Another look at John 10.

[In3dee]

When the prodigal son was away from his father, his father considered him DEAD. Also notice that the father didn't force his son to not leave them. It was only when the prodigal son was willing and actually returned did the father consider him alive.

Luke 15:32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.

That's how God sees our relationship with Him. He will never force us to stay but we are considered dead apart from Him if we choose to leave. Also there exists the opportunity to come back to Him, and fortunately in the parable, the son came back, but in real life that's not always the case.


💒

I was actually not talking about the prodigal son....

 

[In3dee]

This is not an equivalent comparison.

No, it isn't. Nothing and no one is equivalent to God or the relationship we have with Him. I just tossed out a scenario that I can relate to.

Our relationship to our earthly fathers cannot exists because of a physical event we had nothing to do with. our mothers. We do not have this relationship with God. After being born separate from him to a race that is estranged from His spirit. We had to choose to believe in Him and His gospel and to be to submit to Him. Only then did we become His child.

…49 Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
(Matthew 12:49-50)
Here Jesus says that what brings a person into relationship with the Father is doing His will. Only the Gnostics taught that certain specially chosen people were naturally His children by virtue of their creation.

No argument here.

 

[mailmandan]

John 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.

John 6:40 - For my Father’ will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (which is an intimate, experiential knowledge, found only in a relationship). The term "know" implies intimate, experiential knowledge, through a relationship with Him and not merely theoretical knowledge.

 

[Jimbone]

I've always thought that the prodigal son parable was about the Jews and Christians as we became known , or rather about the two covenants that God made , one with the Jews and one with us . We read that the elder son had obeyed his father's rules , this represents the law of Moses and all it means in Jewish life even still today . The Jews r the firstborn witnesses . The younger son , us Christians , we have been off sinning and having all kinds of worldly experiences . God forgives us through Christ . ( The Jews found no forgiveness under the law ) . So the two covenants r reconciled to their father who is God . They r both loved .

The truth is that it's not the son that ran off and returned that is the real subject matter and focus of the parable. It's the older son. Jesus is telling the pharisees this parable, and it's the older son that was all "I've been here with you the whole time, serving you well with honor and respect, why have you never cooked a fat calf for me in celebration?". The older brother was lost in his own self-righteousness and confused about the forgiveness of the father and where that authority came from. When you go back and read it we see that the cartoonishly horrible younger son who was humbled and turned from his sin back to the father was forgiven, but we are never told about the salvation status of the older brother. This was the real point of the parable; it was a warning to the pharisees He was talking to at the time. Not that the younger sons' part isn't 100% truth and who we tend to relate with the most, it's just not the lesson Jesus was teaching the people He was talking to at that time. I just find this an interesting perspective to consider, and it makes a lot of sense when reading the parable in this light.

 

[PennEd]

“What man of you, having 100 sheep IF HE LOSES ONE OF THEM does not leave the 99 and go after THE ONE WHO IS LOST? SO Jesus CAN LOSE A SHEEP after all!! Did some “stranger” steal this sheep? NO! This speep LEFT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL. HE left the fold of Christ and HE WAS LOST—not just physically in this story—HE WAS LOST SPIRITUALLY! I know this because in verse 7 JESUS calls him A “SINNER WHO REPENTS” and identifies him as the one who was lost from the 99 others. This is proof that a child of God can leave God and be lost.
John 10 is not even talking about the same thing —much less “proof” that a saved person can’t leave Christ and be lost.

Probably stated in this thread already, but bears repeating:

LUKE 15

4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost UNTIL HE FINDS IT?

God will NEVER lose one of His, and will do whatever it takes to draw them back, find them, and restore them.

Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS CHILDREN!!!

 

[Suze]

The truth is that it's not the son that ran off and returned that is the real subject matter and focus of the parable. It's the older son. Jesus is telling the pharisees this parable, and it's the older son that was all "I've been here with you the whole time, serving you well with honor and respect, why have you never cooked a fat calf for me in celebration?". The older brother was lost in his own self-righteousness and confused about the forgiveness of the father and where that authority came from. When you go back and read it we see that the cartoonishly horrible younger son who was humbled and turned from his sin back to the father was forgiven, but we are never told about the salvation status of the older brother. This was the real point of the parable; it was a warning to the pharisees He was talking to at the time. Not that the younger sons' part isn't 100% truth and who we tend to relate with the most, it's just not the lesson Jesus was teaching the people He was talking to at that time. I just find this an interesting perspective to consider, and it makes a lot of sense when reading the parable in this light.

When I read it in Luke Ch 15 , verse 29 sticks out to me , the firstborn ( Israel /Jews ) says : Lo , these many years do I serve thee ( years before the second son , us Christians , were even born ) , neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment : ( the laws given to Moses ) it's the seconds sons words that make me think that he represents the first covenant , the law of Moses and the physical nation of Israel .
Then in verse 32 : for this thy brother was dead ( in sin , us who were not part of the old covenant and were dead in sin ) and is alive again ; through the new covenant of forgiveness in Christ . I'm not always very good at explaining things so please forgive my clumsiness .

 

[Suze]

The truth is that it's not the son that ran off and returned that is the real subject matter and focus of the parable. It's the older son. Jesus is telling the pharisees this parable, and it's the older son that was all "I've been here with you the whole time, serving you well with honor and respect, why have you never cooked a fat calf for me in celebration?". The older brother was lost in his own self-righteousness and confused about the forgiveness of the father and where that authority came from. When you go back and read it we see that the cartoonishly horrible younger son who was humbled and turned from his sin back to the father was forgiven, but we are never told about the salvation status of the older brother. This was the real point of the parable; it was a warning to the pharisees He was talking to at the time. Not that the younger sons' part isn't 100% truth and who we tend to relate with the most, it's just not the lesson Jesus was teaching the people He was talking to at that time. I just find this an interesting perspective to consider, and it makes a lot of sense when reading the parable in this light.

The first son things he's good in his father's sight because he kept his father's commandments , the second son knows he's done wrong but has faith in his father's love and forgiveness , remind u of anything ? 😜

 

[Beckworth]

I've always thought that the prodigal son parable was about the Jews and Christians as we became known , or rather about the two covenants that God made , one with the Jews and one with us . We read that the elder son had obeyed his father's rules , this represents the law of Moses and all it means in Jewish life even still today . The Jews r the firstborn witnesses . The younger son , us Christians , we have been off sinning and having all kinds of worldly experiences . God forgives us through Christ . ( The Jews found no forgiveness under the law ) . So the two covenants r reconciled to their father who is God . They r both loved .

The Father in this parable obviously is God. He had 2 sons—both are His and God’s inheritance is divided between them both. The younger son had an inheritance from his Father just like the older son. They were BOTH God’s children. They were BOTH part of God’s family. But the younger son TOOK his INHERITANCE which would represent “Heaven”, “salvation”, eternal life” and threw it away! Wasted it on sinful living. Now if a child of God can’t lose his inheritance even though he is sinning, then instead of saying he “wasted” it, or “spent ALL OF IT”, the scriptures should have said, HE STILL HAD HIS INHERITANCE; it was still there for him. It didn’t go away like the scriptures say in this. passage. The fact that he “spent all” and was in want and starving when the famine came, proves that he no longer had his inheritance. It was gone! He threw it away by sinful living. He no longer has an inheritance. How can this be and what does this mean if it isn’t possible to lose eternal life ( our inheritance). And 2) if a child of God can’t be lost, why did the Father say, “ This son of mine WAS LOST…?verse 24? This parable portrayed a child of God that can so sin as to lose his salvation ( inheritance) and be lost. These are God’s words—not mine. God is talking. Be careful, you know that whatever God says Satan will twist, distort, and try to change so that you will not believe the truth. You have the same choice that Eve had; believe God or believe Satan.

 

[Beckworth]

When I read it in Luke Ch 15 , verse 29 sticks out to me , the firstborn ( Israel /Jews ) says : Lo , these many years do I serve thee ( years before the second son , us Christians , were even born ) , neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment : ( the laws given to Moses ) it's the seconds sons words that make me think that he represents the first covenant , the law of Moses and the physical nation of Israel .
Then in verse 32 : for this thy brother was dead ( in sin , us who were not part of the old covenant and were dead in sin ) and is alive again ; through the new covenant of forgiveness in Christ . I'm not always very good at explaining things so please forgive my clumsiness .

Notice who this parable is for in verse 2: the Pharisees and Scribes complained ( they are the “elder brother.”). Verse 3, “So He spoke this parable FOR THEM!” These are ALL JEWS that Jesus is talking about according to the context. They are ALL children of God. They are ALL God’s people. There are no gentiles here. The tax collectors and sinners were Jews who the Pharisees hated and looked down on. Remember their “complaint” was that Jesus ate with sinners. The parable is not about Jews and gentiles. The “list” in their parable are not gentiles— they are the Jewish tax collectors and the sinners are Jewish also. They were ALL God’s people, family, sons. But even among the Jews, salvation could be “lost.” Jesus never taught “salvation not matter what”. , not even to God’s chosen people. The context tells us who the parable is for and who the characters are.

 

[Gideon300]

The context surrounding a verse is so important. Verses are not little “islands”. Sitting all by themselves in a “sea” of words. The context of a passage is necessary to get a true understanding of the passage.

In John 10, Jesus is using an analogy of a shepherd and his sheep. Obviously, this analogy is about Jesus and His followers. His “sheep” follow him because they “know” Him. We understand these “sheep” are the “saved.” Jesus says no one, not “thieves, or robbers” in verses 1, 8, and 10. And not “strangers” in verse 5, and not “hirelings in verses 12 and 13. Can steal or take the sheep away from Him. Verse 29. This illustrates the security of the believer who follows the “good shepherd”, Christ. These verse are used as “proof” that a saved person can’t lose his salvation. But that isn’t what this passage is portraying. This IS about “sheep” getting STOLEN, not LEAVING! That is not the same thing. It is true that when a saved person is IN THE FOLD OF Christ, no one can STEAL them away. However, this story DOES NOT address the issue of a saved person LEAVING the fold of Christ; thus scripture only says they can’t be taken away by another person or some OUTSIDE force.

Here is another story told by Jesus that DOES teach the TRUTH about “can a saved person lose his salvation.” It’s in Luke 15:4-7. Again we are talking about “sheep” and the good shepherd. Christ.
“What man of you, having 100 sheep IF HE LOSES ONE OF THEM does not leave the 99 and go after THE ONE WHO IS LOST? SO Jesus CAN LOSE A SHEEP after all!! Did some “stranger” steal this sheep? NO! This speep LEFT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL. HE left the fold of Christ and HE WAS LOST—not just physically in this story—HE WAS LOST SPIRITUALLY! I know this because in verse 7 JESUS calls him A “SINNER WHO REPENTS” and identifies him as the one who was lost from the 99 others. This is proof that a child of God can leave God and be lost.
John 10 is not even talking about the same thing —much less “proof” that a saved person can’t leave Christ and be lost.

Does "lost" mean going to hell? I beg to differ. The first step in salvation is to be born again. This is something that God does. The new believer instantly receives a new spirit from God. It is not the Holy Spirit. It is according to God's promise (Ezekiel 36:26).

The new believer has eternal life. I don't know which part of eternal life is able to die. A number of verses tell us that we were born dead in trespass and sin. They also tell us that God made us alive in Christ. And we are made to be new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17).

In order for me to love my born again experience, you will have to go back in time and stop Jesus rising from the dead. That is the basis for me being born again. There have been times when I was far from God. He promised that He would never leave me or forsake me. My God has kept that promise in spite of me, not because of me.

There is a second aspect to salvation and that is conditional. It relates to placement God's kingdom on earth and to rewards in heaven. This is referred to as the salvation of the soul. It is a process that takes a lifetime. If you imagine that a born again Christian can be found in hell, then your concept of salvation needs updating. There will be many who claim to be saved in hell. But they are those who are Christian in name only.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

All Because Of The Precious Saviour's Finished BLOOD-Work Done On The Cross,
we poor and sinful creatures Can Have:


( 'link' and "scroll" down 1/2 page )

Give All Thanks And Praise To Him, The Great God And our Only Saviour, Jesus Christ!

Amen.

 

[posthuman]

When you go back and read it we see that the cartoonishly horrible younger son who was humbled and turned from his sin back to the father was forgiven, but we are never told about the salvation status of the older brother.

that the older brother asked for his inheritance while the father still lived is reprehensibly awful. it's equivalent to wishing your parents dead.

he would/should have been stoned to death if this was a a real event.

notice too he made accusations about the younger brother spending his money on prostitutes, but there's no evidence of that in the account - only his brother's remarks, which are in context, not trustworthy. it's likely he was publicly airing false accusations because he intended to kill both his father and his brother in order to secure all the family wealth for himself: an evil the pharisees, represented by him, did in fact intend.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

that the older brother asked for his inheritance while the father still lived is reprehensibly awful. it's equivalent to wishing your parents dead.

he would/should have been stoned to death if this was a a real event.

notice too he made accusations about the younger brother spending his money on prostitutes, but there's no evidence of that in the account - only his brother's remarks, which are in context, not trustworthy. it's likely he was publicly airing false accusations because he intended to kill both his father and his brother in order to secure all the family wealth for himself: an evil the pharisees, represented by him, did in fact intend.

I don't understand something. Why should the older brother be stoned to death and not the younger brother???

Luke 15:28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

I don't see him asking his father for his inheritance? So where do you see him doing that?

Instead, I see the younger son asking for his own inheritance - while his father was still alive.

Luke 15:11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them."

So by your assumption, he should have been stoned to death instead - but you don't make that judgment call. Why is that???

Then you speculated that the older son wanted to kill his father and younger brother to secure the family wealth for himself, but his father already told him:

Luke 15:31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.

So the older son still has his full inheritance - it won't be reduced to give more to the younger son who already squandered his. Nowhere in that parable does it say or even imply that he wants to or plans to kill his father and younger brother. Why would you make such an assumption???

I'm not sure why people condemn the older son so harshly. If anything, he was the faithful son who worked hard for and was obedience to his father, never asked for his inheritance to be given to him while his father remained alive and never squandered it. All I see is that he got angry because he felt unappreciated for being so loyal to his father and working hard for him.

Wouldn't you feel the same way if you loved your father by staying with him, working hard for him and obeying him? His reaction was perfectly understandable - notice that the father didn't even condemn his older son for complaining! His father actually comforted him and reassured him - "Everything I have is yours" (Luke 15:31b).

Overall, for me, I don't see this as a parable between Jews and Gentiles or even among Jews. I see this parable simply as the older and younger sons being God's people, whether they were Jewish or Gentile believers. One remained faithful and obedient to the Lord, the other had gone away and squandered his inheritance. While the younger son was away from his father, the father saw him as lost and dead, and then found and alive when the younger son came back to him.

Which shows that a follower of God can be lost and spiritually dead, but can still come back to the Lord so long as he hasn't physically died. This parable is to encourage people who have left God to come back and be fully assured that God will be happy to take them back.

On the flip side - this parable also shows that the faithful believer's inheritance remains intact - the faithful believer won't lose his portion or even have his portion reduced to give more to the prodigal believer who had already squandered his portion. It also shows that God fully appreciates His loyal children and that He hasn't overlooked their faithfulness and hard work for Him.


🌞

 

[posthuman]

I don't understand something. Why should the older brother be stoned to death and not the younger brother???

Luke 15:28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

I don't see him asking his father for his inheritance? So where do you see him doing that?

Instead, I see the younger son asking for his own inheritance - while his father was still alive.

Luke 15:11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them."

So by your assumption, he should have been stoned to death instead - but you don't make that judgment call. Why is that???

Then you speculated that the older son wanted to kill his father and younger brother to secure the family wealth for himself, but his father already told him:

Luke 15:31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.

So the older son still has his full inheritance - it won't be reduced to give more to the younger son who already squandered his. Nowhere in that parable does it say or even imply that he wants to or plans to kill his father and younger brother. Why would you make such an assumption???

I'm not sure why people condemn the older son so harshly. If anything, he was the faithful son who worked hard for and was obedience to his father, never asked for his inheritance to be given to him while his father remained alive and never squandered it. All I see is that he got angry because he felt unappreciated for being so loyal to his father and working hard for him.

Wouldn't you feel the same way if you loved your father by staying with him, working hard for him and obeying him? His reaction was perfectly understandable - notice that the father didn't even condemn his older son for complaining! His father actually comforted him and reassured him - "Everything I have is yours" (Luke 15:31b).

Overall, for me, I don't see this as a parable between Jews and Gentiles or even among Jews. I see this parable simply as the older and younger sons being God's people, whether they were Jewish or Gentile believers. One remained faithful and obedient to the Lord, the other had gone away and squandered his inheritance. While the younger son was away from his father, the father saw him as lost and dead, and then found and alive when the younger son came back to him.

Which shows that a follower of God can be lost and spiritually dead, but can still come back to the Lord so long as he hasn't physically died. This parable is to encourage people who have left God to come back and be fully assured that God will be happy to take them back.

On the flip side - this parable also shows that the faithful believer's inheritance remains intact - the faithful believer won't lose his portion or even have his portion reduced to give more to the prodigal believer who had already squandered his portion. It also shows that God fully appreciates His loyal children and that He hasn't overlooked their faithfulness and hard work for Him.


🌞

both!

 

[Beckworth]

Does "lost" mean going to hell? I beg to differ. The first step in salvation is to be born again. This is something that God does. The new believer instantly receives a new spirit from God. It is not the Holy Spirit. It is according to God's promise (Ezekiel 36:26).

The new believer has eternal life. I don't know which part of eternal life is able to die. A number of verses tell us that we were born dead in trespass and sin. They also tell us that God made us alive in Christ. And we are made to be new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17).

In order for me to love my born again experience, you will have to go back in time and stop Jesus rising from the dead. That is the basis for me being born again. There have been times when I was far from God. He promised that He would never leave me or forsake me. My God has kept that promise in spite of me, not because of me.

There is a second aspect to salvation and that is conditional. It relates to placement God's kingdom on earth and to rewards in heaven. This is referred to as the salvation of the soul. It is a process that takes a lifetime. If you imagine that a born again Christian can be found in hell, then your concept of salvation needs updating. There will be many who claim to be saved in hell. But they are those who are Christian in name only.

Ezekiel 36:26 is not talking to or about “Christian’s.” Read the context! Verse 22..”Therefore, say TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL…” God is talking to His chosen people, the Jews. If you are a gentile, these words were never spoken to you (or me). All of the promises between verses 22-32 were all for and about bringing the Jews out of captivity and replacing them in the promised land again. Verse 32 ends with “Be ashamed…O house of Israel.”. You are taking this verse completely out of it’s context and applying it to something entirely different in the New Testament for which it was never intended.

 

[mailmandan]

All Because Of The Precious Saviour's Finished BLOOD-Work Done On The Cross,
we poor and sinful creatures Can Have:

View attachment 275298
( 'link' and "scroll" down 1/2 page )

Give All Thanks And Praise To Him, The Great God And our Only Saviour, Jesus Christ!

Amen.

Amen! Salvation is DONE (it is finished!) and not DO (works salvation). Romans 4:4 - Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: ✝️

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

both!

🌞

 

[Beckworth]

Probably stated in this thread already, but bears repeating:

LUKE 15

4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost UNTIL HE FINDS IT?

God will NEVER lose one of His, and will do whatever it takes to draw them back, find them, and restore them.

Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS CHILDREN!!!

I agree this sheep was one of His children. And that’s a very important point because Jesus is the one telling this story and JESUS says that the “shepherd” (Jesus). LOST one of His sheep verse 4. In spite of the fact that YOU SAY “God will never lose one of His” Jesus says He did lose one. You are contradicting the Son of God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? Because you are not saying the same thing that Jesus is saying.

The point is that this parable shows a “sheep” of Jesus being “lost.” In Jesus’s own words. Jesus even says the “shepherd” acknowledges the sheep was LOST in verse 6. He says, “I have found my sheep WHICH WAS LOST.” AND YEY YOU SAY God will never lose one of His. Not true. According to Jesus..

Yes, Jesus found him and brought him back after he REPENTED. Verse 7 makes the point that this sheep repented but the other 99 needed no repentance. Heaven was rejoicing because THIS sheep repented. This sheep is called a “sinner.”
1) a sheep of God, can leave the “fold” of Christ the good shepherd. Verse 4
2) this sheep was “lost” physically in the parable and “spiritually” in verse 7
3) this sheep was called a sinner. Verse 7
4) this sheep “repented” before he was restored to the fold of the shepherd. Verse 7
These are the facts of the parable in Jesus’s own words.

I will have to believe Him over you.

 

[PennEd]

I agree this sheep was one of His children. And that’s a very important point because Jesus is the one telling this story and JESUS says that the “shepherd” (Jesus). LOST one of His sheep verse 4. In spite of the fact that YOU SAY “God will never lose one of His” Jesus says He did lose one. You are contradicting the Son of God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? Because you are not saying the same thing that Jesus is saying.

The point is that this parable shows a “sheep” of Jesus being “lost.” In Jesus’s own words. Jesus even says the “shepherd” acknowledges the sheep was LOST in verse 6. He says, “I have found my sheep WHICH WAS LOST.” AND YEY YOU SAY God will never lose one of His. Not true. According to Jesus..

Yes, Jesus found him and brought him back after he REPENTED. Verse 7 makes the point that this sheep repented but the other 99 needed no repentance. Heaven was rejoicing because THIS sheep repented. This sheep is called a “sinner.”
1) a sheep of God, can leave the “fold” of Christ the good shepherd. Verse 4
2) this sheep was “lost” physically in the parable and “spiritually” in verse 7
3) this sheep was called a sinner. Verse 7
4) this sheep “repented” before he was restored to the fold of the shepherd. Verse 7
These are the facts of the parable in Jesus’s own words.

I will have to believe Him over you.

You conveniently neglected the part that was BIGGGGLY HIGHLIGHTED!

He will draw you to Him and seek you UNTIL HE FINDS YOU.

Is God incapable of finding you when you go astray?

Jesus will lose NONE of those His Father gives Him.
So you agree we are talking about a saved person the Father gave Jesus, that left the flock and potentially is lost forever.

YOU, are saying that it isn't true that ALL that the Father gave Him will never be permanently lost, and that Jesus is incapable of finding them even though He says He won't stop searching for them UNTIL HE FINDS THEM.

The real question in these debates is, why do you so desperately WANT to believe that God will lose One of His, and ultimately toss one of His kids into hell? Why?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

You conveniently neglected the part that was BIGGGGLY HIGHLIGHTED!

He will draw you to Him and seek you UNTIL HE FINDS YOU.

Is God incapable of finding you when you go astray?

Jesus will lose NONE of those His Father gives Him.
So you agree we are talking about a saved person the Father gave Jesus, that left the flock and potentially is lost forever.

YOU, are saying that it isn't true that ALL that the Father gave Him will never be permanently lost, and that Jesus is incapable of finding them even though He says He won't stop searching for them UNTIL HE FINDS THEM.

The real question in these debates is, why do you so desperately WANT to believe that God will lose One of His, and ultimately toss one of His kids into hell? Why?

Please read this verse carefully:

John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

In this sentence, there are actually TWO groups of people being described here: 1) those the Father gives to Jesus, and 2) whoever else comes to Jesus.

So what @Beckworth wrote actually doesn't contradict anything Jesus says.

1) The people that God the Father gives to Jesus have heard and learned from Him and know that they will listen to His Son and will not grieve the Holy Spirit when He is given to them. He saw into the future and foreknew that these people made up in their free-will minds that they were never going to leave Jesus.

2) The second group, the "whoever else," is another story. These are the people who came to him because they received free food from Him (that was already discussed earlier in John 6) and they left Him when He started talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. So will it be with the future "whoever else" that comes to Jesus. These are the people who will leave Him. But NOTICE that Jesus won't be the one to discourage and drive them away from Himself - they will leave Him out of their own free will because of their selfishness and lack of desire to let the Holy Spirit change them.


🌞