Peter McKenzie

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.