Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

As an example of how Israel’s unbelief did not thwart God’s plan, but instead worked together to further God’s plans is found in John 12:36-41:

Notice how Isaiah even predicts that Israel could not believe because their hearts were hardened by God in the same way Pharaoh’s heart was hardened as Paul reminds us in Romans 9.

God’s plans will never be frustrated by man’s actions.

Stan

Stan

I cannot speak for Richard Rice. He certainly is competent to speak for himself.  I understand Rick to be saying or inferring that God does not interfer with the future. While He may predict that a man’s heart will be hardened. He may also convey the responsibility for that hardening because He did not interfer with the process of denial.

I am willing for God to be God and for me to be the object of His Grace.  That lets me sleep at night in full confidence of His redemptive love.

If I know Rick he does the same.

The Deacon. 

[quote author="Anonymous"]John 6:37,44,65 is a statement by Jesus Himself affirming that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. And all that the Father gives Him will come to him, and none of these will be lost.

I guess it depends on what it means when we say ‘the Father gives’. This doesn’t have to mean ‘chosen from the foundation of the world to be saved BEFORE they are drawn to Christ’

A friend of mine on another Christian forum posted this and I would like to put it here in explaning this passage.

We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

What exactly does “all that” in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the “all that” in verses 37 and 39 as “those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom.” We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the “all that” found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40.

Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 — they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word “for” in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The “all that” in verse 39 whom the Father “has given” to Jesus is none other than “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him” as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going.

If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the “all that” in verse 39, the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that “all who freely come to believe in Jesus” are given to the Son by the Father. The people that are “given” are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable “tug") accepted Jesus’ offer of salvation.

This text does not support an “irresistable grace” reading to the exclusion of other interpretations.”

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Guibox,

The explanation above ignores both John 6:44, and John 6:65.

John 6:44 says that no one can come to Jesus unless the father draws him. Check out the meaning of that Greek word draw. It has the meaning of drawing against gravity. Then you couple that with John 6:65 where Jesus says that no one can come to him unless granted by the father. Then go back to John 6:37, where Jesus says all that the father gives me will come to me, and none of these will be lost, but raised up at the last day.

It seems that either all will be drawn and saved, or is it just the elect whom God draws? This is one lf the strongest arguments for Calvin and Luther’s view, and it is this chapter that is the culmination of the previous chapters that finally converted me from an arminian to a calvinist, after resisting it for eight years.

But both arminians and calvinists can celebrate this easter together.

He is risen indeed!

Stan

The problem here is that John 6 is really a chapter confirming the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Somewhat more seriously, I’d never realized before how controversial or important John 6 is to certain theologies. 

Stan,

The above argument does explain the issues that we have in looking at verses like John 3:16 where ‘the whole world’ ‘all men’ and ‘whosoever’ cannot just include merely a chosen few. It also counteracts the tendency to take these verses to mean universalism.

These verses would convince me that when we come to Christ our salvation is secure and not fluctuating or dependant. I just think there are too many instances where the salvation history of God wasn’t merely to random a few select but a universal plan ‘that the whole world through (Christ) might be saved’ and that if He is lifted up, He will ‘draw all men unto (Him)’.

Instances of free will and choosing to follow God abound in the scriptures and I don’t see the whole gospel commission of preaching for no other purpose but to unknowingly ‘sift’ those who are already chosen from those who never had a chance.

There are at least two contemporary reform doctrinal positions on election: One expressed by L. Berkhof Systematic Theology Eerdmans Publishing Co 1941 page 114--
It is pure Calvin in which Berkhof states: “The eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and of eternal salvatin.”

On the other hand Shirely C. Guthrie in his Revised Edition Christian Doctrine Westminster/John Knox Press 1994 in the Chapter entitled “What does God Want with Us? The Doctrine of Predestination writes in conclusion: “

Rule 1. We must take into account the toal bibical witness, even when some passages seem to contradict others and do not fit easily into a logically consistent doctrinal system. We will never understand predestination as long as we appeal only to those passages we like and ignore or try to explain away those we do not like.  This measn that we must listen attentively and respectfully to those texts that can be quoted in favor of double predestination and universaqlism, and Pelagianism.

Rule 2. Although we must not forget God’s wrath and judgment and the possibility of eternal punishment, we must remember that the doctrine of predestination fundamentally proclaims good news we can gladly hear.  The Bible never speaks of a plan of God before the foundation of the world to save some people and to damn all the rest. It speaks of God’s plan to ‘gather up allthings’ in Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:10) In the Bible, predestination does not point to joy and terror. Salvation and damnation, a Yes of God to us and a No “for the Son of God, Jesus Christ...was not Yes and No; but in him it was always ‘Yes’ (2Cor. 1:19) In Romans 9-11, perhaps the main biblical foundation for the doctrine of predestination, there seem to be many conradiction as Paul wrestles with this problem.  But his final word is not yes and no but only yes. “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (Rom 11:32) In Scripture, predestination does not include what Calvin called a ‘horrible decree.’ It is the summary of the good news of Jessus Christ--for everybody.

Rule 3. If we are to think as Christians about the doctrine of predestination we must think of God’s plan not only for us but for non-Christians as well in light of the biblical witness to God’s will for the world revealed and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We must think only in this light, not first of all or even secondarily in the light of our own opinions about what God must or shuld or could and will do for us and for others. pages 131-132 Obviously, I favor Guthrie’s position.

To change the subject: Guthrie in his Chapter What’s Going to Happen to Us? writes against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul “see pages 373-400 The Deacon. 

[quote author="glennspring"][quote author="Stan"]Just by way of review, we have John 1:13 where John affirms as clearly as can be stated that being born of God is NOT a decision of the human will.

But this is not new, is it? I mean, in no place throughout the Bible can it ever be said that man became entitled to God’s promises by virtue of human will or choice. It was always God who did the choosing and made the decisions, while at the same time, man’s actions also frustrated God’s will (for example Israelites who came out of Egypt ending up rejecting God’s promise and assurance that He would be with them and help them take the land of Canaan.) So in refusing God’s original plan, God had them walk around the desert for another 40 years until those above a certain age when they left Egypt died before entering Canaan.

All of this is just to say that the fact that salvation is by God and not by human will, isn’t the same thing as saying that God deliberately only saves certain people. As many stories attest to throughout the Bible, God is continually reaching beyond the official covenant community to extend His blessings “to those who didn’t search for Me” (exact quote and reference uncertain;I’ll look it up).  At the same time, we read in Acts 10 where Peter acknowledges that where before he had believed God’s promise of salvation was only for the Jews, he now recognized that whereever there were people who feared the Lord, God would accept them. And also please consider the many references in the same passages you are reading to the notion of “all” people. Also The book of John is in a certain context, and that context is in a largely Jewish society that Jesus is purposely refuting its sense of entitlement. So while we can be assured of God’s love for us, we need not read these passages to conclude that only a few will hear God’s call or that God does not truly desire that all people be saved and come to a knowledge of Him (I Timothy 2:3-4).

And as I believe the Old Testament account of God’s leading of the children of Israel, and as the gospels further attest, the purpose of our calling is not to grant us some special privileges, but to serve as a blessing for others. When God called Abraham for instance, He told him that he would be a blessing for all other nations and that all other nations would be blessed through him.

Glenn, Here is another perspective on John 6 at this link which may shed some light on this. Sam Storms is just more articulate in making these points than I am:

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/regeneration-and-sovereignty-of-god

Quoting Storms:

The doctrine of man’s total moral depravity, the bondage of the will, the teaching of Scripture on faith and repentance as God’s gifts to his elect, as well as the doctrine of grace, all suggest that regeneration is prior to and therefore the cause of faith. What follows is a brief discussion of two passages in the Gospel of John that have great relevance for this issue (see also Titus 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3,23-25; 1 John 5:1).

1.  John 1:11-13

“He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

It is likely that here John is addressing unbelieving Jews who imagined that natural descent from Abraham was sufficient to guarantee admission into the family of God. Several observations are in order.

We must first determine the relationship between the divine begetting (v 13) and the human exercise of faith (v 12). Is receiving Christ (v 12) the prerequisite of the new birth (v 13), as if to say that the new birth is conditioned upon receiving Christ and believing on his name? Or is the begetting by God the root, cause, and presupposition of faith (as I have been arguing)? The latter would appear to be correct, and for several reasons.

· First of all, John 1:13 is parallel with John 3:6 ("that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"). The point of the latter text is that all human and earthly effort can do nothing but produce that which is human and earthly. It cannot generate spiritual life.

· Second, in John 6 coming to Christ (faith) is impossible for a man unless God draws him. In other words, John 6 denies to man any willingness to respond positively to the gospel apart from effectual grace. Are we to believe that John 1 affirms what John 6 denies?

· Third, verse 13 says that God imparts life. The emphasis, as in John 3, is obviously on the divine source, origin, and cause of new life in Christ as over against any human or earthly or physical contribution.

· Fourth, to suggest that human faith precedes and causes divine begetting (i.e., the new birth) destroys the point of the analogy. The point of describing salvation in terms of “divine begetting” is to highlight the initiative of God in making alive or giving birth to that which was either dead or nonexistent. To suggest that man can act spiritually before he exists spiritually, that he can behave before he is born, is not only ridiculous but also undermines the force of the analogy between physical begetting and spiritual begetting.

· Fifth, even though the threefold negative in verse 13 refers primarily to physical begetting or aspects of the human reproductive process, it would seem extravagant for John to speak in this way if, after all, the human will does contribute to regeneration or in some way precedes and conditions the work of God.

What exactly then, does verse 13 mean? In general, the point of verse 13 is that birth into God’s family is of a different order from birth into an earthly human family. One does not become a child of God by the same process or as a result of the same causal factors as one becomes a physical child of Abraham. Let us now look at each of the three negations.

First, one does not become a child of God by being “born of bloods.” The plural form of the word blood may be explained in one of three ways:

1. the ancient belief that birth was the result of the action of blood, in this case, the blood of one’s father and mother;

2. the blood of many distinguished ancestors;

3. drops of blood.

Whichever of these views (or perhaps another one) that you adopt, the point is that spiritual life is not genetically transmitted!

Second, spiritual birth is not “of the will of the flesh.” This probably refers to sexual desire, although “flesh” in John does not mean sinful lust. “‘The will of the flesh’ is that desire that arises out of man’s bodily constitution” (Morris, 101).

Third, spiritual birth is not caused by the “will of man.” It may be that since the word for “man” here is the Greek word for a male rather than a female, the phrase refers to “the procreative urge of the male,” thus making it a more specific expression of the previous (second) phrase. In ancient days the man was looked upon as the principal agent in generation, with the woman no more than a vessel for the embryo.

If these three phrases do not rule out all conceivable human causes in regeneration, the final phrase does. If regeneration is “of God,” with no additional comment, then surely it cannot be of anything or anyone else.

2.  John 3:3-8

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man he born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.’”

This passage has been the focus of discussion for several issues not directly related to our subject. I do not intend to address them nor to be sidetracked by questions concerning Christian baptism and the like (although I would like to say that a reference to Christian baptism is nowhere to be found in the text). I only wish to make a couple of brief but important observations.

We are told in verses 6-8 of the manner of regeneration. In verse 6 we are told that “each birth completely conditions the character of its product. The natural [i.e., the flesh] cannot produce anything but the natural, and by an invariable law does produce the natural. The supernatural [i.e., the Spirit] alone produces the supernatural, and it infallibly secures the supernatural character of its issue. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and it is only that which is born of the Spirit that is spirit” (John Murray, 2:185-86). Human nature is capable of propagating or producing only human nature. It is unable to produce anything that transcends its character as human. Simply put: like produces like. Or better yet: you can’t get a spiritual effect from a physical cause.

The illustration our Lord employs in verse 8 is especially instructive. Like the wind, the work of the Holy Spirit is invisible and mysterious (you “do not know where it comes from and where it is going"). Like the wind, the work of the Holy Spirit is efficacious and sovereign (it “blows where it wishes") and cannot be pinned down by human contrivance. And like the wind, the work of the Holy Spirit reaps observable fruit ("you hear the sound of it"). John Murray summarizes the message of our Lord with these words:

“While the wind is invisible, irresistible and not subject in any way to our will, it does manifest its presence where it is: we hear its effects. So is it with the new birth. It manifests itself in the fruit of the Spirit-"that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”. By a secret, incomprehensible operation when, where, and how the Spirit pleases, he begets, or gives birth to, men, and this is a birth that becomes manifest in the fruits that are appropriate to its nature and purpose” (187-88).”
---------------------------------------------------------

In my devotional reading while on vacation, I had time to contemplate the miraculous healing of the man born blind in John 9. I commented on this chapter briefly above, but I just ran across this piece on John 9 written by Phil Johnson, associate pastor to John MacArthur:

Here’s Mud in Your Eye
by Phil Johnson

Rather than resurrect last week’s controversy first thing Monday morning, how about we start with something a little more positive? It’s still resurrection Sunday as I’m writing this post, and I frankly don’t feel like writing something I know is going to unleash another flood of controversy. Let’s just save that till another day later this week, OK? Instead, here are some thoughts on John 9:6-7, where the apostle John describes how Jesus healed a man who had been blind from birth.

“[Jesus] spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And He said to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’ (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing” (John 9:6-7).

ere’s a curious means of healing! Jesus spits on the ground. And I’m assuming He spat several times, because if you have ever tried to make clay with your own spit (and I have) it takes a lot of spit to make even a little ball of clay.

Then he takes this mud made from spit and rubs it into the eyes of the blind man.

It’s remarkable that the blind guy submitted to such a remedy. If you go to a charismatic optometrist and he proposes something like that as a treatment for your nearsightedness, my advice is to find a cessationist doctor.

Why did Jesus use that method?

Well, for one thing, it makes a good picture of the gospel. It’s offensive. It goes against propriety and common sense. It offends our sense of good taste. It is crude. In the judgment of worldly wisdom, it seems foolish. It is a stumbling-block and an offense to our sense of decorum and refinement. It is probably the last method you would expect God to employ.

And yet it was perfectly suitable to Christ’s purpose. Underneath the crass and uncouth outward appearance of this act is a tremendous amount of divine wisdom.

Suppose Jesus had used a more refined means of healing the man. Suppose he had reached into his bag and taken out an alabaster vial of glycerin or oil and delicately put drops in the man’s eyes, and the man received sight from that.

What would have been the result?

Everyone would have said, “What a wonderful medicine! What is that stuff? Where can I get some?” The focus would have been on the elixir. The cure would have been ascribed to the eye-drops rather than to the power of God.

But the way Jesus healed this man, no one would ever say, “The mud did it!” Or, “It was the spit.” Instead, it was clear to everyone that Jesus possessed divine power, and the glory went to Him, where it rightfully belongs.

He deliberately chose means that were commonplace and menial. He purposely did something unconventional. Instead of an elaborate ceremony or a cultured and polished ritual, He chose means that people might think unsanitary, messy–perhaps even indecent.

Again, that perfectly illustrates how God works through the gospel. “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence” (1 Corinthians 1:27-29).

The atonement itself is regarded by many in this world as an ugly, appalling, embarrassing thing–a blood sacrifice, involving the death of God’s own Son on a cross of shame, to pay the price of sin in such a public and inglorious way.

But the wisdom of God is foolishness to this world. “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

What’s more, the means by which Jesus healed this guy almost seems counterproductive. Who would ever think that putting mud in a man’s eyes would help him see? The clay is actually an impediment to the light and an irritant to the eye. This is no way to heal blindness! Besides, clay is inert. It has no healing power or efficacy!

And you know what? That’s right. The healing power was not in the dirt. It was not even in the spittle. The efficacy came from the power of Christ.

There may be a couple more reasons Jesus used such an unconventional method. Note: this miracle comes in a context where Christ was proclaiming His deity. What better proof of His deity than a miracle that shows His creative power? Remember how God made Adam in the first place? Genesis 2:7: “The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Here it was as if Christ took that same dust of the ground and fashioned new eyes for this man. It was a creative miracle, regenerating those eyes that had never before been able to see! What better proof of Jesus deity?

Perhaps another reason Jesus chose this means was to demonstrate that He was Lord even of the Sabbath. According to verse 14, this miracle occurred on the Sabbath, like so many of the healing miracles of Jesus. In this case, He actually made clay. And that was a deliberate breach of the Pharisaical system. It was tantamount to making bricks on the Sabbath. They saw it as work–and it was. Remember, Jesus Himself said so in verse 4 ("I must work the works of Him who sent Me"). But it was not the kind of work that was forbidden on the Sabbath. In Matthew 12:12, Jesus had reminded them, “It is lawful to do [good] on the sabbath.”

But that infuriated the legalistic Pharisees. Even when they knew the miracle itself could not be gainsaid, they turned their hostility against Christ into an accusation of blasphemy. As if the miracle itself were not proof of His deity, in verse 16, some of the Pharisees say, “This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.”

There you see the cold hard-heartedness of unbelief.”
--------------------------------------------------------

When I interact with some Adventists, and share with them the good ministries that are outside Adventism, many will say, “but that man does not keep the Sabbath, therefore their ministry is not from God”.

Stan

Here is helpful exegesis of Ephesians 1:3-14 on how God works in the gospel:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/04/predestination_for_gods_glory.php

Stan

Here is helpful exegesis of Ephesians 1:3-14 on how God works in the gospel:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/04/predestination_for_gods_glory.php

Stan