Peter McKenzie

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? Actually, it is perfectly logical. Your example here is a non sequitur – as it applies to the text in question. To argue otherwise is to take the matter out of the context of the verse. It would make no sense to say that one wasn’t part of the group due to their lostness – if they weren’t part of the group in the first place. IOW one could not be lost from a group if they weren’t part of the group in the first place. This seems like a desperation move to deny a fairly simple fact of the plain reading of the text. Re your analogy, if you had said “none of the children failed to eat ice cream except for one” it would be a more applicable analogy – because there would be a consistent comparison with the verse. 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 you are missing the point here. The “lost none of these” nature of Jesus’ care of the disciples was not merely a physical meeting of their needs. I know that you will point to the John 18:9 verse to argue against me here – but I think there is a strong contextual case to be made whereby it can be understood that “losing none” means that none of these ones fell away from the faith due to the life and acts of Jesus. To me that is more significant than just physical care and ensuring that they weren’t killed. I can’t give you the exact verses that you require right now, but I feel the contextual reading is enough to derive this truth. For now, we are left with Jesus saying in chapter 18 that He lost none of them – pitted against John 17’s wording that there was an exception. You are staking your argument on a rigid reading of John 18:9. By narrowing the scope of this verse to ONLY applying to the 11 disciples in view, you are left with having to deny that the “lost none of these” group encompasses a larger group in the context of John 6 and 17. I find that you do tend to take a somewhat legalistic view of interpreting scripture. I say that with all due respect and that is not meant to be a pejorative. BTW I am totally against a liberal method of twisting scripture. I just think that there is a healthy way to view the entirety of the topics in view and to make a valiant attempt to harmonize verses that seem to contradict each other. Using the hermeneutical spiral method, it seems to me that John 18:9 is a fulfillment – but not the only fulfilment for the reasons I mentioned. I feel that the answer to all this is that Judas backslid at some point after Jesus chose him as a disciple. 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 “condition” I meant “state”. I think I failed to explain this properly. The “except one” points at the “lost none” antecedent . So Jesus is saying that He lost none of the PEOPLE that were given to Him EXCEPT one – meaning He did lose one PERSON. If you want me to keep going here with you, you need to stop the condescending language. I have no interest in changing language. It is better to consider that there is a weakness in the medium of communication – before going straight to a lecture about changing meanings. Why not rather assume that I am not as heretical as this implies, and give me a little more credit as a starting point? “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…If you want to correct the Morpho-Syntactic Database, perhaps you can explain your credentials to do that. Again, you seem to be relying on strict grammatical boundaries MORE than you are the contextual reading. This shows your rigidity and is a desperation move. What you say here re “no assessment” carries an implication of “unless there are reasons to assess the matter otherwise”. I am not an expert here so, lack of credentials aside, the setting does require the reader to CONSIDER the fact that this is a limited present text action. It is limited by the fact that Jesus came “down from heaven” (limited earthly ministry) to “lose none of the those that were given to Him”. To insist that your rule of grammar must obligate the words of the text to mean perpetual “giving” is a matter of being stubborn IMO – and failing to consider the setting. If you are reading a novel and in the story a dying father gathers his children and says that he is giving all his money to them as sole beneficiaries, would you read that as saying, because the present tense is employed there, then that must mean that there is a perpetual giving of money after the man dies? I don’t think you would. Similarly, in John 6, as you read the passage and keep the setting foremost in your thinking, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the Father will give regenerate Jews to Jesus after He dies – in the same manner He is giving them to Jesus during His earthly life. That is illogical. Jesus is not restricted from drawing all to Himself because the Father draws people to Jesus. No it is not illogical. It is not a matter of restriction. One thing contradicts the other. Whereas the Father was drawing Jews through Jewish scriptures, the span of the cross means that Jesus is now drawing all men. That is not the non sequitur that you suggest (assert) as it perfectly logically follows. It may be illogical to you within the confines of your view – but I don’t think you are thinking it through enough. As far as my premise is concerned it is logical. 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. First of all, neither do I argue with the inspired word. You are making a false determination and then running with that. I have repeatedly said I am not changing the grammar – so it is getting frustrating to hear you say that I am. The grammar is present tense in the passage – WITHIN the setting and context of the narrative. Engaging in proper hermeneutical practices requires that we do OBSERVATION first. As such, that requires that we do the basic reading and ask ourselves repeatedly (as we read the words in context) – what does this mean to those people that Jesus is talking to. Since He is talking to them about coming (in a PHYSICAL manner according to the context and setting), these words He is saying must FIRSTLY have application to them. After we do that, we can interpret and make application for us in our day. To insist that Jesus is all of a sudden making a universal theological statement that applies to future Gentile as well as future Jews does an injustice to the process. Doing just that is how aberrant doctrines arise. THAT is my proof. I cannot provide you with your overly high bar standard of proof that you insist you need before you accept what I am saying. But I am satisfied with my coherent reading of the entire text within its context. 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. Oh I can see that. But that is not my point. My point is that you are using one wrong idea to refute another. 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. I have taken nothing out and nothing you have said has sidelined my argument. 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 Actually, NT Wright is the leading, foremost New Testament scholar in the world. I don’t agree with everything that he says – but I like the way that he thinks. I disagree that he is theologically sideways. He often gets lumped in with the emerging people – but he is a conservative theologian who is an invaluable gift to the church. In any case, I could say the same about you in regards to some of the things you believe. As far as continuing, I think we should leave this now. I doubt that I will be able to change your mind and I know that you will be unable to change mine. I do know that I have given you reason to at least reconsider some things so that is a good thing. As I said earlier, it seems our whole argument centres around the “present tense” dispute in verse 39. If you can see that there is a valid case for a “present” with a limited time frame there – perhaps the penny will drop for you. I pray rich blessings on you in you continuing studies!