Mark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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