some time, which means the responses are going to have to take some time.

[Luke]

Would you prefer I sit out? John and Chris' replies seem sufficient, so I will if you prefer.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by Luke

Would you prefer I sit out? John and Chris' replies seem sufficient, so I will if you prefer.

Grace & Peace
Luke

If other Arminians can help in my defense, I don't mind having a lot of different replies; however I cannot do it on my own.

[ChrisHarbison]

First things first, I totally understand the time issue. I have a nearly full-time job as well as full-time school, so we can take this thread as slow as you want and you won't hurt my feelings at all .

Originally Posted by Scum.™

You are honestly going to tell me that every single man, woman and child in the city of Jerusalem was disturbed along with King Herod? That there wouldn't be one person in all of Jerusalem who was not disturbed? Or that every man woman and child in Ephesus were in an uproar, jumping up and down, going crazy? I'll give you that Matthew 3 may not be a generalization, although going back to the Greek, it looks like it simply says "all Judea", not "people from all Judea" (signifying an entirety of Judea vs. people from all parts of Judea).

Even if it is a generalization, it still doesn't prove your point. "All of Judea" and "All of Israel" imply the majority of the city as a whole, where as "All of them" individuals. Your examples may be general, but this passage in John 6 is very clearly not.

My rebuttal is simple, from John 17:

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

Even so that doesn't help your arguement. Christ takes an aside to pray for the Church, but when he refers to "keeping them from harm" He talking about keeping the disciples from physical harm/death while He was on earth, except for Judas who died to fulfill prophecy. This in no way proves your original statement.

I think it suggests a general statement - from what I've read.

Well I think it's not - from what I've read So we need to either agree to disagree on this point or get someone who knows Greek to delve deep into it and give us an answer.

My point is that Jesus's words were designed to force the Jews to reject Him, not that he foreordained that the Jews would reject Him - again you're reading into my thoughts with your Calvinist lenses on.

I fail to see a difference in the broad scheme of things. Whether He forced them to reject Him or ordained that they do so, He's still over-powering their "freewill" rendering them helpless in making their own decision in the matter. If God will impose His will on ours in this case, why would He not also do the same with others?

You are dealing with only bits and pieces of my post. Deal with the whole premise as a whole please. As I stated, John 6 happened before Christ was crucified, obviously. This "drawing" that he speaks of is concerning his disciples and those who would follow Him while He was living.

So then do we not need to be drawn by the Father after Christ's death? Do we just come to Christ whenever we darn well please?

Why? If I believe that God elects people based on his foreknowledge, this poses no problem to me at all, especially given my premise that this drawing out or calling was for a limited time and for a certain purpose, not for all time and for the same purposes as today.

The problem that it poses is that this type of ordination is not Biblical, nor is your idea that God predestines some one way at one time, then changed the way He calls everyone else for the rest of the time.

[WooTang]

I'm not going to reply to the thread topic, however, I am enjoying the discussions thus far.

If no other non-Calvinists can join, we've always got the lonely RPD forum.

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by WooTang

I'm not going to reply to the thread topic, however, I am enjoying the discussions thus far.

If no other non-Calvinists can join, we've always got the lonely RPD forum.

What does that mean?