The Gospel of John is a unique Gospel because the Apostle does not tell the story of Jesus in the same format as the other three Gospel writers. Rather than chronologically recording the life and ministry of Jesus, John gives his readers a list of proofs that Jesus is the Christ. In doing so, John records the most difficult and controversial sayings of Jesus. And some may wonder why? Why in a book that is about love and light and life would John talk about sovereign election and reprobation?
In the sixth chapter of his Gospel John records the amazing discussion that Jesus had with people in Capernaum about the doctrine of sovereign election. By all accounts the doctrine of God’s sovereign election is one of the most controversial doctrines in the repertory of theology. It is loved by some and hated by others.
In this chapter, Jesus declares that God the Father chooses who will be saved by “giving” certain people to Christ. Verses 37 and 39 and 44 reveal that God’s sovereign election is a past event (an eternal decree) with definite future results. Verses 44 and 65 clearly state that only the elect can be saved.
Who are these elect? In John 3:16 &17 and John 6:33 the elect are called “the world.” Obviously, Christ has not given eternal life to everyone (see John 6:33), but the Father has chosen to give saving faith to people from all over the world, both Jew and Gentile (see John 3:18 and John 6:35, 40, 45).
Furthermore, it is obvious from the whole counsel of Scripture that the chosen are not saved by election. In fact, the Book of Romans gives a greater doctrinal teaching on salvation, and concludes that salvation is by faith alone. Sovereign election on the other hand is the divine plan that prepares salvation for those who have been chosen. The elect must and will come to Christ by faith alone. Therefore, we understand that both the persons to be saved and the means of saving them are foreordained by God. (see Romans 8 and 9)
God’s sovereign election as revealed by Jesus in John 6 is both definite and irrevocable. The Reformers explained this beautifully in the Canons of the Synod of Dort: “As God himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient and omnipotent, so the election made by him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.”
Being one of the elect is the most blessed and satisfying experience that a person can ever have. As the psalmist said in Psalm 65:4 – Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Of Your holy temple.
The troubling issue is that so many evangelicals today believe that we should not preach this doctrine at all, especially in the presence of lost people. Yet Jesus did; Isaiah did; Paul did.
And I believe it to be very important to remember that this difficult doctrine as described in John 6 was given in response to a question asked by lost people. They asked Christ, “What sign will you show us that proves your deity?” They wanted a sign. And the sign that Jesus told them that proves His deity is the fact that He is the sovereign Lord.
So why does John record this difficult teaching of Jesus? The answer is quite simple: John is revealing to us who Jesus is. In other words, if you don’t believe in and respect the sovereignty of Jesus, if you don’t believe in His power and prerogative of sovereign election, if you don’t believe in the lengths that He has gone to save even one sinner who was unable to save himself, then you don’t believe in the Jesus that John knew. If you reject this truth, then you don’t believe in the Jesus revealed in Genesis or the Jesus that David sang about or the Jesus of Isaiah or the Jesus who has His “chosen” in Revelation 17:14 or the Jesus that the Apostles preached or that Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Whitfield, Hodge, Dabney, Shedd, Warfield, or Spurgeon preached.
Thus, understand this very important exegetical point: John didn’t record this teaching to teach us about election. As you may know, John’s stated purpose for writing his Gospel was that we may know the true identity of Christ and believe in Him unto eternal life (see John 19:31). So John didn’t record Jesus’ sayings about election in John 6 to teach us this doctrine. How do we know that: because neither John nor Jesus explains the teaching. John gives no commentary or comments.
No, John recorded this teaching just to give us another proof that we are beholding the sovereign God of Glory in Jesus Christ. He is the King of Glory. He is the Lord of All. He is the Sovereign of Salvation. Salvation is for His glory. The Elect are his gift. The Father has chosen His Son’s bride. The Spirit has called the bride to the groom Christ Jesus. Jesus has redeemed her, paid her debts, saved her, keeps her, and will bring her to his house to live forever (see John 6:37-40).
Our Apostle John recorded this teaching of Jesus because it teaches us something about Jesus that gives us a proper understanding of His deity. If you ignore this doctrine, then you must ignore great portions of the Old and New Testament. You will have to say to numerous Biblical writers, Apostles and Prophets and the Holy Spirit who inspired them that they were foolish and wasting their time because as a Christian you did not need to know this doctrine.
Apparently, God thinks that if you are to worship Him properly then you need to understand His majestic sovereignty, the power and scope of His Lordship.
Thus, John learned from Jesus that the doctrine of sovereign election is vital to a proper understanding of Jesus’ deity; it is a sign of His true identity. May we learn and embrace this lesson as well. I hope we understand the reason John recorded this teaching. Discover the exegesis; discover the meaning and the message. Meditate on Jesus’ answer to the skeptics. And may we respect God for who He is and worship Christ in spirit and in truth. While the others may have earthly thoughts of Jesus (John 6:15), may we hear and learn (John 6:45) from Him what is His will. God help us to trust You.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
excellent post! I always found it tell-tale of a persons exposure to the doctrines of grace when they would immediately quote John 3:16. Its dangerous to seperate Christ from this doctrine or this doctrine from Christ. Thanks for a great reminder of the character of our Savior.
First we must believe, surrender, pray and worship and God will help us to trust him. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” -Hebrews 11:6, In addition, “The man without the spirit does not except the things that come from the spirit of God”-1 Corinthians 2:14, so “delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart”-Psalms 37:4. Remember you must pray surrender and the Holy spirit will fill your veins, you must have faith the size of a mustard seed and God will look after you and watch you bloom, but it is what you put in the Lord that you will get from him. “If you believe; you will receive whatever y ou ask for in prayer”-Mathew 21:22.—-Great Post!
Yourstruly, thanks for the comment and the Scripture quotes. But I detect that you do not agree with my post. Such theology as “first we must…and [then] God will help us” and “what you put in the Lord that you will get from him” is actually the teachings of ancient heresies. Your theology is semi-pelagian at best. I would refer you to the fifth century when the Christian church dealt with such false beliefs.
But, since I do not know you personally, I will assume that you do not know why you believe the errors you are proposing. I will assume that you are sincerely intending to encourage people to trust in Christ. I join you in this effort. But I know that FIRST God must help them and then they will believe, surrender, pray and worship. FIRST the Lord must put something in them [at regeneration] before the Lord will get something from them.
The Bible clearly teaches that Man is incapable of any Good or Righteousness, thus God’s grace is needed before anything good can happen in any man. And by such grace it has pleased God to give many faith as a gift [Ephesians 1 - 2] that they may be justified by faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. At justification man is imputed with the righteousness of Christ. Man actually never does one righteous deed in and of himself. Our righteousness is but as filthy rags, said Paul. True, without faith it is impossible to please God. But the important part that you missed is that without God’s sovereign grace gifting His chosen with faith then we never have it.
Are you with me so far, or was your comment a hit and run.
Jason-
“Why in a book that is about love and light and life would John talk about sovereign election and reprobation?”
Since these two terms are completely foreign to the Gospel of John, it seems a bit disingenuous to assume that John is even talking about this at all.
“In the sixth chapter of his Gospel John records the amazing discussion that Jesus had with people in Capernaum about the doctrine of sovereign election.”
It seems to me that you are probably foisting the idea of a discussion about sovereign election upon Jesus’ words. Jesus is talking primarily about who he is and what his mission is, and any talk about God’s giving or God’s choosing is framed within the context of belief, which makes it clear that he is meaning for his words to be understood not in terms of God’s eternal decree, but in reference to the imperative for belief in him. In every instance where he alludes to God calling or drawing and such is always contextualized by the imperative of belief. Thus, the context of Jesus’ words is clearly not about God’s soverign election, but rather that belief in the Son whom God sent is the way to the Father.
“In this chapter, Jesus declares that God the Father chooses who will be saved by “giving” certain people to Christ. Verses 37 and 39 and 44 reveal that God’s sovereign election is a past event (an eternal decree) with definite future results. Verses 44 and 65 clearly state that only the elect can be saved.”
Jesus says nothing about God choosing who will be saved- rather, the discussion is that only those who believe will be saved. The ones who come to him are those who believed, as is clear from Jesus’ statement in verse 35 and then its antithesis given in 37. I don’t see how you can understand Jesus talking about sovereign election in 37 and 39 since in verse 40 he summarizes by contextulizing everything within the framework of belief in the Son. As is clear from the preceding context of verse 44, Jesus is not teaching that they cannot come because they haven’t been elected, but that they cannot come because they do not believe in him. Verse 65 is along the same lines, and is again placed within the context of Jesus plainly telling some of those who were following him that they did not believe.
“Who are these elect? In John 3:16 &17 and John 6:33 the elect are called “the world.” Obviously, Christ has not given eternal life to everyone (see John 6:33), but the Father has chosen to give saving faith to people from all over the world, both Jew and Gentile (see John 3:18 and John 6:35, 40, 45).”
I don’t see how, aside from a theological presupposition being foisted upon John 3:16-17, it can be said that the ‘world’ mentioned n those verses refers to the elect. In verse 18, if you were to read a little further, Jesus again charateristically supplies both what constitutes salvation, and then its antithesis. Within the context, it is clear that the world is a general reference to the world (which is the only rational way to understand it) since Jesus contrasts those who are not condemened and those who are and implies that both are constituent parts of the world.
“Furthermore, it is obvious from the whole counsel of Scripture that the chosen are not saved by election. In fact, the Book of Romans gives a greater doctrinal teaching on salvation, and concludes that salvation is by faith alone.”
Romans says we are saved by faith, regardless of Luther’s unwarranted inculsion of the word ‘alone.’ And I fail to see how the book of Romans became, at least from you comment, the whole counsel of Scripture, since James indicates that faith alone is useless.
“Therefore, we understand that both the persons to be saved and the means of saving them are foreordained by God. (see Romans 8 and 9)”
If both the persons saved and the means of saving them are foreordained, then the chosen are saved by election, since it would all be a part of God’s eternal decee. This would definitely call into question the effacacy of election, since apparently the elect were able to fall into sin, and had to be saved from it.
“They asked Christ, “What sign will you show us that proves your deity?” They wanted a sign. And the sign that Jesus told them that proves His deity is the fact that He is the sovereign Lord.”
Um, Jesus’ answer to that question is that God the Father placed the seal of approval on him, Jesus came down from heaven and gives life to the world, Jesus has seen the Father and came from the Father, Jesus is the Bread of Life, among others.
“The answer is quite simple: John is revealing to us who Jesus is. In other words, if you don’t believe in and respect the sovereignty of Jesus, if you don’t believe in His power and prerogative of sovereign election, if you don’t believe in the lengths that He has gone to save even one sinner who was unable to save himself, then you don’t believe in the Jesus that John knew.”
I agree that John is revealing who Jesus is. But John is not talking about sovereign election- he is talking about Jesus as the bread of life, the one who gives life to the world and who came from the Father.
“Thus, John learned from Jesus that the doctrine of sovereign election is vital to a proper understanding of Jesus’ deity; it is a sign of His true identity.”
The sign of his identity is not that he taught sovereign election (which is nowhere to be found in John chapter 6) but that he came from heaven from the Father.
“Discover the exegesis; discover the meaning and the message.”
Good advice- I suggest you follow it as well.
“While the others may have earthly thoughts of Jesus (John 6:15), may we hear and learn (John 6:45) from Him what is His will.”
Since you have declared that only the elect can hear and learn from God, your benediction is a bit superfluous, since only God would hoose if you could hear and learn in the first place.
Deviant, thanks for your comments and attempts to refute my exegesis. You get a C for effort, but with the curve a B-! Not so good for content though.
Concerning the “terms”: you say that John doesn’t mention them [election and reprobation] so he is not talking about them. But neither has John used the terms Trinity or soteriology but would you deny too that John has talked about those theological issues as well. You don’t have to answer that. You just made a rookie mistake; we’ve all done that before.
From that mistake on your arguments were all based upon the same flaw in your Wesleyan theology. And that flaw is revealed by the fact that you believe that Man has the capacity to “believe” in Christ in a way that is not taught in Scripture. You either believe:
1. That all men can believe in Christ with no help from God. [no, I doubt you go that far.]
2. That all men have been given saving faith but only some will use it.
3. That if men believe first then God will accept them.
4. That man can believe in Christ and then be regenerated by the Spirit of God.
5. That God draws all men but only some cooperate with God and believe.
6. That God has a conditional election.
7. That election is only corporate.
8. That only Christ was elected.
Or you may believe a mixture of those errors. You would not be the first.
Your blog team member, Exist-Dissolve, seems to make the same theological mistakes. Too bad John W. didn’t take Whitfield’s advice and counsel more to heart. Again, Deviant, thanks for the comments and the debate. I have saved your comments to use as an example of how Wesleyans exegete John 6 and deny that sovereign election and reprobation are taught in Scripture. For that reason, I hope that you comment more in the future. And may God’s blessing be upon you as we strive to love Him who first loved us.
Jason-
Concerning the “terms”: you say that John doesn’t mention them [election and reprobation] so he is not talking about them. But neither has John used the terms Trinity or soteriology but would you deny too that John has talked about those theological issues as well. You don’t have to answer that. You just made a rookie mistake; we’ve all done that before.
I completely fail to see how this is even a valid critique. No, John doesn’t mention the term “trinity’, and guess what, he really doesn’t talk about it anywhere. The doctrine of the trinity is not an explicitly biblical concept. Since you are using sovereign election and reprobation in their systematic understanding, it is perfectly legitimate to say that John isn’t talking about them anymore than he ever talks about the Trinity. You yourself say as much in your post that he is not trying to teach this doctrine, so I don’t see how I am reprimanded for saying so when you do as well.
In regards to soteriology, perhaps you are unaware that unlike the other three terms of which we have spoken it isn’t a theological doctrine at all, but is a methodological description, much like zoology, biology, etc. So before you make remarks about me making rookie mistakes, perhaps you should make sure you don’t make them yourself.
Semantics aside, my intent was that the entire context of John 6 is clearly not about election, but is about who Jesus is, where he came from, etc, and how to relate to God and the one whom God sent. In fact, as you point out, the purpose of John’s writing is to know who Christ is and believe in him. Therefore, I feel that I am perfectly justified in my assertions, and I have at least given contextual reasons for doing so, rather than just dropping scripture references that may have nothing to do with what you think they might.
From that mistake on your arguments were all based upon the same flaw in your Wesleyan theology. And that flaw is revealed by the fact that you believe that Man has the capacity to “believe” in Christ in a way that is not taught in Scripture.
I would be interested in what ‘way’ is taught in scripture. Just to say something is taught in scripture is a poor argument that isn’t very satisfying or intellectually appealing.
You either believe:
1. That all men can believe in Christ with no help from God. [no, I doubt you go that far.]
2. That all men have been given saving faith but only some will use it.
3. That if men believe first then God will accept them.
4. That man can believe in Christ and then be regenerated by the Spirit of God.
5. That God draws all men but only some cooperate with God and believe.
6. That God has a conditional election.
7. That election is only corporate.
8. That only Christ was elected.
Or you may believe a mixture of those errors. You would not be the first.
Perhaps we could actually have a meaningful discussion, without you having to draw a categorical line in the sand. There is nothing within this list or even in the giving of it which demonstrates any desire to engage in what I am saying.
Or you may believe a mixture of those errors. You would not be the first.
You make such sweeping proclamations of errors, but don’t give any substantive reasoning for saying so. If you want to make such statements, at least give some reasoning.
Again, Deviant, thanks for the comments and the debate.
You are welcome for the comments, but I fail to see how you can, in an intellectually honest way, call this a debate. You have not seriously engaged anything I have said, as I have tried to for you, but have simply posted unsupported claims of errors. That kind of conversation is not a debate. While you are certainly free to disagree with my exegesis, you have not performed much of an exegesis at all, nor have you actually engaged my exegesis, but for the most part simply claim I am in error, without giving a reason why. I am certainly happy to post more comments, but you haven’t really given me anything substantive to respond to in the reply.
I have saved your comments to use as an example of how Wesleyans exegete John 6 and deny that sovereign election and reprobation are taught in Scripture.
I don’t recall ever saying that sovereign election and reprobation aren’t taught in scripture, so I don’t see why you make this statement.
You are welcome to do with my comments as you wish. I would rather you actually engaged in conversation and discussion, but if that is not to your liking, that is your choice.
By the way, I am not a Wesleyan, so to use me as a prototype of Wesleyan thought and theology would be misdirected.
And may God’s blessing be upon you as we strive to love Him who first loved us.
Although I am not attempting to presume what you believe, in light of the WCF (you point out Exist is saying it is unbiblical, thus indicating that you at least hold similar conviction) this is a most useless sentiment.
Until next time.
D.M. and YoursTruly should hook up with John Chrysostom of Antioch who said, “In order that not everything may depend on divine help, we must at the same time bring something ourselves.” Or D.M. can introduce YoursTruly to a man that I am sure is one of his heroes — John Wesley. Wesley believed in two kinds of election: 1) an unconditional election for service and nations and 2) a conditional election for salvation based upon God’s foresight of who would make a choice to believe. Or maybe you guys can quote for us Charles Finney who defined election as “those whom God knows are capable of bringing forth saving faith.”
“Upon some God foresaw that he could wisely bestow a sufficient measure of gracious influence to secure their voluntary yielding, and upon others he could not bestow enough in fact to secure this result… He does for all that he wisely can.” — Charles Finney
Jason-
Let’s get some of your little games out of the way first.
But I thought you liked games…after you, you are the one who started them…
1) The Gospel of John does deal with the Trinity. Start in John 1:1 then read John 1:2 and you are on your way to the wonderful revelation of the Trinity in John’s Gospel; In proving that Jesus is divine, that He exists simultaneous with the Father and the Spirit, and that they are “one.” See John 5, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17. You agree that John’s Gospel is about revealing Jesus’ identity. How do you suppose John would do that without speaking of Jesus’ deity? And when he speaks of Jesus’ deity, the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed, is it not? Ah yes, the deity of Christ, the Trinity of the Godhead, the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all beautifully revealed in this Gospel.
Oh yes, of course you are right. Anybody sitting down to read the gospel of John would be immediately struck upon finishing it that the Trinity exists as three hypostases within a consubstantial, co-eternal, co-equal union, the Son begotten of the Father by eternal generation and the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father and the Son. John obviously says and teaches all of that.
Had you read my reply a little more carefully, you would have seen that I was speaking of the systematic understanding of the Trinity, since I was using that in the same grouping as the systematic understanding which you employ for sovereign election and reprobation. As I said, the trinity is not an explicitly biblical concept- while derived from the bible, the dogmatic nature of the Trinity is explicit in the councils, not the Bible.
You claim that I said that soteriology was a doctrine. Can you provide that quote? Of course not, you misquoted me in an attempt to play a semantic game when I called you on your lack of knowledge of the theology dealt with in John’s Gospel.
Fine. sorry. you said theological concept. The misquote was not intentional, but was more a misunderstanding, since you grouped it in with 3 other doctrines. I see you claim clarivoyance. How very nice for you. It must be a nice skill. Or you could be making an accusation that has no merit whatsoever. Not to mention that you misquoted me, and blew it off. Pretty convenient. Again, sorry for the misquote, but I would appreciate if you wouldn’t claim intentions for me that I don’t have.
Besides, you have as great a lack of knowledge of the theology of John, if you claim he is explicitly teaching effectual calling and sovereign election.
Arminianism is not a new theological persuasion. We know the various errors within your thinking and like all Arminians they shift depending on the needs of your argument. Any good debater knows his opponent, and you are easy to read, my friend.
First of all, there are many types of Arminianism, so I fail to see how you can automatically categorize me. Secondly, a good debater does not argue against a category, which is essentially what you have been doing. Thirdly, I could say I know the errors in calvinism, so I fail to see how making statements like these contributes to any kind of conversation.
“No one can come to me unless the Father draws him.” (6:44)
“All that the Father gives me will come to me and … I will never cast [them] out.” (6:37)
Those two verses clearly teach sovereign election and efficacious calling! For when Jesus said “all” will come and be eternally saved, either the Father draws everybody without exception and they all get saved, or the Father has selected the elect from among humanity and they all get saved. If you believe the former, you are a Universalist. If you believe the latter, you are a Calvinist.
I see that by bringing 2 doctrines into the interpretation you have left sola scriptura far behind. personally, I commend you for that, since it’s a ridiculous doctrine anyway.
Just saying a verse and telling me it teaches so and so is pretty weak. As I said before, Jesus is framing the context of this entire chapter and discussion around belief in the Son. In verse 35 Jesus declares that whoever comes to him willnever go hungry or thirsty. Obviously the crowd understood that he meant ‘the elect’ when he said ‘everyone.’ Then in 36 he chides them for not believing. His whole point is not that they can’t believe, but that they won’t, as is clear from the discussion that he has been having with them. He has told them that he is the bread of life, that God the Father has placed the seal of approval on him, and that they should believe in him. But they want a sign. That is why he says they have seen him and don’t believe. They wanted bread from heaven, and he tells them he is the bread from heaven. To chide them for unbelief, and then to tell them what he says in verse 37, indicates that what is said in 37 is meant to be understood in light of believing or not believing. You can read effectual calling into it if you want, but Jesus certainly doesn’t say it. Why should Jesus give them a reason to believe in him (the feeding of the 5000 and relating it to who he is) and then chide those who don’t believe in him for disbelief if he meant that they couldn’t believe unless God made them? Throughout this entire chapter the words he uses implies that belief is possible, and he is saying that belief in him is the only way to the Father.
Concerning verse 44, as I mentioned before, Jesus also frames this in the context of belief and disbelief. I don’t want to go over it all again, since you just wa pull proof-texts. In a previous reply you said I have a flaw in my understanding of the capacity to believe. How are you any different? Why is you understanding not flawed? I can make the same unsupported statements as you. Unless Jesus is playing a game with his words, I find it difficult to get around the fact that through all of John Jesus is dealing with belief and unbelief as if it is an option for the person who is hearing him speak.
Why do you arbitrarily limit the possibilities of these verses to calvinism and universalism? If belief is an option for those whom Jesus is talking to, as he seems to indicate, then the ones the Father has given are the ones who will come to Jesus through belief. I don’t see why determinism, either to universalism or calvinism, has to be the only option.
After all, Hebrews talks about those who believe as being children given to Christ, an allusion to the servant song in is. 53. Since Jesus frames John 6:37 in the context of belief, it seems he is not talking about an infallible coming to him, but rather that those who come to Christ are the children that God has given to him. John even talks about this sonship in chapter 1 of John, and that being made a son of God is through belief in him.
Now to know who is right one should read the rest of the Bible and one would find that not everyone goes to heaven. Case closed.
Jesus himself in John chapter 3 explains what brings about salvation and condemnation- to believe in Christ brings eternal life, to not believe brings condemnation. So since I believe that belief in Christ brings salvation, that disbelief brings condemnation, and that not everyone will be saved, I guess I am right, according to your crtierion. I guess I don’t see your point, since I reject that determinism is the only possible way to interpret the Bible.
Arminians get confused because John and Jesus often refer to the elect as “the world” as Jesus does in John 6:33. But Arminians get all confused when they try to explain that verse in light of the fact that not everyone in the world without exception has been given eternal life. This issue is also a problem for Arminians when it comes to explaining John 3:16-21. The term world is clearly defined as those “who believe.” Calvinists know that the Bible teaches that faith (the ability to believe) is a gift given to Man at regeneration. Thus Calvinist understand that the “whosoever believes” and the believing “world” statements refer to the elect one’s of God whom He regenerates and gives faith.
As to the issue of me being an Arminian, I don’t consider myself to be one, so I don’t see why you keep bringing it up. I haven’t quoted Arminius, Wesley, Finney, or any of the others you have brought up. If you want to make arguments against a theological system, you can certainly do so. However, if you want to discuss things with me, you can feel free to do so without always throwing out labels.
You say I have difficulty explaining these verses, but you are the one having to redefine ‘world,’ when there is no contextual reason to do so. John must have changed his definition from chapter 1, since his use of the word ‘world’ there is more obviously speaking of the created world. I don’t see how the world is defined as those who believe…Jesus doesn’t say that. But I suppose if you feel the Bible teaches that the ability to believe is a gift from God , then I suppose redefinition is the only course of action. I wonder why John would use such an inaccurate word, since the world consists of all that God has created, at least from what John says in chapter 1.
Incidentally, if Adam and Eve’s belief in God was a gift from God, and something that was excercised by God effectually, then I guess the perseverance part wasn’t very effective.
D.M. and YoursTruly should hook up with John Chrysostom of Antioch who said, “In order that not everything may depend on divine help, we must at the same time bring something ourselves.”
I am quite familiar with the writings of Chrysostom and other Church Fathers, especially the ante-nicene fathers, so thanks for the quote. I have a quote as well, concerning John 6:44/65. “If it be asked why these could not believe, I immediately answer, because they would not.” St. Augustine. (after all, you were the one who said he taught what you said John 6 was teaching.)
Or D.M. can introduce YoursTruly to a man that I am sure is one of his heroes — John Wesley. Wesley believed in two kinds of election: 1) an unconditional election for service and nations and 2) a conditional election for salvation based upon God’s foresight of who would make a choice to believe. Or maybe you guys can quote for us Charles Finney who defined election as “those whom God knows are capable of bringing forth saving faith.”
As I said in my last post, I am not a Wesleyan. I wouldn’t call Wesley a hero of mine either- most of my heros are the ante-nicene fathers. I personally haven’t read any finney that I can remember. Not to mention that I don’t necessarily agree with any of those concepts of election.
D.M.
I apologize for going too fast for you. So lets slow down and walk through one issue at a time.
The flaw in your theology that has come to light in these series of comments is simply this: You believe that man has the ability prior to regeneration to believe in Christ. Right?
Yes, it is true that the people in John 6 would not believe, but the issue is why they would not believe. Or, in other words, could they have believed or was there something that kept them from the possibility of believing?
Jason-
I apologize for going too fast for you. So lets slow down and walk through one issue at a time.
I find this statement inexplicable, since I have engaged with most, if not all of the things you have posted and your responses. Therefore, I find this statement unwarranted, since I have not intimated in the slightest that I feel the pace to be too quick for me. But moving on…
The flaw in your theology that has come to light in these series of comments is simply this: You believe that man has the ability prior to regeneration to believe in Christ. Right?
I have already explained what I think in regards to this, which should be evident through my explanations of portions of John 6 and 3. Your rhetorical question shows that you understand at least somewhat where I am coming from. However, since it seems that you are interested in a philosophical response to the question, as evidenced by your apparent rejection of my biblical reasoning, then I will be more than happy to discuss it along philosophical lines. After all, if you affirm sola scriptura, then your rejection of my explanations, which are as legitimate as yours, (according to the logic of sola scriptura) shows that you posit ultimate interpretive authority within your philosophical presuppositions, which you have shown to be comprised of philosophical determinism. That’s fine, and I once again commend you for it. If you claim my flaws in theology are evident biblically, then I can just as easily say the same for you. This kind of rhetoric doesn’t contribute to a conversation.
However, to avoid any potential misunderstanding that could result in the accusation of avoiding a question, the answer is ‘right,’ although I feel your language is too imprecise to allow for your rehtorical question to be precisely located with what I think.
Yes, it is true that the people in John 6 would not believe, but the issue is why they would not believe. Or, in other words, could they have believed or was there something that kept them from the possibility of believing?
I disagree- I don’t really see how the issue of ‘why’ is even an issue at all, unless of course one is imposing one’s philosophical presumptions upon John’s words, in which case then I suppose I can understand why it would be an issue. However, if we are to pursue this philosphical track, I will point you again to a previous quote of Augustine, who said that “If it be asked why these could not believe, I immediately answer, because they would not” Augustine feels that your question is best approached in its inverse, and I would be inclined to agree. But to avoid the inevitable trading of Augustine quotes (since he can be invoked by anybody) I will simply say that the choice to not believe precludes one from belief. Oddly enough, you would agree with me, although you would posit this choice of belief in God, since seem to think that God gives belief as a gift to those that God chooses by divine decree. However, I feel that this makes John’s words concerning the imperative for belief meaningless.
D.M., Wow, thanks for being open and honest about your beliefs. I wish your friend would do the same (different post, different topic). And now that we have established this clear position of yours (you believe that sinners have the ability to believe prior to regeneration and faith is not a gift) we can stop talking in circles.
So here is my response:
By virtue of original sin and depravity, all people including the elect are incapable of responding to the Gospel. Sinners must be regenerated by the Spirit of God and given the ability to trust Christ by the gift of faith and repentance. The teaching of the Scriptures is such that we must say that man in his natural state is radically corrupt, and that he can never become holy and happy through any power of his own.
He is spiritually dead, and must be saved by Christ if at all. Common reason tells us that if a man is so fallen so to be at enmity with God, that enmity must be removed before he can have any desire to do God’s will. If a sinner is to desire redemption through Christ, he must receive a new disposition.
He must be born again, and from above (John 3:3).
As Calvinists we hold that the condition of men since the fall is such that if left to themselves they would continue in their state of rebellion and refuse all offers of salvation. Christ would then have died in vain. But since it was promised that He should see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied, the effects of that sacrifice have not been left suspended upon the whim of man’s sinful will. Rather, the work of God in redemption has been rendered effective through the mission of the Holy Spirit who so operates on the chosen people that they are brought to repentance and faith, and thus made heirs of eternal life.
There are two aspects of the one summons of God to salvation. God’s call is universal in one sense and targeted in another. Mt 22:14 – “For many are called, but few are chosen.” When the Word is preached everyone within earshot is summons to God but no one is capable of responding. But the Spirit of God empowers the call in the heart of the pre-converted elect and it becomes effective. The General Call is ineffective on the Spiritually dead ears of the reprobate. But the special call is effected by the Holy Spirit’s secret work on the heart of the elect. The Father’s Spirit enlightens the heart of the elect, frees stubborn wills, and inclines contrary affections toward Christ.
1 Co 2:13 – These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches,, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Co 2:14 – But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
One of the greatest preachers, C.H.Spurgeon agreed, saying, “There is a fountain filled with blood, but there may be none who will ever wash in it unless divine purpose and power will constrain them to come.” He continued, “All who want to be saved can be saved. All who want to be saved want to because they were called. They were called because they were elected. Every seeking soul who comes to Christ shall become a finder. Because behind every seeking soul is the all-powerful God who enables that person to search and to find.”
A. H. Strong said, “The general call that is extended to the whole world is genuine and sincere. God has put no obstacle in man’s way to respond to the general call. It is man’s own darkened mind and evil will that is his obstacle. To remedy the situation God graciously makes the call effectual in the heart of some, the elect.”
The General call is “whosoever will” and the Special call is “according to God’s will.” We find that the “whosoever will” won’t unless the Spirit enables them to will.
John 6:44 – “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”
This verse indisputably affirms that those who come to Christ in faith do so because the Father has efficiently drawn them.
The following verse Jn 6:45 – “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
By these words Jesus affirmed that only those inwardly taught by God can come to the Son. There’s no maybe in this verse as the Pelagians, Liberals, and Arminians teach. There is no work of man teaching himself, saving himself. Salvation is a work that only God gets the glory for.
John 6:63 – It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.
Clearly, D.M. man cannot believe before God regenerates him and gives him a gift of faith. That is what John is saying to the Jews directly and to his disciples indirectly. That is the true exegesis of this text. Notice how Jesus makes that literally clear in the next two verses.
John 6:64 – “But there are some of you who do not believe.”
WHY, WHY do some believe and some do not????
John 6:65 – And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
F.F.Bruce said of this chapter in John that it is clearly taught that “None can come to Christ in faith but those who are persuaded and enabled to do so by the Spirit; … And all these will come, drawn by the irresistible grace of heavenly love.”
If man is dead in sin, then nothing short of this supernatural life-giving power of the Holy Spirit will ever cause him to do that which is spiritually good.
Eph 2:1 – And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
In the nature of the case the first movement toward salvation can no more come from man than his body if dead could originate its own life. Regeneration is a sovereign gift of God, graciously bestowed on those whom He has chosen; and for this great re-creative work God alone is competent.
And it cannot be granted on the foresight of any thing good in the subjects of this saving change, for in their unrenewed nature Men are incapable of acts with right motives toward God; hence none could possibly be foreseen.
Romans 3:11 – There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
Romans 3:12 – They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.”
Romans 8:7 – “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it will not submit to the law of God, nor indeed can it.”
As Dr. Warfield says, “Sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself, but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself, but to save him.”
In the Scriptures this change is called a regeneration (Titus 3:5), a spiritual resurrection which is wrought by the same mighty power with which God wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead (Eph. 1:19, 20), a calling out of darkness into God’s marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9), a passing out of death into life (John 5:24), a new birth (John 3:3), a making alive (Col. 2:13), a taking away of the heart of stone and giving of a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11:19), and the subject of the change is said to be a new creature (II Cor. 5:17).
Oftentimes parents play with their children in telling them to do this or that when their very purpose is to show them their inability and to induce them to ask for the parents’ help. The law of God is a schoolmaster teaching us that we are incapable of saving ourselves and are in need of a Savior.
1 Co 1:29-31 – “that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God —and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”
Thus, Deviant Monk, we see from Scripture thatwhen God is pleased (in his appointed and accepted time) to effectually call by his Word and Spirit those whom God has predestined to life, He calls them out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. He takes away their heart of stone, and gives to them a heart of flesh. He renews their wills, and by his almighty power causes them to do what is good. He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that they come completely freely, for they are made willing by his grace.
This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not on account of anything at all foreseen in us. It is not made because of any power or action in us, for we are dead in sins and trespasses until we are made alive and renewed by the Holy Spirit. By this [regeneration] we are enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, this power being none other than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
Where is the flaw it that?
I am not quite sure how to respond this…you begin by giving me an overview of Calvinistic theology in regards to effectual calling including it’s philosophical presuppositions, and then you proceed to proof-text to give validity to your presuppositions, made claims regarding the clarity of the verses (apart from their context, not to mention some, such as the John 6 verses, I have already interacted with and come to a different conclusion- perhaps there is not as much clarity as you think) and then summarize with a briefer overview of calvinistic theology regarding effectual calling that again draws heavily on philosophical presuppositions.
I guess, since you begin with the presuppositions of calvinism, (thus leaving sola scriptura behind, which I once again commend you for, btw) I will have to begin by approaching those, although it goes a little beyond the subject of this post. However, it is late, and I am ready for bed, so it shall have to wait for later. I will attempt to respond more at a later time.
Deviant, you have mentioned “sola scriptura” several times. Do you know who/what/when/where that doctrine became established? You probably think you do or you wouldn’t use the term, but it is obvious that you do not because you somehow think that it is opposed to Calvinism!!
For instance, read the WCF(1646) or the LBC(1689) and other documents and writings of the Reformers and you will discover the formulation of the doctrine of sola scriptura. This doctrine along with sola fide are the two main doctrines that divided the protestants from the Roman Catholics. And if you know your church history then you know that Arminians like you had nothing to do with that. Arminians were a group that later splintered off of the reformed church after a hundred years of the reformation was in full bloom. And why? Because some weak theologians had semi-pelagian tendencies. Right? or do you deny history. And if you do please provide all of us the data.
For example, do you realize that you believe that man is capable of righteousness apart from God. You said that you think man can actually trust Christ (which is the righteous act that justifys) before regeneration. You actually believe a man who is depraved, dead in his sins, a child of the Devil can have faith in Christ and repent of his sins. That is pelagianistic. (Is that a word? If not it should be!)
My previous comments quotes numerous passages that teach the total opposite of your view. Friend, even Adam could not trust God even before he had a sin nature, how can fallen man do better?
God has given us His law commanding our obedience — not because we can, but so that we will learn that we can’t!! That is why the Apostle Paul called the Law a schoolmaster. God didn’t command us to trust and obey because we could, as Pelagius taught. Do you not see that, friend?
The Roman Catholics who were semi-pelagian believed that you had the ability to actually choose Christ. But Luther discovered that our faith that justifys is a faith that is rooted and grounded in what Christ has done, not us. And such faith according to Eph. 2 is a gift given to God’s elect, without which no man could/would believe.
God is under no obligation to save anyone, to give faith to anyone. The fact that you and I are believers today is due only to the Grace of God!!
Read Ephesians One: notice the Father chose the elect unconditionally before He created anything. The Son died for the elect to purchase their redemption. The Spirit effectually calls and seals the elect completeting the will of God.
God’s will is fully completed. All that is supposed to be saved will be saved. If God’s will has ever been thwarted, if God has ever been disappointed, if God has ever tried to save someone and could not, THEN GOD IS NOT GOD.
Study the writing of Jonathan Edwards when he discusses the eternal attributes of God. For example, God is eternal, therefore his attributes are eternal. If He ever ceases to love then He is not eternal, He is not God. If He ever ceases to be happy and joyful and pleased, then He is not eternal, He is not God. If His will has ever been frustrated or failed, then He is not eternal, He is not God.
In such theology you begin to see that this salvation issue is not so much about us. It is about God and who He is. Our salvation is His perfect plan, carried out exactly as He wanted, unto His pleasure and for His glory. I am just thankful He wanted it this way. Had he not I would have been happy in my sin! But He resurrected me from my deadness, giving me a new nature that loves His commandments and trusts His word. Now I enjoy His excellencies and beauty. And you think this is just philosophical presuppositions — Wow that is sad, coming from a believer who has been graced by the loving mercies of a sovereign God who would have been JUST leaving you in your unbelief.