Peter McKenzie

Cheryl, I am not really interested in pursuing the side bar comments about my “issues”. I feel that you have made a number of judgements about me – and I have made none toward you. In any case, I find it to be a distraction and I am happy to focus on the passage. Comments over the internet are often misconstrued and I am happy to leave some things that I have discerned about you alone – as they may or may not be accurate. If I tell you that I am not hurt nor sensitive can you trust me when I say that? I appreciate your diligence to do the Greek word studies – as well as the time invested. For what its worth, I don’t have any Greek background (not sure if you do). I do know how to read and that is what i focus on. I trust the translators for the most part and look to lexicons when necessary. Having said that, I think you are missing my point. When you say: So, in your context that you presented, most of the terms are not the words that Jesus used. my point was not that the words were the same words that Jesus used in verse 37. I merely was pointing out that the different action words DESCRIBED what the people present were doing. The narrative and the group of words used are DESCRIPTIVE of the movements of actual, physical people – who were moving about the land. The type of words were all used in a LITERAL sense – and not symbolically. I mentioned this before, but you are wanting to insert a 21st Century “come to Jesus” notion into the text. I am simply saying that that is not there. In your point about “coming” being connected with believing, I don’t dispute that at all. In the passage there are 2 types of “coming” – those who were coming with good intentions (they believed) and those with wrong ones – but you are missing the point there. The point is, the proper way to read the passage is to understand that both types of “coming” were descriptive of existing people PHYSICALLY coming. The passage is all about THEM. FIRST. There is no getting away from this. It is indisputable that people WENT AWAY from him. It matters not that they did not want to listen to Him (they didn’t). The fact of the matter was that they went away – physically. They “turned back” (physically) and they “no longer went about with him” (physically). You cannot ignore this fact. In verse 67, Jesus asks if the 12 want to “go away” also. Did Jesus’ disciples interpret this as physically going away? Or did the disciples interpret this to mean are they also going to turn away and not listen to Jesus? The disciples’ answer shows that this is all about whom will they listen to not about a physical walking away. Again, this is not the issue. I would simply answer your question by saying that it is BOTH. If they physically went away it would have been because they didn’t want to listen to him. If that was the case it seems obvious that they wouldn’t continue to follow him. I disagree with your conclusion here. It is obfuscating the situation. It is a trivial point that if they went away it was for the sole reason that they didn’t want to heed his words. In any case, I continue to maintain that the narrative is FIRSTLY, COMPLETELY about the people present – as they were the ones who were the subjects of the narrative. We must first determine what the words of Jesus meant to them. The flow of the narrative is about their coming to Him – with or without proper motivation. The context is all about belief and unbelief, willingness to listen and unwillingness to listen. AGREED. The question of paramount importance is WHO are the recipients or subjects of the narrative? I maintain that it is the Jews present who were unwilling to listen. It is THEM that Jesus is addressing. You are going down a wrong path by dissecting other avenues and not taking a close look at the narrative as a whole. I keep thinking I am doing a poor job of explaining this – especially when you continue to talk about how “coming” is connected to “believing”. You seem to think that I disagree with that somehow. I can only say in the strongest of terms that I am NOT stuck at that point. My entire case rests on the fact that the passage is FIRSTLY about the people present. To prove your case you bring up words that you believe limit the term “coming” to a physical presence of real people alive at that time that must be able to actually see Jesus. You said this at the beginning of your comment, but I wanted to speak to it. I would simply say that it is the narrative that sets any limit. If the flow of the narrative stays intact by listening to words and accepting that those words apply to the setting and the context, pressing for anything BEYOND the limit is an exercise that is premature and unnecessary – at least until it is established what the passage is about. It seems awfully wiggly to me when someone wants to move on quickly to get to the interpretation and application levels. My point, as always, is that if we are mistaken as to the basic reading comprehension level – we risk being mistaken at the next levels. So, to your comment here, as I read the passage I am not thinking about limitations. I am merely thinking about the narrative and trying to understand what it meant to the first hearers. If I let a “limit” enter my thinking, it shows that I am in too much of a hurry to prove a doctrine. I like doctrine by the way.

ou also suggested that I am reading in John 6 that the apostle John added a spiritual meaning in verse 37. However, John does not define Jesus’ words. Jesus defines His own words. John merely reported the amazing words that Jesus said. I suggest that, while Jesus does define HIs own words, it is our task to interpret those words. That is what we are doing now. I am trying to be consistent with the context in determining a definition. The context is unbelievers. There is no words that say “looking forward” in the passage. Jesus said that unbelief is the reason why He said what He said in John 6:65. What i meant was that, today people don’t look forward to the coming of Jesus – they look back. This is one thing that distinguishes now and then – and sheds doubt on the universal giving that you are positing. You discount the faith of Lydia and discount the words that the Lord opened her heart as you have already closed the door to believers brought to Jesus through the gospel. Actually, I am not discounting anything. I am just saying that you are front-loading your premise into this situation. What I would have said is that your premise denies that people can be given to Jesus today. Your premise sets up a boundary requiring only people alive on the earth when Jesus was here can be given to Jesus according to the words of Jesus in John 6:37. I say that no Scripture limits the giving to those people and no ending date or event is ever listed as fulfilling the outside date of that prophecy. Although I don’t agree that the Father gives people today – I am not dying on that hill. All I am saying is that you can’t get that from this passage. Doing so goes beyond the context. You have gone from “given” people who were alive at the time – and applied that to future people. The text says nothing about future giving. John 17 specifically portrays a group of existing people. It is completely improper too read the passage by taking the action of unbelievers to define the words of Jesus. John didn’t define the words of Jesus. The crowd didn’t define the words of Jesus. Jesus defined the words of Jesus. Anything less then this is not proper exegesis. Actually, I am doing proper exegesis – which is asking questions of the text. You have gone on about Jesus defining His own words. But that requires investigation – otherwise we just assert what we think his words mean. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say I am letting the action for unbelievers define his words. What I am is letting their actions and words, help me as I read the passage – in order to figure out what His words might mean in the CONTEXT. Are you suggesting that we not do that? Just read his words in isolation? You again are assuming your own conclusions. Jesus Himself stated that His death brings about His drawing. Re your comment about Paul here, I am unsure what you mean. My point was that the Father did not draw Paul – thus there was no “giving”. My point was that Jesus did the drawing – not the Father. That fact in itself defeats your premise of a universal, continuous giving. Paul was resisting the truth of Jesus being God in the flesh – but Jesus intervened.

From the beginning of our discussion, we both agreed that we enjoy irenic discussion the best. If you look back to the original comments, you will see that you were the first one to “take the gloves” off. Since then you have accused me of being a dispensationalist, of having a poor regard for the authority of Scripture, having a poor understanding of the Trinity as well as other personal attacks. I have done none of that with you. I have been direct with you since you amped up the heat – in keeping with the same style that you exhibit. Near the beginning, I suggested that I may leave the conversation if you continue to make it a personal thing. More recently, I called you out again and you ignored that comment. Now you are accusing me of accusing you – and are trying to paint me as a dysfunctional, wounded person. I have not questioned your motives at all – just your premise. I stand by the same case I have held since the beginning – that being that you are simply wrong at the core or the basic reading level of the argument. No matter how well put together your argument is surrounding the periphery, if you are mistaken at the core level you can never be correct after that. I have tried as well as I can to show you how the passage should be read and you have rejected that. Here is one last attempt to explain my case: THE COMING – Let’s do some careful, investigative reading to see if the COMING is a literal one – or carries a symbolic, spiritual meaning WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS OF THE PASSAGE. All mentions of the word “come” in John 6 leading up to verse 37 were in relation to actual people AT THAT TIME, actually, literally “coming”. We can see this in: – verse 2 – “a large crowd kept FOLLOWING him” – verse 5 – “..he looked up and saw a large crowd COMING toward him…” – verse 15 – “When Jesus saw that they were about to COME and take him by force…” – verse 24 – 25 – “…they themselves got into the boats and WENT to Capernaum LOOKING for Jesus. When they FOUND him…they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you COME here?” – verse 26 – “Jesus answered them, Very truly, I tell you, you are not LOOKING for me (for the purpose of being true disciples)..” (italics mine) Also, in verses 65-67, it is interesting to notice that COMING is juxtaposed against GOING AWAY: – verse 65 – “And he said, For this reason (some didn’t believe) I have told you that no one can COME to me unless it is granted by the Father” – verse 66 – “Because of this many of his disciples turned back and NO LONGER WENT ABOUT WITH HIM”. – Verse 67 – “So Jesus asked the 12, ‘Do you also wish to GO AWAY”? So, we can see that, contextually, COMING can be (in the passage) interpreted as physically following – or GOING ABOUT WITH HIM. It can also be understood as: NOT TURNING BACK and NOT GOING AWAY FROM HIM. There should be no objection to this as it is not controversial. It is merely drawing a conclusion from doing the basic reading of the text. To ignore these findings FROM the text is to potentially rip the words from their context. Given that all other mention of the word COME carry a literal meaning, do you think that John would: – arbitrarily plunk a spiritual meaning of the word in verse 37? – arbitrarily switch the nuance of the narrative from a literal understanding (that flows with the narrative) to a theological principle that carries a symbolic meaning, wherein the hearers may have questioned (huh?) and perhaps not understood? PROBLEMS WITH A “SPIRITUAL COMING”: (I almost didn’t include this piece – as I fear you will focus on it and not on my MAIN point above). – it ignores the context. – it ignores the components of the setting: 1. pre-existing people LOOKING FORWARD to the earthly incarnation of Christ. 2. by extension the obvious fact that LOOKING FORWARD is a moot point given the ascension of Jesus. The ones that are said to be the “GIVEN” ones in ch 17 were those who believed in a coming Messiah – not ones that were to believe in a Messiah who had already come. – the example of Paul coming to faith without being “given by the Father” defeats the notion of a “spiritual coming” in John 6:44. “No one comes to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me”. Paul’s conversion was post-cross and it CANNOT be said that the Father drew him. Paul’s conversion was all Jesus. – your example of Lydia does not hold up as there is no mention of “giving” in the passage – you read that into the text. I am not suggesting that the Father does not involve himself in the lives of people who are seeking truth. This is a descriptive scenario and not a prescriptive one. It is clear to me that you are trying to build a doctrinal construct without paying attention FIRSTLY to what the context and the setting are saying. This is not a good method of hermeneutics. To insist, that COMING and SEEING and GIVING are words that have spiritual meanings PRIMARILY is to get there by way of assertion. Doing so ignores the context and the setting and situation/occasion of the text. It is a straw man when you object by saying that my premise here denies further application for us today. I AM NOT saying that. What I AM saying is that any application is not useful for us today if we don’t start by CORRECTLY reading the passage as a first exercise. Failing to do that is putting the cart before the horse. After we determine what the passage meant to the original hearers – then we can go on to application for today’s readers.

Cheryl, I am sorry if I have come across as accusatory. In the beginning of our discussion, we both agreed that we enjoy irenic discussion the most. I still feel that way. If you go back and re-read the earlier comments you will see that you were the first to “take the gloves off”. If you remember, I pointed that out to you and suggested that I may leave the conversation. More recently, I called you out on some of the patronizing and condescending things that you have said – and you did not respond to that. All I have done is hit back at you a bit with the same style that you have exhibited toward me. It is you who has questioned my motives and my character (you did it again here). I have done none of that with you. I have pretty much exhausted everything I have to say. I have tried to convince you from every angle to take a closer look at the text. Believe me, I have no axe to grind with you and when you say: You are fighting so hard for a position that you appear unwilling to stand back from the position long enough to even understand what you are objecting against. ..nothing could be farther from the truth. I only argue if I think I have a solid case. I believe that I do here. I think I may have hit a nerve with you – otherwise you wouldn’t have spent so much time discussing this. However, I am willing to leave it for now. I will leave you with this. I really hope you will read it closely and prayerfully, because I think it may serve to uncover a bit of the underpinnings of your misunderstanding of my position, I take full responsibility for any lack in explaining things properly. But I think this sums up succinctly where I am coming from. If you choose not to respond that is fine. You are busy – but so am I. I only offer this one last comment with the hope that you will stop to argue the points I making and not points I am not making. Last comment to follow…

As I mentioned, I have pretty much exhausted the extent of my premise. I am not really interested in any argument that seeks to move away from my last comment. You are adept at presenting a long and detailed case. However, I am convinced that if one is mistaken at the core of the argument (the context) – as I feel you are, it matters not what one draws up to support their premise, in that it avoids the hard, undeniable facts that the context presents.

As I have ruminated on our conversation, it seems that the core of the argument comes down to the original message in verse 37. In the context of what Jesus is saying, the original hearer of the words of Jesus would have understood that He was referring specifically to OT Jewish believers who likely believed John the Baptist’s testimony of Jesus. He was the one that Moses wrote about. As such, the Father gave the care of them over to Jesus – while He walked the earth after He had been sent from heaven. The Father’s will was that He lose none of these. In verse 37, Jesus is telling these ones who have COME (physically) to him with wrong motivation (see verse 25) that whoever COMES (physically – at that time) with right motivation (they have been drawn by the Father as they have heard and learned from Him) that He will not drive away. So, if you were to ask someone after the ascension of Jesus, whether this passage had ongoing application for future believers, they would look at you with a bewildered expression on their face. They would ask you how you could come up with such a notion – as the issue had now become moot. The very fact that the whole aspect of GIVING (that was setting and set-group specific) is no longer in view. Jesus has come and been raised, so why would any of the aspects of this narrative have any application to those who put their faith in Him – AFTER THE FACT. I don’t think you are grasping the significance of this vital component. (NOTE I am not saying ALL ASPECTS of the passage here – I am only referring to the GIVING part when I say that. Obviously, there is much truth to be gained for us by reading this – but that truth is extemporaneous to any notion of ongoing giving). Also, and unrelated, you previously said that only believers get saved. This seems to be in error and is a strange notion. A believer who comes to faith in Jesus was at one time, an unbeliever. He heeded the words of Paul and Peter to the Roman jailor – “believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved…”. Moving from unbelief to belief is what saves a person.

One other aspect to consider: In John 17, there is a clear distinction between the GIVEN ones and the group of believers who will come to faith as a result of the GIVEN one’s witness. This is indisputable in that they are not said to be included as part of the ones that were originally given to Jesus by the Father. They are a distinct group – who were not included in the first part of the prayer.

Continuing on from our conversation on the other thread: https://mmoutreach.org/tg/jesus-draws-all/#comments It seems that you are engaging in circular reasoning. If we can find non-Jewish believers who are God-fearing believers who are brought to belief in Jesus, then we have an on-going giving in the same way that Jewish believers were given to Jesus. It is begging the question when you read your conclusion into the conversions of people like Lydia and Cornelius. It goes without saying that some people came to a belief in Jesus – after first having a belief in the Father. But that in no way is conclusive proof that they were given to Jesus by the Father. This is simply you reading into the passage what you need to be there. You are self-interpreting “coming to faith” as being the same as “being given by the Father”. Therein lies the circularly of your claim. I could just as easily point out the example of Paul. He was someone who believed in God and yet did not believe in Jesus. As such, he was not one who it could be said that He was given to Jesus by the Father. He was killing believers. He came to faith as the result of a direct encounter with the risen Jesus. The difference between Paul and the ones that were given to Jesus, is that they believed in God in a specific Jesus-is-the- Messiah way – whereas Paul did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. He was not someone who was given to Jesus by the Father. (I am tying my definition of “given by the Father” to the words of John 6 – and not something that it MIGHT mean if we are trying to connect some dots). Also, do you think the Roman jailer was a prior believer in God? Was he someone expecting the coming of Jesus? Or did he witness the power of God through Peter and Paul and come to a conviction of truth that caused him to ask how he might be saved? My views are solidly based on the Scripture and a refutation should have a solid base in the Scripture. In addition, a scriptural refutation should show why we should not take the Bible examples I have given as people given to believe in Jesus. Actually, your views are not based on the Scripture – rather they are based on the way that you want to read them. The passages that you quote are not talking about any kind of GIVING. They are talking about the remnant that God is going to save. Some Jewish people believed in the coming Messiah and some didn’t. Me saying that, is not denying that SOME people who had a belief priorly in God, would not believe in Jesus when they heard about him – even amongst non-Jews. You seem to have a habit of finding proof texts and then championing biblical superiority just by merely quoting them. My whole claim is based on this UNIQUE situation in John 6. I mentioned in my last comment on the other thread that there is scriptural evidence that defines this giving as a specifically limited event. John 17:6 says: I have made your name known to those whom you GAVE me from the world Despite the fact that you continue to downplay my use of the scriptures (I find that amusing because ALL I am doing is looking at the relevant text here) – this verse puts a definitive limitation on this narrative in John 6. That is my scriptural answer. You are forcing the words of THIS text in John 6:37 by trying to make them normative for all time. But, as I mentioned, it is a unique situation. Using the template of the passage, in today’s world: – we do not have a time frame where people are looking ahead to the coming of Jesus – we do not have a scenario whereby the Father is passing off His care of believing Jews to Jesus What we do have today, is the gospel going out to all people and those who respond in faith doing so because of the power of the gospel. Rather than being cared for by Jesus, we have the Holy Spirit presiding over the affairs of the church – as Jesus presides in heaven. I am not denying that Jesus is not Lord and presently reigning. But His current involvement in human affairs is completely a different affair than it was in John 6 when he walked the earth. In today’s world, we do have some Jews coming to faith. They didn’t priorly believe – and, as such, they cannot be said to have been cared for by the Father. The plain truth of the matter is that their world view is being radically altered as they come to realize that Jesus is the Messiah – having previously rejected that idea. There are so many insurmountable contradictions and road blocks that arise if you think a little more carefully about this. Finally, the SCRIPTURAL evidence for verse 37 being setting-specific and not descriptive for all time, is that it is book-ended by the use of “FOR’ at the beginning of verse 38. That link provided by John, clearly identifies the words of Jesus as having primary application to THIS situation. In other words, the giving is occurring during the time of his ministry as He did the Father’s will while he was on earth. As such, phrases such as “gives”, “comes” and “drive away” must have relevance to the conversation at hand – as a FIRST priority of the reading as we try to determine the intended meaning of the passage. Only by acknowledging that, can we then go on to try to determine if this is ALSO a universal principle that applies after Jesus ascends – which makes the “looking ahead to the coming Messiah” a moot exercise. As such, the care of the Father, as one example, takes on an entirely different nuance – as it deviates away from the definition of the term as given in the text. At this point, I would merely point out that if there is an ongoing giving today – as you point out, it cannot be supported by way of John 6, as John 6 is COMPLETELY setting specific and does not say anything about how one comes to believe in Jesus in today’s world. This is basic exegesis and I await your response – at the exegetical level.

He found mercy not because he belonged to the Father, but because he acted ignorantly in unbelief. But this is in direct contradiction of your previous statement. Paul came to Jesus without having been one who was given to Jesus by the Father. Similarly, your example here of the centurion seem to work against what you previously said. I am confused. In these cases, you have people coming to faith without first “belonging to the Father”. Which was my point… The crux of our impasse is that it seems to me that you want to consider that passages that show the role of the Father – as in the case of the Lord opening Lydia’s heart, and insist that it is conclusive proof of that as the Father giving them to Jesus. On the other hand, my view doesn’t deny that there is active involvement by God in the process of salvation. But you seem to be insisting that the one means the other. I simply am saying that there is a difference between the giving as depicted in John 6 – and God working in someone’s life to bring them to salvation. I would point out that there was no guarantee that those given in John 6, would be saved. Salvation is determined at the last day and in at least 4 places in scripture – requires that one “continue” in the faith. There is, of course, a great likelihood that they will be saved – but that is yet to be determined in its entirety. In any case, it seems that you are importing the term “giving” and how it is defined there in John 6 and trying to force it into a universal blueprint. I am in disagreement with you solely on that point. I don’t disagree that God is active in the lives of people, whether or not they have some sort of prior truthful belief in God’s existence – no matter how large or small that may be. A simple push back in this regard – is that your view seems to hold no hope for an atheist to come to faith. The gospel holds no power for him/her to change his/her mind. To the contrary, I am sure a quick google search could reveal testimonies by former atheists. One other seeming fly in your ointment: what about those deceased OT believers who believed in the coming Messiah and who would have believed in Jesus had they lived long enough to see Him? It CANNOT be said of them that they “were given to Jesus” – in that they weren’t around to allow for the process of him caring for them. Can you see how this fact serves to limit the setting as well – only from the prior-to-Jesus-coming vantage point? The setting has an established start date and end date. Your argument with me here should not be on the setting which is clearly in view. Your argument is that the principle of the setting (that Jesus tells them) continues on. On that I disagree that it does. There are too many setting specific details that prevent a leap to a continued “giving” – as you suggest.

While what Jesus said applies to the people that He is talking to, it CANNOT be limited to only them as verse 40 shows Actually, this shows the difference between you and I it would appear. I am primarily looking to determine (as a first exercise) what the words of Jesus meant to HIs hearers. In this regard, verse 40 had to have specific application to them – otherwise it is meaningless to them. As such, verse 40 refers to the people of that day FIRSTLY. They were the only ones who did SEE Jesus. You will assert that this has a metaphorical SEEING built into the text – so that it can be exported as a CONCEPT. But this requires you to read into the passage a metaphorical notion of SEEING. And then leads to you making your assertion here. By the way, I am NOT saying that EVERYTHING that Jesus said ONLY applied to them. What I am saying, is that we have to discern (by way of the context) which things were being said ONLY to them. For example, we can take away from verse 40 that if we believe in him we may have eternal life. That fact is applicable to all people across time. But I cannot SEE Jesus today – in the way He is using the word in the text. I can make my own application and consider that I can “SEE” Him in a symbolic sense. But I need to ask FIRSTLY, is that what He is talking about to these folks – who do SEE Him with physical eyes. Would it have made any sense to them, if Jesus were talking about metaphorical seeing – in the text? When I point out these things, I am not denying that “he who believes has eternal life”. Many of your objections are based on what I am NOT saying – rather than what I am saying. As I have said in the past, I am simply remaining at the observation stage – and you are jumping past the exegetical reading of the passage in order to get to your interpretation. I fear that you are fighting with the text and not doing the basic reading and asking what the text meant to the original hearers. This is not about a setting-specific, but about a concept-specific Actually, what you say here is telling. The authors of Scripture (including Jesus) did not write in a vacuum. Much as Paul wrote occasional letters to the church, most of this genre of scripture (unlike poetic and apocalyptic writings) were penned in settings and narratives. If it true that this is what is happening here, and I think you will agree it is, the sequence has to go from setting-specific to concept specific. Of course, all concepts are universal and originate simply as truth statements – but, as far as our grasping of concepts are concerned, concepts are derived by first looking at specific situations in order to determine first what it meant to them – and then what it means for us. But it is not good practice – when there are specific situations that Jesus is speaking into, to ignore the specifics of the situations. If we do ignore the situation at hand, we have Jesus walking around preaching concepts that are not tied to situations – or at the very least, preaching concepts that don’t relate to their situation. Reading IN CONTEXT requires that we consider the situations of each text – lest we end up with an interpretation that is lacking in authority. Authority only happens when we stick with the author’s intended meaning. I would suggest that this is the ONLY way to properly read the Bible – if we are to gain the maximum benefit of the authors’ words.

This is starting to get discombobulated – as the comments were coming fast and furious and I missed seeing some of these. I fear that I may have misrepresented you – and I see where you misrepresented me. Let’s proceed in short bytes to get back on track: Here is where you lost me: On the one hand you said : “So, the foundation is in the OT, the giving to Jesus is NEVER of unbelievers but of those who fear God, and it continues after the death of Jesus.’ Then you said You are misrepresenting me. If you read my words about Paul and the Centurion, you will see that these sinners did not belong to the Father. They received mercy because they sinned in unbelief. I am failing to see how this is not a contradiction. How is that (in view of verse 37) Paul is one that the Father “gave” Jesus? Either he was a believer and was given – or he was not…

By the way, when you say things like: Do you believe in divine inspiration of the Word of God? Or is it a concept that you are trying to prove without using the words because the words are not necessary I think it is unnecessary to say that. When I am in conversations and people start to resort to ad hominem, I usually take that as a sign that they are unable to refute my points. Some of this is starting to be recycled over again – I am thinking about your “grammar” attack and I don’t see the point of continuing if we are going to do that. I gave you a very good reason for reading verse 37 within the confines of the grammar there. You seemed to accept that I was grammatically on solid ground (given my premise) but it was the “expiration date” premise that you disagreed with. Now you are back to accusing me of tinkering with the grammar. I don’t know what to do with that… I have told you I believe in the divine inspiration of the Word of God and have told you that you don’t need to go that route – but you continue to do so. I am afraid I won’t continue if our conversation is going to be at that level.

A few comments: There is no hope that an atheist can come to faith unless the person gives up their atheism Not sure why this needs to be said – as it is a trivial point. It is not different than saying “no one can read the Bible unless they read the Bible”. Your doing this sidesteps my question of how your view deals with atheism. If Jesus had meant just a particular setting that He had come from heaven for only this time and this place and this people, then He would have said The Father gave you bread from heaven. But again the ongoing action of Jesus is a life-giving Spirit frames the action as ongoing, not static. You are framing this in a way that helps your case but still leaves you in error. I am not sure if it because I am not explaining it properly – or if you are being stubborn. I basically explained this before – but here is another try. Since the words here are quotes of what He said, it is entirely valid to have him speak in the present continuous tense – and yet have those words NOT necessarily represent continuous action forever. The action can be non-static within a time frame – and yet have an end date. We talked about this. Simply by saying that Jesus is a life-giving Spirit is not enough – if the context rules it out. I mentioned before that verse 38 is a book end to the statement of verse 37 and 38 (you misunderstood what I said when you berated me for saying that “for” is the bookend. “For” connects the previous verses and locates the setting as His time on earth. His time on earth and His ministry was that He would lose none of those the Father GAVE him. Jesus is not talking about a physical seeing, but spiritually perceiving….I say it is a spiritual hearing The context would weigh in against you here then, Because only a few verses prior, Jesus tells them that they have seen him and yet DO NOT believe (verse 36). Surely He can’t be saying there that they spiritually perceived Him and yet do not believe – unless you are saying that spiritually perceiving and believing are not the same thing. Verse 30 also provides a contrast that seems to indicate a physical type of seeing. “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you”? In trying to determine if words are to be taken at face value or symbolically, a good rule is to assume the plain reading should be accepted – unless the genre states otherwise. There is no good reason to reject a physical meaning of seeing in this text. Unless you assert it 🙂 Either way, this is not significant to my case. I will remain steadfast on the contextual evidence for a unique giving of the Father – and the lack of anything else in Scripture that supports what you are saying. Despite your claim that the grammar is on your side, I simply say that you are refusing to look at the other aspects that limit the setting and, at the same time, do no injustice to the grammar. I think I need, at this point, to restate my understanding of the giving. The ones that were given to Jesus throughout His time on earth (as per 17:6) in an ongoing way as he travelled about in an action sense while He lived – were the Jews who believed what the OT scriptures and Moses said about Him. Contextually, the thing that he said about Moses “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for all he wrote about me” – can be taken as good reason to believe that these believing Jews believed in Jesus when He told them who He was. Contrary to what you stated before, they were believers in a coming Messiah as per Moses, and when they heard Jesus they put their faith in Him. This group did not include Paul or the Roman centurion. They came to faith despite not being part of the given group. I still haven’t heard a good answer from you re your seeming contradiction about Paul not being given to Jesus by the Father. Are you saying that some are given to Jesus by the Father – but not all? And Paul is in the “not all” group? Are you serious? Verse 40 has meaning to the crowd, but Jesus doesn’t say that the “everyone” is ONLY the crowd that stands before him. If you are going to limit this to the crowd in front of Jesus, you are going to have a big problem with verse 40 in being meaningless.

OK Cheryl – no panic It seems that our disagreement can be distilled down to whether 6:39 is a descriptive statement or a prescriptive one…

You wrote: the only “context” that you seem to provide is what you think the people are thinking. You don’t actually prove your point with the actual context or the actual words. When we do exegesis, we are trying to understand the words as the original hearers would have heard them. This is NOT a mystical exercise involving imagination – as you seem to suggest. It is actually the proven and readily accepted methodology of exegesis. It should be the first thing we do when we read any text. Otherwise, we risk getting stuck in wooden views which take words out of context. So contrary to what you say here, I am MOST interested in the context – but it is the context of what the words meant in their ORIGINAL SETTING. In that regard, we should be focusing our conversation on just that. Here is what I suggest Jesus is saying to these Jews (AS THE RECIPIENTS OF THE WORDS – OR AS THE FIRST HEARERS) and how they would have heard it. I have done some bracketing to help explain myself. As a disclaimer, this is NOT me changing the word of God. It is simply a tool to help you understand my point: 35 Jesus said to them (the unbelieving Jews), “I am the bread of life. Whoever (particularly YOU since you are the ones I am talking to here and it is YOU who this directly applies to at this time) will never be hungry, and whoever (of YOU in particular) believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I say to you (Jews) that you (Jews) have (actually, physically) seen me (and have seen the miracles that I have done) and yet you (Jews) do not believe. 37 Everything (including, and in particular you people) that the Father gives me (as I go about preaching and displaying the truth of the kingdom) will come (with the purpose of following me coupled with believing in me), and anyone (who believes in me) I will never drive away (because I will accept them); 38 FOR (explaining previous section) I have come down from heaven (for a short time), not to do my own will, but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose nothing of all that He has given me (pre-existing believers in the Messiah prior to the arrival of Jesus), but raise it up on the last day. This is not an example of me practicing my imagination. It is simply using common sense to discern how these people would have heard the words he said. I may be wrong here – but your correction of me should be in the realm of what I have said HERE – as the starting point to our disagreement. I am simply alleging that IN THE CONTEXT of the passage and the setting of that day, the “coming” and the “giving” have a different nuance than what you are claiming they have. In John 20:29 Jesus said, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” So there is even scriptural reference to the distinction between physically seeing and not physically seeing (yet still believing). This verse reveals the fact that when Jesus says that these Jews DID see and DIDN”T believe, He is referring to them ACTUALLY seeing with their physical eyes – and not a revelatory, metaphorical “seeing” IN THE PASSAGE. The bottom line: this is all a matter of reading the passage carefully so that from there, we can derive a proper interpretation and then a proper application for our own lives. Remember the word spoken were first said to them and not to us. I am merely claiming, that in supplying the comments in brackets, that this is how the original hearers would have heard it. It was a message to THEM – so it had to make sense to them. I am confident that it would have – presented in the way that I have suggested. What I am saying is not controversial. The context reveals that this is a time specific mission dealing with setting-specific people. Since it is an earthly mission done during the life time of Jesus that has a built in expiry date (the crucifixion day) – common sense should tell us that the specifics of the mission will become moot once the parameters of the mission no longer exist. The question remains – Does this setting-specific “giving” act as a template or model of a universal type of giving that carries on beyond the setting here? I am not saying that that is not possibly the case. But to argue that it is a universal principle, there needs to be some evidence that goes beyond mere assertion IMO. Nowhere else in scripture is there anything said about the Father giving people to Jesus. Given that lack of evidence and the specific nature of the term in John 6, it would seem reasonable to question why there is a need to press that point – let alone the implications of what doing so brings about.

Judas seems to be more important to your case than mine – although I am still not sure in which way he factors in. Much of our argument is based on speculation. If I say that he was a believer who backslid when his flesh got the better of him, you will merely reject that as me not being true to the text. Much of what you say is answering questions that I am not answering. I don’t dispute the fact that he ended up badly – but you seem to think I am saying he was a good man. I don’t know where to go with that so I think we should just leave him for now. As I mentioned several times, our impasse is situated at the grammar of verse 37. You insist that the present tense be an ongoing feature that spans time beyond the death of Jesus. At the same time you accuse me of not paying attention to context and relying on what people are thinking. When you say that you believe the words that are written, it somehow insinuates that I don’t. And yet my whole case is based on the words that are written. Essentially, our disagreement lies around one thing: I say that the present tense situation has an expiry date. You say it is ongoing. I have told you why I believe that and you argue by way of an assertion it seems. I say that because the thing you assert needs to be supported by a premise that these Jews fully understand a type of “coming” that is different than the “coming” that they are engaged in – a physical approaching Jesus in order to follow him as He ministers around the country side. I have shown you from the grammar in this post and I have shown you what the present tense means. You have NEVER listed the inspired grammar and show me where my view is contradicted by the grammar. In fact you make an end-date to the present tense and yet you cannot point to even one verse that lists the end. A person from a different persuasion could say that the end date is the conversion of Paul, or mid-Acts, the death of Paul. You name it. Speculation has no proof. And you have no grammar. Here is why I believe that there is an expiry date that can be concluded from the text, FROM THE TEXT: – the will of the Father stated in verse 39, serves to locate the setting as an earthly one – GIVEN that Jesus came down from Heaven to do that very will. This will is not the only will. In fact, there is more information regarding what else the Father’s will entails in verse 40. These different aspects of his will do not interfere with each other. But it can be seen that it is an earthly will that is in view – IN THE TEXT. In John 17, we see that the passage serves to provide a wrap up by Jesus of His earthly ministry. He is giving a recap and a report of the will that He set out to do while He walked the earth. Earlier you said, in regard to the present tense being a deal breaker for me, that it doesn’t say “everything that the Father GAVE me”. But in John 17:6 it does say that very thing – “I have made your name known to those you GAVE me from the world”. Surely that is some evidence that you will take a look at without trumpeting your lofty standard and berating my own lowly one? This is essentially a matter of doing basic reading. I suggest that we let the context determine whether there is an end date to the present tense used in any passage. You are rigidly denying the possibility of doing that here – without giving a reason why we cannot do that. You asked for a verse and I gave you one. Re John 17:20 you said: This is the verse that the other believers come in. “Believe” in this verse is present active, the ones who are presently believing because of their word. If Jesus was talking about all present believers through the entire chapter, He would not have had to add in that He was not asking on behalf of “these alone”, for they would all be included. I am not quite sure what you are driving at here. It is clear from the text that Jesus is referring to the “given ones” up to verse 19. After verse 20, there are definite markers that indicate He is back to referring to the original group. In verse 23 he mentions that He “loved them” (past tense). In verse 24, He mentions them directly – “whom you have GIVEN me”. If you are suggesting a “giving” that is Calvinistic (people given before they are born) here I would reject that notion. There is more past tense used in the last 2 verses. So, as it regards how much Jesus is referring to the 2nd generation believers, who will believe in me through THEIR (the first believers) word”, I think the only reference to their inclusion is in verses 20 and 21. Verse 22 MIGHT be pointing at them, but you would have to concur that Jesus is referring to a corporate giving of glory there – and not giving his actual glory to individuals who exist at that time. IOW something like “Jesus decided before time that He would give HIs glory to believers”. That premise might fit in this verse – but I don’t think it is the likely one. I really think we are at an impasse. My whole argument really rests on the expiry date of the present tense in verse 39. Your argument seems to be based on an insistence that there is no expiry date. I feel like we should let the text decide that. You insist that I am not good at doing the reading and I like to add things. I have pushed past the offence that is embedded there. I have given you some push back as well – but in order to leave this as a civil exercise, I think we should agree to disagree at this point. I will say that I do believe in the words that are written. You cannot do that observation without determine what the words mean. What the grammar means. The truth of the word cannot contradict the grammar. That is in the inspired model of interpretation. When you try to do interpretation by meditating on what you think the readers were thinking without considering the grammar (which they would familiar with) you can take a giant step past reality and then create a theory that has no verse to back it up. All you have is what you imagine they are thinking. I am not sure why you feel it is necessary to say this kind of stuff. I have told you that I am all for doing the observation as a FIRST exercise. In that regard, I have determined to figure out FIRST what the intended meaning of the author is. When you say the “truth of the word cannot contradict the grammar” – what you are really saying is the “truth of the word ACCORDING TO HOW I INTERPRET IT”. The better method is to figure out the grammar first before you do any interpretation. I said this before, but I feel that your biggest mistake is wanting to do interpretation prematurely. Here’s a synopsis to where I see things to this point: – I am mainly interested in determining what was being said in context to the original hearer here. – You seem to argue as though you disagree with what is being said to the original hearer – I don’t understand why you insist that the present tense of verse 39 defeats my argument. – given that it works with both my argument and yours, it seems the crux of the matter comes down to whether or not Jesus was referring to all believers there across the entirety of time. – you insist that Jesus was stating universal, theological truth about “giving” there – despite the fact that the context is dealing with specific, pre-existing people. So your claim seems to go against the warp and the woof of the passage. IOW your “giving” is a different “giving” that Jesus is referring to in the passage. – although, you claim to be the purveyor of sound methods of interpretation and only go with the inspired words of scripture, you make an unfounded claim that Jesus is jumping from the specific occasion pointed at individuals to stating a universal truth. – you argue against me vehemently on many points, but surely you must agree that the use of the present tense doesn’t hurt my view in verse 39. If Jesus is making a universal truth statement, then it must ALSO apply to those ones as well. – As such, the real argument is whether or not the present tense has an end date. The context of the Father’s will suggests that it does – as that will is seen as happening in the setting. – It seems that the burden of proof is on you to establish that the “giving” is continuing today. In the passage, looking at the inspired words of the text and yielding them their proper authority – without reading anything into the text or trying to imagine by way of speculation what the actors were thinking, my case seems pretty airtight.

A. The “giving” according to the text: The Father is giving the care of regenerate Jews (who were looking forward to the arrival of Jesus) to Jesus with His will being that Jesus would lose none of them. At the end of his ministry and life, He reported that He lost none that the Father gave Him – except one. B. The “giving” according to Cheryl: The Father is giving believers in Him to Jesus and this giving continues today. I can support A from the text. However, B is a matter of assertion – because nowhere in the text is there any mention of a non-Jewish/post-cross giving. As such, it comes about by reading that premise into the text. It assumes it without any support for it. It is circular reasoning.

I don’t mean to be a dog with a bone here, but it has occurred to me that our conversation has confirmed something that I have recently come to realize more and more – that being the failure of Christians to properly read passages in their context. It is often the case that there is an over-eagerness to derive doctrine from passages – and that is done at the expense at not taking the careful time necessary to determine what is actually happening in the narrative. Any haste that is exercised at the expense of doing proper observation only leads to a misreading of the passage – and ends up with a wrong interpretation. Most of my time here has been spent trying to get you to read the passage with me. You have accused me of not using scripture – which I find to be an odd thing to say given that I am actually just reading the scriptures in question. In this case, it seems that you have overlooked a few things: – Jesus is involved in ongoing ministry where his teaching leads to Jewish people placing their belief in him as He travels around the area – in an ongoing sense. This is seen in John 10:42. As such, this fact harmonizes with 6:39 and locates his words there as being specific to his earthly ministry – and is not harmed by the fact that the present tense is used there. – When he says that those that come to him He will not drive away, the most natural reading is to conclude that He means He will not drive them away as they come. Within the setting of people coming by way of wrong motivation, He is simply saying that if they come with right motivation He will accept them. There is no reason to read this and determine that He is referring to a time in the future. Doing that serves to introduce a concept that is foreign to the text. In the context, it can be easily understood and accepted that if someone comes to Him they are either coming with good motivation or with bad motivation. He is simply saying that if they come with good motivation (i.e.. they truly believe) He will accept them – AT THE TIME THEY COME. One last thing: you have pointed out several times that you are loyal to the inspired words of the text. I don’t want to wrongly assume what you mean there, but I merely wanted to point out that there is no magical nature of the words of the Bible – as it relates to individual words themselves. The only authority and only inspiration that is present, is within the realm of the intended meaning of the author. That is where the importance of the hermeneutical spiral comes in. The whole is determined by the parts and the parts are weighed against the whole. This process must be entered into without bias. Only when it is determined what the author is actually saying to the original audience can we then attempt to make application for our own lives. I am not sure if you have left the conversation, but either way I have enjoyed the chat and hope that I have made a small amount of inroad to your understanding and hope that you will consider the things I have said.

One last comment: I don’t think you have considered the ramifications of your view to the extent of its logical conclusion. Given (there’s that word again 🙂 that the “giving” of the passage is a unique situation, it seems like a stretch to try to force that as a template going forward from the text. Here’s why: The giving from the Father was a unique situation because it involved Jewish people (and perhaps Gentile converts) who believed in a coming Messiah – and when Jesus arrived, they believed He was that Messiah. They believed this way because they were taught by the Father. IOW they were the ones spoken of in 6:45. They knew and accepted the OT scriptures that prophecied the coming of Jesus. They may also have been ones that heard the message of John the Baptist. When Jesus actually did come, and they heard his message they did not waiver from their previous belief. They knew it was him who the scriptures had foretold of. To insist that this same scenario carries on today as you suggest, is not an impossible one. The question, though, is it a likely one? It seems that there are some serious hoops to jump through to get to that way of thinking. If no one can come to Jesus unless the Father is giving them to Jesus in today’s world, that would mean that Jews and Gentiles alike would have to be in a scenario whereby they are being taught by Him. So, they would be in the Father’s “care” before they heard and embraced the gospel. They would be kind of in a strange environment of knowing the Jewish scriptures but not knowing about the New Testament. In that sense, when these ones hear the gospel, they are turned over to Jesus by the Father. Of course, they are hearing about the coming Messiah after the fact – after he has come. One would have to envision a notion of them living in a vacuum – given that the gospel has gone out to most nations. Another option is that your view might encompass only Jews today – those who know the OT but then come to have a revelation of Jesus and put their faith in Him. But this narrows the scope of this verse to Jews only, and I think you will agree that that is not likely. Another option, is to view people who have a general belief in a creator God (IOW they are not atheists) who come to faith when they hear the gospel, and, as such, can be viewed as being cared for by the Father. In this scenario, if one were to hold to this view they would have to accept the premise that these ones in the “Father’s care” are being cared for without them knowing about it. IE. their general belief is an uninformed one. They are ones who say they believe in God in a casual sense when queried by someone else. Perhaps they haven’t even read the Bible. Surely, no one would venture to make a claim that these people were being cared for by the Father. In our world today, people hear the gospel and then put their faith in Jesus. There is no prerequisite for them to have read and understood the Jewish scriptures before they can embrace Jesus. To force that take away from the text is a questionable practise IMO.

As I said, your view is not an impossible one. But the more likely truth is that the simple conclusion that fits best with the setting and the context – and the grammar, is the best way to read this.

That is illogical. A person could say a similar statement this way: All the children had ice cream except for little Marcie as Marcie only likes cake. Marcie is one of the children, but is she a part of the “all the children” that had ice cream? Actually, it is perfectly logical. Your example here is a non sequitur – as it applies to the text in question. To argue otherwise is to take the matter out of the context of the verse. It would make no sense to say that one wasn’t part of the group due to their lostness – if they weren’t part of the group in the first place. IOW one could not be lost from a group if they weren’t part of the group in the first place. This seems like a desperation move to deny a fairly simple fact of the plain reading of the text. Re your analogy, if you had said “none of the children failed to eat ice cream except for one” it would be a more applicable analogy – because there would be a consistent comparison with the verse. The fact that there is an exception — that Judas was not under the spiritual care of Jesus even though Jesus met his physical needs — does not place Judas in the group of disciples that was kept safe. I think you are missing the point here. The “lost none of these” nature of Jesus’ care of the disciples was not merely a physical meeting of their needs. I know that you will point to the John 18:9 verse to argue against me here – but I think there is a strong contextual case to be made whereby it can be understood that “losing none” means that none of these ones fell away from the faith due to the life and acts of Jesus. To me that is more significant than just physical care and ensuring that they weren’t killed. I can’t give you the exact verses that you require right now, but I feel the contextual reading is enough to derive this truth. For now, we are left with Jesus saying in chapter 18 that He lost none of them – pitted against John 17’s wording that there was an exception. You are staking your argument on a rigid reading of John 18:9. By narrowing the scope of this verse to ONLY applying to the 11 disciples in view, you are left with having to deny that the “lost none of these” group encompasses a larger group in the context of John 6 and 17. I find that you do tend to take a somewhat legalistic view of interpreting scripture. I say that with all due respect and that is not meant to be a pejorative. BTW I am totally against a liberal method of twisting scripture. I just think that there is a healthy way to view the entirety of the topics in view and to make a valiant attempt to harmonize verses that seem to contradict each other. Using the hermeneutical spiral method, it seems to me that John 18:9 is a fulfillment – but not the only fulfilment for the reasons I mentioned. I feel that the answer to all this is that Judas backslid at some point after Jesus chose him as a disciple. Jesus said “them” not “conditions”. Either Jesus is talking about people or He is talking about conditions. You seem to be arguing above that it is a group of people. You cannot now change the meaning to a thing. Either words mean something or they do not. By “condition” I meant “state”. I think I failed to explain this properly. The “except one” points at the “lost none” antecedent . So Jesus is saying that He lost none of the PEOPLE that were given to Him EXCEPT one – meaning He did lose one PERSON. If you want me to keep going here with you, you need to stop the condescending language. I have no interest in changing language. It is better to consider that there is a weakness in the medium of communication – before going straight to a lecture about changing meanings. Why not rather assume that I am not as heretical as this implies, and give me a little more credit as a starting point? “present — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion…If you want to correct the Morpho-Syntactic Database, perhaps you can explain your credentials to do that. Again, you seem to be relying on strict grammatical boundaries MORE than you are the contextual reading. This shows your rigidity and is a desperation move. What you say here re “no assessment” carries an implication of “unless there are reasons to assess the matter otherwise”. I am not an expert here so, lack of credentials aside, the setting does require the reader to CONSIDER the fact that this is a limited present text action. It is limited by the fact that Jesus came “down from heaven” (limited earthly ministry) to “lose none of the those that were given to Him”. To insist that your rule of grammar must obligate the words of the text to mean perpetual “giving” is a matter of being stubborn IMO – and failing to consider the setting. If you are reading a novel and in the story a dying father gathers his children and says that he is giving all his money to them as sole beneficiaries, would you read that as saying, because the present tense is employed there, then that must mean that there is a perpetual giving of money after the man dies? I don’t think you would. Similarly, in John 6, as you read the passage and keep the setting foremost in your thinking, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the Father will give regenerate Jews to Jesus after He dies – in the same manner He is giving them to Jesus during His earthly life. That is illogical. Jesus is not restricted from drawing all to Himself because the Father draws people to Jesus. No it is not illogical. It is not a matter of restriction. One thing contradicts the other. Whereas the Father was drawing Jews through Jewish scriptures, the span of the cross means that Jesus is now drawing all men. That is not the non sequitur that you suggest (assert) as it perfectly logically follows. It may be illogical to you within the confines of your view – but I don’t think you are thinking it through enough. As far as my premise is concerned it is logical. What other grammar do you have to change to make your view work? I don’t need to change the grammar at all. The grammar speaks for itself and if God has revealed an end date I am happy to believe that because I am more interested in truth than supporting something that is not truthful. Again, find the proof, show it to me and we can be on the same page. I do not argue with the inspired word. First of all, neither do I argue with the inspired word. You are making a false determination and then running with that. I have repeatedly said I am not changing the grammar – so it is getting frustrating to hear you say that I am. The grammar is present tense in the passage – WITHIN the setting and context of the narrative. Engaging in proper hermeneutical practices requires that we do OBSERVATION first. As such, that requires that we do the basic reading and ask ourselves repeatedly (as we read the words in context) – what does this mean to those people that Jesus is talking to. Since He is talking to them about coming (in a PHYSICAL manner according to the context and setting), these words He is saying must FIRSTLY have application to them. After we do that, we can interpret and make application for us in our day. To insist that Jesus is all of a sudden making a universal theological statement that applies to future Gentile as well as future Jews does an injustice to the process. Doing just that is how aberrant doctrines arise. THAT is my proof. I cannot provide you with your overly high bar standard of proof that you insist you need before you accept what I am saying. But I am satisfied with my coherent reading of the entire text within its context. If you can’t see that the present tense absolutely refutes the Calvinist view that predestination was from eternity past, then I am not sure that I can help you much. Oh I can see that. But that is not my point. My point is that you are using one wrong idea to refute another. it may be because you have taken out some of the complex things that sideline your argument. If John 6 only makes sense if you leave Judas out, then you may have missed the main road that has the amazing truth of who Jesus is mixed with difficult concepts. I have taken nothing out and nothing you have said has sidelined my argument. By the way N.T. Wright who you quote in your paper has gone theologically sideways and redefined a lot of things including salvation, heaven, hell, Adam and Eve, and more Actually, NT Wright is the leading, foremost New Testament scholar in the world. I don’t agree with everything that he says – but I like the way that he thinks. I disagree that he is theologically sideways. He often gets lumped in with the emerging people – but he is a conservative theologian who is an invaluable gift to the church. In any case, I could say the same about you in regards to some of the things you believe. As far as continuing, I think we should leave this now. I doubt that I will be able to change your mind and I know that you will be unable to change mine. I do know that I have given you reason to at least reconsider some things so that is a good thing. As I said earlier, it seems our whole argument centres around the “present tense” dispute in verse 39. If you can see that there is a valid case for a “present” with a limited time frame there – perhaps the penny will drop for you. I pray rich blessings on you in you continuing studies!

There is much that you say that I could respond to but for sake of time, I think I will pull out a few points that I have them most objection to: John 17:12 “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled”. In this verse, looking at the words of the text, Judas is among the “them” group. Of the members of this group, Judas is the one that was the exception. The “exception” part is not that he is not part of the group. His lost condition was the exception. By saying this, I am not arguing that he was a good man – as you seem to be inferring that I am saying. Its just an observation that cannot be wiggled out from underneath. Judas didn’t need to keep following Jesus to betray Him. When you say the “purpose” that Judas served, that comes across as if you accept unconditional election. When I use terms like “purpose” I use them as I understand them – not as a TULIPist uses them. God can have a purpose for someone – which says nothing about their salvation and doesn’t guarantee it. Jesus saw something in Judas that caused Him to choose Judas because He knew that Judas would betray him as the scriptures foretold. You have not been successful at showing such a conclusion. If Jesus said “All that the Father GAVE Me will come to Me” you would be far more successful at showing your conclusion. But then so would the Calvinists who believe that the “giving” is a past action of unconditional predestination. I am able to read the verse – without having to change the grammar. I think this is the crux of our whole discussion. Can you not see that Jesus can speak in present tense language AT THAT TIME – and yet,at the same time, there be a scenario whereby the presentness of that language has an end date? If my premise is correct (and I am fairly certain it is) He is merely telling them that there is an ongoing giving that expires at the time of His death. What you are doing is front-loading your assumption that there is a future giving – into the passage. But imagine that you are there at that time. In the context of these ones that are “coming” to Him with wrong motivation, His words indicate that there is an ongoing giving. Since the “giving” is a matter of those ones learning from the Father through His word, there is no reason to reject a notion that more could be given to Jesus by the Father – while He lived. Don’t forget that, in this passage, there is a distinct Jewishness occurring. Jesus is not teaching universal theological truth. If He was, He would be contradicting Himself when He later said that He would draw all men to Himself – as opposed to the Father drawing them. If the Father is no longer drawing, I would make the claim that He is no longer “giving” either. Your insistence that the giving continues beyond that time to today, is driven by your rigid insistence that the grammar says it does. But this is circular reasoning. The difference between my premise and yours is that mine fits better with the context (I love context by the way) – and yours is pure speculation driven by a definition of the word “giving” which is outside of the passage and is vague and obscure as to its definition. You need to let go of the Calvinistic influence that has trapped you here. I reject the Calvinist interpretation and I reject yours as well – as it is a hybrid model. If you want to change a person’s view you need to use the Scripture more. Then you need to include the context rather than give a conclusion without explaining the passage in detail. I am only so happy to use the scripture. I guess that I assumed that you know what I am talking about when I bring up points – in that my points are driven by scripture. The article that I sent you is the result of a more careful reading of scripture. I don’t just read words – I also look for the intended meaning of the author. There is no authority outside that intended meaning. I read and think deeply and do not allow myself to change the meaning of words and verses. If you like, I could give you a massive article on this whole John 6 giving thing – complete with all the quotes, but time is not my friend right now. But if it is better, I will quote more verses from here on. I will say though, that this argument is not that complex. Judas and John the Baptist are more of a side bar to the discussion – because they don’t really factor into it.

Sorry – I am in Japan right now so was away from the computer for a while. IF you are right about John the Baptist’s status as an unbeliever, then you have a strong case. I am of the opinion that it is not a strong case. When Jesus uses John’t role as the greatest prophet of the OT era juxtaposed against the least person in the new covenant kingdom, he is not focusing on John there – rather using an example of the best of one thing being less than the least of another. THAT is his intended meaning. In hermeneutics, if we try to draw a truth out of a text that the author is not making, there is no authority on that interpretation. I could similarly say to you that Elijah was not a believer because of his wavering. The reason I suggested that John the Baptist and Judas were not really relevant to our discussion is because they aren’t – in OUR discussion. I do understand that they are important to your argument with Calvinists. But the fact of the matter is that we are approaching that false doctrine from different angles (at least as it pertains to John 6). So our discussion is centered around the notion of the Father’s drawing. Given that I don’t support your idea of an ongoing drawing, I will naturally want to drop the other stuff – particularly the point you are making about John the Baptist. This is a passage that Calvinists to prove irresistible grace – more than unconditional election, although the 2 do tie together. Re Judas, I think I made myself clear there, and made a good point – the main thing being that just because Jesus knew the purpose that Judas served, and in that regard, knew that Judas needed to keep following him – when the others didn’t. Whether or not Judas had a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was (whereas the others definitely did not) is immaterial to my premise – as I see it. I will point out that in John 17, a good case can be made for Judas as being included in the group of those given to Jesus by the Father. If you read the text, it seems that he was included but he was lost whereas the others weren’t. I strongly believe that the revelation that Jesus gives is the most important in determining truth. A biblical premise must have a foundation in the revelation of God’s Word or it is just an assumption based on human reasoning. It is a given, though, that the words of Jesus hold authority – at least as it regards our discussion. We have a common ground which allows us both to appeal to the scriptures. If one of us denied the authority of the Bible, it would be a show stopper. But the fact of the matter is that both of us will say that our premises have a foundation in the revelation of God’s word. Where assumption and human reasoning come in, though, is why these discussions arise in the first place. If things were crystal clear, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. However, because they are not clear, I could just as easily turn your argument around and point it back at you. IOW you are assuming that your reasoning is lacking assumption and human reasoning whereas mine is not. For example, if you believe in the doctrine of the trinity, and I don’t (I do for the record), I could insist that because the term isn’t clearly stated in the word of God, I am rejecting your claims based on the fact that Jesus does not state “I am God”, or the word “trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Bible. I reject your claims and maintain that I only go with the clear revelation of the word of God. Just for the record, that kind of response can TEND to come across as a patronizing one. Not saying that is the case with you but just saying… If I set my standard of proof so high that it disallowed any further discussion, almost zero progress could be made in these matters. But, given that things are not always spelled out as clearly as we would like (and aberrant doctrines arise as a result of that) we are left with reasoning. Hopefully, it is not mere HUMAN reasoning as you mentioned – rather it is good, solid, Holy Spirit-enlightened reasoning. I feel really satisfied by the reasoning that allows me to accept that the ones that the Father gave Jesus were OT regenerate Jews and the care involved was a for-a-season situation, and therefore is not something that is occurring today. In that regard, I feel that most Calvinists, if they accept the argument as revealed in John 17, will see no need to continue to cling to an ongoing “giving of the Father”. IOW once they see how their misreading of the text led to an erroneous notion, they should reject the whole notion – and should feel no need to adopt a hybrid model. I made this comment on another blog: I have noticed a trait that seems particularly particular to Calvinism. Even when it is pointed out that the contextual reading of a passage should alter their understanding of what they thought the passage is saying, they will carry their original misunderstanding back into the passage – all done to insist that they weren’t misguided in the first place. So, a cycle of error becomes evident. Instead of starting from the beginning and starting the process of re-thinking the intended meaning of a passage, they determine NOT to discard their original interpretation which was arrived at by way of a mistaken understanding of what the author meant. This is evident in John 6. The context reveals that this is a descriptive matter that pertains to a specific people to whom Jesus was making specific argumentation. He is NOT disclosing a universal teaching that will be authoritative across the church age. Hope that helps.

OK I accept your clarification – but you can see how I might misconstrue what you said there. The weakness of this mode of communication! I did read your articles. I am not sure they affect much of what we have discussed to this point – because I don’t disagree with much of what you say there. While I am not sure that your premise that John the Baptist died an unbeliever, it doesn’t really change the fact that I agree with you that he would have needed to make his own personal confession of faith. As for Judas, I think we will just have to agree to disagree there. I think there is too much conjecture that needs to be made as to his status – as it relates to his unbelief. Whether he had a knowledge of truth that he could have acted upon for his own salvation or not, I am not sure it makes a huge difference to our discussion. Even though he didn’t go away after he heard the words of Jesus (like the others) does not mean that Jesus wasn’t unhappy that he was still following him. After all, it was he that it was prophesied about that he would betray Jesus. There was a purpose for him continuing to follow Jesus. My premise is not affect by a scenario whereby all but one of the unbelievers left. The reason I say this is because the narrowing down of the crowd was still achieved by most of the unbelievers leaving. I know you had much more to say about him there but I know that you reject my premise, but it seems that you must be saying that Jesus wanted unbelievers to follow him – even with their wrongly motivated reasons. We may have to have a restart because we are at a place of misunderstanding each other frequently. You say it is weird to defend your belief that you have held for years. This may be a point where you are misunderstanding me. So I will try to state as clearly as I can what I believe about election: I believe that election is conditional upon one placing his faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. When an individual does that, he becomes part of the elect. But election as it regards individuals, is a moving categorical process. It has nothing to do with God choosing individuals to be elect before they were born (I know you agree here). It is individuals who determine whether they will join themselves to the “elected-ness” of Jesus. They are not pre-elected by God (I am making up words here to convey a point – that is how convoluted this has gotten because of Calvinist rhetoric). They are never pre-elected by God and never will be pre-elected by God. So God sets a condition on how one is able to join oneself to the ELECT. Election can be said to be conditional in that regard – from God’s perspective. So corporate conditionalism. From an individual’s perspective, conditional is a moot point – because individuals are not elected by God. There is no conditional election of individuals from the point of view of God electing individuals personally and individualistically. I know that is hard to follow – but I think it is necessary for me to go into more detail in order for you to see how I view election. To clarify, the demographic of the elect is WHOSOEVER. The condition set by God is that, for WHOSOEVER to join the elect, WHOSOEVER must believe. That is conditional election – full stop.

EDIT: I am not sure if I can edit on this program – but I meant to say that “conditional” is a moot point rather than election in the 8th line from the bottom.

I will comment on each one in order to bring clarity. If this is your understanding of my view (on some of the points), you are quite confused! 1. You accept much of the Scriptural argument that I made for John the Baptist, although you don’t know if John died as a believer or an unbeliever. Correct. But I don’t think it is relevant either way. I see where you are going with your premise but your point is made whether he was saved or not. The issue of his salvation (for me) has nothing to do with unconditional election – just whether or not the expression of his doubt qualifies as being being a total lack of faith. So its a textual issue for me an not something that is based on unconditional election. IOW is that one verse enough to portray him as an unbeliever or is just a matter of him wavering a bit? We can leave this for the sake of our argument. 2. You did not agree with my Scriptural article on Judas and you do not know if Judas was a believer or an unbeliever. I did not disagree with your article for the most part. Its just that I am somewhat agnostic as to Judas’ role in our argument. It seemed to me like you pulled him into our argument – but I am not sure why. Perhaps you think if you can show that there is one unbeliever that Jesus did not try to chase away, it is therefore proof that my premise fails? We could go round and round on the question of whether or not Judas believed – but I don’t think we will get anywhere. We will both agree that he did not have the type of belief that saved him. Does that mean he never believed in a way that could save him if he had persevered? I don’t know. It is a conjecture filled argument. I don’t believe in OSAS – but perhaps you do. If so that will affect how we see things – each differently. 3. Jesus was unhappy that one unbeliever (Judas) kept following Him. You like to reframe things in a way that tends to misrepresent my view. Happiness or unhappiness is not the issue. To repeat what I said earlier, Jesus would have been most happy to have each and every Jew believe in Him. But given free will, many Jews rejected His teaching. They had also been rejecting the Father’s teaching as well – prior to Jesus’ arrival. It is not difficult to see that Jesus often made effort to escape the crowd and resist their efforts to make Him king etc. These ones who were not true disciples and not interested in true bread, were counter-productive to Jesus’ ministry. He did not want this group of people who were following Him for the wrong reasons, to follow Him everywhere He went. So, this is not a matter of perfect-world-happiness as you seem to be framing it. It is a matter of Jesus’ desire in that setting – GIVEN everything that is happening. In that setting, given the role of Judas’ betrayal, Jesus understood the situation and the need for Judas to remain with Him. I don’t know how else to explain this. 4. Jesus spoke a particular teaching to the crowd in order that they would abandon Him and leave and it was Jesus’ will and what makes Him happy, that unbelievers would not follow Him. This again misrepresents me. Jesus merely spoke the truth. He knew that some would not believe and would leave because of the truth. But what He said also provided truth for them to be saved – because they could be saved if they believed. You seem to feel that they could hear the truth, not believe – and Jesus would still be fine with them following him around the country side in large crowds. Again, happiness is nowhere on the radar here – and it seems like I have not been able to adequately convey this scenario to you. 5. Judas had a purpose to follow Jesus and not leave because he wanted to betray Jesus. There is much that I don’t know – because I am not told in the scriptures. So it would be conjecture to lay out an exact time line depicting his motives and whether or not he believed or not – or if he believed, when he stopped believing and when Satan entered his heart. I do believe that Jesus was not unaware of his heart went he chose him to be a disciple. But as I said it, all of this is irrelevant to my premise. Its more your thing. 6. Conditional election is solely accomplished by men and not God.,/blockquote> Conditional election is your term and not mine. But again, this is a misrepresentation. When you say “solely” are you implying that I don’t factor the role of the Holy Spirit into the equation? But beyond that, from God’s perspective (which is the only one that matters here) election is a matter that He settled before creation. He pre-decided that a category (believers) would be chosen to shine forth HIs glory to the world. The condition was that they would believe. Is that conditional election? <7. There is a “moving categorical process” in election. I do not know what you mean by this so I am going to take a stab at it. Does this mean “individuals” move to the “category” of elect which is not no longer “individual” in nature but “corporate” thus no one is an elect individual but there is only an elect corporate body? Election is corporate, meaning is irrespective of individuals – as far as it relates to any choosing of individuals by God in their becoming part of the elect. BTW I don’t think much in terms of election. It is not a huge deal for me and it is only necessary to harp on it because the Calvinists do. It is a grossly misunderstood term – and it gets muddled even in our conversation. To answer you here, the category is corporate, an individual can call himself/herself elected – but that conjures up notions of being selected individually. Refer to the school band analogy I gave you to help gain understanding of how I think in this regard. 8. No individual is pre-elected before faith. This is an interesting point. It seems that John the Baptist was pre-elected before faith because he was chosen before he was born. But he was chosen for a purpose. Election is primarily about a mission and a purpose per se. As such, it is helpful to not think of election in terms of “election for salvation”. God chose before time that the elect would be predestined to show forth his glory (Eph 1:12). So it was an election to service. Of course, it should be a logically accepted notion that the witnesses should model the message – and, in the end, gain the reward that the message espouses. But no individual is chosen to be saved before they are born. 9. Individuals self determine to join themselves to the ELECT which is a corporate body and not individual members. In some ways yes. That self determination entails that it is their free will choice that is the final move. There is no coercing force and no one acts outside their will. But by saying that, it doesn’t mean that they make that decision extemporaneously without the wooing of the Holy Spirit and the power present in the gospel. But the decision to follow Christ puts them in the category of the ELECT and they now have work to do. That work does not save them – but if they have no works they may not be saved. Saving belief is accompanied by evident fruit. “Produce fruit in accordance with repentance”. 10. The condition is set by God in how an individual may come into the elect. Yes. Although I would word it “how individuals” – lest one misunderstand me to be conveying that there are different conditions tailor made for each individual. Sorry to get pedantic, but it is so easy for words to be misconstrued in this type of format. There is one condition that all individuals must meet – that being BELIEF. 11. Individuals are not elected by God either before or after they respond in faith. Jesus is the only one who was elected but the corporate body is the ELECT. Jesus Himself is not the ELECT. If this is what you think I believe – it shows what a poor job I have done in trying to explain myself. First of all I don’t believe individuals are elected by God – if you mean by that that He is selecting individuals to be saved. A better way to say it would be “individuals become part of the elect group”. It can create sort of a straw man to infer that God is electing individuals because it really confuses and distorts the matter. A good way to understand it is that God pre-set (before time began) a process whereby one could join the elect. In that sense, it is not helpful to try to imagine a one-by-one election process where God is doing a unique “electing” thing for each individual. Re Jesus, He is the chosen one and we participate in His chosen-ness. Similarly, you could say He is the ELECT one and we participate in His ELECTED-NESS. 12. Individuals self determine whether they will join themselves In some ways yes – although I would be careful to omit any involvement by the Holy Spirit. But in the end, the deciding factor is the free will choice of the individual of whether to follow Jesus or not. Some will have revelation of the truth of the gospel (believe its truth claims even!) – but still choose not to follow because they understand the cost. They are unwilling to give up the pleasures of sin for a season. 13. God does not elect anyone before or after they have faith, and individuals do not elect themselves. Thus there is no individual election at all. It is a myth promoted by Calvinists. It muddies the water to say it the way you do. It is a highly confusing matter if one does not understand the concept of corporate election. But yes, I would agree with this. God conceived a concept of corporate election. Individuals are joined to the category by faith. 14. Conditional election is only applicable to a thing called the ELECT and never to individuals. As it relates to the notion of a condition, how one comes to be joined to the ELECT is conditional upon their faith. The term “conditional election” is vague and problematic. It needs extensive unpackaging before one knows exactly what is trying to be conveyed. 15. Any other biblical term that would be associated with the term election must be interpreted to mean corporate and not individual. Whosoever then is not “any individual” but a corporate non-individual entity. WHOSOEVER, of course, does not carry any kind of non-individual notion – so I would not categorize it in that way. In much of this kind of thinking, it is important to keep in mind the vantage point of the setting being depicted. WHOSOEVER carries a “looking ahead” connotation. So it just means that, as far as individuals are concerned, they are as yet unidentified – and exactly who they are is not important. The critical part is that, whoever they are, they must believe. When reading the Bible, we need to consider the vantage point as well. The point there is that individuals in passages and settings there, are speaking from a vantage point of their “present day” and looking backwards. So there are specifically identifiable people who are the elect – because those ones have come to make their faithful decision and can now self-identify as the elect. Therefore, Peter can now say things like “for the sake of the elect” – and have identifiable individuals in mind. It is critical to plot the settings of then and now on a time line to be able to make sense of this. I alluded to this in the article I sent you.

Hi Cheryl, At this point, I think it is best if I do go back and read your articles before resending too much more. It does seem to me that we are stuck a bit and it would be good to clarify things – if we are to continue in a productive manner. Here is a snippet which I offer as an example that may typify our greatest divide – and also my perspective as I read your comments. You wrote: 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? 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. (If you are interested in looking at some solid evidence that salvation is conditional by faith, I can send you a response I wrote to a universalist who was championing Romans 5:18 as a proof text for universalism. In that article I listed 9 times prior to 5:18 where Paul notes the condition). Secondly, you have inserted the word “unconditionally” into the equation. I have never said anything about an “unconditional giving” at any point so you can rest assured that there is no impasse for us there. My view – so that you are clear on that, is that there was a conditional giving at the time of Jesus’ ministry on the earth – but there is NO giving now whatsoever. IOW the Father is no longer giving care of the Jewish believers who believed prior to Jesus’ arrival over to Jesus today. I will report back after I have read the articles.

I should also point out that I made it very clear in the article I sent you on reconciliation, that I believe that salvation is by faith. So no need for any doubt in that regard.

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. He did not say that, but the words He spoke served that very purpose. I still maintain that this is about discipleship. Earlier in the passage he told those present to work for food that endures. If this was a salvific passage, that would be akin to teaching works salvation. So, in that regard, it makes complete sense that He was trying to separate out the true disciples from the wannabes. 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. I don’t think it is necessary to place a demand on the text and try to make it say precisely what we need it to say or we will not except it. Many commentators have made this same point. 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. We may have to disagree on this point. I see that it is in the text even though it is not spelled out in exact words. I am not sure I can say much more to convince you otherwise. Next point: “For I have come down from heaven :not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” Here it is very clear that Jesus has come down to do the Father’s will – which is to lose none of those who the Father sent him. That is the specific will that is germane to this passage. You then said: 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. This does nothing to refute my premise. The grammar is present tense and I am not disputing that. Where I see it differently, is that by considering the setting (of Jesus’ earthly ministry which is in view here) the FIRST thing to notice is that he is saying what he is saying to the Jews present and he is telling THEM how this relates to them. They are the initial recipients. That is the observation stage reading that should not be overlooked. What you are arguing for is a part of the interpretation stage.So, as we make observation of what the grammar is conveying, we should not fail to consider the setting that the grammar is being tempered by. Where we differ here is that I am simply looking at the grammar and tying it to the context of the previous verses. Given that what He says applies to these ones within the setting and context, it doesn’t do any violence to the text to suggest that He is telling them a universal truth that is applicable to them at that time. By saying that, I am not saying that there isn’t an interpretation that leads to an application for future generations of believers. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t jump there first – and if we do jump there first, it shouldn’t overrule what the original conversation was pointing at. So, to clarify, I am simply saying that there is a present tense in the words of Jesus – as He spoke AT THAT TIME. That is not to imply that the truth of what He said won’t carry forward universally. Just that it also doesn’t disqualify my premise – as it fits this context perfectly well. Where you and I disagree is at the first sentence of your comment here. I am saying that the one “who comes” was one who was coming at the time of his ministry – present tense at that time but a past setting (from our perspective).

Re Judas, I think it is possible to believe and to not follow. In James, he says that Satan believes and he shudders. It may be a point not worth harping on – but I was trying to differentiate between Judas and these unbelieving Jews. It is very possible to believe – in the sense that one believes the truth about a situation, and yet not follow that truth. That was what I was trying to convey about Judas. After he betrayed Jesus he killed himself because he knew that he had betrayed the very son of God. That knowledge came as a result of believing. In contrast, these unbelieving Jews did no possess that knowledge. They did not believe that Jesus was who He proclaimed to be. What I am NOT saying here is that, for believers in general, head knowledge believing is enough. A cursive reading of the passage reveals 2 groups of people – believers and unbelievers. The preaching of Jesus drove some away – as He knew it would. He was not unfamiliar with these ones. We are left to derive our own interpretation and inference from this outcome of the passage. You should know that I am likely as committed to scriptural truth as you are. Although you have now moved to trying to determine my motives (a place I hoped we could avoid) – by pondering whether I am a dispensationalist, and if my feelings are clouding my pursuit of truth, I can tell you that I LOVE truth more than anything myself. Re the grammar point that you make, I don’t think you are factoring the setting into your analysis of the grammar. Our particular dividing point is verse 37. When you read that verse, you are reading it through your own interpretive lens that tells you that there is an ongoing “giving of the Father” that continues to this day. In that regard, the “grammar” there clouds your reading of the following verses. But this wrong turn can be avoided if it is determined that the ones that the Father gave Jesus – and continued to give Jesus as He walked the earth as a human, are specific pre-existing people. I asked you before in what manner does the Father give people to Jesus today and still maintain a non-respecter-of-persons perspective but you did not answer me. I maintain that the “giving” only happened as a transitional process while Jesus did earthly ministry. I think the text bears that out. Only if you read your interpretation of the giving into the passage will you be able to come away with a giving that is still ongoing today. Remember what He says in verse 37 has to FIRST make sense to these hearers so they can make application to his message. They would have understood that they could not “come to Him” (in a purely motivated sense) without believing. “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away”. This is a then-specific situation – and not a universal truth embedded in a then-specific narrative. It is imperative that we do the consistent reading here. That is the first step if we are going to arrive at the truth that you desire as I do. It is critical to keep in mind that the “coming to Him” that is IN THE TEXT is an actual physical type of “coming”. This much is evident because they actually HAVE come to Him – and He is rebuking them for doing so. I should say that I have had very good success with Calvinists when I show them who the ones are that the Father gave Jesus. They were not concerned about the notion of an ongoing “giving” so that was a non-starter for them. The main thing that stopped them in their tracks was that they were forced to acknowledge that the “ones that the Father gave Jesus” was a specific group of pre-existing people – and not a class of people spanning across the time line of history. In actual fact, I think you may have more difficulty explaining your view and convincing them than I do. Because you are only coming half way on the text and your view (it seems to me) still seems to hold some degree of unconditional election and is a hybrid view in that regard. I say that will all due respect.