John 22-71 a case for Calvinism?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Then you are not interpreting the living water literally like how you interpret the bread literally. These are what we call interpreting the living water and bread literally:

She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? (John 4:11 NASB)

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52 NASB)​

In John 4, Jesus said whoever drinks of the living water shall never thirst and will have eternal life:

Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:13-14 NASB)​

In John 6, Jesus said whoever eats the bread of life (His flesh) will not hunger and will have eternal life:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (John 6:35 NASB)

This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. (John 6:50-51 NASB)

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:54 NASB)​

According to your interpretation, the living water Jesus said is not literally water, and we do not literally drink it, but the bread of life Jesus said is literally His flesh, and you literally eat it. So you interpret what Jesus said in a different way from the Samaritan woman while in the same way as the Jews.


I interpret both the living water and the bread and wine symbolically, not literally. As you can see from the above, there is parallel in both. Jesus said he who comes to me will not hunger, and who believes in me will never thirst. Jesus was using what people at the time were the most concerned with - food and drink - to explain spiritual truth.

Besides, there is a pattern in how Jesus had a tendency to teach using parables and metaphors throughout the gospels:

"I am the door of the sheep." (John 10:7)
"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:14)
“I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:6)
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser" (John 15:1)
“I am the vine; you are the branches." (John 15:5)​

By the same token, no matter how many times I take the Lord's Supper, the bread still tastes like bread and has texture like bread, not human flesh; and the grape juice still tastes like juice, not human blood. And people who are allergic to the ingredients of the bread still have an allergic reaction after taking the bread.

Most importantly, Jesus still called the cup the fruit of the vine even after passing the bread and the cup to His disciples:

While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29 NASB)​

One of the main points of biblical interpretations is sticking to one method. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[Si_monfaith]

You know, I've often wondered if Calvinist Bibles even included John 6:51. If it is the Word of God, and if the Bible is to be believed to find eternal life, why don't the Calvinists believe this verse? "if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:

No man except those drawn by the Father will eat of the bread.

That is why too many refuse the bread.

 

[Monk Brendan]

No man except those drawn by the Father will eat of the bread.

That is why too many refuse the bread.

Sorry, but Jesus said (John 6:51), “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

(Emphasis added)

 

[Monk Brendan]

By the same token, no matter how many times I take the Lord's Supper, the bread still tastes like bread and has texture like bread, not human flesh; and the grape juice still tastes like juice, not human blood. And people who are allergic to the ingredients of the bread still have an allergic reaction after taking the bread.

First of all, there is the error of believing that the bread that you eat, and the grape juice you drink changes into something other than bread and grape juice, so there is not Body or Blood.

The bread and wine I partake of has been changed (by the action of the Holy Spirit--the same one that you count on, Lily) into the Body and Blood of Christ by a validly ordained presbyter or bishop of a Pre-Reformation Church.

Secondly, the Body and Blood can only be understood on a mystical (not magical) level, the same level that you understand that the Bible is a river of living water, with which I agree.

That you cannot perceive the change from bread to Body means that you have not been brought up in that understanding, and you have not been properly Catechized in the Pre-Reformation faith. Read Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Sorry, but Jesus said (John 6:51), “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

(Emphasis added)

As in Romans 5:21, sin rules man. How can he choose to eat?

 

[Lily of Valleys]

First of all, there is the error of believing that the bread that you eat, and the grape juice you drink changes into something other than bread and grape juice, so there is not Body or Blood.

The bread and wine I partake of has been changed (by the action of the Holy Spirit--the same one that you count on, Lily) into the Body and Blood of Christ by a validly ordained presbyter or bishop of a Pre-Reformation Church.

Secondly, the Body and Blood can only be understood on a mystical (not magical) level, the same level that you understand that the Bible is a river of living water, with which I agree.

That you cannot perceive the change from bread to Body means that you have not been brought up in that understanding, and you have not been properly Catechized in the Pre-Reformation faith. Read Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition.

Jesus never gave the power to anyone to change the bread and fruit of the vine into Body and Blood of Christ according to the scripture.

In fact, Jesus never said the bread and fruit of the vine were changed into Body and Blood of Christ. As I said in my previous post, He still called the fruit of the vine "this fruit of vine" after giving the cup to the disciples:

While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29)

 

[Monk Brendan]

Jesus never gave the power to anyone to change the bread and fruit of the vine into Body and Blood of Christ according to the scripture.

Are you sure of that?
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:21-23)

Now, because Jesus (God, remember?) GAVE them the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit IS God, then they HAD the power to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. And as they had the Holy Spirit, the had the power AND authority to pass that power on to others, and so it has come down to this day.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Are you sure of that?
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:21-23)

Now, because Jesus (God, remember?) GAVE them the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit IS God, then they HAD the power to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. And as they had the Holy Spirit, the had the power AND authority to pass that power on to others, and so it has come down to this day.

Are you suggesting the disciples could do EVERY single thing that God could do since they were given the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't that make them God?? By that logic, all the believers could do EVERY single thing that God could do too:

you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba, Father!” The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God (Romans 8:15-16)​

But since Jesus never said the bread and the fruit of the vine were CHANGED into His literal body and blood, this is simply a hypothetical question.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Are you suggesting the disciples could do EVERY single thing that God could do since they were given the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't that make them God?? By that logic, all the believers could do EVERY single thing that God could do too:

Jesus Himself said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” John 14:12

 

[Monk Brendan]

But since Jesus never said the bread and the fruit of the vine were CHANGED into His literal body and blood, this is simply a hypothetical question.

Oh, you will only accept something if it is the literal Word of God. How clumsy of me not to understand that. But you began by saying that the Eucharist is just a symbol, and NOT literal.

But for you,
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now show me, please, anywhere in this quotation, or the parallel verses in the other synoptic gospels, or in John 6, or 1 Corinthians 11, where Jesus says ONE WORD about this being a symbol, or not literal, or only to be understood in a spiritual way, or how Monk Brendan, or the Eastern Catholic Churches, or the Catholic Churches as a whole, or ALL of the Pre-Reformation Churches are not supposed to take these verses in any sort of way except the way that the Reformed Theologians used to get rid of the Romish things under which they were chafing.

You know, the Reformation began because of the various injustices within the Roman Catholic Church. By the time it had any support, the Western--especially Protestant churches had totally forgotten about the Christian East. Everything the Reformers railed against was in the Roman Church, and not in the East. So because Martin Luther, and Calvin, and the rest had problems with Rome, they broke off, and started a whole new movement, one that has, in the 500 years since then, split most of Western Europe, America, and the rest into THOUSANDS of different denominations, with worship and practices totally different one from another, but whose theology began with "DOWN WITH ROME," like getting rid of Rome would make all of Christianity Reformed. It didn't, it won't, and it never will. Remember, the Pre-Reformation Churches' membership far outweighs the members of ALL Reformed Churches throughout the world

 

[Monk Brendan]

As in Romans 5:21, sin rules man. How can he choose to eat?

In the same way that the Christians were partaking of the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:27

It happened then, and it still happens now.

Or are you denying God gave us free will? If so, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Jesus Himself said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” John 14:12

If you interpret "works" here as EVERY single thing, then it means every single believer can CHANGE the bread and the fruit of vine into Christ's body and blood!

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now show me, please, anywhere in this quotation, or the parallel verses in the other synoptic gospels, or in John 6, or 1 Corinthians 11, where Jesus says ONE WORD about this being a symbol, or not literal, or only to be understood in a spiritual way, or how Monk Brendan, or the Eastern Catholic Churches, or the Catholic Churches as a whole, or ALL of the Pre-Reformation Churches are not supposed to take these verses in any sort of way except the way that the Reformed Theologians used to get rid of the Romish things under which they were chafing.

It is in verse 29, the verse that you left out in your quotation above. This is the third time I quoted this to you:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29 NKJV)​

What Jesus meant is, this fruit of the vine IS His blood of the new covenant, not that this fruit of the vine had been CHANGED into his blood. Can you tell the difference?

It is similar to Him saying He is the door, He is the shepherd, He is the vine, NOT that He actually changed Himself into a door, a shepherd, or a vine. And He certainly didn't change His disciples into branches.

You know, the Reformation began because of the various injustices within the Roman Catholic Church. By the time it had any support, the Western--especially Protestant churches had totally forgotten about the Christian East. Everything the Reformers railed against was in the Roman Church, and not in the East. So because Martin Luther, and Calvin, and the rest had problems with Rome, they broke off, and started a whole new movement, one that has, in the 500 years since then, split most of Western Europe, America, and the rest into THOUSANDS of different denominations, with worship and practices totally different one from another, but whose theology began with "DOWN WITH ROME," like getting rid of Rome would make all of Christianity Reformed. It didn't, it won't, and it never will. Remember, the Pre-Reformation Churches' membership far outweighs the members of ALL Reformed Churches throughout the world

As you can see from my profile, I call myself a Christian, a follower of Christ, not follower of a human, or follower of a church, or follower of a denomination. I am only interested in what the true teaching of God is, not so much about man-made doctrines or human traditions.

Also, number of members count for nothing in terms of truth. Jesus said there are more people who enter the wide gate than the narrow gate:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV)​

 

[Si_monfaith]

In the same way that the Christians were partaking of the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:27

It happened then, and it still happens now.

Or are you denying God gave us free will? If so, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Rom 14:23: "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin".

According to the above verse, even the choices of eating and sleeping etc of the unelected is an act of sin and therefore sin is in control. Thus his will is not free.

Secondly, the unelected needs external data (no data is intrinsic to an individual) to make a choice. Thus his will is again not free.

However, God's will is free because He shows love to the elect without any need for external data. Moreover, since God elects from His will and not from His nature of love, He needs no data from His nature of love. Thus His will is absolutely free when making choices!

 

[Monk Brendan]

As you can see from my profile, I call myself a Christian, a follower of Christ, not follower of a human, or follower of a church, or follower of a denomination. I am only interested in what the true teaching of God is, not so much about man-made doctrines or human traditions.

Then you have a lot to unlearn and then relearn. Until you accept that Jesus gave us a way to have communion with Him, and with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and that way is having the bread and WINE changed by the Holy Spirit, then you are short-changing yourself.

What Jesus meant is, this fruit of the vine IS His blood of the new covenant, not that this fruit of the vine had been CHANGED into his blood. Can you tell the difference?

I can tell the difference. But are you telling me that I can just pull out a bottle of grape juice and it IS the Blood of Christ? You MUST know better than that. WINE, not grape juice, can be changed by the action of the Holy Spirit But it only happens by the action of the Holy Spirit. Man, by himself, is unable to make this change.

You are really hung up on this being called FRUIT OF THE VINE, aren't you? Tell me, if you will, in a land with no process of refrigeration, no chemicals, no potassium metabisulfite, sodium benzoate, no sulfites or other preservatives how grape juice is going to remain grape juice without turning to wine? You see, there are wild yeasts that live on the outside of the skin of the grape. Instantly, as soon as you crush a grape, the yeast begins working (you can check this out for yourself). You have to add some sort of chemical to that juice to inhibit the yeasts, plus, you have to spray those grapes with some sort of fungicide or the yeast will land on it, and begin fermentation immediately. True, you won't get a lot of alcohol right away, but the yeast sees sugar in the juice, and yells, "LUNCH" and dives in. When the alcohol level reaches about 12% plus or minus the yeasts die off, and you have WINE.

I have seen a pastor grab a bunch of grapes, crush the grapes in a bowl, strain out the debris, and pour it into a shared cup. This pastor was not Catholic or any other Pre-Reformation priest or bishop, but I at least gave him an A for effort.

BTW, how can you KNOW what Jesus means from one passage (and the parallels) in the Gospel. He NEVER said, "this will represent my blood." Rather, He said, "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26:27-28)

If so, then it is the New Testament, and any time we read it we are "drinking" the Blood of Christ? We've been over this before. If His Word is living water, how can it be blood? If it is blood, how can it be water?

If you interpret "works" here as EVERY single thing, then it means every single believer can CHANGE the bread and the fruit of vine into Christ's body and blood!

I thought that your weren't into "WORKS."

 

[Monk Brendan]

According to the above verse, even the choices of eating and sleeping etc of the unelected is an act of sin and therefore sin is in control. Thus his will is not free.

Secondly, the unelected needs external data (no data is intrinsic to an individual) to make a choice. Thus his will is again not free.

However, God's will is free because He shows love to the elect without any need for external data. Moreover, since God elects from His will and not from His nature of love, He needs no data from His nature of love. Thus His will is absolutely free when making choices!

In other words, God makes millions of robots, and only the robots that God elects are able to go through life, have everything hunky-dory, and then they get a free ride to heaven, whereas the unfit robots get thrown into the fire, where they suffer for the rest of eternity because God didn't want them? What kind of God is this? This god is a monster that, at a whim, give some people life eternal, and by that same WHIM, condemns people to suffer unbearable torment in hell for the rest of eternity?

Can you see and understand what I am saying? If what you are saying is true, then that puts a lie to: “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.”

If he is the monster that you have described, then at Best, he is a 5 year old bully, throwing his books and papers and what not around, not caring a thing for anyone but himself.

I see, from Genesis 1 on, the loving, creative finger of God, writing, "I love you," in the sky, the sea, the land, animals, plants, and us!

But about free will, the serpent showed Eve, and told her about the fruit, and gave her a choice. Or did he? If she had no free will, then all of the generations from Adam and Eve on are steeped in sin, with NO WAY OUT, except for Jesus, and again, we have that selfish, willful bully throwing his daddy's very expensive chess set into the fire because daddy didn't kiss him good night.

Come on, give me a break. You and I both SHOULD know that God is not like that.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Then you have a lot to unlearn and then relearn. Until you accept that Jesus gave us a way to have communion with Him, and with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and that way is having the bread and WINE changed by the Holy Spirit, then you are short-changing yourself.



I can tell the difference. But are you telling me that I can just pull out a bottle of grape juice and it IS the Blood of Christ? You MUST know better than that. WINE, not grape juice, can be changed by the action of the Holy Spirit But it only happens by the action of the Holy Spirit. Man, by himself, is unable to make this change.

You are really hung up on this being called FRUIT OF THE VINE, aren't you? Tell me, if you will, in a land with no process of refrigeration, no chemicals, no potassium metabisulfite, sodium benzoate, no sulfites or other preservatives how grape juice is going to remain grape juice without turning to wine? You see, there are wild yeasts that live on the outside of the skin of the grape. Instantly, as soon as you crush a grape, the yeast begins working (you can check this out for yourself). You have to add some sort of chemical to that juice to inhibit the yeasts, plus, you have to spray those grapes with some sort of fungicide or the yeast will land on it, and begin fermentation immediately. True, you won't get a lot of alcohol right away, but the yeast sees sugar in the juice, and yells, "LUNCH" and dives in. When the alcohol level reaches about 12% plus or minus the yeasts die off, and you have WINE.

I have seen a pastor grab a bunch of grapes, crush the grapes in a bowl, strain out the debris, and pour it into a shared cup. This pastor was not Catholic or any other Pre-Reformation priest or bishop, but I at least gave him an A for effort.

BTW, how can you KNOW what Jesus means from one passage (and the parallels) in the Gospel. He NEVER said, "this will represent my blood." Rather, He said, "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26:27-28)

If so, then it is the New Testament, and any time we read it we are "drinking" the Blood of Christ? We've been over this before. If His Word is living water, how can it be blood? If it is blood, how can it be water?



I thought that your weren't into "WORKS."

The fruit of the wine is His disciples while the cup is His sufferings. His disciples are to remember that until He comes to drink with His disciples again in the Kingdom. Acts 10:41 says He did eat and drink with His witnesses after the resurrection. That wasn't done as a symbol of memorial. It was factual of Him fellowshipping with them in His newly inaugurated Kingdom. “I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom”

 

[Monk Brendan]

The fruit of the wine is His disciples while the cup is His sufferings. His disciples are to remember that until He comes to drink with His disciples again in the Kingdom. Acts 10:41 says He did eat and drink with His witnesses after the resurrection. That wasn't done as a symbol of memorial. It was factual of Him fellowshipping with them in His newly inaugurated Kingdom. “I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom”

Bravo, yet another symbol instead of the plain text. Has all of the Reformation fallen into the belief that a supreme being has to be there to make every decision on everything? What color car should I buy? Should I buy this stylish pair of pants verses the frumpy ones? I HAVE heard people talk like that!

God HAS given each and every one of us free will. That means that if you like the red car over the white one, buy the red car--all other things being equal. If you think the frumpy slacks will give better value than the stylish ones, buy them. IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE!

All of the Pre-Reformation Churches--by which I mean the Catholic Communion of Churches, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, the Churches of Apostolic (meaning founded by one of the twelve Apostles) origin--all of them believe and teach the plain text of the Word, that it was the Body and Blood of Jesus, and it still is the Body and Blood, in a mystical way.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Then you have a lot to unlearn and then relearn. Until you accept that Jesus gave us a way to have communion with Him, and with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and that way is having the bread and WINE changed by the Holy Spirit, then you are short-changing yourself.

As a child of God, I already have communion with Christ with His spirit who dwells in me. I don't need to believe in a human teaching that the bread and wine actually changed.

Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6)

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God (Romans 8:15-16)

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. (Romans 8:9-10)​

I can tell the difference. But are you telling me that I can just pull out a bottle of grape juice and it IS the Blood of Christ? You MUST know better than that. WINE, not grape juice, can be changed by the action of the Holy Spirit But it only happens by the action of the Holy Spirit. Man, by himself, is unable to make this change.

There is no mention of the wine or juice being changed into anything else in the Bible. Just as Jesus had not been changed into a door or a shepherd or a vine. Neither had His disciples been changed into sheep or branches.

You are really hung up on this being called FRUIT OF THE VINE, aren't you? Tell me, if you will, in a land with no process of refrigeration, no chemicals, no potassium metabisulfite, sodium benzoate, no sulfites or other preservatives how grape juice is going to remain grape juice without turning to wine? You see, there are wild yeasts that live on the outside of the skin of the grape. Instantly, as soon as you crush a grape, the yeast begins working (you can check this out for yourself). You have to add some sort of chemical to that juice to inhibit the yeasts, plus, you have to spray those grapes with some sort of fungicide or the yeast will land on it, and begin fermentation immediately. True, you won't get a lot of alcohol right away, but the yeast sees sugar in the juice, and yells, "LUNCH" and dives in. When the alcohol level reaches about 12% plus or minus the yeasts die off, and you have WINE.

I have seen a pastor grab a bunch of grapes, crush the grapes in a bowl, strain out the debris, and pour it into a shared cup. This pastor was not Catholic or any other Pre-Reformation priest or bishop, but I at least gave him an A for effort.

You missed my point. I have no problem with people interpreting "fruit of the vine" as wine or juice. It is a minor detail. I also don't see it as a big problem if people choose wafer over bread even though it is clear that Jesus used bread in the Last Supper.

My point is, Jesus knew that it was still the fruit of the vine after He passed the cup to His disciples to drink. Jesus was fully aware that the fruit of the vine had NOT been changed into His blood and was still fruit of the vine:

I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29 NKJV)​

BTW, how can you KNOW what Jesus means from one passage (and the parallels) in the Gospel. He NEVER said, "this will represent my blood." Rather, He said, "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26:27-28)

Jesus also never said shepherd, door or vine represent Him, and never said sheep and branches represent His disciples. He used "I am", "You are", "This is" instead. But you know neither Jesus nor God nor His disciples actually changed into these things Jesus said they are.

If so, then it is the New Testament, and any time we read it we are "drinking" the Blood of Christ? We've been over this before. If His Word is living water, how can it be blood? If it is blood, how can it be water?

Jesus shed His blood on the cross with His flesh broken for our sins. By believing in Him, we will have eternal life. That is what Jesus truly meant.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (John 6:35)

For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. (John 6:55)​

I thought that your weren't into "WORKS."

"Works" can mean different things depending on the context.

Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (John 6:28-29)​

 

[white gardenia]

Yes, you will find Calvinism taught throughout the Gospel of John.

I actually like the concept of Calvinism...it aligns nicely with the scientific concept of determinism Determinism - Wikipedia

...but here is where the Calvinist view of hell falls apart IMO. I cant see how an all powerful God can plan every detail of the universe and yet somehow, the final product does NOT match up to what he actually wants. Calvinism implies that God actually wants one thing to happen but because of some undefined set of rules, something else happens... and God cant do anything about it.
On the other hand, I am partial to a form of Calvinism that believes that every aspect of the universe will ultimately be redeemed. ie the universe will eventually be exactly the way God wants it it to be...including what is explicitly stated in 1st Timothy (God's desire that all men be saved).

 

[Si_monfaith]

In other words, God makes millions of robots, and only the robots that God elects are able to go through life, have everything hunky-dory, and then they get a free ride to heaven, whereas the unfit robots get thrown into the fire, where they suffer for the rest of eternity because God didn't want them? What kind of God is this? This god is a monster that, at a whim, give some people life eternal, and by that same WHIM, condemns people to suffer unbearable torment in hell for the rest of eternity?

Can you see and understand what I am saying? If what you are saying is true, then that puts a lie to: “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.”

If he is the monster that you have described, then at Best, he is a 5 year old bully, throwing his books and papers and what not around, not caring a thing for anyone but himself.

I see, from Genesis 1 on, the loving, creative finger of God, writing, "I love you," in the sky, the sea, the land, animals, plants, and us!

But about free will, the serpent showed Eve, and told her about the fruit, and gave her a choice. Or did he? If she had no free will, then all of the generations from Adam and Eve on are steeped in sin, with NO WAY OUT, except for Jesus, and again, we have that selfish, willful bully throwing his daddy's very expensive chess set into the fire because daddy didn't kiss him good night.

Come on, give me a break. You and I both SHOULD know that God is not like that.

Search

• Menu

Bible & Theology / Tim Keller
3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election
September 21, 2015

• 37 Comments
• 127

The doctrine of election—that those who freely come to God are those whom God has freely chosen—is easy to understand, and clearly taught in God's Word, but it is not easy to accept. It has given thoughtful believers problems for centuries, and continues to do so today.

Here are three of the most common questions the doctrine of election raises:

1. If you believe in election, doesn’t that leave you with the problem of why God doesn’t choose to save everyone?
Yes, but the same is true for Christians who don’t believe in election. Election doesn’t create the problem, it only leads us to think about it. To deny the doctrine of election does not help you escape the issue. All Christians have this problem, and so we cannot object to election by appealing to it. A person who doesn’t believe in election faces this dilemma:

(a) God wants everybody saved.

(b) God could save everyone.

(c) God does not.

The question, though, still remains: Why not? That is the ultimate mystery, but abandoning the doctrine of election does not answer it.

Someone says: “But I believe that though God doesn’t want us to be lost, some are lost because they choose wrongly and God will not violate their freedom of choice.” But why is freedom of choice sacrosanct? I try to honor my child’s freedom of will, but not if I see he is about to be killed by it! Why can’t God “insult” our freedom of will for a moment and save us for eternity?




Regardless of whether you think we are saved by our choice or by God’s, you still face the same question: Why wouldn’t God save us all if he has the power and desire to do so? Again, it is a hard question, but it cannot be used as an argument against the doctrine of election.

We can go further. Suppose election is not true. Suppose that eons ago God set up salvation on this system: Every person will have an equal ability to accept or reject Christ, who will die and be raised and be presented through the gospel message. The moment God determined to set up salvation on that system, he would’ve immediately known exactly which persons would be saved and which would be condemned on that basis. So the minute he “set it up,” he would be de facto electing some and passing over others. We come out to the same place. God could save all, but he doesn’t.

So why doesn’t he? We can only know two things. First, the answer must have something to do with his perfect nature. He is perfectly loving and perfectly righteous, and neither can be preferred over the other or he wouldn’t be God. Somehow the answer has to do with his being consistent with himself. Second, we cannot see the whole picture. Why? If we can conceive of a more merciful system of salvation than God has, we must not see it rightly, for God is more merciful than we can ever imagine. Indeed, when we finally see the whole plan and answer, we will not be able to find fault with it.

GOD IS LOVE.”

God's election is based on His will not His love. By His will He elected to show love. Romans 9:15

He elected you. You ought to thank Him.

But about free will, the serpent showed Eve, and told her about the fruit, and gave her a choice.

Rom 7:17: Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Not Eve's freewill but sin.