Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But if you deconstruct the text enough, you can get around that.Ahh, but I thought Received just answered your longstanding questionHe said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
But if the Father draws EVERYONE, then John 6:44 tells us that EVERYONE .............
But if you deconstruct the text enough, you can get around that.
If that was my only response, maybe. But I've been asking the question and have yet to get a straight answer, even though it's right in the text.And if your response to theological responses you don't like is "if you deconstruct the text enough, you can get around that," you've developed a pretty theologically impermeable position because of psychological maneuvering.
If that was my only response, maybe. But I've been asking the question and have yet to get a straight answer, even though it's right in the text.
What does Jesus say happens to those God draws?Which question?
What does Jesus say happens to those God draws?
That might fit your narrative. But Jesus makes it clear that those drawn get raised up on the last day.I don't think there's a causal connection between these two sentences: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." If there was a third sentence, e.g., "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. [Those whom I draw will necessarily continue until the last day.] And I will raise him up on the last day." That would be a different story.
That might fit your narrative. But Jesus makes it clear that those drawn get raised up on the last day.
I'm not establishing a theology based on a single verse. But I think a solid argument can be made for the effectual call based on John 6.It's never that simple. There's no such thing as a single verse that comprehensively establishes a theology. You're projecting your theology onto a single verse. The actual verse by itself doesn't make this clear connection.
I'm not establishing a theology based on a single verse. But I think a solid argument can be made for the effectual call based on John 6.
I wasn't always reformed in my theology. When I started here, I was very anti-Calvinistic. This was one of the passages that gave me trouble. All the commentaries I read were not satisfactory. They made sense when reading them, because they deconstructed the text. But when I went back to the text, and read it as a whole, all the explanations no longer jived. It was clear what the text said. I just couldn't get it to fit with my theology.Yes, but only IMO with a systematic theology behind it from other verses. My own theology, or anyone's, is definitely not immune to this. We can't just look at a single verse or even context and conclude a systematic theology from it. It's very hard to "unsee" your theology as projected onto a specific verse that seems to fit this theology. With this in mind, trying to be as neutral as possible, I don't see a connection between these two verses being discussed.
I wasn't always reformed in my theology. When I started here, I was very anti-Calvinistic. This was one of the passages that gave me trouble. All the commentaries I read were not satisfactory. They made sense when reading them, because they deconstructed the text. But when I went back to the text, and read it as a whole, all the explanations no longer jived. It was clear what the text said. I just couldn't get it to fit with my theology.
So the only thing to unsee was my own tradition. Once I did that, then the text made sense.
Calvinism can't get off the ground for me given the IMO serious philosophical/logical problems as presented in the OP. Basically any time I read of a verse where God or Jesus (or a person standing for either) reproaches unbelievers or groups of people for not repenting or exhibiting lives that reflect salvation, that can't by definition be Calvinistic, because it makes no sense to reproach those who can't help doing what only irresistible grace, which is given solely by God, can provide. It's like blaming a rock for falling.
That makes no sense. It looks like you are saying irresistible grace provides people with the ability to sin. Or something like that. Can you clear it up for me? (Or maybe I'm just tired)
Sounds good.I'm the one who's tired.
Will see you on the flipside.
Isn't that what Christ said? False doctrine and a false Gospel can keep others out of the Kingdom of God.So do you believe the Pharisees could actually keep someone out of the kingdom?
I do not need a lecture on how words can change in meaning between Early Modern English (1600's English) and Late Modern English (Today's English). I have studied the differences for quite some time now. But even if folks here were to twist the word "should" to not mean what it says, I have provided John 17 as a cross reference that shows that folk's interpretation on John 6 is not correct in the slightest. The question is: Will you be able to see what I pointed out?
...
Also, why does God make some to believe and others to not believe? If all people have no ability to except God whatsoever and they are all evil and depraved, then nobody is good enough to choose God so as to be regenerated and changed for the better. See, good does not just appear out of nowhere or thin air. God would have had to have placed some kind of good into a completely depraved individual in order for that individual to be good in the Calvinistic view. Does this mean God is just picking people at random to be saved? Or is God choosing people based on how they will perform because He sees their future?
...
Jason0047 said:If all people have no ability to except God whatsoever and they are all evil and depraved, then nobody is good enough to choose God so as to be regenerated and changed for the better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?