Cheryl Schatz

Peter, You wrote: If He is still alive when they also begin to follow Him, it seems that He would be caring for them as well. I would just say that they are not the primary subjects in view in the prayer. They are included in the prayer – but in verse 20 Jesus is again talking about the “ones the Father gave him” as a specific, identifiable group of existing people. Yes indeed the primary subjects in view are the eleven disciples. We know that because of John 18:9 and only the eleven were revealed as the fulfillment of that statement. However, I think that it is wise to see how the other believers were cared for by the Father in the same way that the disciples were cared for spiritually. You wrote: In verse 26, he says that “I made your name know to them” so that is a past tense action – which identifies the ones verse 24 as again being existing believers. I agree that verse 24 is about believers at that time, but we can also see this as a promise that will be fulfilled with all believers in the end. All who come to believe through the testimony of the disciples (the Bible). I asked you about John 6:37 whether you would agree with me that it is not a “giving” from eternity past. You wrote: That is a good question. I would not be that quick to say that this “future giving of people” extends beyond the lifetime of Jesus. That is my main point – and one where I may have confused you. I absolutely agree that no one was given to Jesus from eternity past. So, whether we agree about future giving of people to Jesus to be only in Jesus earthly ministry time or extends to our time, we agree that the “giving” is not back to a time when the person did not exist. This is important because in Calvinism there cannot be a future “giving”. In Calvinism the “giving” and “predestination” are synonymous. In essence they cannot say that the “giving” is a future act just as they cannot say that “predestination” is a future act. So when Jesus speaks about a future giving in John 6:37, they have to disregard the continuous present tense and they substitute in their minds a past tense from John 17:12. Peter you wrote: So, in maintaining that the giving is an action limited to the time period of Jesus’ ministry, it rules out any notion of a metaphysical/spiritual giving. I have not seen anything in the inspired text that limits the giving of people to Jesus to the time period of Jesus’ ministry. I see that just as the Father “keeps” believers even though there is no physical bodily presence of the Father, so Jesus can “keep” believers without His physical presence. Perhaps you can show me what I missed. Where does the text actually determine that the “giving” of people to Jesus must end with His death? You wrote: My premise is that if we read the text in this way (and I think it is the right way) it completely disallows the Calvinist way of reading it – which has determined how most non-Calvinists read it as well. The giving was a specific, earthly act that took place for 3 years. So in verse 37, it is not implausible to read it as (paraphrasing): “Everything that the Father gives me (in the next 3 years) will come to me, and anyone who comes to me (in the next 3 years) I will never drive away”. Here I do not agree. The grammar is present tense. Jesus is saying those who comes to Him and who continue to come to Him, He will not cast out. The “coming” to Him is synonymous in this passage with “believing” in Him. Jesus is saying that the one who believes in Him and continues to believe in Him, He will never cast out. That is a classic conditional promise. He is not promising that those who believe in Him at first but then apostatize will never be cast out. He is promising that those who continue to believe in Him, it is THOSE ones who will never experience separation from Him. They (the ones who continue to put their trust in Him) who will be safe in Him. It is not an unconditional promise, but a conditional one. You wrote: As I mentioned in a previous comment this “driving away” helps to locate the “giving” in the first part of the phrase as a then-specific occasion. Where did Jesus drive away people during the three years that He was here on this earth? From what I read in the Scripture, that separation (driving away) only occurs at the judgment. You wrote: There is no reason to consider that the Father is giving anyone to Jesus today. To concede that to the Calvinists opens the door to acknowledging that the Father does give ones to Jesus – and gives way to the notion of irresistible grace and unconditional election. When I read the Scripture I never think that acknowledging the plain reading of the inspired words and inspired grammar would be acknowledging Calvinism. Honestly, if Calvinism was proven by these passages, I would be a Calvinist because I love truth more than I love a particular theological bent. The difference between what you said above and the way Calvinists see this passage is that they see an unconditional “giving” that is in the past and I see clearly that the “giving” is conditional to first believing the Father. Jesus talked about believing Moses in chapter 5. The words of Moses are the words of the Father. John 5:45–47 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” The Pharisees did not believe the Father’s word so how could they believe Jesus? Those who do not believe the Father cannot believe Jesus. You wrote: If we isolate the giving to a then only event, it upsets their apple cart. Try this with a Calvinist. Ask them, in John 6:37 when Jesus said “All that the Father gives Me” do you interpret that to mean “all that the Father GAVE Me”? Ask them if the the giving = unconditional predestination in the past. John 6:37 is quoted by Calvinists as a proof text of unconditional predestination. And this predestination is always in the past. This is why the present tense is so important to pay attention to.