Mark

Cheryl,

“So why is it that God did not take the complete payment of Jesus at the cross and put it to your account at the time that Jesus died? Was His payment not full and complete at that time?”

Let me try to say things again. I’m not sure if you don’t actually understand what I am saying since you keep asking me the same questions.

I believe that the atonement of Christ was effective for what he came to achieve. That is, he did not atone just to make salvation ‘possible’, but he atoned to make salvation effective. It is through the atonement that salvation becomes effective and purposeful. I reject the Arminian position (now I dunno if you agree with classical arminianism) because it only makes salvation ‘possible’. It didn’t actually achieve anything. For an Arminian what makes the atonement actually achieve anything is my own act of autonomous faith- not God’s predetermined plan to save me.
I see that Jesus secured my salvation on the cross by fully atoning for my sin. Because this is achieved by Christ, the Spirit then regenerates my heart to accept God’s gift of salvation.

“So you will agree that there was a condition that must be met first before the atonement can become effective for you?”

I agree that faith in Christ is what saves me. However the atonement is the reason I am saved, not vice versa. The atonement secured salvation for God’s sheep, then when he calls his sheep they listen and follow.

“Is the atonement not complete if it requires our faith? Is it just an offer and not given by Christ before our faith?”

Not at all because you see ‘faith’ as autonomous by the sound of it. The Bible sees it as a gracious gift of God. The atonement was 100% complete and because of that the elect put their trust in Christ. Again it does not happen the other way around. Our atonement doesn’t just dangle in mid air and God is just hoping someone in their autonomous faith takes it. God completes his purpose of what Christ achieved on the cross by bringing in His flock.

“Yes the atonement achieved something for God’s people but it also achieved something for all sinners.”

I agree with this actually. But I do not believe it achieved the same purpose for everyone. Christ only atoned for his sheep, but non believers receive many blessings and grace because of the cross- they just don’t have their sins atoned for because they don’t actually go to heaven.

“Eternal life is justification and yes this is given for all men.”

Cheryl, this is completely false and worries me. Being ‘justified’ is being ‘declared righteous’. Now if all men were declared righteous then none would go to hell. Also justification is only by faith is it not? Now I’m sure you do not believe that all people have faith in Christ, so therefore how can you say that all men are justified. This is another case where you are confusing biblical language.

“If it isn’t universal in both cases, then it doesn’t make sense. We could then say that the “all” that is condemnation isn’t really for all after all.”

Not at all, the context determines how universal language is understood. We know all men fell in Adam from the context

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Death is a consequence of sin. All die therefore all sin. Also verse 18 tells us that the one sin of Adam was condemnation for all, relflecting again on death as a consequence. However Paul himself qualifies that the gift is not like the trespass proving your argument completely false

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass.
Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin

So no, the comparison does not have to take universal language the same. The context ought to decide that. The context of Romans makes clear that not all are justified because not all put their faith in Christ. One example should suffice

Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Faith is what justifies. Not all have faith therefore not all are justified. You point is completely contradictory to the Bible.

“Oh really? Why does God sending His Own Son to die for all not make her more loving and merciful than God sending Jesus to die for just a few select individuals who have been chosen unconditionally?”

Now my assumption here is that you do actually hold to the clear bible teaching on divine foreknowledge. Therefore you would agree that God is creating people he knows will not believe. Thus he is creating people who will go to hell and he knows that, yet he still creates them. Still raises a tension don’t you think.

“but your position has God purposely creating people whom He has chosen them to go to hell and God has chosen to withhold from them what they need to be saved”

Regarding the first point I agree, but so does an Arminian position. God ‘chose’ people according to divine foreknowledge, so he had ‘chosen’ some to be saved and ‘chosen’ others to go to hell. The second point I don’t totally agree with. God is not obligated to save anyone, that’s the first thing, so get that out of your head. It is only by his mercy he chooses to save any. Second, he doesn’t withhold anything because he is not obligated to give it in the first place- he simply leaves people in their sinful state. So no God does not with-hold salvation from them. He simply leaves them, but for his elect he bestows his gift of grace, because that is what grace is- undeserved mercy. It seems to me that you almost believe that God is obligated to save us.

“That sounds a lot like injustice to me and any earthly judge who would act this way would have the world in an uproar about his injustice.”

That’s because you think God is obligated to save everybody- He is not. There is nothing unjust about God choosing to save some who did not deserve to be saved. In fact, this is the heart of the gospel is it not. Grace is only grace when it is underserved otherwise as Paul says, it no longer becomes grace.

“It isn’t logical at all. It creates a God who isn’t Sovereign and who not only lies about his abilities but he also is not able to act in advance but only able to react. What on earth would that God do if one of his elect dies that he was counting on for a work? No. The open theist position is not logical and it is not Biblical. I am quite concerned about you, that you would even consider it logical.”

I told you Arminians don’t like it! But anyway a few comments. The open theist sovereignty is identical to what both you and Kay say. The open theist believes God ‘chose to limit himself’ which is identical to your description of His soveriegnty- he chose not to determine all things unconditionally. Now I said it is logical to the Arminan position, I did not say I think it is logical. I agree with you that it is completely unbiblical. However if one holds to autonomous free-will then one can see the problem if the future is actually fixed- it’s not free at all. An Arminian believes the future is fixed because they believe in divine foreknowledge. However if the future is fixed then it is not free. See the problem? That is precisely why open theism has gained support. The rational logical conclusion of Arminianism leads there.

“Let’s have another look at the verse and compare it to what John himself said in the book of 1 John. John is not going to contradict himself.”

I agree that John did not contradict. In John 11 John is describing believers from the nation of Israel and those ‘scattered abroad’. 1 John 2:2 is describing the same thing ‘all the world’ i.e all the elect from every tribe toungue that are ‘scattered abroad’. Now answer how ones sins are propitiated but not actually propitiated since they go to hell?

“Thanks cobber!”

Lol, it’s good to have abit of humour

“How is it that those who have never had their sins atoned for are commanded to believe (apply) the atonement? Do you not see a contradiction here?”

Not at all. People are born with a corrupt sinful nature that equals eternal punishment. Now if God does not give them the gift of repentance and faith they will be condemned for their unbelief. Like I said earlier, God is not obligated to save anyone- it’s based on mercy and grace not obligation. We tell people to trust in Christ, but if God has not chosen to open their eyes then they will be punished for their unbelief. God simply leaves them in their sinful nature which by nature rejects Him. It is completely just. What is unjust, is that God would send Jesus to die for other people, but that is why God’s mercy and grace are so amazing. It is total undeserved, unconditional grace.

“My friend, Mark, you are adding that into the Scripture, because Jesus never said it. Jesus talked about those who would come to Him, but He never said that He would only atone for those who would come. By adding to the Scripture one goes beyond what is said.”

Ok then. Well maybe you can show me where Jesus said “I died for every single person and paid the price for their sins, but it is autonomous faith which seals the deal”. I’m not the only one who tries to explain their theology. Please don’t be so hypocritical.

“These are Calvinist doctrines but they cannot be proven from the actual Scriptures since to believe them one must add to what is written. That is why I don’t believe in Calvinism. I would rather believe in what is actually written in the Scriptures.”

That is a ridiculous statement. If Calvinism wasn’t proven from the scriptures then you have just condemned a lot of reformed people in Church history. It would be far safer to say that you give a different ‘interpretation’ to the same passages rather than saying Calvinism is not based on scripture. Perhaps you don’t believe in Calvinism for other reasons, since the whole theology is based on Biblical support. Be honest with yourself at least.

“Surely Jesus could have said that clearly. Why didn’t He say that he would save only a select few the God chose? Why didn’t He make it clear that those who did not believe Him had been selected by God to go to hell? Why would He have chosen words that were universal rather than limited? Doesn’t it appear that to accept Calvinism would require a reinterpreting of what has been inspired as universal language? If it is really truth, what should we have to do that?”

A theology is not solely based on the ‘red’ letters of the gospels. Jesus did say that he came to save sinners NOT the righteous. Also he did make clear in Matt 25:31ff that the goats would go to hell but the sheep to eternal glory which was prepared “for you since the creation of the world” (34). Jesus did use limited language – many, sheep and goats, sinners and righteous, healthy and sick. Jesus whole ministry was exclusive and limited. He came for his sheep and for their salvation.

I find it interesting that you accept the BDAG use of ‘world’ but have formerly criticised me for saying that God has a ‘special’ or ‘saving’ love for some and not others. Inconsistency?

“But people are blind for several reasons.”

I agree, and one of those reasons is because they are spiritually ‘dead’ (Eph 2:1) Dead people cannot see, they are blind!

“Drawing is not the same thing as coming.”

I agree, that is why I found it odd that you said about Jn 6 that people had to believe before they could come to Jesus.

“Romans 8:29 does not say “inward call” and the washing by the baptism into Jesus’ death is our justification.”

That is the only way to understand Rom 8:29 since those God calls, he also justifies. God does not call all in the sense of Rom 8 because simply not all are justified. And no, having faith in Christ is what justifies us. It is a declaring of righteousness.
1 Cor 6:11 says three parallel things, you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified. These are three elements of our total salvation. You have again mixed up the text.

“It is Jesus’ blood that justifies and He freely gives His salvation by His death to all.”

Again No! It is faith which justifies us. This is the historic protestant teaching. But of course Jesus death is tied into that.
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

That is why not all are ‘justified’ because not all have ‘faith’. You might say that Jesus atoned for everyone but to say he justified everyone is going to far. That is not biblical teaching. That is universalism.

“Romans 8:5-8 is not about all.”

I’m surprised and then not surprised. I’m surprised because a while back you agreed that the Bible teaches that we as humans because of Adam have a sinful nature. But then when Rom 8 specifically refers to sinful natures (5) you say it doesn’t apply to all. But then I’m not surprised because of your other views on other passages. You just seem to inconsistent.

“Ephesians 2:8, 9 is not talking about faith as a gift because the term is singular and faith is said to be the thing that the gift (salvation) comes through. If faith were also a gift, then the Greek term would have been plural.”

Not true. Notice in verse 8 what is the first word. It is the feminine definite article encompassing the entire verse “by (the) grace you have seen saved, by (the) faith. The definite article links into the noun ‘faith’ sandwiching everything in between, therefore the singular supports that, since what is in view in the singular gift is the whole statement “by grace you have been saved through faith”. (The) grace and (the) faith are both gifts but expressed in the singular because of the precise grammatical construction. They are not of ourselves so we cannot boast. Your point is wrong.

“In Romans 12:3, faith is a genitive.”

Nothing you said here disproves my point. In fact your own source cited that it is something ‘given’ to the believers. That is, anyone in Christ has nothing to boast about precisely because it is God who gave them their salvation including their faith. Also remember that the genitive case denotes possession and In this case who is the faith linked back to- God. It is the gift of God. So therefore again the greek grammar proves my precise point. Faith in the genitive is the possessive of God who as this verse saids gives or apportions to each member of the body. So yes faith here again is the gift of God.

“There is a difference between giving of the person and enabling them to believe.”

I’m not so sure. Look at how the terms are used interchangeably in John 6
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The NIV translates the last one ‘enabled’. So it appears that the three terms ‘gives’, enables/granted and ‘draws’ mean similar things. They all relate to the father giving to the Son. The first three relate the truth of assurance of salvation. The last one relates back to the third one. To me John 6 shows that these terms are synonomous.

“No, not true. We are all commanded to fear God and God is righteous enough to give us the ability to fear Him.”

I like this. It seems you finally admit that it is God who ‘gives’ us the ability to fear Him. You have never admitted that before. You have previously said that Job ‘fearing God’ was from his own free-will. I guess you have changed your mind. You realise that unregenerate people cannot fear God without his gift to do so.

Cheryl

“Yes. Permission is granted to anyone who is thirsty to come.”

You did not answer my question. Does God ‘grant’ everyone to ‘come/believe’, yes or no. Since none of your ‘proof texts’ show this it is easy to see that God does not allow everyone to come to Jesus. This is why Paul told Timothy to pray that God would ‘grant’ people to come to a knowledge of the truth.

2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

Just because people are told to come to Jesus, does not mean they can or are able. Only God can make someone alive and new- he grants it.

I’m gald you admit that God ‘chose’ Israel over the other nations. Perhaps TL can now see that he/she does not understand God’s electing purposes for some and not for others.

“Please show me who are the ones that God wills to have mercy on and who are the ones that He chooses to harden? God gives His answer in the Scriptures. What do the Scriptures say?”

Now one example is God hardening Pharoah during the Exodus of Israel. The first mention to the hardening of Pharoah is from God in Ex 4:21- God will harden his heart. We see it again in Ex 7:3 that it will be God who hardens. Now this all BEFORE the plagues have even begun, so God is not secondary to hardening. Also we see God’s mercy on the Israelites over the Egyptians. God chose them over and above the Egyptians Ex 6:6-8. God will redeem them and THEN they will know that he is God. It is clear that God’s actions preceed the actions of the people. God’s mercy or hardening is not conditioned on what we do.
A good passage to see why God hardens Pharoah’s heart is in Ex 14:4.

Exo 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD.” And they did so.

It’s for God’s glory. Again this is repeated in Ex 14:17, 18.

Cheryl,

“john 12:32 (NASB95)
32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Jesus as God said He would draw “all men” to Himself. I believe Him”

Go back to the greek Cheryl and you will see that the grammar does not include ‘men’ in it. So Jesus simply saids i will draw ‘all’ to myself- all what?, ahould be our question? I could insert all ‘babies if i want to but that does not make it right to insert ‘men’. You assume every single person, but the text does not support that.

We see in John 6 that only those the Father ‘draws’ are the ones who come to Jesus and thus believe. So if the Father drew all people it would in essence mean that all are saved. The grammar does not support your claim nor does the other passages that use the term ‘draw’.

It is also important to understand what the greek word for ‘draw’ is, according to BDAG it is a ‘dragging’, thus why reformers use the term ‘Iresistable Grace’. Grace can not be resisted for God’s elect since he in essence ‘drags’ them to himself.

So there is not one verse in the Bible that says God draws ‘ALL MEN’, or ‘ALL PEOPLE’ to himself.

More soon

Cheryl,

By the way i did just a quick bit of research to see whether your claim that no lexicons prove my point about the word ‘world’, and unfortunately for you your wrong.

For example if you had a closer look at the ‘Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament’ by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich you would have seen one of there definitions.

“5.b. of all mankind, but especially of believers as the object of God’s love”

It is also interesting to note what NT references they use to come to this conclusion “J 3:16, 17c, 6:33, 51; 12:47.”

Isn’t it interesting that the very passage we are discussing is confirmed by the lexicon that ‘world’ is for believers (jn 6:33 and also 6:51). That is Jesus gives “life to the world” (believers), supporting my argument. In fact if you did read the lexicons you would have seen the vast amount of applications that the term ‘world’ can have would totally discrediting your presupposition that it has to mean every single person in the world.

TL

“I cannot find any place in Scripture where God does not allow someone who desires to come to Him, to come to Him. To believe such sounds very much like God is a preferer of persons and prejudiced like the rest of humanity. But God’s ways are not like our ways, they are superior in reason and in divine compassion.”

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Now TL, does God ‘draw’ every single person, yes or no? Does God the Father ‘grant’ everyone to come to Jesus, yes or no? If yes, show me one verse that saids that. If no, well, i guess you see your dilemma and your own wrong percieved notions about God.

Did God choose Israel above all the other nations of the world? Did he choose Jacob over Esau? Did he choose Isaac over Ishmael? Does God have mercy on whom he wills, and harden whom he wills?

Cheryl,

I will answer your question which is ” How can your sins have been forgiven by the atonement of Christ yet you were still called a sinner and in need of being regenerated because of your sin? Why did the atonement which was paid on your behalf have no affect on you until late in your life?”

I have already said earlier but you must have missed it. I agree that the atonement becomes effective by our coming to salvation. When Jesus died, he died for past, present and future sins.

However God was not limited in knowing who his sheep were (contra open theism) both past and future. He knew who were his elect and so Jesus bore there sins on the tree enabling them to be granted ‘atonement’ from their sins once God regenerated their hearts and they put faith in Christ. Even an evangelical arminian agrees with this. God is not limited in knowing who will be his sheep.

So therefore i disagree that God forgave or ‘atoned’ for non believers sins. Yes the atonement requires our faith to be effective but the only sins atoned for by Jesus on the cross were those God determined to be his. The atonement acheived something for God’s people. It did not just merely make it ‘possible’ (contra Cheryl). Your view in my opinion makes the atonement a non-atonement. It didn’t actually acheive anything, because the effectiveness is only depended on my own faith.

Now you can dismiss all the texts you like and say ‘many’ is synonymous for ‘all’, but i think that is wrong. There are so many cases in the New Testament of universal language being used in a limited sense- we use it ALL the time. After all you don’t say that that Christ justified ‘all’ men do you?

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

This is the inconsistency in the Arminian position- it picks and chooses which texts to use. It ignores the cultural backdrop to help understand what the NT authors meant.

I look forward to see how you explain the atonement. I wonder how you believe that unbelievers sins are forgiven on the cross yet they are not forgiven on judgement day.

Finally, the whole arguments about God’s mercy and love are unconvincing. God is merciful that we can even breath right now becasue of our sin. The mind of the ‘flesh’ cannot even please God yet he gives people happy healthy lives. This is God’s common grace. He is gracious to all of us, even those who always have the ‘flesh’ nature of the first Adam

Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Your position does not make God anymore loving or merciful (unless you hold to open theism of course). An arminian perspective on God at least upholds the biblical teaching on God’s foreknowledge, so is not God creating people who he knows won’t respond in faith? The Arminian position does not overcome our notions of injustice- it remains the same. God still creates people knowing they are going to be sent to hell. That is why i at least appreciate the open theist perspective- it is the logical conclusion to the Arminain position although most arminains attempt to dispute that.

“The problem that you have here is that Jesus is prophesied to die for “the nation”. But not all of the nation became believers, yet He died for the nation. ”

Cheryl look again at verse 52 in John 11 and then see what ‘nation’ should mean. Those that Jesus died for ‘nation’, ‘scattered children of God’, John saids, God will “bring them together and make them one”. Doesn’t sound like non belivers to me, does it to you? Those Jesus died for will be brought together as one!- God’s church or elect. Not all Israel is Israel!

Anyway i could go back over all of what you said but we need to move on in the exegesis. After you attempt to show me what your understanding of the atonement is, i will respond to your latest exegetical points.

Your exegesis from #303

“Jesus said that the crowd had “seen” him (they had been a witness and experienced or caught sight of his miracles) yet they did not believe in Him. Now we are going to find out why.”

I agree that the crowd had seen all Jesus miracles (feeding the five thousand etc). I like that you pointed out that now we find out.

“Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”

And then you said “Jesus says that “all” (not some, but all) that the Father “gives” Him will (not maybe, but will) come to Him. He also assures them that the one who comes to Him will not be cast out as a rejected one.”

So I was a bit disappointed because you didn’t actually address why they didn’t believe- you missed it. It is obvious that the reason they do not believe/come is because the Father has not ‘given’ them to Jesus. So although they had seen all his miracles they were unable to be saved because God the Father did not allow them to come/ believe in Jesus- they were unregenerate.
You are correct that the verse says ‘all who the Father gives will come… but that is far different from the text saying that ‘the Father gives all to come’. The meaning changes completely, so this text does not support a prevenient grace theology. I like that you emphasised ‘will’ come. That is they ‘will believe’ (since we agree on the synonymous words)- this is a clear text to support irresistible grace. Those that the Father gives to Jesus will believe- God’s elect cannot resist the Father’s grace. Also I like the way you emphasises that Jesus will never cast out those who come/believe. It is important to realise that true believers can never lose their salvation as Jesus rightly points out.

Regarding this verse I was abit concerned about how you swapped the ‘Father giving’ with those unregenerate who ‘feared God’. I don’t think this verse supports that at all. Those who the Father foreknows are those who the Father gives. To make it conditional on one’s ability as an unregenerate person to fear God concerns me. You are reading way to much into the verse. For example you conclude

“The requirement then to be “given” to Jesus is that they believed the Father first.”

I do not believe this at all. Salvation in Jesus is not ‘conditional’ on anything we do beforehand- it is a gracious gift of God. To say that one had to ‘do’ something before they were able to come to Jesus is outrageous- you are essentially saying people had to work their way to be given to Jesus. The verse clearly says that ‘all the Father gives me will come to me’. We agreed that ‘coming’ is synonymous for believing, but now you are saying that they had to ‘believe’ the Father BEFORE they could believe in the Son. It seems like you are only applying these verses to first century Jews- is that a fair statement? Since only they could fear the Father before the Son became incarnate. We post incarnate do not have that ability right?

“We can confidently know that the crowd of unbelievers were not given to Jesus because they did not first belong to the Father. To belong to the Father one must believe the Father. They did not believe the Father so they did not believe Jesus.”
It seems like you are contradicting yourself. You have said that the crowd were ’seeking’ for everlasting bread, but now you are saying that they did not believe the Father (by the way what did they have to believe about the Father to qualify to be given to Jesus. Maybe you can point it out from the text). I don’t think you can have it both ways. You can’t say these people were seeking for everlasting bread and then say that they didn’t believe the Father.

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

I’m not even going to go into the ‘will’ debate at the moment. There is too much other stuff for us to discuss at the present time. But it is interesting how Jesus relates ‘his will’ to ‘heaven’ not just the incarnation. Food for thought!

More on your other exegesis tomorrow or the next day.

“It is very apparent that the passage is not discussing the giving of life in a way that is outside of Jesus’ death. If these Calvinist theologians can agree that this is the case it shouldn’t be a problem for you as a Calvinist to also accept.”

Let me say it again as I already have done. I am not saying one can receive eternal life apart from the death of Christ. The issue is whether ‘world’ is meant to be understood universally.

“I think that we can agree that it is eternal life that is the meaning in John 6:33.”

I’m glad we agree!

“It is interesting that the term “world” has no reference to the elect.”

Are you sure…look again at your ref. “6) sum total of particulars in any one field of experience, world, totality”… a sum total of ‘particulars’. Your own ref proves you wrong.

“Jesus can be the one who gives life to all without all being saved.”

This is a nonsense statement. You agree that John 6:33 is about eternal life, but yet you say the above. How does Jesus give life (not offer) to the world yet not all are saved-it’s a complete contradiction. Obviously ‘life’ isn’t given to the every single person. This is where you are substituting ‘offer’ for ‘given’.

“Not true. The Bible says an emphastic “yes”! It is given to everyone. This is the key importance of the atonement – that it was a universal sacrifice that no man can ever blame God for not giving on his behalf. It is a “paid for” sacrifice that is “applied” by faith.”

So everyone is given eternal life (not offered) but you don’t hold to universalism? You confuse me! How can their sins be ‘paid for’ if they are still punished? Obviously you do not believe their sins were paid for because you reject universalism.

“Eternal life is “given” to all but “received” by only a few.”

This sentence is obvious how you substitue ‘offer’ for ‘given’. They are not given eternal life in heaven because they go to hell. They are offered it sure but not given.

“Do you believe that the atonement on the cross fully forgives all of your sins or did the application of the atonement happen later? In other words were you already forgiven before you were born or did the application need to be a separate even from the actual atonement?”

Yes I believe that the atonement enables all of my sins to be forgiven. Of course the application is necessary- I do not deny that. But that is different to saying that those who never apply the atonement have already had their sins atoned for. Jesus only atoned for those who the father gives, those who have and will believe. He does not atone for those who have or will not believe. And of course God knew and predestined those who would believe thus enabling Jesus to atone for only them.

“Were they wrong believing that Jesus was the Savior for the whole world?”

Let me say again that universal language need to be understood in the first century backdrop. It is best understood as God’s elect from every tribe, nation and language. We see this in the book of Acts when the Jews are astonished that even the gentiles receive the holy spirit. The first century was very ‘exclusive’.

“If God does not enable all to believe, then it would be a lie to say that Jesus gives life to the “world”. All are “able” unless they reject what they have been given.”

2 points. Jesus did not lie. You argue like this because you misunderstand what ‘world’ means. Second point, not all are ‘able’ to receive Christ. People are blind (2 Cor 4:4). Only those God inwardly calls are justified (Rom 8:29). Jesus himself says that the crowd could not come because the Father did not enable, remember also that we agreed that ‘comes’ and ‘believes’ are synonymous. So only those that the Father brings to Jesus can come/believe. Jesus never says that all are able to come/believe.

“That is not true. God enables all. But when ones who have been enabled harden their heart against God and refuse to believe, they will not be drawn to Jesus.”

Give me one verse that says God enables ‘all’ to come/believe (remember they are synonymous) in John 6. It seems you are confusing a lot of different terms. All are enabled, but yet some refuse to believe and then they are not ‘drawn’ to Jesus. The Bible has a different order. We are all hard before regeneration (Eph 2:1, Rom 8:5-8), then God draws/enables us (Jn 6:65, 37, 44) and then we believe. You are making being ‘drawn’ to Jesus conditional on something we do (some sort of believing that is not believing in Jesus since it comes before being drawn to Jesus). I can’t accept that- it’s contrary to scripture.

“And how can the “belief” of a person be their own choice if God gives faith as a gift?”

Easy the Bible says so. Faith is a gift (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3) yet we are told to believe so it is something we must do. It is the same with sanctification is it not? God sanctifies us, yet we work at becoming more holy (sanctified). It is the compatibility nature of the Bible.

Now I’ve run out of time atm to continue on with your exegetical points. Give me some time and I will respond to them before we move on to more verses.

Cheryl,

First I will respond to some of your comments regarding the nature of the atonement and after that I will move on to your last two lots of exegetical points.

“You keep saying that only a specific group of people can be given life and have their sins atoned. Where is your proof of this?”

Let me first give a definition of what I understand the atonement to be…

“The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he canceled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense.”

It is important to note that the atonement is the ‘canceling’ of our debt. That is, Jesus took our sin and the punishment for our sin onto his shoulders. Now if Jesus atoned in exactly the same way for every person, how is it that they are sent to hell- are not their sins ‘atoned’ for? Perhaps Cheryl, you believe that the sin of ‘unbelief’ or ‘rejection’ of the message of salvation was not atoned for. If that is what you believe then that worries me, because then you are saying the atonement was only ‘partial’- it did not atone for all sin. I can not accept that Jesus took the sin for every single person, yet people still go to hell- that is an oxymoron, it’s not an atonement at all.

Now some passages regarding the ‘limited’ nature of the atonement.

Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Now you object Cheryl because here Jesus does not say ‘only’. That is true- but look at verse 16. His sheep are from other ‘folds’ and he must bring them also. This is evidently how we should understand the term ‘world’- people from every tribe, language, nation. Universal language needs to be understood against the backdrop of the first century when the Jews were astonished that salvation was given also to the gentiles.

Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Jesus ‘consecration’ is his atonement. It is for his disciples and for those who ‘believe’ through the disciples teaching (Christians). This is in the midst of Jesus prayer where he specifically says he is not praying for the ‘world’ (non-believers) in the context.

Joh 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,
Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Again we see here more clearly how we should understand universal language. Jesus not only died for the jews but also the ‘children’ from abroad (the world)

Revelation 5:9, “Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for Thou wast slain and by Thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”

Same again. Note it does not say every single man in the world. It is limited

John 11:51-52, “He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”

1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Note the parellel between John 11 and 1 John 2:2(often used against limited atonement). It’s clear John is using universal language to mean people scattered abroad (from all tribes, toungues etc). Also remember that ‘propitiated’ sins cannot be punished. So if the propititation is every single person then every single person is excluded from punishment= universalism.

More…

Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

‘Many’ not all. And again

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:28, “So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

More…

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The people who benefit from the atonement are the church…not all men. Christ gave himself up for ‘her’.

Titus 2:14 “He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.”

Christ redeems ‘us’ the church, not all men.

Finally
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

See the link between the atonement and God giving us all things. If the atonement is for all men, then the promise of this verse is destroyed.

To conclude Jesus only ‘atoned’ for God’s children- the elect. Redemption is preached to all, but the actual nature and effect of the atonement belongs to those for whom Jesus actually atoned- the elect. If the atonement was universal then we must accept a doctrine of universalism which I am not willing to do. You cannot say that Jesus bore the sins of all men and then say that people are still punished for their sins because of rejection of the gospel. If this is true, then Jesus never actually atoned their sins anyway. Cheryl you must have a very different definiton of what ‘atonement’ actually means. It cannot mean ‘full forgiveness of sins’ because the wrath of God fell on Jesus.

Cheryl,

Thanks for the reply. I will get back to you soon about your comments, just not at the moment as i have to go out.

By the way you did the next three verses- it was my turn…lol, but that’s alright i can comment on what you have said. I just didn’t do the next verses until you replied to what i had already said.

Speak soon.

Cheryl

regarding my exegesis you said…
” Jesus revealed in verse 33 that the bread of God (which is later revealed as His flesh) is given for the life of the world. So naturally the crowd asks for this bread. They were not asking for something that He wasn’t offering.”

You’ve missed the point. The crowd asked for the bread becasue they thought it was physical like with Moses(32). That is why when Jesus continues they actually abandon him- only after they realise what he is ‘actually’ meaning. They are not naturally asking for ‘the bread that gives eternal life in the spiritual sense that Jesus means.
Your last sentence is wrong. They ‘were’ asking for something Jesus wasn’t offering. Jesus was not offering physical bread like they wanted. Once they realise the truth of what he means, they run, they do not ask again for the spiritual bread.

“So the question I would like to ask, did Jesus offer eternal life to the crowd?”

No he did not offer- he told them to ‘believe’, there is a difference.(29). Problem was the crowd was blind to what he was saying- as we have already agreed they were thinking physically not spiritually. And as we will see no one can ‘believe’ unless God enables them.

“What you missed is that Jesus said “whoever” which is not a term that limits faith in Jesus to a select few who are alone “gifted” with faith. Rather they come and they believe as their own action since the word “believes” is a present, active verb. It is not passive as if it were a gift given.”

Again you missed the point of the verse. The question is can everybody ‘come’ and thus ‘believe’ in the first place? John 6 says no- only those the Father enables can ‘come’ and therefore believe. ‘Whoever’ means exactly what it means- whoever the Father enables to come will never thrist or hunger- or paraphrased God’s call does not come back empty. I agree that the ‘belief’ of the person is their own choice and action- that has never been a matter of contention so the present active confirms what i believe.

Cheryl,

I think you are misunderstanding me since it seems that you think i am saying that people can recieve eternal life apart from the atoning death of Christ. Like i said earlier that is not what i believe. People can only recieve eternal life by being reconciled in Christ. That is precisely why ‘life’ can only be ‘given’ to God’s elect, because only God’s elect have their sins ‘atoned’ for.

Your last lot of comments have diverged again. PLease stick with the verse in question. To show how you do this you asked me if i disagree with the ‘calvinists’ you quote, but neither of the quotes were dealing with the verse we are discussing. You are discussing ‘responses’, flesh and bread etc, none of which is dealing with the verse.

Perhaps we should stop and give some definitions for the words in question.
What is ‘life’? In the context Jesus is talking about eternal life.
‘Bread’- is ‘he’ or Jesus.
‘World’- has to mean God’s elect for the following reasons.

It cannot be universal unless you hold to a doctrine of universalism. Eternal life is not ‘given’ to everybody. You may think it is ‘offered’ but the text is not saying offered, it is saying ‘given’. Now is eternal life ‘given’ to everybody, yes or no? The Bible says an emphatic no!

You can’t argue all you like about offers and sprinkling and all your other points, but that is not dealing with the verse. Do you believe that eternal life is given to every single person? Not offered but given as the verse says? The reality is, eternal life is only ‘given’ to those who trust in Christ- it is not given universally. So the only way to understand ‘world’ has to be in regards to those who trust in Christ- God’s elect.

continuing on…

Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Here the crowd directly asks Jesus to give them the ‘bread’. Clearly though, they are still misunderstanding. They are thinking in physical terms. Like Cheryl pointed out, they are looking for physical nourishment in order that they can ‘work’ for their salvation.

Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Here is the first of the great ‘I am’ statements. Jesus now clearly reveals the meaning of his teaching. The bread that the ‘Father’ gives (a gift) is his only Son- Jesus. This ‘bread’ gives ‘life’. The spiritual and eternal nature of Jesus teaching is the main focus (juxtaposed against the temporary manna in the desert). We will not hunger or thirst spiritually- that is, we recieve eternal life. This verse should not be taken physically. (see 6:63 when Jesus declares that his words are spiritual not from the flesh)

Note- ‘comes’ is synonymous for ‘believes’. So the first clause is saying identically the same as the second, just using different terms (comes/believes, thirst/hunger). This becomes important throughout the rest of the chapter when we begin to see that no one can ‘come’ (believe) unless God enables them/draws them/ grants them. The terms ‘comes/believes’ are used interchangeably (37,40,44, 47,65) in this chapter.

I’ve only done these two verse because i don’t want to push through to quickly incase there is disagreement.

“Please explain how Jesus gives his flesh for the world and this is not the atonement. Eternal life comes only through Jesus’ death and resurrection. If eternal life could come from just a gift and the death of Jesus was not necessary, then God surely made a mistake as Jesus suffered when He did not need to.”

First of all, I agree that when Jesus give’s his body on the cross- that is the atonement. The question in view though, is whether this text is referring to the atonement or eternal life. Look again at the verse

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

This text does not talk about Jesus ‘flesh’. It is dealing with Jesus coming down from heaven to give ‘life’. Now clearly in the context this is dealing with eternal life! So is Jesus saying he came down from heaven to give eternal life to every single person- of course not! Clearly ‘world’ should not be understood universally.

“If you are going to deny that eternal life comes through the death of Jesus, then you are going to have a big problem with the rest of the chapter, because Jesus talks about the bread as eternal life (verse 27) and the bread that Jesus gives as His own life that He gives up.”

I have never denied such a thing. Eternal life does indeed come through the atonement, but again the verse is dealing with the ‘life’ aspect. Jesus did not give ‘life’ to every single person because Jesus did not ‘atone’ for every person.

‘This would be reading your own prejudice into the text for Jesus claimed to give life to the world.”

I have simply stated what the text saids and that ‘world’ should not be understood universally. It is you who is substituting ‘life’ for ‘atonement’, when the text and the context is clearly dealing with eternal life not with the atonement. Please deal with the term ‘life’ first and foremost. Then tell me whether Jesus came to give ‘life’ eternally to every single human. Yes or No- here is your chance- Did Jesus give life eternally for the world? This is what you need to address not going off in tangents about ‘responses’.

“The truth that keeps Jesus’ words as truth and yet allows many to not have “life” is the fact that Jesus gives life to the world, but God requires a response. Those who believe will receive the life. Those who do not believe will be condemned. Yet it doesn’t stop Jesus from giving. For rejecting the gift does not limit the giver’s ability to give. It just limit’s the person from receiving.”

This is exegetical dancing! First you say ‘many to not have life’ (limited) and then that Jesus gives ‘life’ to the world (universal). You are using ‘life’ to mean two completely different things. The first about eternal life, the second about the atonement. The passage is only dealing with one life- eternal life. See again how you have included ‘but God requires a response’. Again this is not in the text above. You either have to say that Jesus gives ‘life’ (eternal) to the world (everyone) or that ‘world’ is not meant to be understood universal. You can’t just include sub clauses into the text about responses. It is good though to see you confess how you limit the atonement- you limit it’s effectiveness to actually atone; where as I limit it’s application to the elect.

Let me summarise. The text in question is only dealing with eternal life. Any thing introduced about ‘responses’ is foreign to the text. Jesus claims that he has come to ‘give life to the world’. There are only 2 options to take- universalism, or mine since the text is dealing with eternal life.

“This relationship is in the incarnation itself and does not mean that there is a “role” of one giver alone in the essence of the Trinity”

So theoretically, the pre-incarnate Jesus could have sent/given the Father to come and die on the cross. It was just by chance that the Father sent Jesus? Why did Jesus choose to come and not the Father or Spirit, since there are no ‘roles’?

Kay,

I’m sorry you feel that way- it’s up to you. Yes you did mention the end of chapter 8- i know that. But the way you linked it chapter 9 did not make sense, that is why i addressed it again. Pauls argument in 9-11 is to show how God’s word has not failed because he has not seperated himself from ‘Israel’ (in the true sense). That is why i said to go back again to the again of chapter 8.

Thanks for the discussion anyway.

Cheryl,

You emphasised ‘world’ ( i wish i could bold!). Why is that?

This text is not talking about the atonement, this text is talking about the ‘life’ that Jesus gives- eternal life.

Clearly Jesus does not give ‘life’ (eternal life in the context) to every single person since he is not a universalist. So here is another clear example where universal language is not meant to be understood to mean every single person in the world.

I agree that Jesus highlights that the crowd were ‘seeking’ him. That was a good addition. This is precisely because they were seeking the ‘wrong’ thing. They were unable to ‘seek’ spiritual salvation because they were unable to ‘believe’ without the intervention of God. They were blind to the true nature of Jesus miracles and proclamation.

Also note that it was Jesus testimony that it was the ‘Father’ who gave the manna to the Israelites. Here we see one example of the differing relationships and roles of the Father and Son.

continuing on…

Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
Joh 6:27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
Joh 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Joh 6:30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?

Verses 26-30 ought to understood around two key themes, 1. ‘works’ and 2. ‘bread’ (or food).

Verse 26. Rather than Jesus giving an answer to the question of verse 25, He goes straight to the heart of the matter literally. He exposes the heart of the crowd. Although they followed him because of the signs (6:2), it was purely a physical and selfish reason- to be fed. They had failed to the see the ‘spiritual’ dimension of Jesus works as the Messiah.

Verse 27. Jesus gives a command (a present imperative) ‘Stop working’ for the wrong food. He tells them to labor for the eternal food. Note also that this food is a gift ‘given’ by the Son of Man as well as the eternal life. Both the ‘food’ and ‘eternal life’ are in the feminine. The ‘which’ likewise is in the feminine, linking the food and life to the ‘gift’ that the Son of Man will give.

Vers 28. The crowd in the stupidity miss what Jesus has said. They think Jesus intentions are some ‘works’ (works of the Law) which can give them eternal life.

Verse 29. Jesus corrects them by saying there is only one ‘work’ and that is to believe in the Son of Man. We should not understand here that Jesus is promoting a ‘work’ based salvation contrary to the teaching of the rest of the New Testament. It is clear throughout the teaching of Jesus in John that salvation is entirely by grace (1:13,17,29; 3:3, 5, 16) just to name a few. We need to understand the context of how the crowd has misunderstood Jesus command to stop ‘working’ for the wrong food in verse 27. But also note that this does not mean that salvation is not conditional on one believing in the saving work of Jesus. Here it is clear that to be saved one must believe. However it would be wrong here to forget that the act of faith is itself the gift of God (Eph 2:8-9, John 6:44, Romans 12:3)

Also note that Jesus has been sent by the Father. The ‘he’ is emphatic showing it is none other that God the Father who sent his son (3:16)

Verse 30. The stupidity of the crowd is highlighted as they ask for another ‘work’ so that they may believe. You would think they have seen enough would you not? But this inability to believe will be further highlighted in the passage, since none can actually come to the Father unless he enables them (6:65)

Kay,
Yes you have thorough enough for me to see your point. The only problem is i think your wrong!

I think you need to go back to the end of chapter 8. Paul is clear there that nothing can seperate us from God. That is the lead in poin to chapters 9-11. Now if that statement is true, then what has happened with Israel the nation- it would appear that God is a liar because through Jesus he has seperated himself from the nation of Israel. This is where you are missing a vital ingredient.

With this in mind then one can understand Paul’s argument in chapter 9. God’s word has not failed because salvation was never granted to the nation of Israel, but only’true’ Israel- the children of the promise. Paul defines this clearer in Gal 3:29, where Abraham’s seed or children are those in Christ.

What you have written still does not make sense of the passage or the context. Maybe you can look into what Paul means by the terms Israel. Look again at his use in 9:4. His intention is the ‘people of Israel’ or his ‘brothers’. He wishes he could be cut off for their sakes.
Therefore when we read Israel in verse 6 this is clearly Pauls usage. Not all of his ‘brothers’ or ‘people’ are true Israel. True Israel are not the natural children of Abraham but the ‘children of the promise’. These children are the one’s who are considered Abraham’s children. Ishmael and Esau are not even considered in the Old Testament as part of ‘Israel’ so your whole lineage argument again makes no sense.
Also note the objectors of verse 19 are the people Paul is writing to. IN your lineage argument these are ‘true israel’ since they descend from Isaac and Jacob, so why are they objecting.

The reality is this teaching is a hard word. It made even the Romans object to Paul in exactly the same way it is making you object Kay.

I would love to write more but i’ve run out of time. Sorry

Kay

“Why do you assume that Paul’s phrase ” all israel is not israel” could only be refering to individuals and not groups?”

Because that is the only thing that makes sense. What ‘groups’ within national Israel was Paul therefore addressing? What did his OT quotes have to do with these other ‘groups’? Since you did not supply an alternative, it is clear that there isn’t one. From the wider context it is clear Paul is addressing the ‘remnant’ which theologically are those individuals who have been saved and are saved.

“True, but gentile persons could convert to Judaism (ie. Ruth or Ex.12:48-49) and be in the covenant group.”

I agree. But you have not dealt with the issue. You think it is ‘unfair’ for God to elect individuals but not nations. Both views create ‘unfairness’ regardless of whether people could ‘convert’ to Judaism. Thousands upon thousands would not have had that opportunity to ‘convert’. Did the nations have that choice when God wiped them out so that Israel could enter the ‘promised land’?

“If it is so clearly about individual election, then what part of “the older will serve the younger” has anything to do with eternal salvation? Why would this part need to be included?”

Paul’s argument is not to show how Esau served Jacob, but rather how ‘unconditionally’ God chose Jacob over Esau while they were still in the womb- before either had done anything good or bad. Paul’s point is unconditionally election!

“But, Mark God didn’t do this unconditionally. The Edomites, descendents of Esau, were “hated”, *BecausE* of their *wickedness*.”

Kay, this is completely wrong. The edomites were the descendents of Esau. What does Paul say in Romans about Esau and Jacob.
“Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—“

Here we see clearly that Jacob is chosen unconditionally before they were born. Paul is very precise to include that it is not ‘because of works’. So your hypothesis that God chose the Israelites (Jacob) because the Edomites (Esau) were wicked is simply false and contradictory to Rom 9. Yes the Edomites were ‘hated’ because of their wickedness (since God hates all wickedness), but God’s unconditional election of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with works and was determined before they were even born or had their ‘nations’.

Kay, people try over and over again to change the meaning of Romans 9, but it simply cannot be done. Our job is to believe what the bible teaches, not what we think or want the bible to teach. Let me encourage you to look at the passage exegetically. In my experience i rejected reformed theology, but after I studied this text my arminianism was shattered. My arminian theology simply could not hold up under the pressure of Romans 9-11. We must be faithful as bible believing people to accept it’s teaching.

Continuing on…
Joh 6:18 The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing.
Joh 6:19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened.
Joh 6:20 But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.”
Joh 6:21 Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.

This is the second of the miracles in this pericope. The first was feeding the five thousand. Now this one has Jesus walking on water and calming the storm.

The rough seas probably did not worry the disciple since many of them were experienced fishermen. But one thing did make them afraid- a man walking on the water in the middle of the night

Jesus words ‘It is I” are from the greek ‘ego eimi’ which in places refers to His divinity. In this context however I don’t think that is the case, he is simply identifying himself. ‘Do not be afraid’ is an imperative (command)- stop being afraid! It appears that John wants us to see the immediate destination of the boat as a miracle aswell.

Note- I reject the common attack on this miracle that the boat was hugging the shore, so that Jesus did not actually walk ‘on’ the water, but rather was walking ‘on’ the shoreline or coastline. I believe that Jesus did in fact walk on the water, otherwise why are the disciples afraid?

Romans 3

It seems i wasn’t as clear in my objection as i would have hoped. Let me try again. I will say first what i do no think Romans 3 addresses and then who i do think it addresses.

1. IT does not address ONLY ‘the jews’ of John 6. It seemed to me that Cheryl was saying that Romans 3:10-18 is only addressing the pharasee’s or Jews of John 6.

2. Romans 3:9-18 is addressing all of humanity in their unregenerate state (so yes the Jews of John 6) would be included. This is seen from the context Rom 1:18-3:20. In Romans 1:18ff Paul addresses the Pagan Gentile world, and then concludes in 2:1 that the Roman Christian gentiles were the same. Paul then addresses the Jews in the Roman church in case they though they were any better and concludes again the same thing in Rom 3:9. The Jews are no better off, because as Paul has said both Jew and Gentile are under sin, as it is written…

In Rom 3:21ff Paul then begins with a big BUT and proceeds to outile that rightousness comes through faith in Christ. It is clear therefore that what Paul is addressing in Rom 1:18-3:20 is both Jew and Gentile in their unregenerate state. From 3:21ff Paul expounds on the ‘BUT’, what God has done!

Therefore this is why i disagree with Cheryl oh Rom 3. It is not solely addressing the Jews of JOhn 6. This is foreign to the context of Romans. Paul is writing to the Roman Church, a bunch of Christians and has told them that they were like what he has outlined in 1:18-3:20, but God has saved them in Jesus. Now if this state is true of the Roman CHristians it is true of all humanity. As Paul says in 3:23, all have fallen short.

Hope this helps. Romans 3:10-18 is not ONLY about the Jews of John 6, but ALL of humanity in thier UNREGENRATE state before God does the big BUT of righteousness through Christ.

Hannah,

You are still missing my point.

The issue is whether Adam had a responsibility that Eve did not. According the Cheryl (which i agree) the answer is yes.

Now what you have said is quite true but ONLY if everyone has the same responsibility to stop deception. Adam did indeed fail to step in and stop the serpent- i agree with that. The question is would Eve have had the same responsibility if the situation was reversed. From what Cheryl has stated the answer has to be no, simply becasue as Cheryl defined it- Adam saw God create and Eve did not. Adam had the mandate to protect the garden, Eve did not.

This therefore is the problem. Cheryl is asserting that Adam had a responsibility that was impossible for Eve to have, but yet Cheryl holds onto an equality of roles and rulership. They seem mutually exclusive to me. Like i said, they were either completely equal in role/function or they were not. You cannot blame Adam for a lack of ‘resposibility’ if in fact you believe that Adam did not have more responsibility than Eve.

Now clearly the Bible teaches that Adam did have more responsibility, and clearly only he was given the mandate to guard the garden. This is clearly a differentiation of roles or functions between the man and the woman is it not?

Hannah and Cheryl,

THe scenario you gave Hannah is quite true because both a man or woman have an equal responsibility in that sense.

The problem is Cheryl is saying that Adam has something Eve does not- that is the difference.

Cheryl quite true that we have a responsibility with the knowledge God gives us. However i reject that a pastor, elder, seminary lecturer do not therefore have authority over those they are ministering too. This is clear in the Bible that we are to submit to those who lead us because of that extra responsibility.

They are still equal in their salvation (Gal 3:28)- we are all one in Christ, but some are still in authority because of the position God has put them in.

I can’t understand this “Adam was just responsible for knowing evil because of the knowledge that he had.”

Where is that in the text if we are only going off the text? You are reading that into the text! I can’t see how you can say they had equal rulership in the garden, but include an extra subclause for Adam. Either they have equal rulership or they don’t. Equal is equal, anything else is not equal.

Now if you want to say they are equal in essence yet distinct in role then i agree, since this is what we see in Genesis. It just seems to me that you are admitting that Adam had a different role, but are trying to divert around the fact therefore, that they had different roles/authority in the garden.

continuing on…

no problems with what you have said, but i would like to add one more thing. THe crowd is 5000 ‘men’. Now presumably there were women and childern aswell, so it was a substantial number to feed.

John 6:13-15
“So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, ? “This is indeed ?the Prophet ?who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus ?withdrew again to ?the mountain by himself.”

THe 12 baskets emphasise that the miracle provided ‘more than enough’ food for everyone.

It appears the crowd understood something of this miracle. THey new Moses had fed their forefathers, and rescued them from
Egypt. THey obviously knew Moses prophecy of ‘the prophet’ greater than him coming after him (Deut 18:15), however they misunderstood Jesus’ miracle. His ‘kingdom’ was not political but spritual. Before Jesus can be ‘king’ he had to complete his father’s
will and be the ‘sacrificial lamb’. Jesus knew their intentions so he withdrew by himself. The detail of ‘by himself’ becomes important futher into the passage.

back to you

P.S- in the coming weeks i may be slow to respond, as we are expecting our 3rd baby in a week or so. Please bare with me.

Hi Cheryl,

I’m a bit concerned about your 7 points. None of your references mention at all that the Jews did not fear God. You are bringing that into the text. Although alot of your points are correct (seek their own glory, not of God etc), none of them describe the Pharisees or scribes as not ‘fearing God’.
I am especially concerned about point 7.
You conclude that your points 1-6, therefore show that Romans 3:10-18 applies to them. On the contrary Paul is writing to
the Roman Church, a group of Christians. I cannot agree with you on that point. You cannot take Jesus words applied to
the Pharisees and scribes and interpolate that into Romans 3.

Now i do not believe the pharisees were ‘God fearers’ in the sense that we generally associate the word. I was simply
disagreeing with your discription of them as non God fearers. We agree they were pious. They sought to uphold the sabbath

5:16 “And this was why the Jews ?were persecuting Jesus, ?because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.”

They were zealous for the supremacy of God

5:18 “This was why the Jews ?were seeking all the more to kill him, ?because not only was he ?breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God ?his own Father, ?making himself equal with God.”

They followed in the light of John the Baptist

5:35 ” He was a burning and ?shining lamp, and ?you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. ”

They also searched the scriptures for eternal life (5:39). I do not think we can rightly label these men as those who “have no fear of God”. Also since we are looking at John 6 can we stay with that text and keep to it’s context.

What i mean by the ‘passover’ being theological is that the context of the passage parallels with Moses. Jesus is the bread of life parallel to the bread in the desert. Moses rescued the Jews (under God) from the bondage of Egypt. Parallel that to the ‘crowd’ wanting to make Jesus their king. Jesus went up on a mountain as did Moses. Basically what i mean is that there is deep theology behind the narrative, so the passover is theological not only primarily chronological. The passover represented the escape from Egypt, and so too the ‘crowd’ want Jesus to rescue them from the Romans.

CHeryl,

Here is the problem. You want me to believe that both had equal authority in the garden, yet you admit that Adam had a reponsibility that Eve did not in protecting the garden. So it is hardly a ‘equal’ authority in the garden at all in your view.

Adam in your view also more authority than Eve in protecting the garden, you defined this by his ‘responsibility’. You can’t have it both ways. If Adam had a responsibility to his wife to stop the serpent decieving her then he had authority over her in that respect. Otherwise you could not say that Adam failed in his responsibility.

It seems you want to say Adam did indeed have a role or responsibility above that of Eve in protecting the garden, yet want to try and hold onto equality. THis looks like an oxymoron from my end…just saying! Are you agreeing with comps that one person in a marriage can have more responsibility or authority than another?

Kay,

I’ve heard all these arguments before. But what you are failing to recognise is why Paul used these references. It comes directly after Paul has told the Romans that God’s word has not failed because not all Israel is Israel.
How has any of what you said relate to Paul’s original point. Or how does using the OT here help Paul’s argument. Paul’s use of these references relates directly back to his claim that all israel is not israel- so it is clear it is about individual election.

Also why after Paul outlines Jacob and Esau, does Paul expect the Romans to be upset at what he has said. If it is just ‘nations’ then there is no reason to be upset- he is just outlining history.

Also remember in Esau serving Jacob, Esau sold his birth right to Jacob, and Jocob recieved his father’s blessing not Esau. This is significant in the ancient cultures. Thus Esau lost his firstborn rights and his authority as the older brother.

Also how can it be far that God chooses Israel over the Edomites or any other nation. Even if you want to take the ‘national’ approach, you still have the same problem. Only the Jews were able to obtain salvation and atonement and not other people groups. Because you need to remember that nothing here is relating to the messiah, so Paul’s point is not to show which seed the messiah came through. Paul’s point is election- God’s sovereign choice of some over others.

John 6
Verse 1- ‘some time after this’ is indefinate. This means that the events of Chapter 6 may or may not have happened immediately after chapter 5. Some commentator think it could be as much as 6 months, but that is a side issue. What is important to note is the ‘crowd’ is not the same Jews addressed in chapter 5. We know this because the Jews of chapter 5 did not recognise Jesus authority. The crowd of 6:1-15 however were different. After feeding the five thousand they remark

14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, ? “This is indeed ?the Prophet ?who is to come into the world!”

Also the theme of ‘bread’ will be common through out this chapter.

Verse 3 and 4. The ‘hillside’ or mountain mentioned may be a parallel to the Sinai experience with Moses (see 5:45-47). The mention of ‘passover’ is theological not chronological. The themes of blood, sacrifice, lamb, unleavened bread are fresh on their minds. It seems evcident that the ‘crowd’ is looking for a new ‘Moses’ to deliver them from the Roman bondage. This seems true once we see the reaction of the people post miracle and Jesus response.

15 ?Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus ?withdrew again to ?the mountain by himself.

Back to you!

There is a few more important points to mote on John 5. The Jews want to kill Jesus becasue of two reasons- he broke the Sabbath and he claimed to be equal with God (5:18). Jesus expounds on his authority as the Son (5:19-29).
Jesus tells the Jews that what he saids to them is so they may be saved (34). He also confirms that the Jews were ‘willing’ to abide in the light of John for a while (35). BUT (36), Jesus sais his testimony and works are greater than John the Baptist. He tells the Jews they have never seen nor heard the Father, and that they do not have God’s word in them, and the reason is important- becasue they do not believe the one he sent. He expounds how the Jews seek eternal life in the scriptures, yet fail to see how the scriptures point to Jesus [with particular ref to Moses (45-47)].
I agree that Jesus knows their hearts (42).

However i reject Cheryl’s point that these Jews have no ‘fear’ of God. THis is not in the text anywhere. These Jews were pious and religious. They searched the scriptures looking for eternal life. Where they went wrong is failing to recognise the prophetic passages ref to Jesus. 5:18 teaches us that the reason they wanted to kill Jesus was becasue he broke the sabbath (their religious laws) and claimed equality with God. They were ‘unwilling’ to come to Jesus because they did not love God. This was clear because they did not recognise the scriptures about him. To say these people had no ‘fear’ of God is not in the text.

Sorry one more

Cheryl you asked me this and i can’t help but wonder if you were trying to trip me up with an anonymous quote.

“Let me quote from a position to see if you agree with it:

That man could not obtain saving faith of himself or by the strength of his own free will, but stood in need of God’s grace through Christ to be renewed in thought and will.

Is this what you believe?”

On the surface this might look ok but once you did deaper into the theology it is simply wrong. This is one of the points of the Remonstrance, so no i do not agree with it. Arminian theology only believes in preveniant grace and no more. Hence in there 4th point that outright reject the irresistability of God’s grace for the elect.
Is this what you believe?