Hi Peter, You wrote: I am not sure if I hit a nerve with you, but the conversation is becoming slightly less than irenic, and I think it is best to leave it before it becomes personal. Thanks for the chat! I am not sure what you are talking about. It isn’t coming from my side. I am asking questions to understand your view and you are choosing not to respond. From our last discussion it seems that we have differences about the term “believe” and without understanding what you mean by the term “believe”. It is key to the understanding of John 6:36-40 and also within the entire chapter. I chose not to go into your entire claims (and I am very willing to continue the dialog and cover all of them) but when I see a “talking past” each other because we appear to have different meanings for words, it is wise to work hard to understand and clarify word meaning so that we can continue without “talking past” each other. I consider this a part of my strong desire for truth. You wrote: I would assume that you don’t hold to unconditional election – its just that it seems to me to be the natural outcome of your view. If the Father is still giving people today – and it is NOT everyone who is being given, it would seem that there is some sort of selection that determines who is being given. You haven’t explained how that occurs. It is NOT a natural outcome of my view. I recommended that you read two articles on my blog as that should help you understand if you really want to understand so that you do not “talk past” me. Did you read the articles? If you did, then please ask questions about where I missed addressing your question as I believe I was quite clear. Calvinists don’t see it as a natural outcome, so it mystifies me how a non-Calvinist could think that. You wrote: You seem to be hard pressed to prove me wrong on the unbeliever/believer/Judas thing – when it isn’t the main part of my argument. The issue of who is a believer is part of both of our arguments and understanding what that means is vital. Are you trying to prove me wrong in my view without understanding what I believe? I am not trying to prove you wrong. I was hoping we could come to a general understanding of our views and as much of an ability to agree as possible. That isn’t possible if we cannot understand what each means by the term “believe”. I asked questions of you about Judas as a believer as demons as believing was brought up by you. You may not think it is the main part of your argument however defining terms and understanding your beliefs about believers and unbelievers is important in understanding and evaluating your main arguments. The fact that you chose not to answer me but to withdraw from the conversation is quite puzzling. It makes me wonder why you are not willing to allow your view to be clearly outlined and understood by defining your terms. You wrote: You focus on that and ignore what I have to say about the basic reading of the text – which I maintain defeats your view. You are determined to defeat my view, yet you don’t seem to understand my view. It seems to me that your effort to defeat me may cloud your ability to understand me first. I still think that we can have a productive conversation, but it should deal with our understanding of terms as a foundation to really understand the views so that in the end if we end up agreeing or if we agree to disagree, we at least will understand what each of us believes. Right now I am not sure what you mean by believer and unbeliever. Are you willing to define your terms including how believing relates to demons? Let’s have a rousing good conversation! You wrote: I tried to distinguish between different types of believing but it feels like you didn’t catch what I said there. You say I misunderstand your view. A good thing to do is define the terms. Work hard to present your definition so that I can reflect it back and you can say, yes I agree. In the same way you can reflect back my view and I can agree that you understand or not. The fact is that I have written so much about this matter that a little effort on your part to read the articles would be very helpful if you really are interested in comparing viewpoints. You wrote: All I can go by is what you have told me – which is that the Father is still giving people to Jesus today. I am not saying that the Father is giving people unconditionally to Jesus. Not back then, not after Jesus spoke the words and not now. Salvation is conditional on faith. Would you like me to document the condition of faith from the Scriptures? You wrote: I merely maintain that the careful reading of the text denies that. We can get to that. Let’s define the terms, get an understanding of what we mean, and then go on to the “careful reading” of the text. You wrote: I am not sure if I hit a nerve with you, but the conversation is becoming slightly less than irenic, and I think it is best to leave it before it becomes personal. Thanks for the chat! No nerve hit. You have said that Calvinists leave your conversations. I see the same thing happening to me with Calvinists. I usually don’t expect the leaving of the conversation from a non-Calvinist especially when I am asking to understand what they mean. Is it possible that you are too sensitive and think that asking questions and trying to understand is an attack on you? It isn’t an attack. I am an apologist and asking questions and seeking to understand first is what I do. I have to admit that I took for granted that you believed more like I do when we first started to dialog, but I think that may have been a misunderstanding on my part. Now I see that going through all of what you wrote at one time would not be productive because there seems to be a divide in our meaning of terms. I have chosen to stick to small portions of what you said before moving on so that I could gain an understanding of what you mean by key terms. The more complicated passages require much more detail and if we have a disconnect and no basic understanding of what it means to be a believer or an unbeliever, how on earth can you “defeat my view” or me understand yours if we don’t have any agreement about our understanding of these important terms from John 6? I am willing to go through all that you have written. Are you willing to define your terms to make your view understandable and willing to work to understand and reflect back my view so I know you understand? That would make a very valuable conversation and one that would be helpful to both of us. Sometimes patience is required instead of running past and “talking over” the other person because neither understands the argument. If you decide you have had enough dialog then I would hope you would be far easier on a Calvinist who chooses to leave a conversation with you . With all respect intended, you have my permission to point a Calvinist to this blog who will not continue talking to you. They may be interested in our discussion here and I would be happy to answer their questions and to dialog with them. Warmly, Cheryl

Peter, you wrote: First of all, I have a good understanding that salvation is by faith – so you need not express any doubt in that regard. Your offer here to explain this to me is somewhat telling. It reveals that you seem to think that perhaps I am deficient in that knowledge. I do find that a bit troubling – but I am willing to ignore that in order to get to the crux of the matter. I never suggested that you don’t believe salvation is by faith. I was trying to explain one more time that I do not believe in unconditional election/salvation. It never occurred to me that you would see my statement as questioning your faith. When I asked you if you want me to document salvation by faith, I am asking if you need me to share my acceptance of conditional salvation/election from the Scriptures. Hopefully you will get a clearer picture once you read my articles. It is weird to have to defend my belief in conditional election with a non-Calvinist when no Calvinist ever labeled me that way and I have defended conditional election for years!

Peter, you wrote: He did not say that, but the words He spoke served that very purpose. Knowing the future actions of people does not mean that the actions are His intended purpose. God knows that most people will be lost but it would be illogical to say that the rejection of Jesus by the masses was His purpose. The fact is that we cannot determine a purpose outside of God’s stated will because we think His purpose changed because the response was negative. We define God’s purpose not by the actions of men, but by God’s revealed purpose throughout the Scripture. You wrote: Earlier in the passage he told those present to work for food that endures. I have written on this passage on this blog. “Work for” here means put your effort towards chasing after. It has nothing to do with earning salvation. Jesus is talking about discipleship because He is mainly talking to unbelievers. Unbelievers cannot be discipled before they are saved. I think it is possible that you are working hard to defeat Calvinism to the point that you may have missed the point in John 6. It seems to me that you are starting with a conclusion first. I start with the understanding that Jesus is teaching truth and I don’t need to explain away what appears to be clear words about salvation. I want to understand the inspired words in context because a proper understanding will never contradict other clear passages and will allow the inspired words in this passage to stand strong and powerful. You wrote: Re Judas, I would simply say that He diid believe – except his flesh go the better of him at some point, which puts him in a different class than the others. If you would say that Judas was a believer then you would come face to face with the words of Jesus that contradict that belief. Jesus called Judas a devil in John 6:70. John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Jesus didn’t say that Judas would become a devil when he betrayed Jesus. He said Judas IS a devil. Again, it is present tense and ongoing. Jesus also connects unbelief to the one who would betray Him. John 6:64 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. Jesus did not say that a believer would betray Him. He said that Judas was a devil and continued to be a devil and as an unbeliever Judas would betray Jesus. Judas was not only a devil, but he was a practiced thief. John 12:6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. You wrote: As well, it is entirely within the range of sound reasoning to consider that Jesus is teaching truth with a desire that some would come to believe knowing full well that any imposters would go away. Now that is different than you said before. Of course Jesus knew that impostors would go away when He claimed that He came down from heaven. However, it is entirely a different matter to know unbelievers would not believe and would walk away to saying that this is what He willed to happen. You wrote: I see that it is in the text even though it is not spelled out in exact words. I think this is where you and I differ. I want the truth so much so that I will let the exact words and exact grammar of the text convince me rather then what I bring into the text by what I “see”. When you can see Judas as a believer when Jesus called him a “devil”, I think you may very well be letting your own feelings cloud your pursuit of truth. I LOVE truth more than I love my own understanding. That is why I allow myself to be corrected. You have not yet corrected me because you have not brought out the words and grammar to correct me. And if shown that Jesus called Judas a devil in John 6, you still see him as a believer, we have a completely different foundation for our doctrine. You can’t convince me that way and you are unlikely to influence a Calvinist either. I will answer the rest of your post later as I have time.

Peter, you wrote: But given the fact that He knew that many did not believe Him – it is within that context that He was not interested in unbelievers following Him around the country. He wanted those ones to go away. I see nothing of that in the text. Instead, Jesus spoke to the crowd truth about the Father’s intention and that did not include driving unbelievers away. Who is Jesus talking to in John 6:32? Who were the ones who received the bread out of heaven by Moses? Only believers? John 6:32 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. Jesus was not speaking to just believers but to unbelievers as well. The same kinds of people that were fed with the manna are given the true bread from heaven. Then Jesus said to the unbelievers: 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. Jesus did not say “there are some of you who do not believe and I want you unbelievers to be driven away from Me”. That is foreign to the passage. Notice Jesus included Judas in the group of unbelievers and Jesus did not send Judas away. Judas STAYED with Jesus. IF it was the purpose of Jesus to DRIVE AWAY the unbelievers, then the text would have said this. We would not have to guess that meaning by reading it into the text. And Judas, who was (referred to by Jesus as the one who would betray Him) would have been driven away if Jesus did not want unbelievers to follow Him. Jesus had the worst kind of unbeliever following Him, yet Jesus cared for Judas and even washed his feet! You wrote: In actual fact, he was making a judgement against them – but it was not the final judgement. The text doesn’t say this. You are saying that Jesus was not interested in having unbelievers follow Him, yet Jesus washed Judas’ feet and He told the mostly unbelieving crowd that the Father gave Jesus (the true bread from heaven) for them. I think that you have very good intentions. You are rightly dismayed that there are many who are taught that God planned an unconditional election to salvation for some people. But we must also be careful in proving our point by being fair with the text and not reading into it what is not there. It is not a matter how we FEEL that Jesus was thinking, but what the text actually says. Again, I may have missed something, but you have not yet corrected me with the inspired words and the inspired grammar. You have just told me what Jesus was thinking. That is only valid if you have the actual proof of that thinking. I think that the example of Judas totally vindicates Jesus from having the plan to deliberately DRIVE away those for whom He would shortly die on their behalf. Logically and textually, where am I wrong? You wrote: Actually, I disagree with you here. The text says that the Father’s will (the specific will as it pertained to this setting. I am not saying it is the entirety of the whole will for him) was that He lose none that had been given to him. No, that is not right. John 6:37 says it is the “one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” The grammar shows that the one who comes (present tense) is the one who believes (present tense) as the one who continues to come (continues to believe). The believer who continues to put his faith in Jesus will never (double negative) be cast out. You wrote: Remember this is a Jewish-specific passage that is not speaking about the general will of saving sinners. The Bible doesn’t say that Gentiles are saved in a different way than Jews. Are you perhaps a dispensationalist who believes that the church was not founded until after Paul was saved?

Hi Peter, I can agree with you that the words of truth that Jesus gave were spiritual and they were life and they showed who believed Jesus and who were willing to continue to hear words of life because those ones stayed. The others were there for a free meal and they were not interested in spiritual words that brought spiritual life. However, I disagree that Jesus did not want some people to follow Him. I think this is going beyond the text and beyond what Jesus said. If I am wrong I am willing to be corrected. You wrote: I think they did what He wanted them to do. I think that it is clear that He wanted them all to eat of the spiritual food that was given to them as He said that His Father gives them the true bread out of heaven which was Himself. John 6:32 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. It would be inconsistent for Jesus to purposely drive away people from Himself when He came to do the Father’s will and the Father’s will was that Jesus had been given out of heaven for those unbelievers.

However, if we see that casting out or driving away refers to the final judgment then the passage is completely consistent within itself and with Jesus’ purpose not to judge in His first coming but to judge in the next life and expel unbelievers at that time.

Thanks for the response Peter, and your continued dialog. I am going to ask questions and respond to just pieces at a time so that we can better define any differences we have, The beginning part of your synopsis I agree with. I will pick out what stands out to me. You wrote: – He was trying to get them to go away as He only wanted followers who believed Him. I don’t see this in the passage. Where specifically in the passage does it say that Jesus wanted many of His followers to go away? You wrote: In that sense his offensive language served its purpose What specifically does Jesus say that identifies why people are scandalized by His words? Jesus responded with their problem, yet He said that the words that He gives are spirit and life. If Jesus is giving the crowd words of life, then what makes you think that Jesus was expressively desiring that people would not stay around Him to hear the words of life?

Hi Peter, You wrote: I agree that in John 17, Jesus may not have care over those second generation believers – but that isn’t ruled out by the text. If He is still alive when they also begin to follow Him, it seems that He would be caring for them as well. In John 17:11,12 Jesus uses specific words that should help us know who He was talking about. These were ones that Jesus said had already been given to Him. He was “keeping” them in the Father’s name. He “guarded” them and only one perished. To “Keep” means to maintain, to keep in a certain state, position, or activity. To “Guard” means to keep watch over. “Perished” means to be lost – to be or become no longer in one’s possession, whether physically or abstractly. In John 17:15, 16 Jesus asks the Father to “keep” the believing eleven from the evil one. Also, in John 17:11 Jesus asks the Father to “keep” them in the Father’s name, the name which the Father had given to Jesus. In John 18:8, 9 Jesus asks that the eleven disciples be allowed to leave and the reason is given to fulfill what He prophesied, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” From John 18:8, 9 it appears that Jesus had physical care of the disciples so that those in His care would not die prematurely. From John 17:11, 12 it appears that Jesus “keeping” them also involved spiritual care – a keeping free from the evil one. Can we agree that the “keeping” of the eleven involved saving them from physical death before their time and it also involved a spiritual “keeping” that kept them safe from the evil one? Could we also agree that the will of Jesus is that the Father would “keep” from the evil one those who believed because of the preaching of the disciples?

Peter, You wrote: If He is still alive when they also begin to follow Him, it seems that He would be caring for them as well. I would just say that they are not the primary subjects in view in the prayer. They are included in the prayer – but in verse 20 Jesus is again talking about the “ones the Father gave him” as a specific, identifiable group of existing people. Yes indeed the primary subjects in view are the eleven disciples. We know that because of John 18:9 and only the eleven were revealed as the fulfillment of that statement. However, I think that it is wise to see how the other believers were cared for by the Father in the same way that the disciples were cared for spiritually. You wrote: In verse 26, he says that “I made your name know to them” so that is a past tense action – which identifies the ones verse 24 as again being existing believers. I agree that verse 24 is about believers at that time, but we can also see this as a promise that will be fulfilled with all believers in the end. All who come to believe through the testimony of the disciples (the Bible). I asked you about John 6:37 whether you would agree with me that it is not a “giving” from eternity past. You wrote: That is a good question. I would not be that quick to say that this “future giving of people” extends beyond the lifetime of Jesus. That is my main point – and one where I may have confused you. I absolutely agree that no one was given to Jesus from eternity past. So, whether we agree about future giving of people to Jesus to be only in Jesus earthly ministry time or extends to our time, we agree that the “giving” is not back to a time when the person did not exist. This is important because in Calvinism there cannot be a future “giving”. In Calvinism the “giving” and “predestination” are synonymous. In essence they cannot say that the “giving” is a future act just as they cannot say that “predestination” is a future act. So when Jesus speaks about a future giving in John 6:37, they have to disregard the continuous present tense and they substitute in their minds a past tense from John 17:12. Peter you wrote: So, in maintaining that the giving is an action limited to the time period of Jesus’ ministry, it rules out any notion of a metaphysical/spiritual giving. I have not seen anything in the inspired text that limits the giving of people to Jesus to the time period of Jesus’ ministry. I see that just as the Father “keeps” believers even though there is no physical bodily presence of the Father, so Jesus can “keep” believers without His physical presence. Perhaps you can show me what I missed. Where does the text actually determine that the “giving” of people to Jesus must end with His death? You wrote: My premise is that if we read the text in this way (and I think it is the right way) it completely disallows the Calvinist way of reading it – which has determined how most non-Calvinists read it as well. The giving was a specific, earthly act that took place for 3 years. So in verse 37, it is not implausible to read it as (paraphrasing): “Everything that the Father gives me (in the next 3 years) will come to me, and anyone who comes to me (in the next 3 years) I will never drive away”. Here I do not agree. The grammar is present tense. Jesus is saying those who comes to Him and who continue to come to Him, He will not cast out. The “coming” to Him is synonymous in this passage with “believing” in Him. Jesus is saying that the one who believes in Him and continues to believe in Him, He will never cast out. That is a classic conditional promise. He is not promising that those who believe in Him at first but then apostatize will never be cast out. He is promising that those who continue to believe in Him, it is THOSE ones who will never experience separation from Him. They (the ones who continue to put their trust in Him) who will be safe in Him. It is not an unconditional promise, but a conditional one. You wrote: As I mentioned in a previous comment this “driving away” helps to locate the “giving” in the first part of the phrase as a then-specific occasion. Where did Jesus drive away people during the three years that He was here on this earth? From what I read in the Scripture, that separation (driving away) only occurs at the judgment. You wrote: There is no reason to consider that the Father is giving anyone to Jesus today. To concede that to the Calvinists opens the door to acknowledging that the Father does give ones to Jesus – and gives way to the notion of irresistible grace and unconditional election. When I read the Scripture I never think that acknowledging the plain reading of the inspired words and inspired grammar would be acknowledging Calvinism. Honestly, if Calvinism was proven by these passages, I would be a Calvinist because I love truth more than I love a particular theological bent. The difference between what you said above and the way Calvinists see this passage is that they see an unconditional “giving” that is in the past and I see clearly that the “giving” is conditional to first believing the Father. Jesus talked about believing Moses in chapter 5. The words of Moses are the words of the Father. John 5:45–47 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 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?” The Pharisees did not believe the Father’s word so how could they believe Jesus? Those who do not believe the Father cannot believe Jesus. You wrote: If we isolate the giving to a then only event, it upsets their apple cart. Try this with a Calvinist. Ask them, in John 6:37 when Jesus said “All that the Father gives Me” do you interpret that to mean “all that the Father GAVE Me”? Ask them if the the giving = unconditional predestination in the past. John 6:37 is quoted by Calvinists as a proof text of unconditional predestination. And this predestination is always in the past. This is why the present tense is so important to pay attention to.

Peter, you wrote: One thing that points toward a limited setting, is seen in verse 38. The will of the Father is seen as an event which had a set time frame. It was done while Jesus was on earth. IOW that will was done after being “sent down from heaven” and “done by the one who sent Him”. In verse 39, we see what the “will” is. It is losing none of the pre-existing, believing Jews – those who are said to to be “the ones that were given to Him”. That is a part of the will of the Father. But it is not limited to these Jews. The will of the Father that sent Jesus is far greater than the believers during the first century. This passage does not teach that those who come to Him are unbelievers who were unconditionally chosen before time and who are promised from their election that they will be saved. In John 5, Jesus points out the unbelievers in the guise of religious people who cannot come to Him. In John 6, Jesus speaks of those who already belong to the Father as believers, not unbelievers for unbelievers cannot believe His words. Psalm 25:14 shows that God’s revelation and His covenant (Jesus) are given to those who fear Him. Psalm 25:14 14 The secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him, And He will make them know His covenant. You wrote: That is an interesting observation – and one I hadn’t considered. I haven’t looked at the original language to see if “casting out” is the same thing as “driving away”. If it is, your point is certainly weighty. My only observation is that, in the context of John 6, Jesus is driving away people at that time (and this notion is substantiated by the fact that many left him). I would suggest that Jesus did not “drive away” people in John 6. It was their unbelief that caused them to leave. Jesus made an observation in John 6:64 just before verse 66 says that people withdrew and were not “walking with Him anymore.” John 6:64 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. “Driving away” is an action that Jesus accomplishes as the Judge. But in John 6:66-69 we see that it the actions of the crowd was because of unbelief. John 6:66–69 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” The crowd went “away” from Jesus because they had not placed their faith in Him. They were unbelieving followers just like Judas. Notice that Peter says that they can’t go away from Jesus because they have believed in Him. They believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God and that He has the words of eternal life. The crowd was looking for eternal physical bread and the fact that Jesus said He came down from heaven was too much for them. They would not stay around long enough to see Him go back to heaven where He came from for no unbeliever was in that crowd when Jesus left.

Peter, you said: So, if “driving away” can be said to a physical, earthly rejection of anyone who would try to follow him – with wrong motivation, it takes on a different nuance than does the judgement day scene in Matthew 7. I am not a Greek scholar, so perhaps you can answer (and help me understand) whether or not the use of the aorist tense allows for a reading of a time-based understanding of a judgement day future “driving away” – which comports with the present day action of people coming to him…” The problem you have here is that the unbelieving crowd’s leaving is not ever connected to Jesus “driving” them away. Instead, Jesus connects it solely to unbelief. Their unbelief. Jesus is not the cause of their unbelief and Jesus already said in chapter 5 that people CANNOT believe Him if they do not believe the words of Moses. You said: I see this passage as primarily being about discipleship – and not a salvific passage. That is not to say that salvation doesn’t factor in – just that He is mainly dealing with people who want to follow Him for the wrong reason. Not sure if that helps… I think you may have missed a part of the passage because it is a passage that is used by Calvinists as their proof text. But don’t let that stop you from seeing salvation here. John 6:40. 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.” This is the will of the Father. Everyone who “beholds” the Son and “believes” in Him will have eternal life. Don’t think that “beholds” is only for the time that Jesus was on the earth. The term rendered as “beholds” means to perceive, observe. It is a term that Jesus attaches to the act of “knowing” and intimate knowledge and relationship. John 14:17 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. We could interpret John 6:40 as everyone who knows the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life. We know Jesus by seeing the testimony of Him in the Word. We learn from the Father by the Word and when we trust Jesus we have eternal life. The people of that day did not “see” the Holy Spirit physically, but they did “see” Him because they knew Him and He lived in them. You wrote: I should add that I have debated with Calvinists quite a bit around this passage. Most of them go away when they see that the “ones the Father gave Jesus” is a specific group of people (it cannot be said of future, yet-to-exist people that they “kept” His word). I agree with you! The ones that the Father GAVE (past tense) to Jesus were the disciples that walked with Him. They are identified as the group given to Him when John speaks about the fulfillment of Jesus’ words when John has given the events of Jesus arrested in the garden. Does any of this make sense to you?

Peter, Thank you for responding. You said: This passage in John 6 is near the start of his ministry – whereas John 17 is kind of the recap at the end and there he provides an encapsulation and report of how things have gone. He lost none of them except for Judas. In John 17:9-19, Jesus is speaking only of the disciples who have been given to Jesus by the Father. Jesus said that He was with “them” and He guarded them, and not one of them (the disciples) perished except for Judas so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. Jesus also says in verse 20 that He is not praying for just “these alone” (the disciples) but also for those who believe (present tense) because of their word. Jesus has not had physical care of these ones who believed because of the preaching of the disciples. Can we agree on this? Here is a second point that we can maybe agree on. In John 6:37 Jesus speaks of a future giving of people who do not yet know Him. Can we agree that the giving of people to Jesus spoken of in John 6 is not a “giving” that is from eternity past? That it is not a giving of people who are no believers and not a giving of people who have been unconditionally hand chosen for salvation from eternity past?

Peter, in your last comment you said: Here’s an interesting question that might help: In verse 37 Jesus says that “anyone comes to me I will never drive away”. If this applies across time – thereby inferring a future-ness to the meaning of the passage, are you able to envision a scenario whereby Jesus is “driving people away” in our current time? Jesus’ words reflect Matthew 7:23 where in the end times Jesus will command the unbeliever to depart from Him. However in John 6:37, Jesus used the aorist tense which in this instance does not indicate time. Rather, Jesus is talking about an assurance that He emphasizes with the double negative. Jesus said that the one who continues to come to Him, (continues to place his faith in Jesus) will NEVER (NASB certainly not is a double negative) be cast out. Jesus is not referring to the ones who will be cast out but the ones who will never be cast out. There is no view of Jesus casting people out in our time that I can see from John 6. Does this help?

It looks like the comments were somehow closed while I was away. I have fixed that and comments are now open again.

Hi Peter, Thanks for your comments. You said: I guess my point is that this idea of giving was a “physical handing over for care” type of thing. I don’t think there is a need to spiritualize anything beyond that. I would be interested in your view of the timing of Jesus’ comments in John 6. Jesus said in John 6:37 about a continued giving (present tense) and He also speaks of the future “will come to Me”. In the light of the context of John 6 where “many” of Jesus’ disciples left Him and no longer walked with Him because of His hard saying in this chapter who are the ones who will come to Jesus who are physically given into His care after the exodus of the disciples who followed Him in chapter 6? I will wait for your answer before I comment more. It is nice to see others who are interested in apologetics. There are so many teachings that have come into the church unawares that have caused great harm to many.

Peter, welcome! You wrote: The point that I have made in that regard, is that the ones that the Father gave Jesus were the Jews who were believers prior to the cross. I would add that the ones given to Jesus were all believers in the Father, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. Cornelius would be an example. He was a God-fearing Gentile. By being given to Jesus, they were given a revelation of the Father about His Son, thus they were brought to faith in the Son by the God that they have trusted in. Cornelius did not know about Jesus or have faith in Him until he was given the gospel. He easily believed because he was already a believer in the Father. It appears that Cornelius was not given to Jesus until after the death of Jesus as he did not believe in Jesus while Jesus was alive. However, the disciples were given to Jesus and none of them were lost except for Judas. I have a link for John 6:39 below: https://mmoutreach.org/tg/fathers-will/ You wrote: In John 6, Jesus said He would lose none of them. There is a change of grammar from John 6:37 to John 6:39. One is present tense with a continued giving and the other is a past tense. Only the verse with the past tense has Jesus saying He will lose none of them. The present tense (verse 37) shows that the one who comes (present tense – continues to come) will not be cast out and will be raised up (verse 40). It is important that John 6:37 is in the present tense with the action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion. This implies continued faith and continued giving. The past tense involves a giving that has ended. In John 17 Jesus is specifically and only talking about His disciples. The giving that is past tense is the giving of a specific group of individuals who believed. Judas did not put his faith in Jesus. I would love to continue dialog. If you look at the categories pull down on this blog, you can look at what I have written for each verse or each section. You wrote: The universal, corporate drawing of Jesus in 12:32 is more about a universal atonement and is not individual-specific. Correct. It is universal. You wrote: I am most interested in your thoughts re what I say about the temporary nature of the “Father’s drawing”. In my careful thinking about this, I came to realize that all my Christian life, I read this through a Calvinistic lens – taking this verse as a universal, absolute teaching of Jesus to the church. The nature of the drawing of Jesus is universal while the drawing of the Father is specific. The question would be did the specific drawing of the Father end at the cross? If a person in a pagan nation without access to the Word of God receives revelation about Jesus would that be the drawing of the Father? There are multiple witnesses of visions and dreams being given to those of the Muslim faith in which they see a revelation of Jesus and they have come to faith in Him. They have the general revelation of God that is given to all, but they are also given a specific revelation about the Saviour. Who is the One who is revealing Jesus to them? What are your thoughts on this?

Michael, you have some very interesting things to say, however, I have questions.

In Romans 5:6 the reference to our being weak is morally weak. We were not righteous and could not save ourselves and Jesus died for us when we were without righteousness and still in our sin.

If we attach Romans 5:6 to 1 Peter 3:7 we would be giving a state of moral weakness to women.

Wayne, welcome to The Giving. The premise of the post is about whether one can respond to the Savior, not about an earthly shepherd.

Jasen, welcome to The Giving blog. I do think you are conflating the giving of people to Jesus and the drawing of people to Jesus. People who are GIVEN TO Jesus believe in the Father. People who are DRAWN to Jesus are not necessarily believers.

Thanks Johnjthecelt for these good comments and welcome to my blog!

Barry, you asked:

this has always bugged me…. How did sin come about in the deceiver ? Originally, it wasn’t there……as that’s not how God creates things. He creates things perfectly and w/o sin.

God has determined that angels and people have free will. He could have created robots who could not have been tested, but He chose to create with the full knowledge that people and angels could freely choose to turn against God. He has the right to determine that this is the right way to create those who will freely love Him.

You asked:

And since He knew it was going to happen, why not show Lucifer (perhaps in a vision) what terrible things would happen to creation, to Lucifer and to at least 1/3 of Lucifer’s brothers ?

God warned Israel what was going to happen to them if they chose to reject Him. Did it change them? A fully free-to-reject God creature will freely choose to reject God no matter what. Otherwise the creature is not truly free to refuse God.

You asked:

Seems like a big mess that might have been prevented. God would have many better ways of explaining and showing and convincing Lucifer and Adam and Eve than my feeble attempts, so I wonder why He didn’t ?

When I see God, I see Him through Jesus. Jesus is a full representation of who God is in character. Jesus is full of love and wisdom. His choice cannot be a second-best choice. We may not fully understand the wisdom of God here on this earth, but our love and trust for Jesus will cause us to rest in Him that He did the very best for the result He was looking for. Jesus received a bride from the Father and our eternal destiny in Jesus is a part of all the decisions that God made. The best for us and for Jesus could not have happened any other way. His wisdom that knows all the “what ifs” assures us this is true.

Thank you for your comments and your questions. I hope I have helped a little.

Barry you asked:

How can an unfallen woman not hear or understand correctly what God clearly said and told them. Yet, doesn’t Eve say, ” You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.” Clearly, that’s not what God said.

Clearly, it is what God said. It is Eve’s testimony that this is what God said. Why would we doubt a woman who was sinless at the time. Did God or Adam accuse her of lying about God’s words? I think that we have come to the Bible with much prejudice. We doubt Eve because God’s words are contained in her statement, but they are not quoted directly in the mouth of God. If these words came from Adam rather than Eve, we would believe his word that this is what God said, but because the woman quoted God, we think she was gravely mistaken (perhaps even stupid) or that she lied. I say that we take these words for face value as God did not say she lied about His words.

You also asked:

<Secondly, How is it that an unfallen man can blatantly sin and an unfallen woman be deceived and all the while neither one think, before we do anything, shouldn’t we clarify and confirm with God the actual truth of the matter ?

Adam knew the truth. Eve was deceived. A watchman on the wall who allows the enemy to penetrate the wall is a traitor. That is what God called Adam. God called Eve “deceived” through the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 2. Deceived people do not know they are deceived. Deceived people think that the deception is the truth.

You asked:

Thirdly, just as a question, why shouldn’t God be there to protect them from a Deceiver in the garden ? As God, He absolutely knew it was going down.

God provided for both Adam and Eve by what Adam saw during God’s creative acts while Adam was naming the animals. Adam knew the truth of who God is by being a witness to what God can do that Adam could not. The text shows this along with the fact that Adam (the one who knew the truth) was told to guard the garden. God set them up to succeed. Adam knew the truth but he failed to speak up while his wife was being deceived. God allows testing. He does that now and He allowed for it in the beginning. If Adam had warned his wife who was by then fully deceived, he would have shown her great love by protecting her. He did not.

I will carry on answering in the next comment.

Barry, welcome to my blog!

I am going to respond to D. Marie’s comments/questions on new blog post(s) as I have time. Please sign up to my blog on the sign up box at mmoutreach.org/wim to be notified when new posts are up. Thanks!

I am posting two comments that came through onto my old blog post address. They are from D. Marie

1

Love this blog and glad I found you Cheryl! I have another question for you. I too have been very disturbed about the seeming favoritism for men in the Bible. I see only men chosen as apostles, when both women and men laid down their lives for Jesus. I see women being tested for unfaithfulness “while under her husbands’ authority”, but why wasn’t the man tested too? I am referring to Numbers 5:11-31 here. Verse 31 says “moreover the man shall be free from his guilt but the woman shall bear her guilt? WHY?!!!! I am also sick up to my eyeballs of hearing men/pastors say that women go second because “Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned on purpose”. HOW IS THAT BETTER, I ask you? How is it better that a man sins on purpose (look all around you) but the woman is second because she was deceived? I look around at the world past, present and future and I am NOT IMPRESSED with how men have handled their authority. I am struggling to find peace in this area, because I have authority figures over me who seem to also favor men. GAG!

2

I also have a request for another post from you on the exact meaning of Biblical submission. Far too many people (men) seem to think it is absolute authority they have over their wives, and they get to treat their wives as though they were children. More gagging here! Just exactly what does it require of a woman to submit to her husband and pastor? I am hearing far too much about the rights of authority figures to “command” something from their ‘underlings’, and that just freaks me out. Are we required to be “yes” people? Are we free to stand up to them when they do wrong? Are we free to be free even though under their authority?

Robert, Sorry that your comment got held up without me aware that it was even there. Your comment is up now and I would like to respond. It is absolutely true that God must draw a person before they can come to Jesus. However, Jesus has promised that He will draw all men to Himself. There are two important dynamics. The drawing must happen first (because man is unable to draw himself) and the drawing has been promised to all conditioned on Jesus’ death on the cross. Your last comment about God giving us faith by grace, I would say that God gives us the opportunity to respond in faith because He reveals Himself to us through the gospel. Faith is never said to be a gift to an unbeliever. But those who do respond in faith do so because of what God has done for them. I do agree that the preaching of the gospel is very important because saving faith cannot come without the gospel.

Hi Eric. Welcome to my blog. I appreciate that you tried to answer the question of the post, but there is a problem. You said that Jesus didn’t die for the goats, but you didn’t give a Bible reference to show your claim. Was Judas a goat? I think we could agree that he was. But Jesus said that He died for Judas. See my post here http://www.mmoutreach.org/tg/juda-2/ Can you give me a single verse in the Scripture that clearly says Jesus did not die for wicked people? Thanks for taking the time to comment.

James, John Gill’s point that John the Baptist was asking to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is not attested to from the Scripture. John said in Matthew 3:14 Matthew 3:14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” Jesus coming to John was all about water baptism. Every person had to be water baptized in preparation for the Messiah. Was John the Baptized water baptized in preparation for the Messiah? Jesus is said to have done water baptism through His disciples, although Jesus did not actually water baptize anyone. The fact is that John the Baptist warned that all needed to be prepared for the Messiah through repentance and water baptism. John also pointed out Jesus as the one to follow. There is no evidence that John was water baptized by Jesus’ disciples or that John followed Jesus as His disciple. As far as Matthew 11:11 the question that perplexes many is why there are those who were already in the Kingdom of heaven through faith in Jesus and yet John the Baptist is said not to be in the Kingdom. Jesus’ words are very important. If you would like to give your opinion why Jesus presented John the Baptist as being outside the kingdom while others were already in, I would be interested to see your Bible points. Thanks for your comment and visiting my blog.

Elaine, You asked: In John chap 21 v 21,22. Peter asks Jesus a question about what will happen to John, Jesus replies “if I will that he tarrys till i come, what is that to thee? follow me”… Could this be a cryptic way of saying that John would see the time of the end, not because he would not die, but because he would be given the Revelation by Jesus I personally do not think so. I think He means it is none of our business what I am doing with others. I want YOU to follow Me. I had this conversation with the Lord Jesus at one time when I thought He was being unfair by always requiring me to say sorry to my husband when it appeared that my husband was not being dealt with and was getting away at what I could not get away with. The Lord said very clear to me that it is none of my business what He is doing with my husband. It is only my business what He is doing with me. I see the same answer to Peter above. If Jesus had meant otherwise I think He would have said it in a plain way. With the disciples who saw His glory, He said there are some there who WILL … see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. With Peter He said “IF”. It is not a certain thing, nor a promise, but an “If I do this it is none of your business.” You said: The second covenant is by Grace, Jesus is the something better…because when He died I came to life. I think you meant when He was “resurrected”, I came to life in Him. Correct? You said: I live by faith and if I believe with all my heart, my works will show my faith to be alive. It is by Grace we are saved. Yes, a living faith always has works to reveal it is a living faith. You wrote: If Grace had not come I would still be dead…Christ is that Grace. I understand that you are saying, that even though Abraham had faith, if Jesus had not come to the earth to die for us, Abraham (and all of us) would still be dead in our sins. And yes, I believe that. You wrote: I am in search of truth, to alter and change, to add and discard as new revelation comes along, I want my heart to be open to Gods voice… I am understanding you to mean “new revelation” as new to you, but not new to the Scriptures. God’s voice supports and confirms what He has said in the Word. If you are not in agreement with what I have written above, just let me know where you don’t agree. I am not sure why, but the way you write things isn’t always clear to me. You wrote: I will continue to ask questions give out thoughts and ask that the Holy Spirit guide me into that truth I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide you and all of us to Jesus who is the Truth. Spiritual understanding will always be focused on the Lord Jesus. Some people seek spiritual truth without wanting Jes to be the key part of that answer. I am not implying that this is you. Just agreeing with you that Jesus is the truth and the One whom the Holy Spirit reveals. Spiritual truth will always bring us closer to Jesus and will always agree with the written Word itself. Do you mind if I ask what kind of Church you go to? Sorry again for being so slow. It is a time of intense work for me and I don’t take breaks away as often as I should to answer comments, email etc.

Hi Elaine, About the two gospels…I was just saying that the words you use about Israel and the law and that the Jewish nation will be judged on their works under the law is exactly the same wording that this lady uses. She says that Israel will be judged under the law as their gospel is the kingdom, and for the Gentiles, a different gospel was brought by Paul not under the law, but under grace. The minute I read that Israel will be judged by works when the gospel says all will be judged on faith, I see the same reasoning process as she uses. If you actually meant that Israel will be judged on faith apart from works for salvation, with their works only being used for rewards or punishment, then you and I are in agreement. You wrote: There are NOT two gospels but there is a time that the “jews” would have to see the end of the first (law) covenent… as given by God to Moses… the way that they observed it and the “promise” given to Abraham coming to the fore… Eph chap 2 particularly v 14. You would have to agree with me, though, that although Israel was under the first covenant, the acceptance by God was always only through faith, right? There was no other way that the Jewish nation would be right with God as the sacrifices always pointed to Christ. They were not saved by works but saved by faith to good works. You wrote: (the gentiles as a group never had a covenanted relationship with the true God) and throughout the prophets that were pointing to the Messiah which the jews were awaiting (the gentiles weren’t) Only Israel was placed under the first covenant, but any Gentile could also come under the first covenant by joining with Israel and serving God in faith. …unfortunatley for many they did not believe… why? because they never as a covenented people, AS A NATION , not individuals, truly loved the Father, this is shown to be the case throughout scripture. The Jewish nation was elected by God unconditionally, but in loving God and fearing Him, this was always an individual thing, not by nation. Malachi 3:16 explains. Malachi 3:16 (NASB) Then 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. Individual names are written in God’s book, not nations. You wrote: I believe God has yet to make known to the future (prophetic) Israelites 144,000 (God knows who these blood tribes are) “the one whom they pierced”… rejected, Jesus the Messiah..their Messiah and this when the last of the gentiles has come in. Future “prophetic” Israelites??? No Cheryl I do not believe in two seperate gospels but I do belive that the jews had to take on board Christ Jesus as being their saviour after having the law whereas the gentiles had a different criteria to overcome (thats the difference in the two, nothing more, not two gospels!!) The Father of Israel believed God BEFORE the law. How then is the law necessary BEFORE faith for Israel? Elaine, what would clear things up for me is knowing which teachers you are listening to. Do you mind listing a few of them so I can understand where you are coming from? There are terms you are using that are unknown to me and I would like to understand. And if you could also tell me if you are a Calvinist or not. Thanks!