Calvinism and Abortion

@SPF

I already answered you several times. Not sure what else more you want to hear from me. I don't have to bow before you and say certain words you want to hear in order for you to lock in a false conclusion that you are no doubt trying to push.

I explained John 6:44-45 to the best of my ability. If that is not good enough for you, I suggest you move on. For you ignore other verses that I bring forth.

For example: Do you believe that a believer can fall away?

Here are several lists of verses that makes it absolutely clear that believers can fall away from the faith:

Here is a General List of Verses on How Believers Can Fall Away:


Now, do not misunderstand me, believers cannot lose their salvation (like they would a pair of car keys), but they can forfeit their salvation (i.e. they can willingly throw it away by rebelling against God). In fact,

Here is a list of believers who have forfeited their salvation:


And here is a list of potential fallen believers:


In fact, Paul is against Eternal Security or a sin and still be saved type belief. For Paul says,

1. We can fall from grace (Galatians 5:4).
   
   
2. We can be moved away from the hope (Colossians 1:23).
   
   
3. We can be a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:27).
   
   
4. We can be cut off just like the Jews if we do not continue in God’s goodness (Romans 11:20-22).
   
   
5. We can sow to the flesh and reap corruption instead of sowing to the Spirit which reaps everlasting life. (Galatians 6:8).
   
   
6. We can deny God by a lack of good works (Titus 1:16).
   
   
7. We can shipwreck our faith (1 Timothy 1:19).
   
   
8. We can deny the faith and be worse than an infidel if we do not provide for our own household (1 Timothy 5:8).
   
   
9. We can err from the faith and pierce ourselves thru with many sorrows if we love and covet after money (1 Timothy 6:10).
   
   
10. Hymnenaeus and Philetus have overthrown the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:18).

SPF said:

Great! I'm glad to hear it! These Jews in question were incapable on their own, no matter how much reading, sacrificing, or seeking they did to come to Jesus on their own without FIRST the Father drawing them. I'm glad you can accept that! Progress!

Click to expand...

See, this is what I am talking about. You wanted me to play your game in admitting certain words that you agree with in order to draw a wrong conclusion. I knew this was your end game, but my agreeing with John 6:44 does not mean I agree with your slant on that verse. We do not read verses in a vacuum to the rest of the Bible. You think that if the Jews sought after coming to GOD or the Lord Jesus Christ, that the Father would not draw them? That is what your statement here is suggesting. That no matter how much they sought after GOD, that God would not draw them or move in their life. This is false. Yes, I admit that no man can come to GOD on his OWN TERMS that are not written in the Word of GOD (the Holy Bible), but this is not talking about the Jew who is coming to GOD on the terms as written in His Word.

Jeremiah 29:13 says, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”

@SPF

Again, I am not denying a person can come to GOD without GOD. But if we believe and obey GOD's Word (the Holy Bible) then GOD moves in our lives. Your last statement that I replied to suggests that this would not happen. That GOD would not move in a person's life even if they sought after GOD. This is really false and wrong. Jesus is not saying that a person cannot come to GOD if they play ball on God's terms. Jesus is referring to how these Jews cannot come to GOD on their OWN TERMS.

Not sure if you ever read Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42 lately, but these verses are saying that the Pharisees ignored the weightier matters of the Law like love, faith, justice, and mercy. So these Jews were not approaching or coming to GOD because they did not have love, and faith, etc. They were coming to GOD on their own terms and in a wrong way without faith. Hebrews 11 says that without faith, it is impossible to please GOD.

If these Jews were obeying God's Word, then they would have fulfilled the CONDITION of verse 45 in John 6:44-45 and they would then be drawn by the Father to Jesus Christ. But Jesus told the Jews that they are of their father the devil. They did the lusts of their father. They sinned and they justified their sin and thought they were good with GOD because they were sons of Abraham. But Jesus told them in John 8:47 that he that is of God hears God's words. The question is: Do you believe these other verses I mentioned so far?

Bible Highlighter said:

You think that if the Jews sought after coming to GOD or the Lord Jesus Christ, that the Father would not draw them? That is what your statement here is suggesting.

Click to expand...

No it's not. I certainly expect that the Father would draw a Jew who sought after coming to God. But, according to Jesus, they wouldn't come to Christ without FIRST, the Father drawing them. And that's pretty important to recognize and understand.

The fact that Jesus outlines a conditional statement about something needing to happen that the Jew could not facilitate on their own before they came to Christ is really quite important to recognize.

Bible Highlighter said:

That no matter how much they sought after GOD, that God would not draw them or move in their life. This is false.

Click to expand...

I never suggested otherwise. Again, you're like, the king of straw-men. I never once talked about who the Father would or would not draw. I'm just stating what Scripture says, that a drawing is a pre-requisite for these Jews in context to come to Christ. I'm not adding anything beyond that. You're doing yourself and this discussion a continued disservice by inappropriately adding to what I'm saying.

Bible Highlighter said:

You wanted me to play your game in admitting certain words that you agree with in order to draw a wrong conclusion.

Click to expand...

I wanted you to face the passage and be honest about it. It's difficult for both the Semi-Pelagian and the Augustinian couch theologian to do this.

Bible Highlighter said:

Not sure if you ever read Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42 lately, but these verses are saying that the Pharisees ignored the weightier matters of the Law like love, faith, justice, and mercy.

Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't actually read them lately! Here's a great snippet from a sermon that Johnathan Edwards preached about the grace of God. You know, even though He wasn't a semi-Pelagian, he did write about things other than predestination. In fact, he wrote more on grace than anything else. I sadly suspect you've never read anything from him. So here, enjoy this snippet:

The mercy of God is that attribute which we, the fallen, sinful race of Adam, stand in greatest need of, and God has been pleased, according to our needs, more gloriously to manifest this attribute than any other. The wonders of divine grace are the greatest of all wonders. The wonders of divine power and wisdom in the making [of] this great world are marvelous; other wonders of his justice in punishing sin are wonderful; many wonderful things have happened since the creation of the world, but none like the wonders of grace. "Grace, grace!" is the sound that the gospel rings with, "Grace, grace!" will be that shout which will ring in heaven forever; and perhaps what the angels sung at the birth of Christ, of God's good will towards men, is the highest theme that ever they entered upon.

If Adam had stood and persevered in obedience, he would have been made happy by mere bounty [and] goodness; for God was not obliged to reward Adam for his perfect obedience any otherwise than by covenant, for Adam by standing would not have merited happiness. But yet this grace would not have been such as the grace of the gospel, for he would have been saved upon the account of what he himself did, but the salvation of the gospel is given altogether freely. Rom. 11:6, "And if by grace, then it is no more works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work."

That we may give you as full explication of this doctrine as we can in a little space, we shall first, show free grace shines forth in the distinct parts of this wondrous work of redemption; second, speak a little of the gloriousness of this grace.

I. But as to the first, every part of this work was performed of mere grace.

First. It was of free grace that God had any thoughts or designs of rescuing mankind after the fall. If there had not been an immense fountain of goodness in God, he would never have entertained any thoughts at all of ever redeeming us after our defection. Man was happy enough at first, and might have continued so to all eternity, if he would; he was not compelled to fall. If he had not willfully and sinfully rebelled against God, he would never have been driven forth like an unworthy wretch, as he was. But although God had been so overflowing in his bounty to him as to make him head over the lower creation and ruler of all other creatures, and had planted a garden on purpose for his delight, and would have fixed him in an eternal happiness only on the reasonable condition of his obeying the easy commands of his maker; but yet notwithstanding all, he rebelled and turned over, from God to the devil, out of a wicked ambition of being a god himself not content in that happy state that he was in as man and so rebelled against God's authority.

Now who but God of boundless grace, would not have been provoked, after this, to leave him as he was, in the miserable state into which he had brought himself by his disobedience; resolving to help him no more, leaving him to himself and to the punishment he had deserved, leaving him in the devil's hands where he had thrown himself, not being contented in the arms of his Creator; who, but one of boundless grace, would ever have entertained any thoughts of finding out a way for his recovery?

God had no manner of need of us, or of our praises. He has enough in himself for himself, and neither needs nor desires any additions of happiness, and if he did need the worship of his creatures, he had thousands and tenthousands of angels, and if he had not enough, he could create more; or, he could have glorified his justice in man's eternal destruction and ruin, and have with infinite ease created other beings, more perfect and glorious than man, eternally to sing his praises.

Second. But especially was it of rich and boundless grace that he gave his only Son for our restoration. By our fall, we are cast down so low into sin and misery, so deeply plunged into a most miserable and sinful condition, that it may truly be said, although all things are infinitely easy to God with respect to his omnipotency, yet with respect God's holiness and justice, God himself could not redeem us with a great deal of cost, no, not without infinite costs; that is, not without the presence of that, that is of infinite worth and value, even he blood of his Son, and in proper speaking, the blood of God, of divine person.

This was absolutely necessary in order to our redemption, because here was no other way of satisfying God's justice. When we were alien, it was come to this: either we must die eternally, or the Son of God must spill his blood; either we, or God's own Son must suffer God's wrath, one of the two; either miserable worms of the dust that had deserved it, or the glorious, amiable, beautiful, and innocent Son of God. The fall of man brought it to this; it must be determined one way or t'other and it was determined, by the strangely free and boundless grace of God, that this his own Son, should die that the offending worms might be freed, and set at liberty from their punishment, and that justice might make them happy. Here is grace indeed; well may we shout, "Grace, grace!" at this.

SPF said:

No it's not. I certainly expect that the Father would draw a Jew who sought after coming to God. But, according to Jesus, they wouldn't come to Christ without FIRST, the Father drawing them. And that's pretty important to recognize and understand.

Click to expand...

NO. That's not true. The first thing that needs to happen is not the drawing, but it needs to be the person hearing God's Word. That is the FIRST thing in the order of things here. The SECOND thing is God drawing them because they acted upon God's Word and heard and learned of the Father. So please stop saying it is the FIRST thing. Stop it already. You sound like you are pushing Calvinism.

You said:

The fact that Jesus outlines a conditional statement about something needing to happen that the Jew could not facilitate on their own before they came to Christ is really quite important to recognize.

Click to expand...

I know you are stuck in a feedback loop in John 6:44. But we do not isolate verses from the rest of Scripture.

You said:

I never suggested otherwise. Again, you're like, the king of straw-men. I never once talked about who the Father would or would not draw. I'm just stating what Scripture says, that a drawing is a pre-requisite for these Jews in context to come to Christ. I'm not adding anything beyond that. You're doing yourself and this discussion a continued disservice by inappropriately adding to what I'm saying.

I wanted you to face the passage and be honest about it. It's difficult for both the Semi-Pelagian and the Augustinian couch theologian to do this.

Click to expand...

You said certain Calvnists were great Theologians like John Calvin, Piper, etc.; So forgive me if I am not skeptical of your motives and or end game here. In fact, your end game has been revealed. You slipped out the statement that if the Jews sought after God they would not know of God.

Bible Highlighter said:

NO. That's not true. The first thing that needs to happen is not the drawing, but it needs to be the person hearing God's Word. That is the FIRST thing in the order of things here. The SECOND thing is God drawing them because they acted upon God's Word and heard and learned of the Father. So please stop saying it is the FIRST thing. Stop it already

Click to expand...

Umm, I've already accepted that the Jews that Jesus is referencing in verse 44 are the ones that you say they are.

1. The Jew in question was a Jew who had an active relationship with God the Father. They followed the law, engaged in sacrifices, they had heard and believed in God the Father.

2. Before they could come to Christ though, the Father had to FIRST draw them.

Let's not forget, you said: "Sure, I agree that without GOD and or without the Father's drawing, they could not come to JESUS. No doubt about it."

SPF said:

Clearly you haven't actually read them lately! Here's a great snippet from a sermon that Johnathan Edwards preached about the grace of God. You know, even though He wasn't a semi-Pelagian, he did write about things other than predestination. In fact, he wrote more on grace than anything else. I sadly suspect you've never read anything from him. So here, enjoy this snippet:

The mercy of God is that attribute which we, the fallen, sinful race of Adam, stand in greatest need of, and God has been pleased, according to our needs, more gloriously to manifest this attribute than any other. The wonders of divine grace are the greatest of all wonders. The wonders of divine power and wisdom in the making [of] this great world are marvelous; other wonders of his justice in punishing sin are wonderful; many wonderful things have happened since the creation of the world, but none like the wonders of grace. "Grace, grace!" is the sound that the gospel rings with, "Grace, grace!" will be that shout which will ring in heaven forever; and perhaps what the angels sung at the birth of Christ, of God's good will towards men, is the highest theme that ever they entered upon.

If Adam had stood and persevered in obedience, he would have been made happy by mere bounty [and] goodness; for God was not obliged to reward Adam for his perfect obedience any otherwise than by covenant, for Adam by standing would not have merited happiness. But yet this grace would not have been such as the grace of the gospel, for he would have been saved upon the account of what he himself did, but the salvation of the gospel is given altogether freely. Rom. 11:6, "And if by grace, then it is no more works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work."

That we may give you as full explication of this doctrine as we can in a little space, we shall first, show free grace shines forth in the distinct parts of this wondrous work of redemption; second, speak a little of the gloriousness of this grace.

I. But as to the first, every part of this work was performed of mere grace.

First. It was of free grace that God had any thoughts or designs of rescuing mankind after the fall. If there had not been an immense fountain of goodness in God, he would never have entertained any thoughts at all of ever redeeming us after our defection. Man was happy enough at first, and might have continued so to all eternity, if he would; he was not compelled to fall. If he had not willfully and sinfully rebelled against God, he would never have been driven forth like an unworthy wretch, as he was. But although God had been so overflowing in his bounty to him as to make him head over the lower creation and ruler of all other creatures, and had planted a garden on purpose for his delight, and would have fixed him in an eternal happiness only on the reasonable condition of his obeying the easy commands of his maker; but yet notwithstanding all, he rebelled and turned over, from God to the devil, out of a wicked ambition of being a god himself not content in that happy state that he was in as man and so rebelled against God's authority.

Now who but God of boundless grace, would not have been provoked, after this, to leave him as he was, in the miserable state into which he had brought himself by his disobedience; resolving to help him no more, leaving him to himself and to the punishment he had deserved, leaving him in the devil's hands where he had thrown himself, not being contented in the arms of his Creator; who, but one of boundless grace, would ever have entertained any thoughts of finding out a way for his recovery?

God had no manner of need of us, or of our praises. He has enough in himself for himself, and neither needs nor desires any additions of happiness, and if he did need the worship of his creatures, he had thousands and tenthousands of angels, and if he had not enough, he could create more; or, he could have glorified his justice in man's eternal destruction and ruin, and have with infinite ease created other beings, more perfect and glorious than man, eternally to sing his praises.

Second. But especially was it of rich and boundless grace that he gave his only Son for our restoration. By our fall, we are cast down so low into sin and misery, so deeply plunged into a most miserable and sinful condition, that it may truly be said, although all things are infinitely easy to God with respect to his omnipotency, yet with respect God's holiness and justice, God himself could not redeem us with a great deal of cost, no, not without infinite costs; that is, not without the presence of that, that is of infinite worth and value, even he blood of his Son, and in proper speaking, the blood of God, of divine person.

This was absolutely necessary in order to our redemption, because here was no other way of satisfying God's justice. When we were alien, it was come to this: either we must die eternally, or the Son of God must spill his blood; either we, or God's own Son must suffer God's wrath, one of the two; either miserable worms of the dust that had deserved it, or the glorious, amiable, beautiful, and innocent Son of God. The fall of man brought it to this; it must be determined one way or t'other and it was determined, by the strangely free and boundless grace of God, that this his own Son, should die that the offending worms might be freed, and set at liberty from their punishment, and that justice might make them happy. Here is grace indeed; well may we shout, "Grace, grace!" at this.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I am not reading his garbage. He is a Calvinist. This means you agree with the Calvnistic interpretation on John 6:44-45. You never really were not in favor of Calvinism if you are promoting this man. God does not elect some to salvation and elect others to reprobation against their own free will choice.

What you fail to understand is that while we do need to believe in the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25), we also need to walk in the light as He is in the light in order for the blood of Jesus Christ to cleanse us from all sin, too (1 John 1:7). Walking in the light is loving your brother. But while Mr. Edwards appears to be for holy living, my problem with his beliefs is that he holds to various tenets of Calvinism with the biggest error of Calvinism being Unconditional Election.

I mean, do you honestly believe GOD selects and or chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved against their own free will? That is what Unconditional Election teaches.

SPF said:

Umm, I've already accepted that the Jews that Jesus is referencing in verse 44 are the ones that you say they are.

Click to expand...

But do you believe that?

You said:

1. The Jew in question was a Jew who had an active relationship with God the Father. They followed the law, engaged in sacrifices, they had heard and believed in God the Father.

2. Before they could come to Christ though, the Father had to FIRST draw them.

Click to expand...

No. They had a relationship with GOD FIRST, and SECOND, God the Father draws them. So you got the order all wrong.

You said:

Let's not forget, you said: "Sure, I agree that without GOD and or without the Father's drawing, they could not come to JESUS. No doubt about it."

Click to expand...

Right, this is the same way you handle words that you do with the Bible. You isolate words out of context to fit your end game and conclusion you want to be true (despite anything else that is stated). You want these words to be read in a vacuum without any other information and thus make a person draw the wrong conclusion. If John 6:44 was the only verse in the Bible, then you might be on to something, but it's not.

Man has free will to choose God under God's drawing and or illumination:

Free Will in choosing God in the Bible:

#1. Joshua 24:15 KJV -
"Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"

#2. Matthew 11:28 KJV -
"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

#3. John 7:17 KJV -
"If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God."

#4. John 7:37 KJV -
"If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink."

#5. Acts 2:38 KJV -
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized"

#6. Acts 3:19 KJV -
"Repent therefore and be converted"

#7. Acts 16:31 KJV -
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"

#8. Acts 17:30 KJV -
"but now commands all men everywhere to repent"

#9. Revelation 22:17 KJV -
"Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely."

#10. Genesis 4:7 KJV -
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

#11. Revelation 22:17 KJ2
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

#12. Luke 13:34 NLT -
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me

The Jews had already chosen of their own free will ahead of time before they were being guided or illuminated or drawn by God the Father to Jesus Christ. So John 6:44 is not proof that the Calvnists claim it to mean. They ignore John 6:45 and focus their attentions on John 6:44 as if that was the only truth in the Bible.

Bible Highlighter said:

Sorry. I am not reading his garbage. He is a Calvinist.

Click to expand...

Well that's your loss! There's not one thing in the sermon I posted that you would not believe. It's just a really encouraging reminder of the grace of God. It's one of those refreshing, encouraging, and humbling sermons. But you are of course free to be a judgmental, ignorant fool and not read it.

Bible Highlighter said:

This means you agree with the Calvnistic interpretation on John 6:44-45.

Click to expand...

No, it certainly does not. Just because I like some of what a theologian says does not mean I agree with all that they said. I don't think I've ever agreed with 100% of anything any theologian or Pastor has ever said. Have you?

Bible Highlighter said:

You never really were not in favor of Calvinism if you are promoting this man.

Click to expand...

Again, a statement like this does more to expose your prejudice than anything else. Which is really just sad.

Bible Highlighter said:

What you fail to understand is that while we do need to believe in the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25), we also need to walk in the light as He is in the light in order for the blood of Jesus Christ to cleanse us from all sin, too (1 John 1:7). Walking in the light is loving your brother.

Click to expand...

I completely agree!

Bible Highlighter said:

I mean, do you honestly believe GOD selects and or chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved against their own free will?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not! I've never believed that.

Bible Highlighter said:

No. They had a relationship with GOD FIRST, and SECOND, God the Father draws them. So you got the order all wrong.

Click to expand...

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Let's try this again, for your benefit of course.

The person in question is the Jew, who believes and has a relationship with God. This is an OT Jew, who has not yet heard the name of Christ, who has not yet met Jesus Christ Incarnate. This is a God fearing, God believing, sacrificing, law abiding, "good" Jew. This is the person that Jesus is referencing when He utters verse 44, which is a conditional statement.

In 6:44, Jesus makes a conditional statement. The word "unless" is specifically used, and specifically means that there is an outcome that is dependent upon a condition. Just look at the verse, thankfully this isn't ambiguous.

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Outcome: Come to Jesus
Unless
Condition: Father draws them.

The word Scripture uses here for "unless" is eh-an. It is a conditional particle. It's used well over 200 times, and can mean before, but, except, when, etc... Jesus is making a conditional statement.

The conditional statement necessarily means that something must happen FIRST (the condition) BEFORE something else happens (the outcome).

So the context, which you provided, and I accepted is this:

The Bible believing (OT anyway) Jew, who has an active relationship with God the Father, who sacrifices, follows the law, etc... is the Jew that Jesus is specifically talking about in verse 44.

This Jew must first be drawn by the Father, before they can come to Him. This is exactly, what the verse says. It is a conditional statement. It isn't ambiguous, it is crystal clear.

SPF said:

Well that's your loss! There's not one thing in the sermon I posted that you would not believe. It's just a really encouraging reminder of the grace of God. It's one of those refreshing, encouraging, and humbling sermons. But you are of course free to be a judgmental, ignorant fool and not read it.

No, it certainly does not. Just because I like some of what a theologian says does not mean I agree with all that they said. I don't think I've ever agreed with 100% of anything any theologian or Pastor has ever said. Have you?

Again, a statement like this does more to expose your prejudice than anything else. Which is really just sad.

I completely agree!

Absolutely not! I've never believed that.

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Let's try this again, for your benefit of course.

The person in question is the Jew, who believes and has a relationship with God. This is an OT Jew, who has not yet heard the name of Christ, who has not yet met Jesus Christ Incarnate. This is a God fearing, God believing, sacrificing, law abiding, "good" Jew. This is the person that Jesus is referencing when He utters verse 44, which is a conditional statement.

In 6:44, Jesus makes a conditional statement. The word "unless" is specifically used, and specifically means that there is an outcome that is dependent upon a condition. Just look at the verse, thankfully this isn't ambiguous.

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Outcome: Come to Jesus
Unless
Condition: Father draws them.

The word Scripture uses here for "unless" is eh-an. It is a conditional particle. It's used well over 200 times, and can mean before, but, except, when, etc... Jesus is making a conditional statement.

The conditional statement necessarily means that something must happen FIRST (the condition) BEFORE something else happens (the outcome).

So the context, which you provided, and I accepted is this:

The Bible believing (OT anyway) Jew, who has an active relationship with God the Father, who sacrifices, follows the law, etc... is the Jew that Jesus is specifically talking about in verse 44.

This Jew must first be drawn by the Father, before they can come to Him. This is exactly, what the verse says. It is a conditional statement. It isn't ambiguous, it is crystal clear.

Click to expand...

There is no loss. Mr. Edwards promotes pure garbage. I can smell his garbage a mile away, and I want none of it after having tasted of God's good Word. Did you know that Mr. Edwards owned slaves? So that is the kind of man you are promoting that we shoud listen to.

As for your continual senseless repeating of your point that I already answered: We already played this game, and I figured out what your end game actually is. I am not going to repeat my answers to you that you will never accept.

I also would not quote from Calvinists anymore than I would quote from other Christians who I believe promote beliefs that I think are really wrong or false. Sure, there are some minor beliefs that I am willing to let slide amongst Christians when it comes to the faith (like the sons of Seth view, etc.), but Calvinism is not one of them. Calvinists are attacking the good character of our God because they are basically saying that God chooses some to be saved and He chooses others to not be saved based on no conditons (with man having no free will choice or say so in the manner). If you are fine with them doing that, then by all means, knock yourself out and align yourself with them.

Bible Highlighter said:

As for your continual senseless repeating of your point that I already answered:

Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, you never actually answered the question I was ultimately asking.

I'll summarize everything and then ask my question again.

In John 6, Jesus is replying to grumbling Jews (v.41). They were saying things like "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?"

Jesus responds to these grumbling Jews. He gives them the conditional statement in verse 44, and then quotes Isaiah in verse 45.

I have accepted your understanding of who Jesus is referring to in verse 45, that's perfectly fine, and it doesn't somehow negate the conditional statement of verse 44 or make the conditional statement magically not be a conditional statement.

In 6:44, Jesus makes a conditional statement. The word "unless" is specifically used, and specifically means that there is an outcome that is dependent upon a condition. Just look at the verse, thankfully this isn't ambiguous.

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Outcome: Come to Jesus
Unless
Condition: Father draws them.

The word Scripture uses here for "unless" is eh-an. It is a conditional particle. It's used well over 200 times, and can mean before, but, except, when, etc... Jesus is making a conditional statement.

The conditional statement necessarily means that something must happen FIRST (the condition) BEFORE something else happens (the outcome).

The order seems to be this:
1. Jew hears and is learned of the Father. (context you provided from verse 45)
2. The Father draws the Jew to Christ.
3. The Jew comes to Christ.

So again, my question is pretty straight forward - Why must the Father draw the Jew to Christ in order for them to believe? The implication is that if the Father does not draw the Jew to Christ then they won't believe. So why is there a need for the drawing? Why can't the Jew, out of their own free will, without a drawing, without a nudge, without a slight push - come to Christ?

Why must the Jew who has heard and learned of the Father be drawn to Christ in order to Believe?"

Bible Highlighter said:

and I figured out what your end game actually is.

Click to expand...

I've always been open about my endgame - to rightly understand Scripture. Right now I'm trying to rightly understand why Jesus is giving a condition for the Jews to come to Him. You don't seem to have any clue why Jesus gave the condition.

SPF said:

Unsurprisingly, you never actually answered the question I was ultimately asking.

I'll summarize everything and then ask my question again.

In John 6, Jesus is replying to grumbling Jews (v.41). They were saying things like "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?"

Jesus responds to these grumbling Jews. He gives them the conditional statement in verse 44, and then quotes Isaiah in verse 45.

I have accepted your understanding of who Jesus is referring to in verse 45, that's perfectly fine, and it doesn't somehow negate the conditional statement of verse 44 or make the conditional statement magically not be a conditional statement.

In 6:44, Jesus makes a conditional statement. The word "unless" is specifically used, and specifically means that there is an outcome that is dependent upon a condition. Just look at the verse, thankfully this isn't ambiguous.

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Outcome: Come to Jesus
Unless
Condition: Father draws them.

The word Scripture uses here for "unless" is eh-an. It is a conditional particle. It's used well over 200 times, and can mean before, but, except, when, etc... Jesus is making a conditional statement.

The conditional statement necessarily means that something must happen FIRST (the condition) BEFORE something else happens (the outcome).

The order seems to be this:
1. Jew hears and is learned of the Father. (context you provided from verse 45)
2. The Father draws the Jew to Christ.
3. The Jew comes to Christ.

So again, my question is pretty straight forward - Why must the Father draw the Jew to Christ in order for them to believe? The implication is that if the Father does not draw the Jew to Christ then they won't believe. So why is there a need for the drawing? Why can't the Jew, out of their own free will, without a drawing, without a nudge, without a slight push - come to Christ?

Why must the Jew who has heard and learned of the Father be drawn to Christ in order to Believe?"



I've always been open about my endgame - to rightly understand Scripture. Right now I'm trying to rightly understand why Jesus is giving a condition for the Jews to come to Him. You don't seem to have any clue why Jesus gave the condition.

Click to expand...

When folks keep repeating themselves, I simply will tune them out.
So your last few posts that repeat the same thing was not fully read or given more than 1 second and a half (When I recognized it was just the same post written over again).
Again, I did answer your main question.
I said more than enough for anyone who has ears to hear.
Your repeating yourself does not really change anything.
Moving on.



I am going to strive to end this conversation between us.
So go in peace.
May God bless you (even if we strongly disagree on certain things in God's Word).

Well, as far as I can tell you never gave any sort of realistic, satisfactory, direct answer to my ultimate question concerning the passage. For your own intellectual integrity, I gave you multiple chances to do so.

But honestly, I'm not surprised as both the Semi-Pelagian and the Augustinian couch theologians tend to fight tooth and nail to ignore difficult passages. I was hoping you would have been different. Clearly I was mistaken.

SPF said:

Well, as far as I can tell you never gave any sort of realistic, satisfactory, direct answer to my ultimate question concerning the passage. For your own intellectual integrity, I gave you multiple chances to do so.

But honestly, I'm not surprised as both the Semi-Pelagian and the Augustinian couch theologians tend to fight tooth and nail to ignore difficult passages. I was hoping you would have been different. Clearly I was mistaken.

Click to expand...

And there are plenty of questions and posts that I put forth in this thread that you did not even make an attempt at even answering. They went completely ignored. I at least made my best effort to give you an answer on what I believe is the most important main question you asked. I believe I answered it multiple times in different ways that I could possibly describe it (but you keep acting like a patient who hit his head and forgets things). Once I did give you a tid bit of info. that you liked, it seemed like you were having a moment were you would almost say, “Ah ha I gotcha!” But seeing that your endgame did not stick, you went back to your imaginary “I did not answer you routine” (When everyone who comes across this website will be able to see the truth for themsleves in what I said and what you said) and know that what you say is simply not true. In other words, your imaginary thought that I did not answer what I believe is your one main question is like the pot calling the kettle black. The fact that I did not answer all the questions in the exact way you wanted is not something I am interested in doing because you are asking loaded questions that are not exactly taking into account the entire truth of what God's Word says. It seems like you do, but you really are not. Your ignoring of what verse 45 plainly says is a perfect example. You believe this drawing is the FIRST thing that happens in John 6:44-45. But you like to isolate truth out of context. The things described in verse 45 is what happens FIRST, and then verse 44 happens SECOND. While you like to pretend you are taking into account verse 45 (by taking into account my view on it), you then turn around and act like verse 44 is the only verse in the universe. Good luck with believing that way.

Bible Highlighter said:

And there are plenty of questions and posts that I put forth in this thread that you did not even make an attempt at even answering. They went completely ignored. I at least made my best effort to give you an answer on what I believe is the most important main question you asked. I believe I answered it multiple times in different ways that I could possibly describe it (but you keep acting like a patient who hit his head and forgets things). Once I did give you a tid bit of info. that you liked, it seemed like you were having a moment were you would almost say, “Ah ha I gotcha!” But seeing that your endgame did not stick, you went back to your imaginary “I did not answer you routine” (When everyone who comes across this website will be able to see the truth for themsleves in what I said and what you said) and know that what you say is simply not true. In other words, your imaginary thought that I did not answer what I believe is your one main question is like the pot calling the kettle black. The fact that I did not answer all the questions in the exact way you wanted is not something I am interested in doing because you are asking loaded questions that are not exactly taking into account the entire truth of what God's Word says. It seems like you do, but you really are not. Your ignoring of what verse 45 plainly says is a perfect example. You believe this drawing is the FIRST thing that happens in John 6:44-45. But you like to isolate truth out of context. The things described in verse 45 is what happens FIRST, and then verse 44 happens SECOND. While you like to pretend you are taking into account verse 45 (by taking into account my view on it), you then turn around and act like verse 44 is the only verse in the universe. Good luck with believing that way.

Click to expand...

Well, I tried supplying the context that we agreed upon in my reply #533, and then asked my question based upon the context.

If you disagree with anything I’ve said in Reply #533, I welcome your corrections.

Also, if you think you have directly answered my question from reply #533, I welcome you to copy/paste it.

SPF said:

Well, I tried supplying the context that we agreed upon in my reply #533, and then asked my question based upon the context.

If you disagree with anything I’ve said in Reply #533, I welcome your corrections.

Also, if you think you have directly answered my question from reply #533, I welcome you to copy/paste it.

Click to expand...

I don't think you will see the light on it. I was basically trying to tell you that John 6:45 is a Jew obeying God's Word, then GOD is able to draw this Jew to Jesus because this Jew has a walk with GOD and they know GOD. Usually when a person abides in a relationship with GOD or they walk with GOD, they are naturally guided and illuminated by GOD because that relationship is there. You said GOD draws FIRST, and that is not how things work. Verse 45 comes first and then verse 44 happens second.

Why does GOD need to draw the Jew who walks with GOD so as to come to Jesus? Well, I think the word “draw” is not what the Calvinist makes it out to be. It's not like a dragging or change of one's free will or anything. It's an inclination, or subtle nudge or illumination to receive Jesus as the Messiah. This happens because they ALREADY have a walk or relationship with GOD. GOD does many things for those who abide with GOD that they would not be able to do or have without GOD. Yes, it is true that no man (the Jew) can come to Jesus without this drawing of God before the cross. But this is not an unbeliever becoming a believer by GOD zapping a person's will to be changed. The same is true with the Jew who walks with GOD in verse 44. Their will is not being melted like butter to be bent to do God's bidding here. Their free will is still intact. GOD is merely helping to nudge them towards Jesus. The relationship is synergistic.

Jesus says we can do nothing without Him. Jesus also says only God alone is good. This means we cannot do any good outside of GOD. Only God can do the good work through us if we surrender to GOD and seek to obey His commands. But again, GOD is not going to force us to obey Him. We have to cooperate with GOD. It's synergistic.

I know. You are looking for some more deep and profound meaning to why GOD must draw a Jew to Jesus. I really don't have the answer any deeper than what I have given you. But what I do know is that this drawing is not an elimination of the person's free will but it is merely complimentary of their free will. Now, this is not to say that GOD does not help to change the heart of man, but this again is after they made a free will choice in choosing GOD. Yes, I can see there are times where GOD can be a little pushy on things like with Jonah, and Saul (Paul), but that certainly is not the norm. Believers today are not swallowed up by great fishes generally to do God's will, and neither do they hear directly from the Lord Jesus Christ, either. But GOD has given us His Word, and He can speak to us very loudly with it.

Bible Highlighter said:

You are looking for some more deep and profound meaning to why GOD must draw a Jew to Jesus. I really don't have the answer any deeper than what I have given you.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you haven't actually given any answer at all. If you want to simply say, "I don't know why the Father must first draw a person to Christ", then that's fine.

Bible Highlighter said:

I was basically trying to tell you that John 6:45 is a Jew obeying God's Word, then GOD is able to draw this Jew to Jesus because this Jew has a walk with GOD and they know GOD.

Click to expand...

And I have been telling you for 6 pages now that I fully and completely hear you, and accept that as the context of the passage. But all that does is provide the context for who Jesus is talking about, it doesn't address the conditional statement about that person.

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

What you have focused exclusively on is providing a context on who the "No one" is in verse 44. I don't know, but it sounds like you're used to hearing people with a Calvinistic mindset asserting that the "no one" Jesus is referring to represents all people throughout all time, including you and me. You have gone to great lengths to refute this and state that Jesus is referring specifically and exclusively to... "a Jew obeying God's Word". I have completely accepted this context.

But you have to recognize that providing the context for who Jesus is referring to when He says "no one" doesn't negate, or explain why Jesus then makes a conditional statement. The conditional statement is about as simple, straightforward, and clear as conditional statements get.

So you provided the context, and that's what I've been trying to work with. The context, that you provided that we get from verse 45 is that the conditional statement Jesus makes is in specific and exclusive reference to the "Jew obeying God's Word." Got it.

The problem is that the condition that Jesus asserts applies to this Bible believing (OT anyway), law abiding, sacrificing, humble, Father seeking Jew.

Again, the condition is clear and straight forward. This God following Jew cannot come to Christ without the Father drawing him. That is precisely what Jesus states.

The question I have is this: Why?!! That's my question, and the context in which I'm asking my question.

Bible Highlighter said:

You said GOD draws FIRST, and that is not how things work. Verse 45 comes first and then verse 44 happens second.

Click to expand...

Here is what I said:

The order seems to be this:
1. Jew hears and is learned of the Father. (context you provided from verse 45)
2. The Father draws the Jew to Christ.
3. The Jew comes to Christ.

I think you agree with that, right? So again the condition is clear and straight forward. This God following Jew cannot come to Christ without the Father drawing him. That is precisely what Jesus states.

The question I have is this: Why?!!

Bible Highlighter said:

Why does GOD need to draw the Jew who walks with GOD so as to come to Jesus? Well, I think the word “draw” is not what the Calvinist makes it out to be. It's not like a dragging or change of one's free will or anything.

Click to expand...

Seriously man, leave the Calvinists out of this. You're talking to me. Stop it. Just stop it. I don't think draw means dragging or changing one's free will. So stop talking about what Calvinists think draw means. I don't care what Calvinists think draw means. You and I know what draw doesn't mean.

SPF said:

The problem is that you haven't actually given any answer at all. If you want to simply say, "I don't know why the Father must first draw a person to Christ", then that's fine.

Click to expand...

I already told you. Those who obey GOD abide with GOD, and GOD rewards them (with things like being drawn, etc.). John 14:23 tells us that if we keep His commandments, both the Father, and Jesus will make their abode (or home) in us. That is the short answer. But it's not that the Father first draws a person at random or that GOD is changing an unregenerate heart out of the crowd here or changing a person's free will as Calvinism is suggesting. Calvinism is wrong because GOD is essentially forcing some to be saved and forcing others to not be saved (Based on no conditions). It makes the Judgment out to be a joke because it wasn't the person who did wrong, but it was GOD who has put them there. It was GOD who decided to reward some based on no conditions and to torture others for all eternity just because He feels like it (But it is not based on any good reason).

In the universe of Calvinism: The wicked being punished would sort of be like a master who owns a dog who has an uncontrollable pooping problem. Instead of the master taking the dog to the vet to get it help, he simply kicks the dog across the room every time it poops on the master's nice white carpets. The animal cannot help itself but to lay hot big steamy piles of poop in his home. But the master does not care. The master simply wants to punish the poor animal for no real rhyme or reason. The master simply wants to punish because that is what the master wants to do. He just wants to torture for no real good reason.

You said:

And I have been telling you for 6 pages now that I fully and completely hear you, and accept that as the context of the passage. But all that does is provide the context for who Jesus is talking about, it doesn't address the conditional statement about that person.

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

What you have focused exclusively on is providing a context on who the "No one" is in verse 44. I don't know, but it sounds like you're used to hearing people with a Calvinistic mindset asserting that the "no one" Jesus is referring to represents all people throughout all time, including you and me. You have gone to great lengths to refute this and state that Jesus is referring specifically and exclusively to... "a Jew obeying God's Word". I have completely accepted this context.

Click to expand...

Have you really accepted this as the context? Or are you saying that you are only accepting it so as to follow my line of thinking (Although you don't agree with it)?

It doesn't sound like you agree because you are arguing for the words, “No one”

Again, do you believe Jesus first came to save both Jews and Gentiles or do you believe Jesus first came to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

Keep in mind Jesus said,
“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24).

“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Keep in mind Paul said,
“What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Romans 11:7).
“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” (Romans 11:11).

Also, things have changed after the cross.

It's no longer John 6:44 anymore.

It's John 12:32 is how men are drawn now.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (John 12:32).

So Jesus does the drawing now because He has already been lifted up from the earth (with His ascension to the Father).

Does that mean all men are going to be saved because Jesus draws all men? Remember it says “all men.” Unless one is a Univeralist, then one must believe Jesus will save every single person on the planet because He draws “all men.”

You said:

The problem is that the condition that Jesus asserts applies to this Bible believing (OT anyway), law abiding, sacrificing, humble, Father seeking Jew.

Again, the condition is clear and straight forward. This God following Jew cannot come to Christ without the Father drawing him. That is precisely what Jesus states.

Click to expand...

Your doing it again. You are saying seeking Jew, when this is a Jew who abides with GOD and or walks with GOD and has His favor already because this Jew OBEYS God. Think a person like Abraham. Abraham obeyed GOD. Abraham had faith. Abraham had a walk with GOD. This is the kind of person that is being referred to here in verse 45. They are then being guided by GOD to Jesus just like Noah was guided by GOD to build a boat. This is not some stranger in the crowd being zapped at random to believe all of a sudden. This is not some religious guy hoping to know GOD and who does not walk with GOD being changed to know the truth.

You said:

The question I have is this: Why?!! That's my question, and the context in which I'm asking my question.

Here is what I said:

The order seems to be this:
1. Jew hears and is learned of the Father. (context you provided from verse 45)
2. The Father draws the Jew to Christ.
3. The Jew comes to Christ.

Click to expand...

Because they OBEYED GOD, and GOD rewards them to know the truth based on their faith and obedience to GOD. For without faith, it is impossible to please GOD. Do you think GOD forces faith upon a person? Or do you think faith comes from the individual? Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. Yes, I believe GOD can open our hearts to hear God's Word, but it is still up to the individual to accept or receive the Word of God and act upon it.

1 Timothy 6:3-4 holds the key.
It basically says that any man who does not agree with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine according to godliness, they are proud and they know nothing.

The New Testament contains the words of Jesus and the doctrine according to godliness.
If we do not agree with these words in Scripture, we do not know anything.
But if do the reverse. If we obey, then GOD will give us the understanding of what His Word is saying.
Faith and obedience to GOD brings more of GOD into our lives and the understanding,, and the guidance of our path and direction in life by GOD.

“...a good understanding have all they that do his commandments...” (Psalms 111:10).

You said:

I think you agree with that, right? So again the condition is clear and straight forward. This God following Jew cannot come to Christ without the Father drawing him. That is precisely what Jesus states.

The question I have is this: Why?!!

Click to expand...

It's not just a following Jew. It's a Jew who walks with GOD. Big difference. A person can claim that this Jew follows GOD, but this Jew may not have a walk with GOD. Therein lies the difference. It's a relationship with GOD that grants a person the ability to be drawn to Jesus because GOD abides and lives in their life. Without GOD in their life, they cannot know the deep things of GOD and or be guided fully by GOD.

You said:

Seriously man, leave the Calvinists out of this.

Click to expand...

I will not leave the Calvnists out of this because you need to know just how bad their belief is so you will not want to side with them in any way.

In an alternate universe (and not this one): If a coast guard appeared who seemed like he was going to save you, your child, and five other people and yet he did not save you or your child (and yet he had the power to do so), and only saved the five other people, would you be like, "Oh, look son, this coast guard is surely a good man. For he reminds me a lot like God who does what he pleases in regards to saving people."

But is that what you would really say if you were in that scenario?
No. You would not say that.

That is why Calvinism is just dumb.

You said:

You're talking to me.

Click to expand...

Right. I am talking to you. You quote Calvinists and say they are great Theologians, and you appear to get upset when someone attacks Calvinism in other threads, and you do not see a problem with their beliefs.

You said:

Stop it. Just stop it.

Click to expand...

Your not my master. I can speak as I please.

You said:

I don't think draw means dragging or changing one's free will. So stop talking about what Calvinists think draw means. I don't care what Calvinists think draw means. You and I know what draw doesn't mean.

Click to expand...

Then I would encourage you to not buddy up with Calvinists, and to try to make it appear like you are in favor of their agenda when you push that there is no free will involved in John 6:44. John 6:45 determines that there is free will involved because these are Jews who have HEARD, and LEARNED of the Father. GOD did not force them to hear and learn. Force is the only option available if there is no free will in John 6:44-45. You were saying there is no free will involved before. In fact, your whole argument is one that involves that there is no free will in regards to John 6:44-45. This is exactly the same agenda the Calvinist has. It makes it appear like you are on their side. If you are not on their side, then I would encourage you to admit right here, and right now that you believe free will is involved in John 6:44-45.