Peter McKenzie

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.