Cheryl Schatz

Peter, You have ignored all that I posted with the meanings of the Greek words. I went to a lot of effort to help you and you have dismissed it all. You have been given the answer. I am praying for you and I mean that sincerely. If you would like to answer what I have given you from the lexicons, I would be very happy to allow your comments to go through. This is my blog. Ignore all my hard work and I just ask you to please reread what I have written. Jesus speaks for Himself.

And Peter, if you would like to pray for me, I would welcome prayer. I know that God hears and answers prayer and I could use all the prayers I can get. This is a tough ministry with a lot of pressure. I want my efforts and resources to be used wisely as God gives me the grace. I trust that you will take to heart what I have shared with you.

Peter, I quoted a Scripture that said that a person must believe that God exists before he can draw near to Him. Your response was: Not sure why this needs to be said – as it is a trivial point. It is not different than saying “no one can read the Bible unless they read the Bible”. Your doing this sidesteps my question of how your view deals with atheism. That is just plain silly. You are accusing me of saying that no one can come to God unless one can come to God. It seems to me that you are having a difficult time being objective and evaluating a viewpoint that is different than the one that you so strongly embrace. When I read your analogy it seems that you find it somewhat difficult to respond without prejudice. I haven’t had time to read through the comments you made as I am squeezed for time and running into serious deadlines over the next number of weeks. The other day I spent an entire day responding to your every point but I rarely have that kind of time. When you respond with a trite comment it makes me concerned about your inability to be objective. Today I just felt compassion for you. I don’t know what your situation is or how many detractors you have had in your journey, but I feel you must have had a lot of enemies. You are fighting so hard for a position that you appear unwilling to stand back from the position long enough to even understand what you are objecting against. I feel a sense of care for you today to pray for you. I am only going to respond to one other point that shows up just above the comment box I am typing in. I feel too overwhelmed today to even read through your multiple comments. In your last paragraph you wrote: Also, and unrelated, you previously said that only believers get saved. If you read the Scripture I quoted, in essence it says that only those who acknowledge God’s existence can come to faith in Him. Those who just acknowledge God’s existence are not yet believers. There are also unbelievers who are not atheists. But Hebrews 11:6 specifically deals with those who deny God’s existence. Conversation is great but understanding one point at a time is better. And asking questions without accusing is even better. I pray that God’s grace is there for you today as He draws you in His love.

Peter, You wrote: I could just as easily point out the example of Paul. He was someone who believed in God and yet did not believe in Jesus. As such, he was not one who it could be said that He was given to Jesus by the Father. Paul was not someone who truly feared God. He did not belong to the Father. Paul gave his testimony in 1 Timothy 1:13 of what he WAS and WHY he was saved. 1 Timothy 1:13 (HCSB) one who was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I received mercy because I acted out of ignorance in unbelief. Paul did not say that he was a godly, God-fearing man. He said he was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man. He found mercy not because he belonged to the Father, but because he acted ignorantly in unbelief. Next comment will deal with a soldier.

At the cross Jesus forgave those who put Him to death in their ignorance: Luke 23:34 (NASB95) But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. A Roman centurion who stood in front of Jesus as He died believed that Jesus was who He said He was. Mark 15:39 (NASB95) When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” Jesus’ asking the Father to forgive them was the catalyst that brought the Father’s revelation to the centurion, but this man was not one who had belonged to the Father. He was not a believer who came to faith in Christ. He was an executioner who received mercy in order to have his eyes open to the reality of who Jesus is.

Peter, John chapter 5 comes before John 6 and in that chapter Jesus constructs the requirements for believing in Him. John 5:24 (NASB95) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. One must believe Him who sent Jesus (believe the Father), and must hear the word of Jesus. Jesus didn’t say that the person must have already believed that Jesus is the Messiah first before hearing His word. Rather, believing the Father brings people to hear the word of Jesus. See the Scripture below. Jesus also showed that the evidence of believing the Father would be what people do with His words. John 5:38 (NASB95) “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. John 5:46–47 (NASB95) 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Believing in Moses comes first, then believing in the words of Jesus. The disciples were given to Jesus, but they did not believe that He was the Messiah right away. They did not FIRST believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, BEFORE they became His disciples. If your interpretation is correct then you should be able to prove that the disciples who were given to Jesus, already believe that He was the Messiah BEFORE they were chosen as His disciples.

Peter, You wrote: (I am tying my definition of “given by the Father” to the words of John 6 – and not something that it MIGHT mean if we are trying to connect some dots). John 6 says nothing about people who had already believe that Jesus is the Son of God. It seems to me that you are trying to connect a huge DOT that you cannot back up by the text. Which part of John 6:37 says that people who WILL be given already believe that Jesus is the Son of God? You wrote: Actually, your views are not based on the Scripture – rather they are based on the way that you want to read them. Seeing that I am the only one going through the verse word by word and grammar by grammar (see the article that these comments are attached to) and you are not going through the verse explaining the words and the grammar, it seems rather disingenuous to me that you are saying my views are not based on the Scripture. How exactly is that so? How would my view be based on the Scripture in your viewpoint? If I ignore the words, ignore the grammar, and state what I think the reader would read into the verse? You wrote, The passages that you quote are not talking about any kind of GIVING. They are talking about the remnant that God is going to save. John 6:37 uses the term “gives” and it is connected in the context to the term “come”. “Come” and “Believe” are synonymous in John 6:37 and John 6:40. Jesus chides those who have seen Him, but do not believe His words. John 6:36 (NASB95) “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. Why do they not believe? Jesus has already said in chapter 5. John 5:46 (NASB95) “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. You wrote: Despite the fact that you continue to downplay my use of the scriptures (I find that amusing because ALL I am doing is looking at the relevant text here) – this verse puts a definitive limitation on this narrative in John 6. That is my scriptural answer. That isn’t a use of Scripture at all! That is a bunch of words that do not reference the verse or give the exact context that you are referring to. You say that there is a “definitive limitation”, yet you give NO words that list a definitive limitation. You are not even trying to prove your point by the exact words that are written. Do you believe in divine inspiration of the Word of God? Or is it a concept that you are trying to prove without using the words because the words are not necessary? You wrote: You are forcing the words of THIS text in John 6:37 by trying to make them normative for all time. But, as I mentioned, it is a unique situation. You are misrepresenting me. If you read my words about Paul and the Centurion, you will see that these sinners did not belong to the Father. They received mercy because they sinned in unbelief. I will respond more in the next comment.

Peter, You wrote: Despite the fact that you continue to downplay my use of the scriptures (I find that amusing because ALL I am doing is looking at the relevant text here) – this verse puts a definitive limitation on this narrative in John 6. That is my scriptural answer. John 17:6 is referring to those who had already been given to Jesus, and specifically refers to the disciples. John 6:37, the verse we are referring to does not say “gave” but “give” (present tense). Jesus didn’t make a mistake on the grammar. The passage is not talking about those already given, (past tense in John 6:37). You are taking a view that Calvinists hold to as they cannot see the present tense but always go to John 17:6 to the past tense.

Peter, you wrote: What we do have today, is the gospel going out to all people and those who respond in faith doing so because of the power of the gospel. Rather than being cared for by Jesus, we have the Holy Spirit presiding over the affairs of the church – as Jesus presides in heaven. I am not denying that Jesus is not Lord and presently reigning. But His current involvement in human affairs is completely a different affair than it was in John 6 when he walked the earth. You have said that the Father “gives over” the care to Jesus, and now you are saying that it is the Holy Spirit who presides on earth and not Jesus. However Jesus said that He would disclose Himself to and live in those who believe in Him: John 14:21 (NASB95) “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. Revelation 3:20 (NASB95) ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. Galatians 2:20 (NASB95) “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. To say that Jesus does not have a current involvement in our human affairs as when He walked the earth is an error. Jesus is with us as He is in us.

Peter, You wrote: In today’s world, we do have some Jews coming to faith. They didn’t priorly believe – and, as such, they cannot be said to have been cared for by the Father. The issue is “believing” the Father. The OT shows that the Father cared for Israel even when the nation as a whole were unbelievers. The care for the unbelieving nation represented by the vineyard in Isaiah 5 is amazing. He says “what more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? That is GREAT care in the face of unbelief. Isaiah 5:1–4 (NASB95) 1 Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. 2 He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard. 4 “What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?

Peter, You wrote: Finally, the SCRIPTURAL evidence for verse 37 being setting-specific and not descriptive for all time, is that it is book-ended by the use of “FOR’ at the beginning of verse 38. That link provided by John, clearly identifies the words of Jesus as having primary application to THIS situation. Bookended?? The term “For” in verse 38 is not a bookend, it is an explanation. Jesus is explaining why He will not cast out any who are coming to Him. It is because He came to do the Father’s will. That will is to give life to the world. In John 6:38 Jesus says “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” Jesus had already said in verse 33 that He came down from heaven and gives life to the world. John 6:32–33 (NASB95) 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” Note that in verse 32 the present tense “gives” is said for the Jews, but in verse 33 Jesus said that the “gives” (present tense) is for the world. The world did not come to Jesus when He was here on this earth, so it cannot be limited to the time that Jesus was here on the earth. In addition, verse 40 has the same “For” (not a bookend, but a very important revelation of His reason) John 6:40 (NASB95) “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.” Verse 40 is so far beyond the time of Jesus when He walked the earth, that Jesus lists the beholding as attached to the believing, and ALL of these will have eternal life and be raised up on the last day. In NO way is this limited to a specific group in front of Jesus, or a specific time period limited to His physical presence. Your “setting-specific” as “primary application to THIS situation” is invalid. Jesus’ coming to earth to give life was NOT limited to a setting-specific with a “primary application” of only Jews. What I LOVE about the Scripture is that it refutes false ideas if one keeps reading. There is no sense that Jesus is only referring to Jewish people who will be raised up by Jesus.

Peter, you wrote: That link provided by John, clearly identifies the words of Jesus as having primary application to THIS situation. In other words, the giving is occurring during the time of his ministry as He did the Father’s will while he was on earth. As such, phrases such as “gives”, “comes” and “drive away” must have relevance to the conversation at hand – as a FIRST priority of the reading as we try to determine the intended meaning of the passage. While what Jesus said applies to the people that He is talking to, it CANNOT be limited to only them as verse 40 shows. So what did the Jews take away from what Jesus said? Did they think that His words were only for a specific time and that is what He meant? No, because they started grumbling about His words that extended His life and His power to beyond that time and beyond those people. The Jews grumbled about how He could come down from heaven if He was a mother and father on earth. John 6:41–42 41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” They see Jesus’ point as being above this situation, but they are offended by His words. Jesus then explains to them that what He is saying was predicted by the prophets and refers to those who have believed the Father (learned from the Father). John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. This is not about a setting-specific, but about a concept-specific. The concept is what Jesus had already said in chapter 5. Only those who have learned from the Father, have believed His word, will come to Him. And Jesus adds in another concept-specific word by saying that those who believe already have eternal life. John 6:47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Peter, You said: As such, phrases such as “gives”, “comes” and “drive away” must have relevance to the conversation at hand – as a FIRST priority of the reading as we try to determine the intended meaning of the passage. Only by acknowledging that, can we then go on to try to determine if this is ALSO a universal principle that applies after Jesus ascends – which makes the “looking ahead to the coming Messiah” a moot exercise. You are saying that one must see these words as ONLY applicable to the people of the time of Jesus and by determining this, you are not only missing verses that take this as a salvation passage, you are actually practicing begging the question. Having relevance to the people at that time CANNOT disregard people after that time unless the words actually say that. Jesus did not make a mistake by not adding a term that limits the application of time. Instead, Jesus used the present tense without a limiting term. “For” is not a time limit, it is a reason.

Peter, I see that you have commented while I was trying to finish answering your first comment. I will address your second comment now. You responded to my comment about Paul finding mercy because he acted ignorantly and in unbelief: But this is in direct contradiction of your previous statement. Paul came to Jesus without having been one who was given to Jesus by the Father. Similarly, your example here of the centurion seem to work against what you previously said. Not at all. You are confused because you have a view in mind that is not what I believe. There is no contradiction. Paul did not come to Christ because he was a believer. He received mercy in spite of being an unbeliever, because Paul was not sinning with a “high hand”. That is a concept when you know the truth but deliberately go against it. It is sinning with your eyes wide open and rebellion. Paul was not that way. He did not commit murder because he knew the truth. He acted in unbelief not by suppressing the truth. Here is what I mean: Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, There are those who suppress the truth that they know and these ones do not receive mercy. The Jews act with knowledge but they sinned because they suppressed the truth. In Matt. 27:62-66 these Jews called Jesus a liar and they made it very clear that they understood that Jesus had told them that He would rise from the dead: Matthew 27:62–66 62 Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ 64 “Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone. The Jews knowing the truth of what Jesus said, covered up the truth and sinned with a “high hand”: Matthew 28:11–15 11 Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14“ And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” 15 And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. So while those who believe the word of the Father are promised to be given to the Son, there are those who do not believe the Father, not because they suppress the truth, but because they have been deceived in their unbelief. Paul was among these and Paul received God’s mercy as an example of the worst sinner and God’s perfect patience with those who have not yet believed. 1 Timothy 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. You wrote: I am confused. In these cases, you have people coming to faith without first “belonging to the Father”. Which was my point… Paul explained why he as a Jew, and one blinded by unbelief, received mercy. We must believe Paul that mercy can be given to those who are unbelievers not because they know the truth, but because they are unbelievers through being deceived. Paul gives another great example of mercy given to another one who was deceived by the lie. 1 Timothy 2:13–14 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Eve’s fall into sin was not because she was sinning with knowledge, but because she had been fully and completely deceived. I will make one last comment to complete my response.

Peter, You wrote: The crux of our impasse is that it seems to me that you want to consider that passages that show the role of the Father – as in the case of the Lord opening Lydia’s heart, and insist that it is conclusive proof of that as the Father giving them to Jesus. On the other hand, my view doesn’t deny that there is active involvement by God in the process of salvation. The point that I am making is that the giving shows that the people given already belong to the Father. They are believers. They have believed in what has been given to them. They have not yet heard about Jesus and they have not rejected Him. They belong to the sheep fold of the Father. And they will also belong to Jesus. It seems to me that you think that when people are given to Jesus, that they no longer belong to the Father, but that wouldn’t be right. They are not transferred from the sheep fold of the Father to the sheepfold of Jesus, but they are jointly owned. John 17:10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. You wrote: But you seem to be insisting that the one means the other. I simply am saying that there is a difference between the giving as depicted in John 6 – and God working in someone’s life to bring them to salvation. I would point out that there was no guarantee that those given in John 6, would be saved. In the exact same way that a NT God-fearing Jew can be given to Jesus, so a NT God-fearing Gentle can be given to Jesus. The qualification is belief in the light that one has been given. The guarantee is not front being “given” but from the “coming” or “believing” which is present tense – continuous. This means that the one who comes to Jesus and who continues to come to Him is the one who believes in Jesus and continues to believe in Him — this is the one who Jesus will certainly not cast out. John 6:40 reiterates that it is the one who continues to behold the Son (present tense) and the one who continues to believe (present tense) that will have eternal life. You wrote: A simple push back in this regard – is that your view seems to hold no hope for an atheist to come to faith. There is no hope that an atheist can come to faith unless the person gives up their atheism, for God has said in the book of Hebrews: Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. God said that he who comes to God MUST believe that He exists. It isn’t that there isn’t enough evidence in God. It is that a person does not want the consequences of believing in God for then they would be accountable for their sin. I choose to believe Hebrews 11:6 that there is a requirement of believing that God exists in order to come (or draw near) to Him. You wrote: One other seeming fly in your ointment: what about those deceased OT believers who believed in the coming Messiah and who would have believed in Jesus had they lived long enough to see Him? It CANNOT be said of them that they “were given to Jesus” – in that they weren’t around to allow for the process of him caring for them. The giving is not for Jesus to physically feed a person, etc, but the giving is for eternal life. You have created your own definition of what the giving is, but John 6:37-40 LINKS the giving to Jesus with eternal life. That is the proper definition. There is NO link to leading the person around the countryside, but to eternal life and resurrection for those who continue to believe in Him. And as far as those who lived long before Jesus came onto this earth, they were promised that they would be given the covenant and would be His. For example, the prophets were those who believed in the Messiah long before He walked this earth. About them it is said that the Spirit of Christ was within them predicting the upcoming suffering and glorification of Christ.: 1 Peter 1:10–11 10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. The cross is a point in time, but its effects go back into the past and forward into the future. Jesus died for people who were in hell for thousands of years before He walked the earth, but He still died for them. His sacrifice goes back to those who feared God and who waited for the Christ, and it also stands as judgment against those who refused to believe God and who died before the cross. You wrote: Your argument with me here should not be on the setting which is clearly in view. Your argument is that the principle of the setting (that Jesus tells them) continues on. No. The setting is not any sort of limitation. Jesus goes from the original bread from heaven in the past which was given by the Father to the present giving out of heaven. Jesus said that the Father “gives” them bread from heaven which goes beyond the original coming down from heaven to the ongoing giving of life in Jesus. If Jesus had meant just a particular setting that He had come from heaven for only this time and this place and this people, then He would have said The Father gave you bread from heaven. But again the ongoing action of Jesus is a life-giving Spirit frames the action as ongoing, not static. You wrote: There are too many setting specific details that prevent a leap to a continued “giving” – as you suggest. Peter you seem to have a limited view of the continued gift of Jesus in this world. You seem to somehow compartamentalize Jesus in Heaven and not see His own Spirit, not the Holy Spirit, at work here on the earth. I know you had told me before that you are a Trinitarian, but do you perhaps have a different view of what the Trinity means? Does Trinity mean to you that God is one person who in the past was the Father, then was seen as Jesus on earth, and now is seen as the Holy Spirit? Please forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it seems like you are limiting Jesus in a way that makes me wonder why. As I said before, the miraculous revelation to Cornelius and to Lydia show me that they qualify as those who fear God and who are promised to belong to the LORD of hosts. Their journey is just like the Jewish believers who came before them.

Peter, I see that you have replied again while I was finishing my response. I don’t know how much more I can respond tonight and I have a very busy week ahead of me as I let things slide while I was teaching a class. You wrote: Actually, this shows the difference between you and I it would appear. I am primarily looking to determine (as a first exercise) what the words of Jesus meant to HIs hearers. In this regard, verse 40 had to have specific application to them – otherwise it is meaningless to them. Are you serious? Verse 40 has meaning to the crowd, but Jesus doesn’t say that the “everyone” is ONLY the crowd that stands before him. If you are going to limit this to the crowd in front of Jesus, you are going to have a big problem with verse 40 in being meaningless. John 6:40 “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.” Jesus said that “everyone” who believes…this is the entire whole encompassing all. But Jesus said I Myself will raise “him” up. Who is the “him” that Jesus would raise up? Which one of the crowd would be raised up? Surely they see this as an inclusive statement, not exclusive so that only one person is raised up. The inclusivity of language would not be meaningless to the crowd. You wrote: As such, verse 40 refers to the people of that day FIRSTLY. They were the only ones who did SEE Jesus. The seeing is not a physical seeing, but perceiving. The Greek word translated as “beholds” or “sees” means to see with attention, observe, perceive. It isn’t a physical seeing but spiritually seeing. It is in the line of when Jesus said both that the Jews had not seen the Father’s form, yet He also said that he who has seen Jesus has seen the Father. John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Jesus is not talking about a physical seeing, but spiritually perceiving. You wrote: You will assert that this has a metaphorical SEEING built into the text – so that it can be exported as a CONCEPT. But this requires you to read into the passage a metaphorical notion of SEEING. I say it is a SPIRITUAL seeing. Just as no one saw the Father physically, yet Jesus said said they has seen the Father. And in the CONTEXT Jesus said that His words were spirit and life in John 6:63 showing that seeing Him and coming to Him is not a physical seeing nor a physical coming, but a spiritual seeing and coming. You wrote: By the way, I am NOT saying that EVERYTHING that Jesus said ONLY applied to them. What I am saying, is that we have to discern (by way of the context) which things were being said ONLY to them. We discern what Jesus meant by the words and grammar that He used. We do not discern by our feelings or by limiting the statement when no limitation is given. The basic understanding should be that Jesus included the crowd but did not limit it to them unless there is clear inspired words to make such a conclusion. You wrote: For example, we can take away from verse 40 that if we believe in him we may have eternal life. That fact is applicable to all people across time. But I cannot SEE Jesus today – in the way He is using the word in the text. The problem that you have is that “everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have stern life” is a “forward pointing target” that goes back to “this” is the will of My Father. The will of the Father is the looking on the Son and believing. It is together. You can’t break it apart for it means the same. It works for you to break the two apart because you have already made up your mind that Jesus is ONLY referring to people who saw His physical body while He was on the earth, but that can’t be substantiated as it is attached to believing and is a forward pointing target in whole. I will take a screen print and try to input this into the conversation.

I got the graphic added to my last comment. Peter, You said: Of course, all concepts are universal and originate simply as truth statements – but, as far as our grasping of concepts are concerned, concepts are derived by first looking at specific situations in order to determine first what it meant to them – and then what it means for us. The meaning is the same to them as it is to us. Looking on the Son = believing in Him. Jesus defined His words as spirit and life. You wrote: But it is not good practice – when there are specific situations that Jesus is speaking into, to ignore the specifics of the situations. If we do ignore the situation at hand, we have Jesus walking around preaching concepts that are not tied to situations – or at the very least, preaching concepts that don’t relate to their situation. The concept is not physical eyes. The blind were able to believe in Jesus. To limit this to physical eyes that physically can see and are not physically blind takes this out of the realm of Jesus words of life. Physical eyes are not need to see. You wrote: Authority only happens when we stick with the author’s intended meaning. Jesus did not mean physical eyes any more than He meant to stick a fork into His flesh and eat it. Jesus’ intended meaning was spirit and life, not cutting Him and drinking His blood or the need for physical eyes that could see Him. Jesus was talking about faith and placing trust in Him.

Peter, You wrote: I am failing to see how this is not a contradiction. How is that (in view of verse 37) Paul is one that the Father “gave” Jesus? Either he was a believer and was given – or he was not… Paul was not a believer that was given to Jesus. Paul came to faith because he was deceived and lived in unbelief. John 6:37 says “all that the Father gives Me will come to Me”. It doesn’t say that ONLY those given to Jesus can come to Him. Paul was an unbeliever who had an encounter with Jesus as an unbeliever that turned his life around to faith in Jesus. Paul was not one who belonged to the Father as a believer and thus as a believer was given to Jesus. No. Paul was a murderer, a blasphemer, a violent aggressor. Yet God saw fit to have mercy on Paul. Paul came to Jesus not because he was given, but because he was convicted of his sin. Those who are given to Jesus as ones who have belonged to the Father are not convicted of sin but are convicted of the truth of who Jesus is. These ones WILL come to Jesus because they already believe God. They have listened to the Father and learned from Him. I hope this helps.

Peter, You wrote: I think it is unnecessary to say that. When I am in conversations and people start to resort to ad hominem, I usually take that as a sign that they are unable to refute my points. That is not an ad hominem. It was a question. I am sincerely trying to figure out why you do not go through the verse point by point, inspired word by inspired grammar and why you want to see concepts before the inspired words. The inspired words and the inspired grammar will never contradict an inspired concept, but looking for concepts without looking at the building blocks is foreign to me. If I ask a question, it is a question. I rarely get caught up in attacking a person because I am first trying to understand, and then I want to influence a person to have faith in Jesus. Influence rarely happens by attacking a person. If you can give me the grace to believe that, we may go a step further without friction. You wrote: Some of this is starting to be recycled over again – I am thinking about your “grammar” attack and I don’t see the point of continuing if we are going to do that. I gave you a very good reason for reading verse 37 within the confines of the grammar there. You seemed to accept that I was grammatically on solid ground (given my premise) but it was the “expiration date” premise that you disagreed with. Now you are back to accusing me of tinkering with the grammar. I don’t know what to do with that… Listen, I have been through some really tough times with teaching teens about suicide and evil and the necessity to forgive those who have abused you. This was my full-time focus after the recent death of my mother. If I have forgotten your grammar that I somehow agreed with but cannot remember, you will need to remind me. And forgive me. I do not remember you saying that the present tense means an action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion. If the completion happens in the future, the completion is noted. To have an “expiration date” at the very time that the truth statement is made by Jesus is a non sequitur. It cannot logically follow. Jesus doesn’t make those kinds of errors. You wrote: It seems that our words have different meanings. It might be helpful if you define divine inspiration so I can understand what you mean. If you don’t want to discuss this issue, that is fine. I enjoy answering challenges. And if you want to bow out should I take that as a sign that you are unable to refute my points? I haven’t bowed out. Let’s talk.

I am transferring my discussion with Peter from https://mmoutreach.org/tg/jesus-draws-all/ to the article on John 6:37 as this is a better place to put the discussion. Peter, I think that we are going to have to work on the top issues first. The issue we have discussed is about John 6:37 and the giving of the Father. What is the biblical history of the giving of people to Jesus? The foundation of the giving is in the OT: Malachi 3:16–18 16Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and who esteem His name. 17“They will be Mine,” says the Lord of hosts, “on the day that I prepare My own possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.” 18So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him. The ones who will belong to Jesus are those who fear God. During the time of Jesus there are people given to Jesus. These are Jewish believers who have gone through the baptism of John and repentance. But is the giving limited to Jewish believers before the death of Jesus. If we can find non-Jewish believers who are God-fearing believers who are brought to belief in Jesus, then we have an on-going giving in the same way that Jewish believers were given to Jesus. Lydia is one of these believers: Acts 16:13–15 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Notice that it was the Lord who opened her heart to respond. Someone who belongs to the Father will respond immediately to Jesus because the Father opens up their heart to respond. Lydia’s response that she is to be judged faithful to the Lord, shows that she was a believer in God and faithful to the light that she had been given and now who showed her position as a God-fearer she immediately responded to the message of Jesus. God-fearing proselytes were told by Paul to “continue in the grace of God” as those who were already believers in the Father. Acts 13:43 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God. The last example is Cornelius. He is another one of these God-fearing Gentile believers who needed to believe in Jesus: Acts 10:22 22 They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.” When Cornelius was brought the message of Jesus, even as Peter was speaking, the Holy Spirit descended upon those who had gathered to hear about Jesus. Peter sees the evidence of the Holy Spirit’s infilling and he says the “welcome to Him” is given to every nation without partiality. Acts 10:34-35 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. So, the foundation is in the OT, the giving to Jesus is NEVER of unbelievers but of those who fear God, and it continues after the death of Jesus. Peter in your interpretation it appears that it is very important to you that the giving of people to Jesus ends at the death of Jesus. I would like to see your foundation for that view. Do you have an OT precedent for John 6:37 “the giving” as prophesied in the OT. Also do you have at least one witness of a NT verse that describes the coming “ending” of that giving to happen at the cross, or do you have a witness of a NT verse after the cross that describes the “ending” of the giving as a thing of the past? My views are solidly based on the Scripture and a refutation should have a solid base in the Scripture. In addition, a scriptural refutation should show why we should not take the Bible examples I have given as people given to believe in Jesus. I will await your scriptural answer. Thanks!

My last class is finished and it has been a very intense time. Peter, I think that we are going to have to work on the top issues first. The issue we have discussed is about John 6:37 and the giving of the Father. What is the biblical history of the giving of people to Jesus? The foundation of the giving is in the OT: Malachi 3:16–18 16Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and who esteem His name. 17“They will be Mine,” says the Lord of hosts, “on the day that I prepare My own possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.” 18So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him. The ones who will belong to Jesus are those who fear God. During the time of Jesus there are people given to Jesus. These are Jewish believers who have gone through the baptism of John and repentance. But is the giving limited to Jewish believers before the death of Jesus. If we can find non-Jewish believers who are God-fearing believers who are brought to belief in Jesus, then we have an on-going giving in the same way that Jewish believers were given to Jesus. Lydia is one of these believers: Acts 16:13–15 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Notice that it was the Lord who opened her heart to respond. Someone who belongs to the Father will respond immediately to Jesus because the Father opens up their heart to respond. Lydia’s response that she is to be judged faithful to the Lord, shows that she was a believer in God and faithful to the light that she had been given and now who showed her position as a God-fearer she immediately responded to the message of Jesus. God-fearing proselytes were told by Paul to “continue in the grace of God” as those who were already believers in the Father. Acts 13:43 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God. The last example is Cornelius. He is another one of these God-fearing Gentile believers who needed to believe in Jesus: Acts 10:22 22 They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.” When Cornelius was brought the message of Jesus, even as Peter was speaking, the Holy Spirit descended upon those who had gathered to hear about Jesus. Peter sees the evidence of the Holy Spirit’s infilling and he says the “welcome to Him” is given to every nation without partiality. Acts 10:34-35 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. So, the foundation is in the OT, the giving to Jesus is NEVER of unbelievers but of those who fear God, and it continues after the death of Jesus. Peter in your interpretation it appears that it is very important to you that the giving of people to Jesus ends at the death of Jesus. I would like to see your foundation for that view. Do you have an OT precedent for John 6:37 “the giving” as prophesied in the OT. Also do you have at least one witness of a NT verse that describes the coming “ending” of that giving to happen at the cross, or do you have a witness of a NT verse after the cross that describes the “ending” of the giving as a thing of the past? My views are solidly based on the Scripture and a refutation should have a solid base in the Scripture. In addition, a scriptural refutation should show why we should not take the Bible examples I have given as people given to believe in Jesus. I will await your scriptural answer. Thanks!

Peter, I am transferring this discussion to my article on John 6:37 https://mmoutreach.org/tg/come-john6-37/ as our discussion is not actually on God’s drawing but God’s giving, so if you could please answer me on that link. I have copied my latest comment there. Thanks!

I just finished teaching the second of three teen Sunday School classes in the problem of evil. I have a PowerPoint presentation to do this week on forgiveness. I will see if I can fit time in later this week to answer you,Peter.

Peter, sorry for being so slow. I have not left the conversation. I am teaching 3 teen classes on suicide, the problem of evil, and forgiveness with PowerPoint presentations in addition to my normal work. I have been crazy busy. I have not even had time to read your comments. I will get back to the conversation as soon as I can. My first class starts Sunday.

Peter, you wrote about John 17:12 In this verse, looking at the words of the text, Judas is among the “them” group. Of the members of this group, Judas is the one that was the exception. That is illogical. A person could say a similar statement this way: All the children had ice cream except for little Marcie as Marcie only likes cake. Marcie is one of the children, but is she a part of the “all the children” that had ice cream? The fact that there is an exception — that Judas was not under the spiritual care of Jesus even though Jesus met his physical needs — does not place Judas in the group of disciples that was kept safe. I think that you would get this if it wasn’t a point about Judas that you do not want to give up. I think that everyone reading this can see that Marcie cannot be in BOTH groups — the group that had ice cream and the group (she is the lone exception) that did not have ice cream. You wrote: The “exception” part is not that he is not part of the group. His lost condition was the exception. Jesus said “them” not “conditions”. Either Jesus is talking about people or He is talking about conditions. You seem to be arguing above that it is a group of people. You cannot now change the meaning to a thing. Either words mean something or they do not. By saying this, I am not arguing that he was a good man – as you seem to be inferring that I am saying. Its just an observation that cannot be wiggled out from underneath. It isn’t an “observation”. It is a reinterpretation of the text. A class “wiggle” to get out from the implications of what Jesus said. I see you fighting hard to get out from under what the text says. If you can change the text from people to things such as conditions, what else are you going to change in John 6? That deeply concerns me. You wrote: When I use terms like “purpose” I use them as I understand them – not as a TULIPist uses them. God can have a purpose for someone – which says nothing about their salvation and doesn’t guarantee it. Jesus saw something in Judas that caused Him to choose Judas because He knew that Judas would betray him as the scriptures foretold. Could we say that Judas had a purpose of practiced sin that included deception, theft and would lead him to betrayal? It was his own purpose. Jesus chose one active sinner, knowing Judas’ heart from the beginning that he would betray Jesus. Judas’ purpose was fulfilled by his own actions, and God’s prophecy was fulfilled. You wrote: I am able to read the verse – without having to change the grammar. I think this is the crux of our whole discussion. Can you not see that Jesus can speak in present tense language AT THAT TIME – and yet,at the same time, there be a scenario whereby the presentness of that language has an end date? You are not hearing me. If Jesus used the past tense (all that the Father GAVE Me) with the future tense (WILL come to Me) there would be an end date to the future tense because the giving was already complete. However, you have to make the present tense come to an end without a word from Jesus or the disciples that such an event had concluded. If you turned a blind eye to John 6 and only focused on the past giving of the disciples to Jesus, you would at least have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, the Bible’s grammar is hard for people when they have a different conclusion. I won’t be misled about the deliberate present tense and no word, not a single one, that limits the giving. If I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected, but you can’t do that by not following through with finding the proper grammar addressed by God in Scripture that sets up an end. If my premise is correct (and I am fairly certain it is) He is merely telling them that there is an ongoing giving that expires at the time of His death. I am absolutely certain you are wrong. Show me the text either in the gospels or by the words of Paul or any other New Testament author that defines such an end date. I am sure that you need a lot of time to check out all of the text but I will be waiting for that Scripture. You wrote: What you are doing is front-loading your assumption that there is a future giving – into the passage. The meaning of present tense from Logos Bible software: https://mmoutreach.org/tg/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/present-tense.jpg “present — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion. Heiser, M. S., & Setterholm, V. M. (2013; 2013). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Lexham Press.” If you want to correct the Morpho-Syntactic Database, perhaps you can explain your credentials to do that. You wrote: Since the “giving” is a matter of those ones learning from the Father through His word, there is no reason to reject a notion that more could be given to Jesus by the Father – while He lived. Jesus said that the learning from the Father happened first, then they came to Jesus. John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. You wrote: Don’t forget that, in this passage, there is a distinct Jewishness occurring. Jesus is not teaching universal theological truth. If He was, He would be contradicting Himself when He later said that He would draw all men to Himself – as opposed to the Father drawing them. If the Father is no longer drawing, I would make the claim that He is no longer “giving” either. That is illogical. Jesus is not restricted from drawing all to Himself because the Father draws people to Jesus. You wrote: Your insistence that the giving continues beyond that time to today, is driven by your rigid insistence that the grammar says it does. But this is circular reasoning. I am saying that the grammar shows that the giving was ongoing. If the grammar has changed, then you can show that to me. To read into the Bible a change in the ongoing nature described by Jesus without a single piece of evidence is presumptuous. What other grammar do you have to change to make your view work? I don’t need to change the grammar at all. The grammar speaks for itself and if God has revealed an end date I am happy to believe that because I am more interested in truth than supporting something that is not truthful. Again, find the proof, show it to me and we can be on the same page. I do not argue with the inspired word. You wrote: You need to let go of the Calvinistic influence that has trapped you here. I reject the Calvinist interpretation and I reject yours as well – as it is a hybrid model. If you can’t see that the present tense absolutely refutes the Calvinist view that predestination was from eternity past, then I am not sure that I can help you much. You wrote: I am only so happy to use the scripture. I guess that I assumed that you know what I am talking about when I bring up points – in that my points are driven by scripture. The article that I sent you is the result of a more careful reading of scripture. I am full up right now trying to keep up with the work that I have to do. How about you try to work in Scripture in this format with the passage we are discussing? You wrote: I don’t just read words – I also look for the intended meaning of the author. The intended meaning of the author is in the words. It is also in the grammar. And the intended meaning is in the words and grammar of the context. That is the foundation. You wrote: I will say though, that this argument is not that complex. Judas and John the Baptist are more of a side bar to the discussion – because they don’t really factor into it. Judas absolutely factors into John 6 because Jesus Himself brings Judas in. Judas is not a side bar, he is a “this is why I said this” main point. And consider this that John 6 is avoided by a lot of Christians because they find it confusing and tough. Calvinists too have a difficult time with the grammar because it does not fit their Calvinist glasses. So while you may think that John 6 is not complex, it may be because you have taken out some of the complex things that sideline your argument. If John 6 only makes sense if you leave Judas out, then you may have missed the main road that has the amazing truth of who Jesus is mixed with difficult concepts. By the way N.T. Wright who you quote in your paper has gone theologically sideways and redefined a lot of things including salvation, heaven, hell, Adam and Eve, and more. I plan to do a post on whether Jesus’ death was for individuals here on this blog and his concept of people after Adam and Eve not being a direct creation of God probably in our newsletter. While you are working on finding the Scriptural proof that the giving has ended, do you want us to go on to the next points?

Peter, you are a LONG way from home! You wrote: IF you are right about John the Baptist’s status as an unbeliever, then you have a strong case. I appreciate you saying this. If each point I made is valid in the context and with Jesus’ words, it is a very strong case. You wrote: When Jesus uses John’t role as the greatest prophet of the OT era juxtaposed against the least person in the new covenant kingdom, he is not focusing on John there – rather using an example of the best of one thing being less than the least of another. IF this was correct then everything else that Jesus said would make no sense. Jesus puts John into the greatest of a category including all. Luke 7:28 “I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” If Jesus wanted to limit this group to just prophets and John was the best prophet, His words far exceeded a limited group. And, if Jesus is just comparing different groups, then it makes no sense what Jesus said directly to John. In Luke 7:22 Jesus partially quotes from Isaiah 61:1. Right after that Jesus says that the one who is blessed is the one who does not take offense at Him. The term for offense is not a term of comparing two righteous groups. Why is John told there is a blessing for not taking offense after his doubt was openly declared to Jesus and the crowd? I think that Jesus again hits the nail on the head. Isaiah 61:1 is a bombshell as far as John the Baptist is concerned. Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; This is a prophecy of the Messiah and note that the Messiah is said to bring FREEDOM TO THE CAPTIVES. Where was John? In prison. John would have known the prophecies about the Messiah and the role that he was to play in announcing the Messiah. Now that he was in prison, would the verse that Jesus quoted from have been important to him? He was a captive that needed to be freed but Jesus never helped him,. In fact when Jesus heard that John was in prison he did not go to John but he instead with into Galilee. Matthew 4:12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee; Jesus had told John’s disciples to take a message to him. Jesus was doing all the miracles from Isaiah 61:1 but He was not setting John the prisoner free. Jesus’ quote and the admonition to not be offended because of Him was and indication that John was offended because Jesus was helping others but not freeing him as a special messenger of His. In your view there is no explanation for the spiritual importance of faith vs offense. Lastly, John the Baptist was not in an “older” group, but he was in the time of the gospel. Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. The end of the Law and the Prophets was the coming of John. John was in the new covenant time and John preached the gospel of the kingdom. You wrote: In hermeneutics, if we try to draw a truth out of a text that the author is not making, there is no authority on that interpretation. Everything that Jesus said has meaning. If you are going to draw the meaning of a comparison of two righteous groups (OT prophets and those entering the kingdom), then you have to explain the words and quote of Jesus. None of it makes any sense and we cannot just ignore the words in the inspired text. Jesus said His words for a reason. You wrote: I could similarly say to you that Elijah was not a believer because of his wavering. I do not know what you are talking about. So God the Father speaking directly to John the Baptist and giving John the greatest witness of the Messiah that any man has received, and John seeing the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus, is now rejected by John and this is to be compared to what from Elijah so that you call him an unbeliever? You wrote: The reason I suggested that John the Baptist and Judas were not really relevant to our discussion is because they aren’t – in OUR discussion. I do understand that they are important to your argument with Calvinists. But the fact of the matter is that we are approaching that false doctrine from different angles (at least as it pertains to John 6). So our discussion is centered around the notion of the Father’s drawing. The issue is drawing but more so the giving to Jesus. Jesus concludes the passage with His reason for His words spoken precious in the chapter. Unbelief is tied directly into His words “no one can come to Me unless” John 6:64–65 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” You wrote: This is a passage that Calvinists to prove irresistible grace – more than unconditional election, although the 2 do tie together. I do not believe that John 6 is about unconditional election and I do not believe that it is about irresistible grace for unbelievers. You wrote: Re Judas, I think I made myself clear there, and made a good point – the main thing being that just because Jesus knew the purpose that Judas served, and in that regard, knew that Judas needed to keep following him – when the others didn’t. Judas didn’t need to keep following Jesus to betray Him. When you say the “purpose” that Judas served, that comes across as if you accept unconditional election. You wrote: Whether or not Judas had a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was (whereas the others definitely did not) is immaterial to my premise – as I see it. Peter confessed what the disciples believed: John 6:69 “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” While Peter says “we have believed”, Jesus immediately showed that one of the disciples was not part of the “we” that believed. Jesus said: John 6:70–71 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. You wrote: I will point out that in John 17, a good case can be made for Judas as being included in the group of those given to Jesus by the Father. If you read the text, it seems that he was included but he was lost whereas the others weren’t. In John 17:12, Judas is show as the exception. The fact that Judas was identified as a habitual thief, he was identified as his heart known to Jesus “from the beginning”, that he was personally indwelt by Satan twice, and one who was said to be a devil and already was a “son of perdition” and already “perished”. Judas was not “given” to Jesus because Judas was never a repentant believer, but an unrepentant, habitual sinner. Judas was “lost” for sure, but he was “lost” from the beginning. He was the only unbeliever that Jesus picked as a disciple. He was someone so good at acting the part and so good at stealing with stealth and hiding himself and his sin that none of the other disciples even considered him as a possible candidate as the betrayer. So look again at John 17:12. Judas is listed as one who is lost but never listed as one given to Jesus as a believer. You wrote: If things were crystal clear, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. However, because they are not clear, I could just as easily turn your argument around and point it back at you. IOW you are assuming that your reasoning is lacking assumption and human reasoning whereas mine is not. If you look at my Biblical reasoning, I quote the Scripture and use the exact words it says. I do agree that some of these things are not easy to see at first because we come with assumptions. We may excuses for John the Baptist because we like him and do not want to see him as an unbeliever because he has been such a powerful preacher of the gospel. However, I have taught classes where people originally rejected what I said and I brought out all the things that John the Baptist knew. We all looked at the list of things that the Bible says and the words that John spoke. We looked carefully and then we compared this to the words brought to Jesus of his doubt. Every single person saw it. They all said that he had NO reason to doubt the Father’s testimony about Jesus. They saw that Jesus’ words back to John had meaning. They saw that no change in John’s doubt was given and no change in his place outside the kingdom is given. It was a very sobering moment for them. What they said to me was that it was much easier to see when everything said about John was put in one place at one time. It then became very obvious to them and they acknowledged that what John said to Jesus in a very public manner through John’s disciples was a terrible thing to say by one who had been taught by the Father and given information to believe than anyone. It was clear and plain to them at that moment and they were very sad for John. They also realized that they too must do something with what they have been given because all of us are accountable to believe. The testimony about John is clear for anyone who is willing to hear the hard message of accountability and personal responsibility. You wrote; If I set my standard of proof so high that it disallowed any further discussion, almost zero progress could be made in these matters. All I ask is that you quote the Scripture and show what it says. You tend not to use Scripture inductively, but pick and choose to try to prove a point. You do not go through a passage or point to the grammar. If you wanted to get a point through, you would do well to work through a section and point out what each piece means in relation to the other verses. You wrote: Hopefully, it is not mere HUMAN reasoning as you mentioned – rather it is good, solid, Holy Spirit-enlightened reasoning. The reasoning that the Holy Spirit brings NEVER contradicts the Scripture. And I also believe that we should not ignore parts of the text because we don’t like the implications of that text. Judas is an integral part of John 6 because Jesus made him integrated in the text and the Holy Spirit highlights the words of Jesus as truth. We can leave Judas for the time being, but he will inevitably come up again in our discussion because Jesus saw fit to make His point using Judas. You wrote: I feel really satisfied by the reasoning that allows me to accept that the ones that the Father gave Jesus were OT regenerate Jews I don’t disagree with you. Where we disagree is that the ones that were included in the future giving of the Father. We also seem to disagree that Judas was not given to Jesus as a regenerate Jew. You believe Judas was a regenerate God-fearing man and I read the Scriptures that say that Judas was a son of perdition, an unregenerate, unrepentant, practicing thief. You wrote: and the care involved was a for-a-season situation, and therefore is not something that is occurring today. You haven’t asked me how I believe this is still occurring today. What I do see is that the Scripture does not outline an “end” to the giving so to attach an “end” would require assumption. That is unless I missed a Scripture that says the Father is no longer giving people to Jesus. I will just accept the on-going nature of the giving and I cannot see how believing that has any negative affect to my faith. You wrote: In that regard, I feel that most Calvinists, if they accept the argument as revealed in John 17, will see no need to continue to cling to an ongoing “giving of the Father”. Calvinists I have dialoged will fight an ongoing “giving of the Father”. They equate “giving” with “unconditional election” and they say that action happened in eternity past. Calvinist scholars do not like the present tense of “giving” and they reject that it has any relevant meaning, preferring to take it as a past action. Perhaps you can point to Calvinist scholars who argue that the “giving” is a present on-going action. You wrote: So, a cycle of error becomes evident. Instead of starting from the beginning and starting the process of re-thinking the intended meaning of a passage, they determine NOT to discard their original interpretation which was arrived at by way of a mistaken understanding of what the author meant. How many times have you been corrected and discarded your original interpretation? Perhaps the Calvinists that you dialog with need more Scriptural work from you to delve deeply into the Scripture to show exactly why the inspired words were used, how they relate to the context, and why the words were included in the text. If you want to change a person’s view you need to use the Scripture more. Then you need to include the context rather than give a conclusion without explaining the passage in detail. People are not persuaded when a person gives a conclusion based on how one thinks the person in the account is feeling rather than the determinative words that person said. I am not persuaded when you try to get into Jesus’ head. If you were to explain what He said to Judas and how that related to His earlier teaching and how the context easily supported the conclusion like fingers going into a glove, you would be far more effective. You wrote: This is evident in John 6. The context reveals that this is a descriptive matter that pertains to a specific people to whom Jesus was making specific argumentation. He is NOT disclosing a universal teaching that will be authoritative across the church age. You have not been successful at showing such a conclusion. If Jesus said “All that the Father GAVE Me will come to Me” you would be far more successful at showing your conclusion. But then so would the Calvinists who believe that the “giving” is a past action of unconditional predestination. I will wait to hear if you have comments about this part (the first two sections of my summary) and I will then move on to #3.

Peter, I see that you have not answered yet on my response to point #1. You must still be considering my challenge to think outside the box. I will answer point #2 as it is similar to point #1. We can get through all of the points individually and I think that is helpful to gain an understanding on where we are both coming from. In point #2 about Judas, you wrote: I did not disagree with your article for the most part. Its just that I am somewhat agnostic as to Judas’ role in our argument. It seemed to me like you pulled him into our argument – but I am not sure why. Remember that I brought up my two articles on John the Baptist and Judas because you were my view led to Calvinistic unconditional election. Plus, Judas is specifically mentioned by Jesus at the end of John 6 in His declared reasoning why He spoke the words about people being given to Him by the Father. I believe that when Jesus teaches truth and then says why He taught the truth we need to listen to Him. Judas is a part of Jesus’ argument so it is healthy to consider Judas. You wrote: Perhaps you think if you can show that there is one unbeliever that Jesus did not try to chase away, it is therefore proof that my premise fails? We could go round and round on the question of whether or not Judas believed – but I don’t think we will get anywhere. I strongly believe that the revelation that Jesus gives is the most important in determining truth. A biblical premise must have a foundation in the revelation of God’s Word or it is just an assumption based on human reasoning. Jesus not only calls Judas a devil in John 6, but in His prayer in John 17 He states that Judas had already perished and that was before he betrayed Jesus. John 17:12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. You wrote: Does that mean he never believed in a way that could save him if he had persevered? I don’t know. It is a conjecture filled argument. Well, I believe that Jesus knew. It is said in John 6 that Jesus knew from the beginning who were unbelievers and He knew who it was who would betray Him. John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. If Jesus then called Judas a devil long before it entered his heart to betray Jesus, then I accept that witness. Judas perished and there is no indication that he repented of his sin and put his faith in Jesus. He just walked away and took his own life. I find that reading the revelation of Jesus in the Word of God really helps me to have a biblical argument against Calvinism that stands strong. You wrote: I don’t believe in OSAS – but perhaps you do. I do not believe that in OSAS. I will wait to hear back from you on your thoughts on these two points and then we can move on to the next one.

I made the correction for you. You may need to refresh your browser to see it.

Peter, I am going to try to reflect back on what you have said to see if I understand you correctly. I am picking out points that stand out to me as important to see if I understand. My points may also bring in the things you may have expressed in earlier posts. You said: 1. You accept much of the Scriptural argument that I made for John the Baptist, although you don’t know if John died as a believer or an unbeliever. 2. You did not agree with my Scriptural article on Judas and you do not know if Judas was a believer or an unbeliever. 3. Jesus was unhappy that one unbeliever (Judas) kept following Him. 4. Jesus spoke a particular teaching to the crowd in order that they would abandon Him and leave and it was Jesus’ will and what makes Him happy, that unbelievers would not follow Him. 5. Judas had a purpose to follow Jesus and not leave because he wanted to betray Jesus. 6. Conditional election is solely accomplished by men and not God. 7. There is a “moving categorical process” in election. I do not know what you mean by this so I am going to take a stab at it. Does this mean “individuals” move to the “category” of elect which is not no longer “individual” in nature but “corporate” thus no one is an elect individual but there is only an elect corporate body? 8. No individual is pre-elected before faith. 9. Individuals self determine to join themselves to the ELECT which is a corporate body and not individual members. 10. The condition is set by God in how an individual may come into the elect. 11. Individuals are not elected by God either before or after they respond in faith. Jesus is the only one who was elected but the corporate body is the ELECT. Jesus Himself is not the ELECT. 12. Individuals self determine whether they will join themselves 13. God does not elect anyone before or after they have faith, and individuals do not elect themselves. Thus there is no individual election at all. It is a myth promoted by Calvinists. 14. Conditional election is only applicable to a thing called the ELECT and never to individuals. 15. Any other biblical term that would be associated with the term election must be interpreted to mean corporate and not individual. Whosoever then is not “any individual” but a corporate non-individual entity. Peter, how did I do in trying to restate my understanding of your view?

Peter, by the way, when I said this blog was not written to refute you, that was not intended in any way to be against you.