Mark

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

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

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

I’m glad we agree!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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