John 5:33-47

[FreeGrace2]

John 5:33-47​

33 “You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 “But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 “He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

I believe this passage gives clear indication that Jesus intended to die for everyone, or what He said in v.34 is meaningless. In fact, what He said in v.34 affirms Heb 2:9, in that Jesus tasted death for all. In fact, 1 Tim 2:4 also affirms v.34, " God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

This passage creates a great challenge for reformed theology in several ways. Calvinism classifies all humans as either the elect, which are those God chose for salvation, therefore Christ died for them alone, and the non-elect, which are those God did not choose for salvation, and therefore, Christ did not die for.

The problem for Calvinism to explain is WHY Jesus said WHAT He said to those WHOM He said it to.

For the sake of simplicity, I will give 2 scenarios to explain the problems.

Scenario #1 - Everyone is in the category of non-elect. This creates a problem because Jesus said "that you may be saved", and Calvinism knows that the non-elect weren't chosen for salvation. So, please explain WHY Jesus said that to the non-elect.

Scenario #2 - Everyone is in the category of pre-faith elect. This also creates a problem because Jesus used the subjunctive mood in "that you may be saved", rather than the mood of reality, the indicative mood. Calvinists are convinced that all who have been elected WILL be saved. So the mood should have been indicative if everyone in that crowd were elect.

The challenge to Calvinists is to explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the non-elect in the crowd, and WHY Jesus used the subjunctive mood for the elect in the crowd.

Please focus on the challenge, and try not to drift off to other subjects.

This is one of the clearest passages that challenges the views of Calvinism.

 

[jamantc]

Jesus presents fives witness to Himself so that the Jews would know that not only His testimony of Himself was truth, but that the testimony of others about who He was would induce them to believe, but because they rejected scripture already, they couldn't believe in Him. Jesus witnesses of Himself: 1. God the Father (John 5:32, 37; Matthew 3:16-17). 2. John the Baptist (John 1:7; John 5:33,35). 3. Miracles (John 5:36). 4. The Old Testament Scriptures (John 5:39). 5. Moses (John 5:46-47; Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Luke 24:27). The doctrinal points of this passage is two fold: 1. The Deity of Christ is confirmed (not only by men, but by God through scripture). 2. Christ cannot be separated from scripture (Old Testament prophecy). The Jews were more concerned about the praise of men than the praise of God and they didn't accept Christ because they had rejected the scriptures pointing to Him as their Savior which according to Old Testament, a matter could only be established by more than one witness, so Christ used 5 to testify of Him. Jesus was establishing who He was because the Jews rejected Him and He was clear that if they rejected Him they rejected the prophecies concerning Him and therefore they were not saved. God's desire for people to be saved is not the same as His will for people to be saved. They clearly rejected Christ, even at the testimony of others witnessing of who He was. There's nothing to prove in this verse. God's desire for all to be saved is not His will or all would be saved. If rejection is a sin (an the verses are clear they rejected Him) would not this sin be covered under His blood and now His desire would become His will and they couldn't go to hell for a covered sin like rejection? They didn't believe and rejected Him because they were simply in God's desire but not His will.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jesus presents fives witness to Himself so that the Jews would know that not only His testimony of Himself was truth, but that the testimony of others about who He was would induce them to believe, but because they rejected scripture already, they couldn't believe in Him.

This did not address the challenges of Calvinism to explain WHY Jesus said WHAT He said to those WHOM He said it.

Jesus witnesses of Himself: 1. God the Father (John 5:32, 37; Matthew 3:16-17). 2. John the Baptist (John 1:7; John 5:33,35). 3. Miracles (John 5:36). 4. The Old Testament Scriptures (John 5:39). 5. Moses (John 5:46-47; Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Luke 24:27). The doctrinal points of this passage is two fold: 1. The Deity of Christ is confirmed (not only by men, but by God through scripture). 2. Christ cannot be separated from scripture (Old Testament prophecy). The Jews were more concerned about the praise of men than the praise of God and they didn't accept Christ because they had rejected the scriptures pointing to Him as their Savior which according to Old Testament, a matter could only be established by more than one witness, so Christ used 5 to testify of Him. Jesus was establishing who He was because the Jews rejected Him and He was clear that if they rejected Him they rejected the prophecies concerning Him and therefore they were not saved.

None of this addresses the challenge for Calvinism from the OP, which was very clearly laid out.

God's desire for people to be saved is not the same as His will for people to be saved.

How does this work? Please elaborate.

They clearly rejected Christ, even at the testimony of others witnessing of who He was.

Yes, Jesus made that clear in the passage, so this doesn't address the challenge to Calvinism.

There's nothing to prove in this verse.

I didn't ask for any proof. I asked WHY Jesus said WHAT He said to those WHOM he said it. i.e.: discuss the phrase "that you may be saved" to both those Calvinism considers the non-elect, meaning those Christ didn't die for, and the subjunctive mood of probability/possibility vs the indicative mood for "may be saved" to those Calvinism considers the elect. You have not done that.

God's desire for all to be saved is not His will or all would be saved.

Please explain HOW God's desire interacts with His NON choosing of those Calvinism views as non-elect, because that doesn't make any sense.

If He really does desire all to be saved, then He would have provided all that is necessary for such to occur. But Calvinism doesn't see it that way. In Calvinism, God either actively or passively didn't choose many for salvation, and therefore Christ didn't die for them.

So, your claim that "God desires all to be saved" cannot be true of Calvinism. It appears your claim is contradicted by tenets of Calvinism.

If rejection is a sin (an the verses are clear they rejected Him) would not this sin be covered under His blood and now His desire would become His will and they couldn't go to hell for a covered sin like rejection?

Seems you have ignored Calvinism's doctrine of election. How do you reconcile that doctrine with what you are saying here?

They didn't believe and rejected Him because they were simply in God's desire but not His will.

This doesn't make any sense, given Calvinism's definitions of elect and non-elect.

Please address the OP.

 

[jamantc]

I addressed, you have decided not to see it. I have not contradicted anything, you have decided that I did. I already stated why he said it you have decided not to see it. I will unsubscribe so that I have to offer no more apologies. Have a great day.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I addressed, you have decided not to see it.

You made comments, but ignored the 2 scenarios completely. Your post did not address the OP at all.

I have not contradicted anything, you have decided that I did.

Your comments about God's desire for all to be saved directly contradicts Calvinism's doctrine of election. Why would God desire the salvation of those He chose not to be saved? You did not explain that. So, as it stands, you are in contradiction to your own theology.

I already stated why he said it you have decided not to see it.

You gave general principles, none of which answers the challenges presented in the OP. Actually, you have decided not to see the challenges put before you.

I will unsubscribe so that I have to offer no more apologies. Have a great day.

Free will. Your call. I will. Same to you. And may God bless your trip to the middle east in January.

 

[jamantc]

Thank you!

 

[janxharris]

John 5:33-47​

33 “You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 “But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 “He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

I believe this passage gives clear indication that Jesus intended to die for everyone, or what He said in v.34 is meaningless. In fact, what He said in v.34 affirms Heb 2:9, in that Jesus tasted death for all. In fact, 1 Tim 2:4 also affirms v.34, " God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

This passage creates a great challenge for reformed theology in several ways. Calvinism classifies all humans as either the elect, which are those God chose for salvation, therefore Christ died for them alone, and the non-elect, which are those God did not choose for salvation, and therefore, Christ did not die for.

The problem for Calvinism to explain is WHY Jesus said WHAT He said to those WHOM He said it to.

For the sake of simplicity, I will give 2 scenarios to explain the problems.

Scenario #1 - Everyone is in the category of non-elect. This creates a problem because Jesus said "that you may be saved", and Calvinism knows that the non-elect weren't chosen for salvation. So, please explain WHY Jesus said that to the non-elect.

Scenario #2 - Everyone is in the category of pre-faith elect. This also creates a problem because Jesus used the subjunctive mood in "that you may be saved", rather than the mood of reality, the indicative mood. Calvinists are convinced that all who have been elected WILL be saved. So the mood should have been indicative if everyone in that crowd were elect.

The challenge to Calvinists is to explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the non-elect in the crowd, and WHY Jesus used the subjunctive mood for the elect in the crowd.

Please focus on the challenge, and try not to drift off to other subjects.

This is one of the clearest passages that challenges the views of Calvinism.

Scenario #1 Jesus is horribly disingenuous.
Scenario #2 A strange choice of words ('I say these things so that you may be saved') given they will believe.
Scenario #3 (Jesus speaking to both elect and reprobates) Jesus is horribly disingenuous.

Surely Scenario #3 is the reality, surely? Either way, there is a big problem for Calvinism.

 

[Leasaithe]

John 5:33-47​

33 “You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 “But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 “He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

I believe this passage gives clear indication that Jesus intended to die for everyone, or what He said in v.34 is meaningless. In fact, what He said in v.34 affirms Heb 2:9, in that Jesus tasted death for all. In fact, 1 Tim 2:4 also affirms v.34, " God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

This passage creates a great challenge for reformed theology in several ways. Calvinism classifies all humans as either the elect, which are those God chose for salvation, therefore Christ died for them alone, and the non-elect, which are those God did not choose for salvation, and therefore, Christ did not die for.

The problem for Calvinism to explain is WHY Jesus said WHAT He said to those WHOM He said it to.

For the sake of simplicity, I will give 2 scenarios to explain the problems.

Scenario #1 - Everyone is in the category of non-elect. This creates a problem because Jesus said "that you may be saved", and Calvinism knows that the non-elect weren't chosen for salvation. So, please explain WHY Jesus said that to the non-elect.

Scenario #2 - Everyone is in the category of pre-faith elect. This also creates a problem because Jesus used the subjunctive mood in "that you may be saved", rather than the mood of reality, the indicative mood. Calvinists are convinced that all who have been elected WILL be saved. So the mood should have been indicative if everyone in that crowd were elect.

The challenge to Calvinists is to explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the non-elect in the crowd, and WHY Jesus used the subjunctive mood for the elect in the crowd.

Please focus on the challenge, and try not to drift off to other subjects.

This is one of the clearest passages that challenges the views of Calvinism.

I think you've asked a very good question here FG2 and I would like to take a crack at answering it.

As with every part of scripture context is everything. We must look at the whole of the passage and what Christ is proclaiming. We must also understand this in light of all the other scriptures about what Christ's ministry was to be and to look like. It seems like your biggest point is what to do with the second part of vs34. but I say these things so that you may be saved. Now if we took only this part I would agree that this seems quite contradictory to the reformed view, but if we look at the beginning of the sentence we see this is in direct relation to Christ's testimony of who he is. "But the testimony which I receive is not from man," His whole purpose here is to tell the Jews, because that's who he's speaking to, that he is who he says he is and that he is the messiah. therefore what he says is true and saving but he then later tells why they will not believe. vs 42 you do not have the love of God in yourselves. Why do we love God? Because He first loved us. This is very much in line with reformed theology. If we do not love God it is because he has not first loved us so we will not believe the testimony of Christ.
He also says this to fulfill prophecy of himself. His ministry is to be to the Jews and they were to reject him.
[FONT=Verdana","sans-serif]Psalm 69:8b Psalm 118:22 Isaiah 8:14 Zechariah 11:8a Zechariah 11:9 Isaiah 49:4a Isaiah 53:1 Zechariah 11:12-13b Isaiah 53:3b Isaiah 49:4b Zechariah 12:10c [/FONT]etc. Not only was this foretold but it was stated that their eyes and ears would be closed by God Isa 6:9-10.

Since you ask for Calvinists to defend this lets look at Calvin's words on vs 42.

That you have not the love of God in you. The love of God is here put for all religious feelings; for no man can love God without beholding him with admiration and submitting entirely to his authority; as, on the other hand, when the love of God does not prevail, there can be no desire to obey him. That is the reason why Moses gives this as the summary or recapitulation ( ἀνακεφαλαίωσι&#962 of the Law:
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,

Finally, this whole section is very similar to later verses:
John 10: 25-26 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

Notice it says they do not believe because they are not his sheep not, they are not his sheep because they do not believe. There is a major difference.

John 8:47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

This is also in line with the earlier verses. So, in conclusion vs34, I believe, is speaking to the validity of Christ's testimony and stating that in fact it is a saving message not necessarily that all those who hear it will be saved.

Sorry if I drifted a bit further from the point than you wanted but I didn't feel the premise was necessarily fair.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Scenario #1 Jesus is horribly disingenuous.
Scenario #2 A strange choice of words ('I say these things so that you may be saved') given they will believe.
Scenario #3 (Jesus speaking to both elect and reprobates) Jesus is horribly disingenuous.

Surely Scenario #3 is the reality, surely? Either way, there is a big problem for Calvinism.

I'm hoping that there is a Calvinist who will be able to reconcile their views of the elect and non-elect with what Jesus Christ said to them.

And, hopefully, in their attempt, they will see that they can't reconcile their views with what Jesus said.

Jesus certainly wanted all in that crowd to be saved, which is why He mentioned what He did and said to them, "that you may be saved".

Further, the use of the subjunctive mood provides the proper mood; that of possibility or even probability. But the absence of the indicative mood demonstrates that when the gospel is presented, there is no guarantee of anyone believing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

.


(now I understand those posts that contain only a period)

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think you've asked a very good question here FG2 and I would like to take a crack at answering it.

Thank you!

As with every part of scripture context is everything. We must look at the whole of the passage and what Christ is proclaiming. We must also understand this in light of all the other scriptures about what Christ's ministry was to be and to look like. It seems like your biggest point is what to do with the second part of vs34. but I say these things so that you may be saved. Now if we took only this part I would agree that this seems quite contradictory to the reformed view, but if we look at the beginning of the sentence we see this is in direct relation to Christ's testimony of who he is.

Correct, but does not change the significance of WHAT He said and to WHOM He said it. Which is my point.

"But the testimony which I receive is not from man," His whole purpose here is to tell the Jews, because that's who he's speaking to, that he is who he says he is and that he is the messiah.

Exactly. They needed to believe that in order to be saved (Jn 20:31).

therefore what he says is true and saving but he then later tells why they will not believe.

But….His message remains; "that you may be saved". Subjunctive mood.

vs 42 you do not have the love of God in yourselves. Why do we love God? Because He first loved us. This is very much in line with reformed theology. If we do not love God it is because he has not first loved us so we will not believe the testimony of Christ.

While this is true, it does not explain WHY Jesus said to those whom Calvinism considers to be non-elect (Christ didn't die for them). How do you reconcile His words being said to those He wasn't going to die for. That is the issue.

He also says this to fulfill prophecy of himself. His ministry is to be to the Jews and they were to reject him.

Again, while true, doesn't explain WHY He said "that you may be saved" to those He didn't intend to die for.

Since you ask for Calvinists to defend this lets look at Calvin's words on vs 42.

That you have not the love of God in you. The love of God is here put for all religious feelings; for no man can love God without beholding him with admiration and submitting entirely to his authority; as, on the other hand, when the love of God does not prevail, there can be no desire to obey him. That is the reason why Moses gives this as the summary or recapitulation ( ἀνακεφαλαίωσι&#962 of the Law:
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,

Finally, this whole section is very similar to later verses:
John 10: 25-26 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

Notice it says they do not believe because they are not his sheep not, they are not his sheep because they do not believe. There is a major difference.

John 8:47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

This is also in line with the earlier verses. So, in conclusion vs34, I believe, is speaking to the validity of Christ's testimony and stating that in fact it is a saving message not necessarily that all those who hear it will be saved.

Sorry if I drifted a bit further from the point than you wanted but I didn't feel the premise was necessarily fair.

In what way do you believe the premise was unfair? The OP didn't provide a premise. I did give my view as to WHY Jesus said "so that you may be saved" to those whom Calvinists believe He wasn't going to die for.

The problem remains unanswered. Jesus very clearly mentioned some things to those considered by Calvinists to be the non-elect, meaning that Christ wasn't going to die for them. And Jesus mentioned some things "so that you may be saved".

How in the world can any of the non-elect be saved, regardless of what Jesus mentions to them? That is the challenge and conundrum.

I do appreciate your response and attempt, but I don't see a reconciliation.

As I understand the view of Calvinists, Jesus told those for whom He was not going to die for some things "so that you may be saved". Yet, there is no possibility of any of the non-elect to be saved. They simply weren't chosen for it. And the use of the subjunctive mood further deepens the problem.

 

[Leasaithe]

I see the premise slightly unfair because it is framed to indicate that since Jesus said "I say these things so that you may be saved." He obviously meant they had free will to accept or reject him. Im saying they didn't.

What I believe Hes saying is that if they believed he was who he said he was they would be saved, but not only will they not believe but God has made it so they wont believe. The love of the father is not in them. Isa 6:9-10 states that God actively closed their ears and eyes that they would not see or hear. So God actively caused them to not believe similar again to Pharaoh.

So yes Christ will proclaim the message the father has sent Him to proclaim knowing full well it will not be accepted because the father has shut their ears and eyes.

How do you see Isa 6:9-10 fitting or not fitting also what are your thoughts on the wording in John 10:25-26?

 

[janxharris]

I think you've asked a very good question here FG2 and I would like to take a crack at answering it.

As with every part of scripture context is everything. We must look at the whole of the passage and what Christ is proclaiming. We must also understand this in light of all the other scriptures about what Christ's ministry was to be and to look like. It seems like your biggest point is what to do with the second part of vs34. but I say these things so that you may be saved. Now if we took only this part I would agree that this seems quite contradictory to the reformed view, but if we look at the beginning of the sentence we see this is in direct relation to Christ's testimony of who he is. "But the testimony which I receive is not from man," His whole purpose here is to tell the Jews, because that's who he's speaking to, that he is who he says he is and that he is the messiah. therefore what he says is true and saving but he then later tells why they will not believe. vs 42 you do not have the love of God in yourselves. Why do we love God? Because He first loved us. This is very much in line with reformed theology. If we do not love God it is because he has not first loved us so we will not believe the testimony of Christ.

Hi Leasaithe

How could God ask us to love our enemies if God decided not to love some men - and did so irrespective of foreknowledge of such men? Which example should we emulate? Not loving some men, or loving all, even our enemies?

How could God say through John: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love?

John 3:16
For God so loved the world (which never explicitly means 'elect') that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 5:33,34
“You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.​

I'm not sure how highlighting the fact that Christ does not accept human testimony helps the your position. Christ still says that it is mention so that 'you may be saved.'

He also says this to fulfill prophecy of himself. His ministry is to be to the Jews and they were to reject him.
[FONT=Verdana","sans-serif]Psalm 69:8b Psalm 118:22 Isaiah 8:14 Zechariah 11:8a Zechariah 11:9 Isaiah 49:4a Isaiah 53:1 Zechariah 11:12-13b Isaiah 53:3b Isaiah 49:4b Zechariah 12:10c [/FONT]etc. Not only was this foretold but it was stated that their eyes and ears would be closed by God Isa 6:9-10.

That still doesn't explain why Jesus was making the prospect of salvation available to possible reprobates. Regarding Isaiah 6:9-10 - please see Matthew 13 and explain why Judas is in the wrong 'group'? If Judas was given 'knowledge' (and you would, I presume, argue that he ended up lost), how can you argue that those that were not given the knowledge (as per Is 6:9-10) would necessarily stay lost?

Since you ask for Calvinists to defend this lets look at Calvin's words on vs 42.

That you have not the love of God in you. The love of God is here put for all religious feelings; for no man can love God without beholding him with admiration and submitting entirely to his authority; as, on the other hand, when the love of God does not prevail, there can be no desire to obey him. That is the reason why Moses gives this as the summary or recapitulation ( ἀνακεφαλαίωσι&#962 of the Law:
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,

Finally, this whole section is very similar to later verses:
John 10: 25-26 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

Nothing stopping them becoming his sheep (v.9). By the way, John 10 is about Jesus showing the Pharisees that they are not good shepherds, and that He is. See http://www.christianforums.com/t7753073-9/#post64654943 if you have time. It is not an illustration of limited atonement.

Notice it says they do not believe because they are not his sheep not, they are not his sheep because they do not believe. There is a major difference.

Does he say they cannot be his sheep?

This is also in line with the earlier verses. So, in conclusion vs34, I believe, is speaking to the validity of Christ's testimony and stating that in fact it is a saving message not necessarily that all those who hear it will be saved.

A disingenuous Jesus then? His 'offer' is actually no such thing?

 

[janxharris]

I see the premise slightly unfair because it is framed to indicate that since Jesus said "I say these things so that you may be saved." He obviously meant they had free will to accept or reject him. Im saying they didn't.

What I believe Hes saying is that if they believed he was who he said he was they would be saved, but not only will they not believe but God has made it so they wont believe. The love of the father is not in them. Isa 6:9-10 states that God actively closed their ears and eyes that they would not see or hear. So God actively caused them to not believe similar again to Pharaoh.

This is false and impugns the character of God. As I said in previous post - look at Mat 13 regarding Is. 6:9-10.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I see the premise slightly unfair because it is framed to indicate that since Jesus said "I say these things so that you may be saved." He obviously meant they had free will to accept or reject him. Im saying they didn't.

That wasn't my premise, though. My premise is that because Jesus said "that you may be saved" indicates that they could have been saved. That puts the reformed idea that Christ didn't die for the non-elect into dispute. There is no way Jesus would say "that you may be saved" to those He wasn't going to die for. That would amount to being a lie, if He wasn't going to die for them.

What I believe Hes saying is that if they believed he was who he said he was they would be saved, but not only will they not believe but God has made it so they wont believe.

On reflection, doesn't that sound awfully cold and cynical? And He didn't say anything close to that. He actually said He mentioned some things "so that you may be saved". It is clear from His words that He told them some things so that they could be saved.

The love of the father is not in them. Isa 6:9-10 states that God actively closed their ears and eyes that they would not see or hear. So God actively caused them to not believe similar again to Pharaoh.

If you look at Acts 28:26-27, which is Paul quoting from Isa 6, you'll see that God was not "actively closing" any one's eyes or ears. I'm sure Paul was quite familiar with the Hebrew of Isa 6. Why did he indict the people themselves for their calloused hearts and closed eyes? In fact, v.27 makes clear that IF the people had heard and turned, God would have healed them.

Acts 28:26-27 -
25They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
26“‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

So yes Christ will proclaim the message the father has sent Him to proclaim knowing full well it will not be accepted because the father has shut their ears and eyes.

If that were true, He had no right to mention things "so that they may be saved".

What it seems you're missing is that Jesus mentioned things so that they MAY be saved. You are missing the subjunctive mood here, which means possibility or probability. If Christ wasn't going to die for them, He could not have said what He said to them. It would have been dishonest to do so.

How do you see Isa 6:9-10 fitting or not fitting also what are your thoughts on the wording in John 10:25-26?

Because of how Paul quoted it, I have strong doubts that the Isa 6 passage was properly rendered. Paul was clear on the issue, and he indicted the people for their own failure to pay attention by the phrase "closed their ears". That is active rebellion.

Jn 10 doesn't negate what Jesus said to those who rejected Him.

I will repeat: if Jesus wasn't going to die for them, He couldn't have said "that you may be saved" to them. That would have been totally dishonest.

In reformed theology, those Jesus didn't die for can't be saved. Yet Jesus made clear WHY He mentioned some things to them: so that they MAY be saved.

 

[janxharris]

BUTT

(Bring up this thread)

 

[jamantc]

In reformed theology, those Jesus didn't die for can't be saved. Yet Jesus made clear WHY He mentioned some things to them: so that they MAY be saved.

In Arminian theology it is the same thing! If God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would reject Him, then they can't be saved either based simply upon the fact that they reject Him. The Calvinist theology simply states God chose whom He would save and left the others to their sins, which makes the atonement limited only for those whom He chose. The Arminian theology simply states that God foreknew who would except Him and who would not, still leaving the atonement limited. Salvation is offered generally to everyone, no matter which camp you're in! The call is effectual no matter which camp you're in! The atonement is limited no matter which camp you're in! The difference is, depending on which camp you're in, who limited the atonement? Did God limit it by choosing? Did man limit it by rejecting? Either way, offered to all and limited to the elect since the elect are either chosen by God or elected by His foreknowledge based upon man's choice. Either way, not all can or will receive salvation and Jesus didn't die for all, only either God's elect by His choice or by God's elect by His foreknowledge of man's choice. The Arminian just doesn't want to admit they limit the atonement as well. Let's move own

 

[FreeGrace2]

In Arminian theology it is the same thing!

Pardon me, but I'm not Arminian, and the OP isn't either. Please stay on track with the OP.

If God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would reject Him, then they can't be saved either based simply upon the fact that they reject Him.

Slight problem with that view. God doesn't "look down the corridor of time" for ANY reason. If that's how He knows who will reject Him, means that He didn't know until He looked. That means that God learns. That means that God isn't omniscient. So your comment here is totally irrelevant as well as inaccurate.

The Calvinist theology simply states God chose whom He would save and left the others to their sins, which makes the atonement limited only for those whom He chose.

So, can you provide verses that actually SAY that? I mean, clear and unambiguous statements to that effect?

The Arminian theology simply states that God foreknew who would except Him and who would not, still leaving the atonement limited.

Let's get off what Arminians believe. I'm not interested. Please answer the obvious challenge that Jesus' words bring to what Calvinism believes.

Salvation is offered generally to everyone, no matter which camp you're in!

I don't believe that for a minute. In Calvinism, God chose salvation for a small group and no one else. So it is false to claim that God offers salvation "generally to everyone". Simply isn't true, in spite of most Calvinists who claim that. And, while we're at it, in Calvinism, it isn't at all accurate to say that salvation is "offered", since Calvinism believes that God pre-chose from the human race those He would save. They weren't offered anything. They were chosen to HAVE IT. And the rest were chosen NOT to have it, or passed over so they WOULDN'T have it.

So, please don't say that Calvinism believes that salvation is "offered" to anyone, because we all know that simply isn't true.

The call is effectual no matter which camp you're in! The atonement is limited no matter which camp you're in! The difference is, depending on which camp you're in, who limited the atonement? Did God limit it by choosing? Did man limit it by rejecting? Either way, offered to all and limited to the elect since the elect are either chosen by God or elected by His foreknowledge based upon man's choice. Either way, not all can or will receive salvation and Jesus didn't die for all, only either God's elect by His choice or by God's elect by His foreknowledge of man's choice. The Arminian just doesn't want to admit they limit the atonement as well. Let's move own

Why do you think there are only 2 camps? I'm in neither camp. I'll argue for eternal security probably more vigorously than most Calvinists.

The continuing problematic error of Calvinists is to conclude that because not all men will be saved (which is true) that means that Christ didn't die for them (which is untrue). It seems Calvinism is incapable of understanding that Christ died for everyone so that anyone can be saved, which is through faith.

Please review the OP and see if you are able to provide a rational answer as to WHY Jesus mentioned something to a crowd of those who didn't believe, didn't accept Him, and refused to come to Jesus for life, in order that they MAY BE SAVED..

The question is valid because Calvinism defines the non elect the way Jesus described that crowd. Yet Jesus made clear WHY He mentioned what He did to them; so that THEY may be saved.

How can the non-elect be saved? According to Calvinism, they can't. But Jesus clearly left the door WIDE OPEN for them.

If you want to argue that everyone on the crowd was a pre-faith elect, then please explain WHY Jesus used the subjunctive mood, instead of the indicative mood.

Thanks.

 

[jamantc]

I don't believe that for a minute. In Calvinism, God chose salvation for a small group and no one else. So it is false to claim that God offers salvation "generally to everyone". Simply isn't true, in spite of most Calvinists who claim that. And, while we're at it, in Calvinism, it isn't at all accurate to say that salvation is "offered", since Calvinism believes that God pre-chose from the human race those He would save. They weren't offered anything. They were chosen to HAVE IT. And the rest were chosen NOT to have it, or passed over so they WOULDN'T have it.

So, please don't say that Calvinism believes that salvation is "offered" to anyone, because we all know that simply isn't true.

Umm, yes, Calvinist offer the gospel to all who hear just as the apostles preached it to all who would here. No one knows the elect, not any Calvinist would claim they do unless they are super stupid. I say what I wish about Calvinist as I am one. Every time I go to a new country, I spread the gospel to all who will listen, it's our command to do so! You really don't know Calvinists like you think you do. And thankfully someone besides myself sees that the position of looking down the corridor makes God less than who He is. At least we agree on something. As for the OP, I answered it in my first post. How bout you explain why they weren't saved, you have yet to do that on any post I have read

 

[FreeGrace2]

Umm, yes, Calvinist offer the gospel to all who hear just as the apostles preached it to all who would here.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. Yes, we offer the gospel to all who will hear, but that's not the issue of the OP. Specifically, WHY did Jeus mention something to that crowd so that they [B[]"MAY BE SAVED"[/B]? His description of that crowd is basically how Calvinism describes those for whom Christ did NOT die (non-elect). That is the challenge for you to explain!

No one knows the elect, not any Calvinist would claim they do unless they are super stupid.

Again, not the issue. See above.

I say what I wish about Calvinist as I am one. Every time I go to a new country, I spread the gospel to all who will listen, it's our command to do so! You really don't know Calvinists like you think you do.

I think I do better than you think.

And thankfully someone besides myself sees that the position of looking down the corridor makes God less than who He is.

Yes, it is a blasphemous idea, really. For God to be omniscient means that He has always known everything from eternity past.

At least we agree on something. As for the OP, I answered it in my first post.

I believe I responded to your post and explained WHY you didn't really address the issue of why Jesus would say what He did to those He described the way Calvinists describe those for whom Christ didn't die.

How bout you explain why they weren't saved, you have yet to do that on any post I have read

I don't recall that question, but to answer, they weren't saved because of what Jesus said about them:
#1 v.38 you do not believe
#2 v.40 you refuse to come to Me to have life
#3 v.42 you do not accept Me

Jesus clearly wanted them to be saved, or His words to them in v.34 were less than meaningless; they were a lie.