So lay out the verses and let's see. One by one, back up what you say in these unreferenced narratives. Show me where you get God giving a man to Christ in John6. If it's there I'll agree with you.
Understanding God’s election
- Thread starter dougcho
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So lay out the verses and let's see. One by one, back up what you say in these unreferenced narratives. Show me where you get God giving a man to Christ in John6. If it's there I'll agree with you.
JN 6:37 says, "All those the Father gives me will come to me..."
JN 6:39, "This is the will of of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."
JN 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them."
JN 12:32, "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
(Ergo, Rufus must be a universalist Calvinist! :^)
See this post re: those verses.
So, I'm still asking where a verse in John 6 is that says the Father gives a man to Jesus.
Well. that is not said anywhere in John 6, and is not at all an obvious inference to make from "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him."
The Greek text does not say, "the will of the Father is that ALL that He gives to Jesus should lose nothing and should raise them up on the last day." It says, the will of the Father is that of ALL that He gives to Jesus, Jesus should lose nothing, but should raise it up on the last day."
None of that supports what you are claiming the text means.
The resurrection of all the dead and the restoration of the universe is still future at the last 1000 year long day of the Lord. If Jesus resurrects all people and the universe in the future, He will have not lost nothing, but have raised it up at the last day. So, there is nothing problematic in the Father giving everything (pan) over to Jesus.
Why would I think that my finite self can understand an infinite God exhaustively? You are the one making claims to absolutely know the nature and character of God beyond what is revealed in the sacred revelation He has given of Himself. We do agree that what God intended for mankind will one day come to complete fruition. We may disagree on when that will happen. At Christ's return He will rule over the mations with a rod of iron. I doubt that is what God intended for mankind coming to complete fruition.
Yeah, I remember that post. You think God doesn't give any human being to his Son -- only "things" right? (Going from memory) What THINGS do you think God gave to Jesus? And do thing THINGS freely exercise faith? And will these THINGS experience the physical resurrection -- many unto life and many others unto contempt? And was it THINGS that followed him over to Capernaum? And was it THINGS Jesus was addressing in his discourse?
I think the language says precisely what it says. I and others work to translate precisely what it says. From there much of the time it takes more work to determine what it means. This is the work in all literature, including the Bible.
John is building point upon point as he proceeds through this document. By the time we get to John5-6 that we've been discussing, he's already laid some groundwork for much of the terminology. Here's an example of what 6:37a relates to:
35 "The Father loves the Son, and has given all [things] into His hand. (Jn. 3:35 NKJ) (My bracketing)
This is one reason we can't arbitrarily be exchanging neuter for masculine. John is building more than one topic. I think @PaulThomson pointed this out earlier. Why not get in the flow with some accuracy and stop militating against the language?
So, tell me, sir: How do THINGS come to Jesus? And what THINGS specifically does the Father give to Jesus: The sun, the moon, the starts, the mountains, the valleys, the deserts, the seas, what?
Also, see my 9059 written a week ago wherein I did a word usage study on the Gr. term "pas". There's more than one mismatch of genders in the NT.
Explain to me, then, how Jesus can lose THINGS? Are THINGS like sheep who can fall away or stray? And how are THINGS raised up on the last day? I'm aware of only the physical resurrection of God's image-bearers.
Yeah, so much dishonesty and twisting of what is said. Whoever is a person. Whoever distinguishes whatever gibberish
thing the other was trying to say "all" means. Unbelievable the lengths people go to in order to deny what is plainly stated.
John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
I never claimed to know the mind of God exhaustively. That's a lie.
Christ is already ruling the nations, through the Gospel, with the rod of iron.
There will be no "rod of iron" necessary in the New Order of the restored earth. There will be no rebellious souls in the visible kingdom.
Yeah, so much dishonesty and twisting of what is said. Whoever is a person. Whoever distinguishes whatever gibberish
thing the other was trying to say "all" means. Unbelievable the lengths people go to in order to deny what is plainly stated.
John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Don't you know "whoever" is a mistake? The text should read WHATEVER comes to me...
Recently, I asked the question to which, apparently, there were no takers. I asked: Why did God decree/permit the Fall of Mankind? I have long pondered this question until someone quoted Augustine's short 'n' sweet answer which was (to paraphrase him): God thought it better for mankind to have the knowledge of good and evil, rather than not to have it.
Then I pondered Augustine's answer with more questions. Why was it better? How was it better? How did it benefit mankind? How did it benefit God? Since the bible is christocentric then I figured the answer must be bound up with the Second Man. Then one day, many moons ago as I was reading Romans, two texts therein jumped off the page at me. Here they are:
Rom 3:25-26
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
NIV
And,
Rom 5:8
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
NIV
What both of these passages say to me is that both God's infinite justice (or righteousness) and the depth, height, width and breadth of his eternal love for his people are best demonstrated by the Cross of Christ. If there had been no fall and A&E passed the test they were given, mankind would have, paradoxically, been left in the dark to a great extent with respect to God's qualities, attributes and character. How would mankind know anything about grace? About mercy? About compassion? How would have mankind ever learned that God's love extends to his enemies and not only to his friends? How would have mankind ever learned that God loves his people so much that he was willing to become a man and die for his people so that they could live? If A&E had not sinned, they would have never seen this side to God. Mankind would likely have believed: "Well, God loves us because we're faithful, obedient children just as our Grand Patriarch and Matriarch were." In other words, all mankind would have likely believed that they worthy of God's love!
Or how would have mankind ever found out about the extent of God's righteousness (or justice)? God is so righteous that he cannot allow sin to go unpunished! He cannot extend mercy or grace or compassion at the expense of his righteousness. Because He is infinitely just, then Justice must be served!
Therefore, I think Augustine's answer was wise. As odd as it may seem at first blush, it was better for man to have the knowledge of good and evil, and through the Fall God is even more glorified; for now we know that no one deserves or is worthy of his grace, mercy, compassion and most of all of his love! The Fall of mankind presented the opportunity for all humanity to see a side to God that we would not have been able to see if A&E had remained sinless.
Then I pondered Augustine's answer with more questions. Why was it better? How was it better? How did it benefit mankind? How did it benefit God? Since the bible is christocentric then I figured the answer must be bound up with the Second Man. Then one day, many moons ago as I was reading Romans, two texts therein jumped off the page at me. Here they are:
Rom 3:25-26
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
NIV
And,
Rom 5:8
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
NIV
What both of these passages say to me is that both God's infinite justice (or righteousness) and the depth, height, width and breadth of his eternal love for his people are best demonstrated by the Cross of Christ. If there had been no fall and A&E passed the test they were given, mankind would have, paradoxically, been left in the dark to a great extent with respect to God's qualities, attributes and character. How would mankind know anything about grace? About mercy? About compassion? How would have mankind ever learned that God's love extends to his enemies and not only to his friends? How would have mankind ever learned that God loves his people so much that he was willing to become a man and die for his people so that they could live? If A&E had not sinned, they would have never seen this side to God. Mankind would likely have believed: "Well, God loves us because we're faithful, obedient children just as our Grand Patriarch and Matriarch were." In other words, all mankind would have likely believed that they worthy of God's love!
Or how would have mankind ever found out about the extent of God's righteousness (or justice)? God is so righteous that he cannot allow sin to go unpunished! He cannot extend mercy or grace or compassion at the expense of his righteousness. Because He is infinitely just, then Justice must be served!
Therefore, I think Augustine's answer was wise. As odd as it may seem at first blush, it was better for man to have the knowledge of good and evil, and through the Fall God is even more glorified; for now we know that no one deserves or is worthy of his grace, mercy, compassion and most of all of his love! The Fall of mankind presented the opportunity for all humanity to see a side to God that we would not have been able to see if A&E had remained sinless.
According to the verse you're likely referencing, the Father gives those things to Jesus, so this is how those things come to Jesus.
Well, you're probably not far off but clarity would come from outside of GJohn. Try Ps2:8 for example. I did give you John3:35. Did you figure out what things John is writing about there? There are several of those types of verses in GJohn. Have you looked? If you do the work, you'll end up finding some things you'll like for some of your arguments. YOu may have even mentioned some of them already. "Give" and cognates (in Greek) show up in GJohn + 1-3John 82 times in 70 verses. Do some work. I'll provide a copy of all the verses if you need some help.
I'll answer this in another post. 9059 IMO left some detail to be desired. I'll likely go to 9252 instead. @PaulThomson answered you in 9279 and provided a simple explanation. You answered in 9302. Actually, I'll probably just start at 9302.