Who Can Come To Christ?

[seer]

1. It says all Sean. It could very well mean all the elect.

It could mean all the elect and it could mean all the non-elect (or both). But why would God need to draw the elect if they will come anyway (once God regenerates them)?

2. Yes I'm serious. You said that whole passage was only refering to jews.

Jesus said:
Matt 15:24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Jesus ministry was first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Are we to take Matthew 15:24 as a universal declaration that Jesus didn't come to atone for Gentile sinners? Every statement has a context. If you go back and read what I said you will find your answer.

But back to my point. So when Christ said that NO MAN can come to me... He is really only speaking of all jewish men?

Jesus was speaking to the people who heard Him speak. I'm talking about the live audience in front of Him. God was giving his people living on earth at that time to Jesus. These people were already the faithful remnant and already belonged to God. This transition occurred only once in history, so to try and make it to apply to another generation would be to take it out of it's historical context for the purpose of making it a proof text for Calvinism, IMO. Jesus said "they were yours and you gave them to me".

Besides, it doesn't work to make this universal. Judas came to Jesus and was given a position among the twelve.

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Judas came, so the Father must have drawn him too. Then how could he be cast out?

John 17:12"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

Not one was lost, except one. Hmmm. One out of twelve. If this is universal then Jesus failed to keep them all.

Gentile men can come to Him without being drawn?

Never said that. Arguing how Gentiles are or are not drawn by God using the texts in John 6 would be to argue from silence.

Sean, I would like to see one commentary Arminian or Calvinist that agrees with you. I believe Steve Gregg even believes the text is universal. I have no reason to believe that Judas was drawn to Christ. There are so many universal texts in John six it is hard to see why you would take this line, except out of bias. Let me ask you Sean, is John 3:16 universal? Or is Christ only applying that to the Jews too? We find the same universal language in both chapters.

Are these universal,or do these only apply to the Jews of Jesus' day?

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

[Sean]

Sean, I would like to see one commentary Arminian or Calvinist that agrees with you.

Why, would that convince you? Even though these texts existed since John wrote them, the church remained convinced of the free will of man to choose, until Augustine. Until that point, Manicheanism and views like it were rejected by the early church fathers. Were they all wrong?

I gave a link in my first response to this thread. It's to an essay that surveys the typical Calvinist and Arminian attempts to reconcile all the passages in John. If you are really seeking the truth, you would do well to understand the opposing viewpoint(s). If you could care less about understanding another viewpoint, then why ask? I admit my response was brief, but you are the one who refused to follow the link, read up on the position and return with criticisms you have.

I believe Steve Gregg even believes the text is universal.

In Steve Gregg's recent debate with James White he used the same reasoning I am here. You can download and listen to the debate if you want to hear Steve tell it in his words.

I have no reason to believe that Judas was drawn to Christ.

So Judas appointed himself one of the twelve? That's certainly not the case. He was chosen by God Himself:

Mar 3:13 And He went up on the mountain and called to Him those He Himself wanted. And they came to Him.
Mark 3:14 Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, 15 and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons

John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.


Judas was one of the twelve chosen by God, but Judas fell from his position by transgression, which was later filled by another.

Acts 1:17 "for he [Judas] was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
Acts 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen
Acts 1:25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."
Acts 1:26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Judas is an example of someone who was chosen by God but fell away. I don't see how anyone can say Judas appointed himself an apostle.
This throws a wrench into the Calvinist idea that chosen must always mean chosen for salvation (remember, no one [not even Judas] can come to me unless the Father draws him). Judas was chosen but fell away. He was chosen to be an apostle. That's not the same thing as being chosen for salvation.

There are so many universal texts in John six it is hard to see why you would take this line, except out of bias. Let me ask you Sean, is John 3:16 universal? Or is Christ only applying that to the Jews too? We find the same universal language in both chapters.

This is my point exactly. You wouldn't ask this type of question if you understood my position. I suggest you follow the link I mentioned and read the essay. If you are admitting your not going to read that link, then why would I bother trying to be extremely thorough by typing out material thats already typed out elsewhere? You don't seem to want to understand it, you just want to punch holes in a straw man.

Are these universal,or do these only apply to the Jews of Jesus' day?

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Do you really want an answer: http://www.geocities.com/bobesay/electionjohn1.html

[seer]

Sean, let's back up a bit. First - please a direct answer. Are these passages from John six universal or not?

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Thanks...

[Troy]

Seer,

If you are truly interesting in knowing who else holds to the biblical view Sean is presenting, see Laurence Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, pp.510-511, Walls and Dongell: Why I am Not a Calvinist, p.75, and John Goodwin Redemption Redeemed, p.80.

In the passages under discussion found in John 6, Christ's words are indicating his true identity by proclaiming his authority from and relationship with the father. Those Jews at the time that were the true sons and daughters of Abraham in heart, in contrast to those that thought mere ancestral lineage put them in right standing before God, would see Christ for who he really was. Hence, these individuals who did the Father's will and hence were the Father's sheep already before the coming of the Christ would know whether or not Christ's teaching is from God. (See John 7:14-36)

Now I can see how the text that mentions "no man can come" can mean both Jew and Gentile. Yet we must keep in mind that Jesus' historical mission during his last years before His death was to the people of Israel. It wasn't until his resurrection that the gentiles came into the picture. I trust you agree. So, since both the setting and audience of Jesus' teachings in the text under discussion was exclusively Jewish, it is entirely reasonable that he primarily had the Jews in mind when he uttered the words "no man." But, I can also see a potential secondary application for the Gentiles as well. If we are going to be consistent, we must also grant the same disposition of heart for them (Gentiles) when the Father draws individuals to the Son as the door of access to the Father (see John 14:6.) Cornelius in acts would be such an example, and would represent all Gentiles with a God-fearing disposition of heart prior to coming to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of the Living God. Arminians and Open View Theist's see this as a possibility through their understanding of the doctrine of prevenient Grace. Nonetheless, Calvinists err when they import all kinds of ideas based on their understanding from other texts (Eph. 1:4, Rom. 9 etc.) importing them into certain words and phrases in John 6:37,44,65. Moreover, they they fail to acknowledge the Christological aspect of the verse under discussion. This at least makes their (Calvinists) interpretation suspect, and it necessarily follows that such interpretation rests on shaky, unstable ground.

[Sean]

Sean, let's back up a bit. First - please a direct answer. Are these passages from John six universal or not?

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Thanks...

Do you see them as univeral? It would seem that you will have a hard time arguing your point when (if valid) it would disprove your own position. I thought world meant the "elect" and any man meant "elect". Do you now see these as universal?

Both Calvinist and Arminians limit the scope of "universal sounding" texts. The question is, who's right? The simple answer would seem to be that if a position contradicts other scripture, then it's not correct. However, if a position can be in harmony with all texts, it could be the most valid position.

[seer]

Sean, let's back up a bit. First - please a direct answer. Are these passages from John six universal or not?

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Thanks...

Do you see them as univeral? It would seem that you will have a hard time arguing your point when (if valid) it would disprove your own position. I thought world meant the "elect" and any man meant "elect". Do you now see these as universal?

Both Calvinist and Arminians limit the scope of "universal sounding" texts. The question is, who's right? The simple answer would seem to be that if a position contradicts other scripture, then it's not correct. However, if a position can be in harmony with all texts, it could be the most valid position.

The point is Sean, I believe these texts from John six make the context clear that Christ is speaking about more than the Jews of His day. I don't see how you can honestly limit the "world" to the Jews of Jesus' day. That makes no sense and I think it is driven more by bias than exegesis...

[Troy]

So what do you think about the brief thoughts I gave on the verse?

[seer]

So what do you think about the brief thoughts I gave on the verse?

???????

[Sean]

The point is Sean, I believe these texts from John six make the context clear that Christ is speaking about more than the Jews of His day. I don't see how you can honestly limit the "world" to the Jews of Jesus' day. That makes no sense and I think it is driven more by bias than exegesis...

The text states who it is speaking about. Those who heard and learned what Moses taught. Those who already heard and learned from the Father were the ones given to Jesus once He started His public ministry. Texts like "no once can come unless the Father draws him" and "all the father gives me will come" are explained by Jesus. These people were already "sheep". The faithful remnant was being drawn to Jesus. Are there other people that have the offer of Jesus as bread of life? Yes. But these people were those who are being saved out of Satan's domain. These are people who never knew God or rebelled against Him in the past (like the Jews who turned Jesus over to Rome).

Do you realize that there are two groups of Jews? The Israel of believers (the ones belonging to the Father that are handed to the Son) and the Israel that rejected Christ. The interesting thing is that Paul in Romans 9-11 discusses this and holds out hope for the non-elect Jews! Most people that take a Calvinist view of Romans 9 never keep reading. I suggest that you read Romans 9-11 and follow the flow of thought and tell me how this can fit into a Calvinist view of the John passages you cite.

First, Romans 9. If you like, just accept what James White says it means. Then keep reading. Let's find out what Paul thinks about the non-elect Jew's fate.

Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
Rom 9:24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So the "called" have one end, but what about the rest?

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

First, Paul already seems to have stated what the elect or "called" receive from chapters 8-9. Rom 9:24 says they were prepared for glory. So who is it that Paul desires to be saved? Well, Romans 9:6 tells us that not all Israel are of Israel. So Paul, after his discussion through Romans 9 "seems" to tell us the fate of the two classes of Jews (yes, Gentiles get in there too). There are the ones God has compassion on and the ones He hardens ("vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"). Paul reveals that he desires that they may be saved!

Paul goes on through Romans 10 telling us that they should have known but they did not. They are disobedient.

Now, it gets interesting. Paul says:

Rom 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Rom 11:5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

So it seems those whom God foreknew are not going to be cast away, we all know that. Let's read on...

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.


How can Paul say that?! The elect obtained, but the blinded ones Paul says they have not fallen beyond recovery! They are actually to be provoked by the Gentiles coming to salvation. How can someone who is not elect and blinded by God be provoked to jealousy if what is required is that they be "elect" by God from the foundation of the earth?

Paul says it again:

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Rom 11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
Rom 11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?


Tell me. How does Paul think he can provoke the non-elect, blinded by God, "Esau" that God "hates" prepared for destruction Jew to the point of salvation?

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
Rom 11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
Rom 11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
Rom 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Wow! Not only can the non-elect be provoked to turn and be saved, the saved should fear being cut-off!
Note that God is able to graft them in again. Man doesn't graft himself in, God does it. But God can only graft those in do not continue in unbelief. So there is the action of God and the belief of man. Paul's own words refute a Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9.

Seer/Jim, do you see why I am unconvinced of a Calvinist interpretation of John and Romans 9? You've got the non-elect, blinded by God coming to faith! But I thought only the elect could be saved? That's why I agree with Steve Gregg that one can move "in Christ" making them elect in Christ, or fall from that position. I believe it because Paul teaches it in the very context and flow of thought of Romans 9!

[seer]

The point is Sean, I believe these texts from John six make the context clear that Christ is speaking about more than the Jews of His day. I don't see how you can honestly limit the "world" to the Jews of Jesus' day. That makes no sense and I think it is driven more by bias than exegesis...

The text states who it is speaking about. Those who heard and learned what Moses taught. Those who already heard and learned from the Father were the ones given to Jesus once He started His public ministry. Texts like "no once can come unless the Father draws him" and "all the father gives me will come" are explained by Jesus. These people were already "sheep". The faithful remnant was being drawn to Jesus. Are there other people that have the offer of Jesus as bread of life? Yes. But these people were those who are being saved out of Satan's domain. These are people who never knew God or rebelled against Him in the past (like the Jews who turned Jesus over to Rome).

[/i]!

Sean, that logic does not follow. Just because Christ is speaking to the Jews does not mean that He is limiting all His points to the Jews. He clearly is not - there is no way one can honestly restrict the "world" to the Jews of Jesus' day.

For instance:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world

For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

I'm sorry Sean, even if Christ is speaking to the Jews these points are universal. I think that anyone without a bias would see that. BTW - Romans 9 would be a thread all to its self...