Cheryl Schatz

Peter, you wrote about John 17:12 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. That is illogical. A person could say a similar statement this way: All the children had ice cream except for little Marcie as Marcie only likes cake. Marcie is one of the children, but is she a part of the “all the children” that had ice cream? The fact that there is an exception — that Judas was not under the spiritual care of Jesus even though Jesus met his physical needs — does not place Judas in the group of disciples that was kept safe. I think that you would get this if it wasn’t a point about Judas that you do not want to give up. I think that everyone reading this can see that Marcie cannot be in BOTH groups — the group that had ice cream and the group (she is the lone exception) that did not have ice cream. You wrote: The “exception” part is not that he is not part of the group. His lost condition was the exception. Jesus said “them” not “conditions”. Either Jesus is talking about people or He is talking about conditions. You seem to be arguing above that it is a group of people. You cannot now change the meaning to a thing. Either words mean something or they do not. 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. It isn’t an “observation”. It is a reinterpretation of the text. A class “wiggle” to get out from the implications of what Jesus said. I see you fighting hard to get out from under what the text says. If you can change the text from people to things such as conditions, what else are you going to change in John 6? That deeply concerns me. You wrote: 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. Could we say that Judas had a purpose of practiced sin that included deception, theft and would lead him to betrayal? It was his own purpose. Jesus chose one active sinner, knowing Judas’ heart from the beginning that he would betray Jesus. Judas’ purpose was fulfilled by his own actions, and God’s prophecy was fulfilled. You wrote: 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? You are not hearing me. If Jesus used the past tense (all that the Father GAVE Me) with the future tense (WILL come to Me) there would be an end date to the future tense because the giving was already complete. However, you have to make the present tense come to an end without a word from Jesus or the disciples that such an event had concluded. If you turned a blind eye to John 6 and only focused on the past giving of the disciples to Jesus, you would at least have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, the Bible’s grammar is hard for people when they have a different conclusion. I won’t be misled about the deliberate present tense and no word, not a single one, that limits the giving. If I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected, but you can’t do that by not following through with finding the proper grammar addressed by God in Scripture that sets up an end. 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. I am absolutely certain you are wrong. Show me the text either in the gospels or by the words of Paul or any other New Testament author that defines such an end date. I am sure that you need a lot of time to check out all of the text but I will be waiting for that Scripture. You wrote: What you are doing is front-loading your assumption that there is a future giving – into the passage. The meaning of present tense from Logos Bible software: https://mmoutreach.org/tg/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/present-tense.jpg “present — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion. Heiser, M. S., & Setterholm, V. M. (2013; 2013). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Lexham Press.” If you want to correct the Morpho-Syntactic Database, perhaps you can explain your credentials to do that. You wrote: 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. Jesus said that the learning from the Father happened first, then they came to Jesus. John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. You wrote: 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. That is illogical. Jesus is not restricted from drawing all to Himself because the Father draws people to Jesus. You wrote: 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. I am saying that the grammar shows that the giving was ongoing. If the grammar has changed, then you can show that to me. To read into the Bible a change in the ongoing nature described by Jesus without a single piece of evidence is presumptuous. What other grammar do you have to change to make your view work? I don’t need to change the grammar at all. The grammar speaks for itself and if God has revealed an end date I am happy to believe that because I am more interested in truth than supporting something that is not truthful. Again, find the proof, show it to me and we can be on the same page. I do not argue with the inspired word. You wrote: 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 can’t see that the present tense absolutely refutes the Calvinist view that predestination was from eternity past, then I am not sure that I can help you much. You wrote: 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 am full up right now trying to keep up with the work that I have to do. How about you try to work in Scripture in this format with the passage we are discussing? You wrote: I don’t just read words – I also look for the intended meaning of the author. The intended meaning of the author is in the words. It is also in the grammar. And the intended meaning is in the words and grammar of the context. That is the foundation. You wrote: 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. Judas absolutely factors into John 6 because Jesus Himself brings Judas in. Judas is not a side bar, he is a “this is why I said this” main point. And consider this that John 6 is avoided by a lot of Christians because they find it confusing and tough. Calvinists too have a difficult time with the grammar because it does not fit their Calvinist glasses. So while you may think that John 6 is not complex, it may be because you have taken out some of the complex things that sideline your argument. If John 6 only makes sense if you leave Judas out, then you may have missed the main road that has the amazing truth of who Jesus is mixed with difficult concepts. By the way N.T. Wright who you quote in your paper has gone theologically sideways and redefined a lot of things including salvation, heaven, hell, Adam and Eve, and more. I plan to do a post on whether Jesus’ death was for individuals here on this blog and his concept of people after Adam and Eve not being a direct creation of God probably in our newsletter. While you are working on finding the Scriptural proof that the giving has ended, do you want us to go on to the next points?