63 thoughts on “Have you been given to Christ by the Father?”

1. RE: “However, though he has stumbled he has not stumbled beyond recovery (Rm 11:12); though he has been hardened he may be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14); though he has been cut off from the vine he may be graphed back in if he leaves his unbelief (Rm 11:23).”
   …………………………………………….
   Reprobate turned ‘elect’; unheard of.
   Thanks; vail lifting.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. That makes no sense. “A reprobate turned elect.” That’s not the argument. Calvinist don’t teach that a reprobate becomes elect. Election is before the foundation of the world. I’m not sure how this article was “vail lifting” unless you mean in regards to how Leighton left out the first 5 verses of John 17. Go read those he left out and ask why he started in verse 6. Then you can ACTUALLY have the vail lifted my friend.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Daniel, I don’t think Peanut Gallery was saying “reprobate” can turn into “elect” for if you have read much of his responses in other places, PG does not believe the Calvinist concept of elect actually exists. It appears to me that he is affirming his agreement with Leighton’s discussion in this post that if the Calvinist thinks the passage is talking about the so-called “reprobate” they believe in, then how can those same people in the same passage be labeled as those who become elect or are already elect?

         Loading...

      2. Further explanation, please? I don’t see how verses 1-5 change the argument in any way, unless you’re claiming that v2 refers to “the elect” and not solely to the apostles. If so, then it is on you to prove that v2 and v6 refer to different groups of people.

         Loading...
2. Pingback: John 6 – “Down from Heaven” : Why Context kills Calvinism | SOTERIOLOGY 101

3. I believe Arminians are people who are offended by the Gospel. They are similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses, who approach Scripture with rules (God can only be one and there is no hell) and will bend, change, twist, ignore, turn the world upside down to deny the Scriptures that contradict them. But for the grace of God I would be an Arminian. I believe Arminians, because they produce the most subtle counterfeit Christ and gospel are the most dangerous cult in the world. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ gospel is as easy to detect as Monopoly money…the allurement to the flesh of Arminianism, combined with the cunning craftiness of those who are deceived and deceiving others, makes this the false gospel that Jesus warned, if it were possible, deceive the very elect. I take comfort that God will lead all of His elect out of this false system that exalts man to control his entire universe.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Funny – I am not an Arminian, but I always thought Calvinism was the most dangerous cult in the world. If a seeker were to attend a Calvinist church and hear the doctrine of predestination, that seeker could easily leave thinking they might as well live their life any way they please because their is nothing they can do to be saved – God has either predestined them to heaven or they are going to hell. If that same seeker attended (was drawn to) an Arminian church, they would at least have heard (faith building hearing) the hope given through the message of John 3:16 (grace) – eternal life is possible through believing in Jesus. Tell me which is more dangerous.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Welcome Herb! Calvinism is dangerous, imo, because it lessens our motivation for evangelism, lessens our confidence in prayer, and lessens our trust in the clarity of Scripture to define clearly for us necessary sound doctrines.

         Loading...

      2. Hello Herb and welcome.

         You make excellent points.

         And Calvinist know – if they tell the WHOLE TRUTH about their doctrine – it is just exactly as you say.

         Their congregations will dwindle down to a few “DIE-HARD” Calvinists and stay there.

         Calvinists pastors understand that – and that is why Calvinist language has its reputation for being a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.

         The Calvinist mind is conditioned to assert the doctrine as TRUE – while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE – in order to retain a sense of NORMALCY.

         blessings
         br.d

         Loading...

      3. “There is none who seek God”, as Paul clearly states as he quotes Isaiah. So your whole assumption falls apart. God draws people in, they do not seek him until the drawing comes. In a sense it feels like we are seeking, but it’s actually God drawing.

         Loading...

      4. Actually, Daniel, God calls it seeking. It does not just “feel” like seeking. Hebrews 11:6 NKJV – But without faith [it is] impossible to please [Him], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and [that] He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

         That’s one of the biggest harms of Calvinism. They must too often say, just to remain loyal to their theology, that God’s Word does not literally mean what it says, and in fact means the opposite sometimes of what the words used mean.

         Loading...

      5. Daniel,

         Oh, it’s the ole “None who seek God” routine, huh? LOL.

         Those under the law of Moses have 613 laws, and they are all walking on egg shells attempting to not break a commandment, that they have NO TIME or energy to seek God.

         The law is the barrier to seeking God. That’s why scripture states, I will have mercy and not sacrifice.

         Sacrifice is the law, but in the law, there is no mercy.

         Hebrews 10:28
         He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

         And for those who love to say that there is none righteous, no not one…that had a context, because guess what? There were many righteous.

         Luke 1:6
         And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

         Are you sure you aren’t a Calvinist?

         Loading...

   2. Soteriology 101 does a great job of pointing out the contradictions inherent in Calvinism. Your post, on the other hand, makes lots of accusations and provides no proof. Please give examples of the claims you have made against Arminianism.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Pamela
         -quote
         Your post, on the other hand, makes lots of accusations and provides no proof.
         Please give examples of the claims you have made….
         .
         .
         br.d
         This is the pattern for Calvinists
         It is technically called the “IPSE DIXIT” fallacy (Its true because I say so)
         .
         Example:
         A 10 year old boy claims his father can lift 5 automobiles at one time
         When he is asked to provide proof – his response is “Its true because I say so”
         .
         .
         The Reason Calvinists rely heavily on “IPSE DIXIT” arguments – is because their belief-system (Determinism) cannot be RATIONALLY Affirmed.
         .
         Dr. William Lane Craig
         -quote
         The very concept of rationally affirming Determinism is self-defeating.
         In order to rationally accept something as true, your mind must have the freedom to weigh evidence.
         And that requires the mental process of deliberation.
         But if Determinism is true, then the belief within the human brain is the result of prior causes outside of the brains control.
         Including the brain’s perception or acceptance that Determinism is true.
         So THE DETERMINING FACTOR for the belief is not evidence based
         .
         .
         Gregory Koukl
         -quote:
         The problem with Determinism, is that…..rationality would have no room to operate.
         One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one.
         One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so.
         Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if were.
         Everyone of our thoughts and opinions would have been predetermined by factors completely out of our control.
         Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self-defeating.”
         .
         .
         CALVINISM IS A CONFESSIONALLY AFFIRMED BELIEF SYSTEM:
         .
         Since Calvinism cannot be affirmed RATIONALLY – the Calvinsit must find a different way to affirm his belief system.
         .
         This is why Calvinism has so many CONFESSIONS
         .
         And this is why Calvinists rely so heavily on the “IPSE DIXIT” fallacy (Its true because I say so)
         .
         .
         A CONFESSIONAL belief-system does not have to be RATIONAL – and is not likely to be RATIONAL
         .
         So asking a Calvinsit to provide a RATIONAL reason – is not something he can provide.
         Calvinists are likely to PRETEND to be rational – because they don’t want to be seen as irrational.
         Because the inherent nature of the belief-system is that it is not rational
         .
         blessings
         br.d

         Loading...

      2. br.d, and Pamela,

         I have no problem at all with this article whatsoever. It’s what I’ve been saying all along, actually.

         Jews:
         Deuteronomy 29:4
         4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

         That verse is repeated in Romans 11:8.

         Gentiles:
         Romans 15:21
         21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

         How do we get a “remnant” Jews out of Deuteronomy 29:4?

         John 9:39-41
         39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

         40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

         41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

         That’s how. Remember Lydia? She was a Jewish woman, which God had to “open her heart” before she would be receptive to Paul’s message. How do I know she was Jewish? Because Paul preached to Jews first before any gentiles, and Paul had just gotten into town.

         Romans 11:5-6
         5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

         6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

         The only ones under “works” were the Jews. How can it be “NO MORE” works if it were anyone else but Jews? Jews who are UNBLINDED are the remnant. Gentiles need not apply for that term.

         So let’s leave the Gentiles out of the conversation completely here, because this is about the Jews only, as noted from Romans 15:21.

         This is about the Law of Moses folks only. They were already God followers, so therefore, Jesus “CHOOSES”, which Law of Moses God follower will TRANSITION to being a Jesus follower. This is not about any other ethnic or nation or religion. Gentiles is a different conversation to have completely.

         Loading...

      3. Ed, I agree with this article too. I was specifically responding to Daniel and asking him to provide proof of his assertions about Arminianism, although I don’t necessarily agree with Arminian doctrine either.

         I appreciate your distinction between imputed original sin and imputed sin nature. I first read your explanation a couple of years ago, and it resolved some difficulties with the disposition of children and babies if they die young.

         I entirely reject the idea that God predisposes some to damnation for all eternity, and this article does a good job of explaining the many ways in which the Calvinist interpretation of this passage is incorrect.

         Loading...

      4. Pamela,

         Well, I do have to say that I fully appreciate your clarification on this matter. I initially thought that you were in fact responding to Daniel, but I wasn’t sure.

         And, just to clarify my stance on “imputed sin nature”, let’s just remember that the word “knowledge” of sin is required before it’s imputed. Huge example is Abraham married to his sister, which is a sin.

         Leviticus 18:6
         None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

         Leviticus 18:9
         The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
         mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
         nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

         Leviticus 18:11
         The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

         Leviticus 20:17
         And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s
         daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
         wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
         hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

         Deuteronomy 27:22
         Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
         daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
         —————————–
         And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God’s commandments, statutes, ordinances, and “TORAH”?

         Genesis 26:5
         Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

         Now, because you have read Genesis 26:5 above, you might get the idea that Abraham was “sinless”? How can that be, with the statement, “for all have sinned”?

         Genesis 20:12
         And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
         ————
         And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister with a promised inbred Isaac.

         According to the codified law, Abraham would be cursed, because he did a wicked thing, and should be cut off from the sight of his people, and shall bear his iniquity…yet, he was NOT cursed at all, but BLESSED. God never told him about this sin, but gave brother/sister an inbred child instead.

         For all have sinned. But the sin was not “imputed” to him, all because of no “knowledge”, hence the tree’s name in the garden that bears that word.

         So, for me, it begs me to ask, What is sin “nature”? I’d have to conclude that I don’t believe in “sin nature”. But that’s just me. Have we all sinned? Sure. But is it really “sin nature”? What does “sin nature” mean?

         Loading...

      5. Hmmm. I was going to say that sin nature just means that anyone who lives long enough to have a will of their own, will at some point choose disobedience to God… Then I realized that Adam fits that definition too, so sin nature is actually just free will.

         As far as Abraham and Sarah, since the law hadn’t been given yet, was Abraham a lawbreaker? In our own legal system, a person can’t be charged with breaking a law if the law is written after the person does the thing. Was the law always the law, but God kept it concealed until Moses? Or did God provide the law when it became necessary due to man’s sin? God being omniscient and omnipotent, of course the law was always part of His plan, but can’t we assume that the timing in which it was given was also always part of His plan? So it’s not simply because Abraham didn’t know the law that he didn’t transgress, but because the law didn’t exist yet.

         Loading...

      6. Pamela,

         Romans 5:13
         13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

         Romans 4:15
         15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

         Ignorance of the law is the excuse! The whole world fell under that…for until the law everyone sinnned (for all have sinned). BUT…sin is not imputed where there is no law. Abraham wasn’t the only one.

         That tree in the garden only applied to Adam and Eve, and their knowledge probably got passed down a couple of generations or so, but eventually…

         Romans 4:8
         Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

         When you say FREE WILL, do you mean FREE WILL to sin?

         Free will I have no problem with, but in order for whatever you do, if your conscience does not convict you of what you do, then how can it be a FREE WILL TO SIN? What sin? You have to KNOW that you are doing wrong, but if you don’t know it’s wrong in the first place, then you are NOT excersizing free will TO sin.

         What is Bar/Bat Mitzvah? It’s the INTRODUCTION to the law to Jewish children. That’s when they begin to have KNOWLEDGE of the law.

         Paul explains that when he said:

         Romans 7:7-9
         7 …I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

         8 …For without the law sin was dead.

         9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

         Before Bar/Bat Mitvah, parents are responsible for the sins of the children.

         Knowledge of sin is when sin is imputed when you CHOOSE by free will to sin on purpose! But we all sin because we are WEAK when it comes to the commandments.

         15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

         16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

         Test this with young children by putting a chocolate candy bar in the middle of the bedroom and tell your children to not eat it…see what happenes! They will eat it, have chocolate stains on their mouth, and say, “No mom, I didn’t eat it!” lol!

         But if you didn’t tell them to not eat it, it may still be there in the morning, untouched. Who knows?

         Loading...

      7. I’m pretty sure Adam knew he was sinning, since he immediately blamed Eve. 😜 So yes, Adam had free will to sin, as did Eve.

         How do you address Romans 2 in the context of no one being accountable to the law until they hear it?

         13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

         Loading...

      8. Pamela:
         I’m pretty sure Adam knew he was sinning, since he immediately blamed Eve. 😜 So yes, Adam had free will to sin, as did Eve.
         .
         br.d
         This is where Calvinists have what they call “TENSIONS”
         They use the word “Tensions” as a replacement word for “CONFLICTS” because “Tensions” is more complimentary.
         .
         The *KIND* of freedom you are referring to here – is known as LIBERTARIAN freedom – and does not exist for the Calvinist.
         .
         Reformed author Paul Helms
         -quote
         The WCF’s statements about god’s attributes and god’s eternal decree imply theological DETERMINISM and thus rule out LIBERTARIAN free will.
         .
         .
         LIBERTARIAN Freedom contains two attributes which conflict with Determinism
         1) ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES exist within creation
         2) Humans are granted the ability to CHOOSE between them – and thus granted the ability to DO OTHERWISE
         .
         .
         So in Adam’s case – ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS existed for Adam.
         1) The option to [EAT] the forbidden fruit
         2) The option to [NOT EAT] the forbidden fruit
         .
         With LIBERTARIAN Freedom – Adam would also have a CHOICE between those options.
         .
         He would be granted the ability to [EAT] – and also the ability to DO OTHERWISE and [NOT EAT].
         .
         But in Calvinism LIBERTARIAN Freedom is ruled out.
         .
         An infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE OPTION
         .
         So in Calvinism – the option to [NOT EAT] was contrary to the decree – and not permitted.
         .
         So in Calvinism – Adam did not have a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT]
         .
         .
         This becomes a “CONFLICT” for the Calvinsit – because this conception of “Freedom” is the NORMAL conception for all humans.
         .
         The Calvinsit does not want to be perceived as ABNORMAL
         .
         The desire to be perceived as NORMAL causes the “CONFLICT” For the Calvinsit
         .
         The recognition that the Calvinsit is not granted a CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS causes internal CONFLICT for the Calvinsit.
         .
         .
         The Calvinist has an urgency to be faithful to his doctrine – which if he accepts it – it makes him an ABNORMAL human.
         .
         The fact that the Calvinist is never granted a CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS is the major CONFLICT for the Calvinist.
         .
         Calvinists have a tendency to WANT IT BOTH WAYS
         They want Determinism – but they also want LIBERTARIAN Freedom.
         That is what produces the CONFLICT for them.
         .
         blessings
         br.d

         Loading...

      9. I always appreciate your insights… but Ed is not even a little bit Calvinist, so I was specifically asking about his position that no one’s sin is counted against them until they know the law. I should have included Romans 2:12 in my inquiry: “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.”

         So indeed, those who don’t know the law will still be held accountable (will perish) for their sin.

         Loading...

      10. Pamela,

          Your use of the word “perish” in Romans 2 is not discussing the “spiritual” destiny, but it’s indicating that those without the law will NOT be judged BY the law when they die (perish), but will be judged by their conscience instead.

          People already knows that it’s wrong to steal and murder without any written down law to inform them.

          And, if we love our neighbor as ourselves anyway, are we even “OBSERVING” Thou Shalt Not Steal? No. We are observing, Love your neighbor as yourself. If you love your neighbor, the thought of stealing from them doesn’t even enter your mind. So there is no need to observe a law that doesn’t apply (Thou Shalt Not Steal). ONE commandment will do.

          Love fulfills the law.

          Loading...

      11. Pamela,

          Now, earlier I had mentioned the spiritual aspect of the Pharaoh = Satan.

          There is another in like manner, as well.

          We all know that Jesus is the “promised seed”, seed as in one, not many.

          Well, Isaac was the single seed, as well. Isaac is a REPRESENTATION of Jesus. Ishmael was not the promise, Isaac was. Ishmael was of the “flesh”, which is what the law represents, from the bond woman Hagar. Isaac was of the FREE woman.

          In any case, since Isaac represents Jesus, who do you suppose that Ishmael REPRESENTS? Satan.

          Ishmael mocked Isaac, and Sarah demanded of Abraham to kick him out from the inheritance. Satan was kicked out of heaven. God told Abraham to “listen to your wife”.

          Genesis 21
          9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

          10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

          11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son.

          12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

          So, we have Romans 9:6 in which many want to distinguish Christians vs. The family lineage of Abraham:

          Romans 9:6
          For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

          Ishmael is not.

          7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

          Esau is not because he sold his birthright (inheritance) for soup.

          God “used” those people (potter/clay) in order to tell a spiritual story, and be reminded that Romans 5:13 applies to those. Paul is telling us of the MERCY that they get for their role in telling a story about Jesus and Satan.

          So what Paul is saying is that there is a spiritual representation of the carnal history. Getting to heaven is not through the carnal story, but through the spiritual interpretation. It’s like looking into a mirror. The Jews “can’t” see that spiritual reality. They can only see the carnal history, the expository side. It’s not that they “won’t”, but it’s that they “can’t”. Not until Jesus removes the blinders. And it’s not due to sin that they can’t see. It’s not a judicial punishment. It was the plan from Deuteronomy 29:4, as it’s repeated in Romans 11:8. And he will unblind them, and when he does, they will mourn the one whom they pierced. The church did not replace Israel, nor did they become Israel, either. The Israel of God is still the Jews, and only the Jews. Note the word “and” that preceeds that phrase, “and the Israel of God” in Galatians.

          I’ve heard that some Calvinist Church’s spend WEEKS on preaching Romans 9, which brainwashes them in the potter/clay thing for ALL OF HUMANITY, when in reality, it only applies to Jews, and a select few Gentiles, such as the Pharaoh, in order to tell a spiritual story about Jesus and Satan. Most of this spiritual prophesy stuff is in Genesis alone.

          It is stated that

          Isaiah 46:10
          Declaring the end from the beginning…

          If you want to know how the story ends, read Genesis, backwards.

          Loading...

      12. Pamela,

          “Knew he was sinning”? Knew? What was the sin? What was the name of the tree in the garden? Something about KNOWLEDGE, right? Knowledge of what, exactly?

          They had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate of that tree. They were naked before God, without shame. Their eyes were closed to that fact.

          Yes, they disobeyed God by eating of that tree, but it’s the CONSEQUENCES of that tree that is the MAIN issue. The consequences were, THEY GOT KNOWLEDGE of something that God didn’t want them to have. For as long as you are IGNORANT, then you are INNOCENT.

          If you tell your children to not play with matches, what is the REASON? Just because you said so? No, of course not. It’s so the CONSEQUENCES of playing with matches does not occur, such as, they could get burnt, hurt, or die IF they do not obey you.

          So, God wants them to be IGNORANT of sin. But Satan comes along and states, “Stop being so ignorant and get educated!”. Sound familiar? I’ll take “What Atheists say for $1,000, Alex”!

          So they got educated. How did that work out for them.

          Many denominations just concentrate on the disobedience of eating of that tree, but THAT’S NOT the main point, but they make it the main point.

          Now, in regards to your Romans 2 that you mention, Paul is DISTINGUISHING those UNDER THE LAW, vs. those NOT under the law.

          For those under the law will be judged by the law, The Jews, the Law of Moses people. Those not under the law will be judged by their “conscience”, the Gentiles, those who “never heard” of a Jesus, or a God.

          Have you ever read Acts 17:30, about Gentile Idol Worshipers?

          Acts 17:30
          30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

          WINK WINK. Note the word “IGNORANCE”?

          Let me introduce you to the Apostle Paul:

          1 Timothy 1:13
          Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

          Three words:
          1. Mercy
          2. Ignorance
          3. Unbelief

          Now, for Romans 9, and 11, note the word MERCY and UNBELIEF (for the BLIND JEWS).

          Romans 11:30
          For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

          Romans 11:31
          Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

          Romans 11:32
          For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

          Romans 11:26
          And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

          Jacob is not the church. Blind Jews will be saved.

          Why was the Pharaoh mentioned in Romans 9? Because God “used” him like a ragdoll, for a SPIRITUAL purpose, not some Calvinistic reason. And because of that, the Pharaoh gets MERCY for his ROLE. What’s the role?

          Moses = Jesus (The REDEEMER)
          Pharaoh = Satan
          Egypt = BONDAGE to sin, as well as HELL FIRE
          Task Masters = DEMONS (whips, torture)
          Jews = HUMANITY AS A WHOLE
          Canaan = THE PROMISED LAND, aka HEAVEN
          Wandering the desert = CHRISTIAN WALK, tripping and falling along the way, struggling with sin, wanting to go back to sin, as it was much easier that way.
          Crossing the Jordan = Natural Death
          Entering Canaan or Egypt!

          So, God is using the Pharaoh to tell a spiritual story. It was God who hardened the heart of the Pharaoh, in order to do that. And he’s using the BLIND JEWS as well, even unto this day, but Christian Jew haters aren’t listening. Especially the PRETERISTS. All we want to to is to GO HOME to HEAVEN. Sound familiar? Jews are awaiting the prophesies of them going HOME to Canaan, the PROMISED LAND.

          Prophesy is indicitive of the spiritual, and in order to tell it, God orchestrated things to tell that story through the lives of CERTAIN individuals. But most dont seem to see this spiritual stuff, because they pride themselves on being EXPOSITORY, and pat themselves on the back for it. So you get the CALVINISTS and ARMINIANS arguing about SIN this and SIN that all the time, INSTEAD of “faith”. Abraham didn’t have to worry about sin. He didn’t have THE LAW.

          Oh, and read Romans 5:20.

          Romans 5:20 (NIVR) – FIRST HALF
          20 The law was given so that sin would increase.

          So God gives a law that he KNOWS that no one can keep. For all have sinned. The law was a SETUP for mankind to FAIL.

          Romans 5:20 (NIVR) – LAST HALF
          But where sin increased, God’s grace increased even more.

          STOP worrying about THE LAW and SIN, because Jesus set you FREE “FROM” the law of sin and death. BE LIKE ABRAHAM, and concentrate of FAITH.

          Abraham
          Romans 4:3
          For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

          JEWS under the law:
          Deuteronomy 6:25
          And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

          Christians (JUST LIKE ABRAHAM)
          Romans 3:21
          But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

          So everytime I hear a Christian blasting the Jews that they “DISOBEYED GOD”, I have to laugh, because, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED. Who hasn’t?

          Or those who hate the Jews for killing Jesus, I also have to laugh, because that was the MISSION of Jesus, to die to save people. What would have been the result if Jesus was not crucified? Was he supposed to have lived out a long life, say some nice things, get married, have kids, see his grandkids married off?

          Matthew 16:21-23
          21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

          22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

          23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

          All Peter wanted to do was to PROTECT Jesus, but Jesus laid into him pretty good.

          I say all this just to say that there is a difference between those under the law of condemnation, and those who are not. Jews vs. Gentiles, NOT “for there is no difference”, because there most certainly is. FAITH vs. LAW, not faith plus law. Seems that many have forgotten that, and rarely ever mention Abraham at all.

          Loading...

      13. Pamela,

          My contention with Arminianism would be the same as with Calvinism. The Doctrines of Grace. I do not believe in either Prevenient Grace, or Irresitable Grace. Original Sin is a NECESSARY prerequisite to both, and I do not believe in Original Sin, so that negates out the doctrines of Grace.

          Loading...

4. Mr. Flowers stopped at verse 21. I wonder if this was intentional, or by accident. Because look at verses 22 and 23. “And the glory which Thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, Thou in me, that they may be perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast loved Me.” Wow. Look at verse 23. Here we see that the love of God in Christ is not only to Christ, but also to the believer! Now this is staggering in itself and is worthy of a lifetime of meditation and is unfathomable. I feel like I insult this point to point out this other fact we see in verse 23….the truth that God’s love in Christ extends to, and not beyond Christ and the believer. Notice that the world is only a spectator to this love–not the object. So, this Scripture refutes the notion that God loves everyone the same in Christ, and loves everyone in Christ—it is simply a false belief.
   Finally, In order to understand John 17, you must go back to John 1. In verse 13 we see that all of those who receive Him come only from the group who believe in His name, and most important, all of those who believe in His name come only from those who WERE born of God. Being born of God comes FIRST, believing and receiving 2nd. We see this same emphasis in the Epistle of John 5:1 “Whoseover believeth ((an unfortunate translation in the King James as the tense is left out, and “whosoever” is a word that did not exist until after 1000 AD and has English concepts attached to it….The Scripture accurately translated says “Every believing one” (present action)) that Jesus is the Son of God has been (past completed) born of God. Friends…why does the Word of God tell us this? Why does John repeat this truth? Because it is foundational to our knowledge of our salvation. If you believe in the Lord Jesus of the Gospel of John, it is because you were BEFOREHAND born of God. The Arminian cannot stand this, because they want to imagine a more liberal Christ with a more humanistically appealing love for everyone. So, my dear reader…will you go with emotion? Will you pick your Christ? Or will you go with the one set forth in Scripture?

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Roy keep telling yourself that. By the way I find your comparison of Arminians to JW’s & Mormonism not only insulting but totally uncalled for. Your type is the reason why we are divided on this issue. Instead of doing research you result in attacks unfounded and untrue. Do us a favor actually research Arminianism instead of jumping on the Calvinist bandwagon like a lot of people do because your attitude is unbecoming of a Christian.

      Maybe you’ll learn something.

      By the way if you can’t find a way to have a civil dialog and at least try to refute Pastor Flowers then don’t bother posting. In fact why are you even here unless that’s all you do is attack and belittle a Theology which seems you know little of.

      You don’t see Pastor Flowers coming here and telling folks that Calvinism is like JW’s and Mormonism do you? So why not show the same courtesy and refrain from the ad hominem attacks.

      Loading...

      Reply

   2. Wow, I find this line of though very difficult to follow, I really tried to follow the logic..God points out that he loves the disciples, that he loves the world, and that he has a plan for all to,, at least see and partake of his love through the cross of Jesus, and the result of the passion talk of Jesus for the world through his messengers,, is that how amazed you are that God does not love everybody.. I think there must be an esoteric influence there, so as to blind you from plain speech.. Also I see where you accuse those who believe that they must repent and believe in Jesus so as to be born again, a cult. Eph 1.14 gives the order of salvation as does many passages. In fact it is Calvin who insisted on a rebirth before Jesus comes in the flesh, a rebirth according to election in time past when Jesus was not yet manifest, and not according to mans repentance , belief and acceptance of a Jesus who came in flesh on a cross.. Only cults truly switch scripture around, as you did in John 1.. You skipped verse 11, and 12, as many Calvinists do, “”He came unto his own, and his own received him not.Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”. You truly seem to have a zeal, I pray it doesn’t desist, but that perhaps you would study a little father, and point it in the right direction. Please spend some time tracing your belief. According to Calvinists today they admit this doctrine did not start with the church fathers, but with the guru Augustine.. He was a gnostic monk, perhaps the worst cult this planet has ever seen, seeing as they believed man was set free by Satan giving him knowledge in the garden of Eden. This is why the early disciples and church fathers spent do much time refuting the gnostic heresy.. It was fascinated with the word elect, they used the word choice, to remove choice from man and God, so as to declare themselves a special people, who loved to deny flesh, worship angels and boast in the supernatural,. The disciples of John and Peter clearly refute the belief of Calvin,, as admit the Calvinist preachers of our day,.. .

      Loading...

      Reply

5. Hi Leighton,

   Great article! I have a few questions. I had a rather contentious debate with a person who argues against Calvinism – but who also argues for a “giving by the Father to Jesus” as an ongoing process that continues in our day. She has devoted an entire blog with numerous posts – and feels this is the correct way to refute the Calvinist understanding of the “giving”. In the process of our discussion, I came to realize that the problem is an exegetical one that occurs at the observation level. Throughout our ongoing dialogue, I told her that the contextual “giving” was a unique situation that arose from a specific situation and setting, whereby the Father passed off a group of pre-existing, Jewish disciples who priorly believed that Jesus was the prophecied, coming Messiah, over to the care of the earthly Jesus so that he could disciple them during the time of his earthly ministry for which He had been sent.

   My argument to her was, if there is any “giving” going on today, it would have to align itself with the contextual giving of John 6 (and 17). Her response to my comments always resulted in interpretative arguments that ignored the context. At some point, I angered her and she has since blocked me. FWIW she began to attack me personally when she couldn’t refute what I was pointing out from the text. I mentioned what she was doing and she then accused me of not having ears to ear.

   In any case, in the course of my discussion with her, I came away uncertain as to the identity of the believing disciples in the passage, and specifically if they only included the 12 – or were there others being referred to as well? It would seem that there were more than 12 Jewish people who believed what the OT and what John the Baptist was saying about Jesus – but I would love to hear your take on it. One thing that does indicate that there *may* be disciples in view, is the present continuous “everything that the Father GIVES me” in John 6:36. Her argument to me was that this definitively proves that the giving continues today. I responded that the use of the present continuos tense has an expired date – that being the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry – meaning it is a present continuous tense at the time He said it – but it not so as we read it today. So my point may have defeated her point – but then it, at the same time, *may* indicate that there were more “given” ones that had not yet come to Jesus at that time. Those ones *will* come to Him…

   Secondly, in John 17:20 it seems that it is not completely clear about the demographic of the second group that Jesus is praying for. One possibility is that he is speaking to second generation believers only – given that they are the ones who will believe the word of the “given” ones. Of course, it is entirely likely that Jesus is referring to further generations as well (and therefore the entire universal church spanning time). It seems that if one were to accept this view, however, it would require one to assume that: 1. Jesus was assuming a scenario where the “word” of the given ones would be passed on from one generation to the next and/or 2. Jesus is saying this with the knowledge that some of these disciples will write gospels that will entail people becoming believers because of the *written* word of the gospel writers.

   Very interested to hear your thoughts!

   Peter

   Loading...

   Reply

6. Leighton?

   Loading...

   Reply

7. Can you please help explain John 17:2
   In verse 2, Jesus says “As you have given Him authority over ALL FLESH, that He should give eternal life to as many as you have given him.
   I agree with you regarding the verses that follow are talking about the disciples given to him but verse 2 seems to indicate that God gave those who would have eternal life to him.

   Loading...

   Reply

8. Hi
   Just wanted to add the queries here, by saying that from my reading of these verses, the key thing to take away is that, even if the verse of the Father drawing, is specific to that time or extends to the future. It is His will to provide that drawing to All (not an unconditional pre elect before the foundation of the earth). The All being those who are not in that time or ours under a judicial hardening

   39And 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.
   40And this is the will of him that sent me, that EVERYONE which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

   SO those who are given are those which believeth on Him. And the opportunity is given to everyone.

   Further down in verse 44 it says
   .No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
   45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be ALL taught of God. EVERYMAN therefore that hath HEARD, and hath LEARNED of the Father, COMETH unto me.

   This shows me that the heart of God is that His drawing is available to ALL (that’s God’s promise). Then man’s responsibility is Hear(HEED), LEARN, and causes them to come to Christ or to be given to Christ.

   Loading...

   Reply

9. Isaiah 41:9 includes “I have chosen you and have not rejected you” but, God wouldn’t reject his own choice; a petition is implied, meaning there was both a choosing and a response to a request. In this one short line, I believe God showed me all of Calvinism and Arminianism joined. I had called on the Lord to save me not long before so being “not rejected” fit but, in context it’s addressed to Israel.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Welcome Paula! That is a reasonable inference, but not the only one, and not a necessary inference. God’s not choosing could be seen as a rejection in the same act of not choosing. And rejection does not necessarily mean the person made a petition that was rejected. Here the person is not rejected and unless the context mentions a petition, we can’t assume one was made and not rejected. There was a call that was personally answered, mentioned in the beginning of that verse… so definitely God does not reject any who answer His call!

      Loading...

      Reply

   2. br.d
      Hello Paua and welcome.
      .
      Paula
      I believe God showed me all of Calvinism and Arminianism joined….
      .
      br.d
      It is not clear what one would mean by “Calvinism and Arminianism joined” – but the foundational core of Calvinism – and the foundational core of Armiianism are such that one is like a perfect vacuum and the other is like breathable air.
      .
      In other words – the two belief systems mutually exclude each other.
      .
      The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated in Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees. And EDD by definition excludes humans having the function of choice – because EDD represents a 100% predestined world – in which for every human event and every human impulse – there is never granted more than one single predestined rendered-certain option. And humans are granted “No Choice” in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
      .
      Arminianism rejects EDD.
      And as such allows for humans to be granted the function of choice.
      So these two belief systems mutually exclude each other – just like a perfect vacuum excludes breathable air.
      .
      Blessings!
      br.d

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. br.d,

         Your last sentence has a word that concerns me.

         Granted.

         Until one is granted…

         Both Calvinism, and Arminianism has a Doctrine of Grace. Though different, the concept is the same.

         In one, you can’t get to first base until…in the other, you can’t pick up a bat until…

         Therefore, I find the problem to be both doctrines of grace, but both are dependent upon original sin.

         There is a problem in that doctrine of original sin.

         But that one doctrine created two different grace doctrines.

         One sucks air… the other blows air.

         No one can breathe either way.

         Ed Chapman

         Loading...

      2. Ed,
         Both Calvinism, and Arminianism has a Doctrine of Grace.
         .
         br.d
         No this is not the case.
         It is critical to understand – the core of Calvinism is a mixture of Gnostic and Neo-Platonic DUALISM – where “Good” and “Evil” are co-equal, co-complimentary, and co-necessary.
         .
         Calvinists are understandably uncomfortable with the divine “Evil” part of their doctrine.
         As a consequence Calvinist language has evolved as a MARKETING language.
         Which makes a certain percentage of Calvinist language – follow the pattern of an “Angel of light”
         It is language designed to present Calvinism as something it isn’t\
         .
         Calvinist doctrine is actually doctrine of “Good-Evil” trying to masquerade itself as a doctrine of “Grace”.
         .
         In Calvinism – we have a THEOS who at the foundation of the world – conceives of each individual.
         And that conception includes whether that individual will be created/designed specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
         .
         To call that a doctrine of “Grace” is to distort the meaning of the word.
         So Arminianism can truthfully be classified as a doctrine of Grace
         But Calvinism must be recognized as a doctrine of “Good-Evil”.
         .
         Also – it is critical to understand – Arminianism sprang as a branch out of Calvinism.
         So they do share many attributes.
         But not Calvinism’s EDD
         And not Calvinisms DUALISTIC system of “Good-Evil”

         Loading...

      3. br.d,

         Arminian has PREVENIANT Grace, pre, being the key portion of the word…or, grace, not until…

         That’s where I was going with the word granted.

         Calvinists have Irresistible Grace.

         Neither is needed without original sin doctrine.

         Ed Chapman

         Loading...

      4. br.d
         Yes – I would agree.
         The concept of original sin needs to be clearly defined.
         .
         In Calvinism – there really isn’t any such thing as “original sin” in the way most people understand it because – it implies Adam was granted a choice between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] which is FALSE in Calvinism.
         .
         In Calvinism – Adam did not really commit a sin in the sense in which most people understand.
         .
         An impulse was decreed to come to pass within Adam’s brain – and no alternative impulse was permitted.
         That impulse was then called a “sin” impulse – and attributed to Adam as “Adam’s sin”
         That is the equivalent of putting bald tires on a car so that one can punish the car for having bald tires.
         And then claiming bald tires “originate” from that car.
         .
         Calvinists are so blessed to live in a world of DOUBLE-SPEAK! 😀

         Loading...

      5. br.d,

         Wow, you are exactly right about that double speak. Just a quick Google of “Calvinist Original Sin” shows that Johnny boy believed in it, but can’t really define it, other than to say:

         “an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all parts of the soul”.

         Yet, he can’t PINPOINT to when this actually took place, like other mainlines can. Based on Johnny, it looks as if it always existed.

         Interesting how words and phrases changes definition, depending on what denomination you are from.

         Ed Chapman

         Loading...

      6. br.d
         Yes! Good points Ed!
         .
         John Calvin
         -quote
         For it did not take place BY REASON OF NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.
         (institutes 3.22.18)
         .
         John Calvin
         -quote
         Since this CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the….plan of god (Institutes 3.23.7)
         .
         Tom Hicks – Founders Ministries
         -quote
         God cannot know what something will be until he has first decreed what it will be.
         .
         A.W. Pink
         -quote
         God foreknows what will be because he decrees what will be.
         .
         John Calvin
         -quote
         The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)

         Loading...

      7. br.d
         Hi Ed
         What I mean by the word “granted” has to do with the difference between the Calvinist conception of:
         “And God said – let us create man in our image and likeness”.
         .
         A major difference between the two conceptions – concerns what parts of that divine “image and likeness” are “granted” to mankind.
         .
         In both systems – we have a THEOS who exists within a Libertarian state of affairs.
         He exists within a domain in which multiple options exist for him to select from.
         .
         He has the option of selecting a solar system which contains one central star as its sun – orbited by 9 major planets
         But he is not limited to that as his only option.
         .
         So he has multiple options from which to select – and that state of affairs facilitates Libertarian choice.
         So Libertarian Choice is a part of the “Imago Dei”
         .
         However – in Calvinism – that part of the “image and likeness of God” is not “granted” to creation.
         All Non-Calvinist systems reject EDD – and entail Libertarian Choice as “granted” to humans as part of the “Imago Dei”

         Loading...

      8. True that!

         Ed

         Loading...

10. “The Calvinist interprets John 17 to mean that all of us have individually been “given to Christ by the Father” in the same manner that His elect apostles were while Christ was on earth. Let’s look at the text:”

    You speak of John 17, yet start your commentary with verse 6. hmmmm….wonder why? It’s telling that you skipped over verses 1-5, because verse 2 says the very thing you claim this prayer doesn’t say.

    “since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.”

    The Father gave the Son authority over ALL flesh and for what purpose? To give “eternal life” (this is salvific, not a call to a function or whatever you want to argue) to ALL WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM.

    Whoops.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Hello Jason,
       The human brain interprets data based on internal associations.
       The brain’s interpretation of an ink-blot provides an excellent example.
       A person who loves dancing will look at a certain ink-blot and the brain sees two people dancing
       Another woman who recently broke up with her boyfriend will look at the same exact ink-blot and see two people fighting.
       A gay man will look at the same exact ink-blot and see two gay men in love with each other.
       .
       But the interesting thing about that ink-blot is that it is simply a random blot of ink.
       It is not a depiction of any of the things the human brain sees within it.
       The brain is seeing those things within it – because the brain interprets data based on internal associations.
       .
       The Calvinist mind is conditioned to approach scripture the same way.
       The Calvinist mind is taught that EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) is the most sacred truth concerning God.
       .
       So it doesn’t matter what page within the Bible the Calvinist opens to to read.
       His brain is conditioned to see EDD within the text the same way his brain would see two people dancing within an ink-blot.
       .
       However there is another very critical aspect of Calvinist interpretation to be recognized.
       There are many texts within scripture which when the Calvinist reads EDD into them – it brings him to a conclusion which he does not find palatable. And he cannot except it.
       .
       When that happens to him – his brain is conditioned to AUTO-MAGICALLY treat EDD *AS-IF* it doesn’t exist.
       .
       I was in a conversation with a Calvinist a few days ago- and he was giving an interpretation from 1st Peter.
       I let him know he had a critical problem with his interpretation.
       Because according to Calvinist doctrine – his interpretation resulted in Peter telling lies.
       His interpretation had Peter trying to reassure the readers of his letter that they were saved.
       .
       If you understand Calvinist doctrine – you understand it stipulates the believer is given NO CERTAINTY of election
       So this Calvinist’s interpretation resulted in Peter telling lies.
       .
       This Calvinist touted himself as an advanced interpreter of scripture.
       And when I showed him that his “so called” advanced interpretation resulted in Peter telling lies – he was not too happy with me!
       .
       WHAT A HOOT!
       Once you understand how the Calvinist brain has been conditioned. :-]
       .
       Blessings!
       br.d

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. All that, and you completely failed to address the actual text.

          Here it is again, in case you missed it: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.”

          The very thing Leighton says is not in the text; is in the text. And notice, he completely ignores this verse by starting his analysis with verse 6 instead of verse 1.

          Loading...

       2. I’ll give my 2 cents, but with inflation, it’s a Nickel’s worth of free advice:
          Romans 15:8
          Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

          In other words, Jesus isn’t speaking of you.

          So, you have GOD FOLLOWERS under the law of Mosed. That’s who Jesus was speaking to. And God chooses which GOD FOLLOWERS, under the law of Moses will follow JESUS UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST.

          Jesus wasn’t talking about you.

          Consider consulting Deu 29:4, which is repeated in Romans 11:8.

          Then contrast that with Romans 15:21.

          The problem with calvinism is that they think John 17, or John 6 is about all of humanity. It’s not.

          They haven’t considered why Jews are blind. They just seem to think everyone is just as blind.

          Loading...

       3. Jason:
          All that, and you completely failed to address the actual text.
          .
          br.d
          This reminds me of the man looking at the sky wearing yellow sun glasses – who scolded the man next to him because he did not see the sky as yellow! :-]

          Loading...

       4. br.d
          The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s god doctrine of decrees.
          .
          John Calvin
          -quote
          The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
          .
          In order to conform the EDD – the Calvinist *MUST* read the text the way he does.
          .
          In Calvinism – every individual with human population is either created ELECT or created NON-ELECT.
          .
          So obviously – the Calvinist *MUST* conform to that
          .
          So it is no wonder the Calvinist’s brain is conditioned to see the (ELECT according to the Calvinist definition) as chosen just as the Apostles were.
          .
          Here is a question for you
          Do you have any clear declaration from any New Testament author – which identifies person’s as ELECT who are not already believers?

          Loading...

11. I noticed you didn’t add ALL of John 17. The first 5 verses refute your point and yet you start in verse 6? What kind of exegesis is that? Yes He is praying for the Apostles with him but those aren’t all he is praying for. I guess Paul was not part of this prayer? Paul wasn’t there. Obviously this prayer was not only for people he was with and im thinking thats why you left out the other verses in that passage which show this.

    Also Jesus mentions that he asks this not only for those he was with but for those who will believe. Which means future believers. And the last few verses you conveniently left out of your article also refer to these future believers as being given to Christ by the Father -read verse 24. My question is, why did you leave out these verses? You only had a couple more verses to touch on but these first 5 and last few verses refute your whole point. For someone who talks about context and then leaves out major verses that go with the authors point, you sure do poor exegesis a lot. I like you Leighton, and I do try to listen and hear all the objections to Calvinism. But every time I give you a shot, I find this kind of stuff and it makes me not trust your methods of exegesis. It makes me wonder if these are mistakes or if this is intentional. I hope they are just mistakes and I hope you can at least clear these up.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Daniel – And don’t you leave out – John 17:20-23 NKJV — “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one…that the 👉world may believe👈 that You sent Me… and that the 👉world may know👈 that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.”

       If someone doesn’t admit these words of Jesus sound like a request for the world to believe and to know good things, that someone is willfully ignorant, imo.

       And what about Jesus’ prayer for the lost while He was suffering for their sins on the cross? Wasn’t that an expression of universal love? Was Jesus indirectly saying that all who crucified Him were among the eternally elect and would get saved later? I don’t think so.

       Luke 23:34 NKJV — Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”…

       As for 17:24 – It is easy to see that Jesus is not talking about anyone given to Him before creation, but that He has returned to talking about the main group He is praying for in this prayer… His apostles. Read 17-25-26 to see what I mean.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. Daniel Motes,

       Jesus was transitioning LAW OF MOSES Jews from the Law of Moses, to the Law of Christ. Jews was his focus, not anyone who would believe, but Jews who would believe.

       So, Paul is your concern? Is that what your complaint is really all about…that Paul wasn’t part of the conversation?

       So let’s look at something that is contrasting:

       First, I’m going to refer you to a previous comment of mine of Dec 18, 2023 above. If I were to title it, it would be, “It’s not about you!” If you were to take a look at John 6, for example, where it states:

       31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

       Whose fathers? My ancestors didn’t eat manna in the desert. It’s not about us.

       Matthew 15:24
       But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

       We gotta keep that in mind as to what THE WORLD was at that point, and it didn’t include the pagans next door, who might believe in 15 years.

       Romans 15:8
       8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

       Then you have this verse, which has a pronoun, “their”:

       John 17:
       20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

       So, Jesus message is CONSTRAINED to Jews, not to the Gentiles, and of the gospel that THE Jews would preach to other Jews.

       Acts 10:28
       And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

       NOBODY knew that the gospel was also meant for Gentiles until years later when God informed Peter. Setting Cornelius aside, Peter’s responsibiltiy was to the Jews anyway, not the Gentiles.

       Paul’s responsibility is to the Gentiles, but he preached to Jews first, then the Gentiles:

       Romans 15:16
       16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

       But your complaint is about that Paul wasn’t included in John 17?

       Who converted Paul? God himself. That’s why he wasn’t included in John 17.

       Acts 9:15
       But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

       Galatians 1:15-16
       15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

       16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

       Jesus and his apostles to the Jews only.

       Paul and his fellow laborers to the Jews and the Gentiles.

       Did you ever notice that the Jews still reject Jesus when Gentiles give the gospel to them? Did you ever notice that gentile believers hate Jews? Fuentes…does that name sound familiar? Why does he hate them? Preterists, they don’t like them either. Catholics, they began “Officially” hating Jews, until they “Officially” didn’t.

       Gentiles seem to think that all they gotta do is give’em the gospel.

       But…LYDIA…what did God have to do first to Lydia? John 9:39-41. But she’s a Jew.

       Jews:
       Deuteronomy 29:4/Romans 11:8
       4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

       YOU (Gentiles)
       Romans 15:21
       21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

       So, John 17 Jews to the Jews. Except for Paul, because that was God to Paul. Gentiles preaching to Jews…fail…God has to unblind the Jews first, before they can even hear. And God only unblinded a REMNANT to exit works to enjoy grace.

       The remaining of the unblinding comes later, but he will, and why? Because he blinded them from the very beginning at no fault of their own. He didn’t do that to us.

       Exe-Jesus, to me, includes the rest of the story. Calvinism lumps everyone in the blind category. NOT TRUE.

       Ed Chapman

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Hi! I have not left out any verses in my interpretation. “The World” (Jew and Greek -not Jew only) is often used in Scripture. John uses “cosmos” 4 different ways. For some reason I always see those who object to Calvinism use only one interpretation of Cosmos without considering other ways its used by the writer. It can be used other ways than that one.

          So yeah, I have not skipped any verses like Leighton did. He literally left out the first 5 verses that refute his whole point. Thats what is frustrating about Leighton. I love him, I do, but he does this kind of thing all the time and I wonder at this point if its on purpose. I am choosing to believe its just a mistake where he is looking what others are saying and reiterating it and did not look for himself. That would be pretty bad if that the case. But I am hoping it is the case with him and not that his is intentionally doing that.

          I did go on YouTube and found a video of him discussing John 17. I thought that maybe on the video he would clear it up but I found the exact same thing. He starts in verse 6. Its just odd that he is on the topic of the father giving to the son those who will be saved and he literally skips the very verses that say that. Here it is my emphasis added:

          “1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have GIVEN HIM AUTHORITY OVER ALL FLESH, TO GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

          Can you ask Leighton why he skipped the opening 5 verses as well as the last few that go against his teaching? Also if Leighton was once a Calvinist, he would know we don’t interpret that passage only using those verses he picked. We interpret it starting from the top… He would know this if he was a Calvinist but it sounds like he was not really a Calvinist. Again, I love the guy, I think he is a brother and we would get along great as I do with my other Arminian friends but if he is going to try to refute Calvinism, he needs to be an honest scholar and improve his methods of exegesis. This has been going on for years now. His followers are not even noticing he is doing this. Be careful that you aren’t just going to people for affirmation of your beliefs. We should all be willing to change our beliefs and not double down.

          Ill send a second reply about the issue you may not see in the other part of your comment.

          Loading...

       2. Daniel,

          I was being facetious in my usage of the word “world”. See it as sarcasm, not a Strong’s Concordance Greek lesson.

          My point was that the message that Jesus was talking about in his John 17 was for the Jews only, not you, as a Gentile.

          I’m not speaking for, nor defending Dr. Flowers. Just myself.

          The problem that I see with both Calvinism, and this new non-Calvinism is the “FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE”, when they don’t consider “IN CHRIST” as the main focus as to WHY there is no difference. But OUTSIDE of Christ, there is a huge difference.

          One is OBVIOUS, which is THE LAW OF MOSES. It seems that many gloss over that as if it’s no big deal. But that’s just the beginning.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       3. Are you being serious in asking these questions? It’s called being logical. You don’t think it’s wise and frankly necessary to read a passage in its full context rather than starting in the middle of the passage and leaving out the verses that go with it? Bro, I just can’t believe you’re acting this way. Don’t let pride keep you in ignorance. Diving the Word rightly as Paul says is a necessary practice. That’s how cults are started, they read things out of context. If you can’t see that, I’d stop trying to debate in comment sections and get busy learning how to study the Bible as that will help you tremendously. I am not trying to be rude but just look at your comment. Even Arminians would agree that we should take full passages in their context and not start in a random place in the middle of a thought. The very topic Leighton posted about starts in the first verse so yeah it’s necessary to include that. And when you do include the whole thing, it refute Leightons position. If you don’t see that, I can’t help you.

          Loading...

       4. Dude, you don’t know me. I’ve been on this blog for many years now. I enjoy debate with LOTS of denominations. And I do mean LOTS.

          I’ve read the whole book, so it’s EASY to determine what verses are NOT NECESSARY to a conversation. So yes, when I see a Calvinist being as INSISTANT as you are…expect some pushback of sarcasm…from me! Because I know you are SMARTER than what you express, and you question of the first five verses is REALLY NOT THE ISSUE of yours, but something like sticking your chest out of Calvinisms SUPERIORITY. That’s what you are doing. It’s the Calvinist bully, which I saw many years ago. You know what you are doing!

          But my initial comments were straight forward, in that the conversation of Jesus was NOT to you. It’s not about you. It’s about the Jews. Jews who would trasnfer from the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ. YOU have nothing to do with it. And by YOU, I mean Gentiles. It’s CONSTRAINED to the Jews only. Gentiles are not the focus.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       5. Daniel,

          You had said:
          “Even Arminians would agree that we…”

          I told you, I’m not an Arminian. I don’t care what they say.

          I’m not a Calvinist. I’m not a Pelagian. I’m not a Semi-Pelagian. What other choices are there? NONE.

          I’m not a Catholic, or an atheist. I’m not a Methodist, or a Lutheran.

          You are REALLY sensitive. Need a tissue? I’m non-denomination.

          In a denomination, someone else already decided FOR YOU, some 600 years ago, what you are to believe. And you can’t deviate from that, because they had a meeting that you were not invited to, and wrote it all out FOR YOU.

          So, you are likely to find people like me, that don’t care what anyone wrote from a meeting some 600 years ago, let alone what the Catholics wrote going all the way back to 325 ad.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       6. Daniel,

          You had said:
          “Can you ask Leighton why he skipped the opening 5 verses as well…”

          My response:

          Again, I don’t speak for Dr. Flowers, and I’m not a Provisionist, but, I’d have to ask, why is the first 5 verses so important to you?

          The Jehovah’s Witnesses use those verses as a talking point that Jesus is not God, but I’m curious as to why you are so concerned with those verses?

          You talk about exegesis, but I don’t see that as being a problem by not mentioning the first five verses. What’s your issue about it?

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       7. Daniel,

          In regards to your advice to me, I’m not a Calvinist, I’m not a Provisionist, I’m not an Armani, I’m not a Pelican (sarcasms), and I’m not Catholic, I’m not Lutheran. I’m not Baptist, I’m not Methodist, etc., etc. I understand that if one is a Calvinist, the opposing side can ONLY BE Arminian or Pelasian. Not sure why it STOPS THERE. But, consider me, NONE of those. I don’t get into “denomination” stuff. Those are of the ones who say, “I am of Cephus, I am of Calvin, I am of Luther, I am of Tracey, I am of Tiffany, I am of Keith, I am of Dennis!”

          My hobby is to refute denominational doctrines, and for the last 15 or so years, soley Calvinism, but occassionally, even provisionism, and more-so lately, Preterism! I’m a Dispensational Christian Zionist! So, I know how much love denominations have for the Jews…ZILCH, NONE!

          And, this might surprise you, but I see it in Calvinism, too! And that bothers me. A lot.

          Loading...

       8. Daniel,

          Seems that Jason above has the same exact issue that you do, regarding the first five verses. WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?

          I’m extremely familiar with those verses because I know two religions that believe that Jesus is not God, and they both use those same verses.

          Why do you INSIST on the need of including that in the topic of “Did the Father give you to Christ?”? Why does that matter SO MUCH for both you and Jason?

          Is there a Calvinist teaching that mandates exegesis begins at verse 1 of a chapter, and it makes Calvinists mad when that is not adhered to? It sure has affected both you and Jason! WHY? I’m perplexed at your concern about it.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       9. Actually Daniel – the word “world” should be interpreted first by how Jesus uses it in this context of His prayer! Did you look at those uses? Verse 6 – John 17:6 NKJV – “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.” This verse not only means the 12 apostles were chosen out of unsaved humanity (not just out of Jews and Gentiles) but that they were given “out of the world”, meaning not before the world existed, for you can’t be given out of something that you are not already in, and the world did not exist before creation.

          So you did ignore those verses where Jesus was praying for the world that they “may believe” and “may know” (vss 21, 23) based on what believers do in unity.

          The first verses 1-5 say nothing about anyone being given to Jesus before creation. Verse 2 only confirms that Jesus gives everlasting life to those given to Him, which happens by God’s grace through their personal faith.

          Loading...

       10. br.d
           A serious problem I consistently with Calvinists – is how their minds are conditioned
           .
           The first step is to condition the mind to accept Extra-Biblical concepts as unquestionable truth.
           .
           After that is accomplished – you can put a Bible into that person’s hands
           And he is guaranteed to AUTOMATICALLY read Calvinist concepts into the text
           .
           I’ve asked Calvinists to quote verses – to see how their minds have been conditioned to ALTER the texts of verses
           .
           The words they quote – are quite frequently not what the text says
           They either adds words to the text that aren’t there – or they remove words from the text that are.
           .
           Its like their brains have been conditioned to replace what the text actually says – with doctrinal statements.

           Loading...