1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

"Suffice it to say, there is no such verse of Scripture. The only thing Scripture denies is that man, without God's prompting grace, can make a decision for God by his own power."

Actually, the text says much more than that, it is just that Mr. Sungenis seems intent upon not seeing that. John 6:44 says nothing about "prompting grace." Such is eisegesis. The passage says that God draws men who are unable to come to Christ to the Son, and, that the Son raises those who are drawn to eternal life, connecting this directly with the assertion of 6:37 that all that the Father gives the Son will come to the Son. This drawing is not merely "prompting grace," it is effectual calling! This is not "wooing," it is drawing that results in coming. It is divine, powerful, and efficient! The passage says far more than Rome can possibly accept, and hence those elements that are contrary to Rome's theology are simply ignored as if they do not even appear on the page.

(117) Well, if Dr. White thinks that's what "drawing" means in this verse, then he must prove it, not merely assert it. Scott Windsor has previously shown Dr. White that "draw," especially as used in John 12:32 (same Greek word), cannot mean what Dr. White is claiming as its exclusive meaning. Since, as John 12:32 says, Jesus will "draw all men to Myself," yet we know all men don't eventually come to Jesus, is there not a distinction between the "drawing" and the "coming"? Yes, there certainly is, but Dr. White's Calvinism won't let him see it.

JRWPrev: He asserts, "From our perspective, it is very easy to interpret this as the Father having given to Jesus those who responded to the grace the Father gave them. They respond by their free will." Yet, there is nothing about God giving "grace" to anyone, nor is there any reference to "free will."

Granted. The words "grace" and "free will" are not used in John 6, but then neither is the word "elect," the very word that Dr. White inserted in several places in his exegesis of John 6."

See previous refutation of this complaint, and note that the Roman Catholic concept of grace and "free will" is not hinted at anywhere in the passage, as we have proven.

(118) Try John 5:40; John 6:40; John 6:45.

JRWPrev: The point I made in the program is completely skipped by Mr. Sungenis in his response, that being the fact that the giving of the Father to the Son precedes the coming of those so given to the Son.

I didn't skip that at all.

Actually, he did, and continues to do so, in the original context of the webcast. Mr. Windsor had insisted that men are given to Jesus at the final judgment. I would like to ask Mr. Sungenis again: does he agree with Mr. Windsor, or disagree with Mr. Windsor?

(119) I've already stated that John 6:39 uses the perfect tense because it is looking at history from the perspective of the final consummation.

"And I have reiterated it again, several times, in this post. Obviously, the Father has to give them before they can come to Jesus. The remaining question, however, is HOW did the Father determine to give them to Jesus? Dr. White keeps insisting that they were given by the Father's command of predestination apart from the individual's free will, since his theology insists that he make such conclusions."

As we have now proven many times already, Mr. Sungenis has failed to bear the burden of his assertions. It is not a pre-existing theology that drives my exegesis, as it is with Mr. Sungenis. The action of the giving of the Father both precedes and determines the action of the coming of the believer to Christ. To say otherwise is to throw out not only the plain and simple meaning of this text (including the above comments on 6:44),

(120) In almost 100 pages of material, I cited the Church just once, in para 600 of the Catechism. All my other analysis has been exegetical. Be that as it may, Dr. White just asserts that it "both precedes and determines the action of the coming" but John 6:44 does not teach "determination." Read it carefully. It says that no man has the ability to come unless drawn by the Father. It doesn't say that once drawn by the Father the man will irresistibly come to Jesus. Men resist the drawing all the time, as the Jews continued to do and now are being punished for it. Dr. White is so used to reading the verse with his Reformed glasses that he doesn't realize how far away he is from the actual grammar of the text.

but to contradict the straightforward testimony of Paul in such incredible passages as Ephesians 1:3-11, Romans 8:28-9:24, etc.

(121) Yes, they are straight forward, but then so is John 6. Thus, I can just imagine what Dr. White is going to do with these verses, considering how he has distorted John 6.

But to make this overthrow of God's sovereign decree work, we must realize that Rome must turn this passage on its head. Instead of explaining why those surface disciples would walk away in unbelief, the passage would in essence be saying, "You do not believe because you do not believe.

(122) Not quite. They do not believe because they have ceased to be drawn by the Father. God is giving up on them. Thus Jesus can say very assuredly, you do not believe because the Father has not drawn you.

All that the Father gives me based upon your deciding to believe will come to Me since that's why the Father gives them to me in the first place;

(123) Never said that.

. and I will not cast those who come to me out, except when they choose to get thrown out themselves. I've come down out of heaven to do my Father's will, which is to save those who choose to allow Me to save them, and who do not commit mortal sins that will prevent me from doing so. All those who actively by a free and autonomous will look to me and believe I will raise up at the last day..No man is able to come to Me by unaided free will, but all men are able to come to me due to the presence of prevenient grace, which may or may not lead to their conversion.." How any of that ties together 6:35 and 6:65 only the reader can attempt to figure out.

(124) I've never said any of this. This is merely Dr. White's caricature of Catholicism and anyone who disagrees with his Calvinistic beliefs.

"But that is not what the text says. The text only says that they were given to Jesus. It does not say what the mechanism for the giving is. Thus, my point above still stands: the only thing the perfect tense does is tell us that the giving preceded the coming and the raising up at the last day. Conversely, Dr. White seems to have a penchant for making any tense which is prior to the present tense refer only to predestination."

As was noted before, Mr. Sungenis is ignoring the original context of Mr. Windsor's comments. The text says, obviously, much more than Mr. Sungenis is letting on.

JRWPrev: Further, the context of the passage, that being the unbelief of those who are hearing His words, is ignored as well.

"This is a misuse of the context. The only thing that can be concluded from the context is that some of the Jews of John 6 were not among those that the Father "gave" to Jesus, and therefore they didn't "come" to Jesus. It is not said that they were not "given" because the Father did not predestinate them. The text implies that they were not "given" to Jesus because of their unbelief, not that they were in unbelief because they were not "given.""

This again turns the text on its head: it is completely backwards. Jesus makes the statement that these followers do not believe. That is an established fact in 6:35. What follows, plainly, is an explanation of this assertion. Remember, these men the Lord identifies as unbelievers had not only listened to Him preach the entire day before, and wanted to make Him king (6:15), but they had followed Him across the lake and were actively seeking Him! So why say they are unbelievers? The text we are considering explains this fully, if the context is allowed to stand. Mr. Sungenis' atomistic interpretation does not provide any meaningful explanation of the text as a whole unit. None of it "hangs together." It does not flow. The ideas are disjointed and disconnected. Such is not the case with the common Reformed exegesis that simply allows the Lord to speak the truth.

(125) No, there is no disconnection here. Dr. White simply has misread the context. He keeps inferring that the people of John 6:35 don't believe because God predestined them not to believe, but the text does not say that - - no bible verse says that. To flesh this out, here again is the explanation of the context I gave a few pages ago so that the reader can see the reasoning of the position I espouse.

I gave a "meaningful" exegesis of John 6 already. Here it is again: Prior to John 6, the Jews had a long history of unbelief. In fact, the whole tenor of the New Testament is that God is finally rejecting the Jews (except for a remnant) because of their persistent unbelief (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-5; Hebrews 3-4; Romans 9-11; Acts 1-2; Matt 23, and many other passages). John 5:40, that I used in my last rebuttal, says it so succinctly: "you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." But the unbelief displayed in John 5:40 and John 6 is a product of the unbelief they have had for centuries. This state of unbelief didn't happen overnight. But here is the dynamic fact that issues from the Jews' persistent unbelief: God is giving up on the Jews. In the language of John 6:44, God is no longer going to draw them to Jesus. In fact, God will become active in keeping them in unbelief by blinding them to the truth (Romans 11:8). That is the kind of God we have; a very dynamic God. Despite the grace that God gave them to respond, the Jews, as a whole, never answered the call of Zech 1:3 or Ezk 33:11, so God decides to withdraw His grace, and the Jews will die in their unbelief. As a result, they are no longer coming to Jesus, because the Father will no longer draw or give them to Jesus. Thus, when Jesus says "All the Father gives to me will come to Me" in John 6:37, He is not intending to give a dissertation on election or free will, per se. He is telling the Jews that the reason they don't believe Him is that God is handing them over to unbelief, blinding them to the truth as a punishment for their sins. They will continue in their unbelief, and finally be judged for it, which is precisely what happened to them (Matt 23:37-39; Matt 24:1ff).

Note what Mr. Sungenis is saying here: the unbelief of the men is why they are not given to the Son. So, if they believe, they will be given. But that means, "All that believe in Me, the Father will give to Me." Wait, that's backwards: the giving is before the coming.

(126) Yes, the giving is before the coming, but John 6:37 does not say what the criterion for the "giving" is. Dr. White keeps assuming that the "giving" is based solely on predestination without free will. He has yet to prove that. Again, whenever he sees a verse speaking about divine action, Dr. White automatically excludes free will from the realm of possibility.

"Well, it's a foreseen faith, resulting in the giving." Which then results in the coming? "All those that are foreseen to come to Me the Father gives to Me and they then come to Me" is obviously a tautology that has no meaning. The text simply cannot be bent and twisted this far.

(127) I've never mentioned one word about "foreseen faith." Dr. White is debating an imaginary opponent. As I explained above in my analysis of the context, the Jews are being rejected by God for centuries of unbelief (cf. Hebrews 3-4). They don't believe because God is no longer drawing them (Rom 11:8; Zech 1:3; Ezk 33:11). On the other hand, those that are given to Jesus (John 6:37) have been drawn by the Father (John 6:45) and have responded to his call (John 6:45), and will be raised on the last day if they continue to behold and believe (John 6:39-40). Its really very simple.

JRWPrev: Instead, a foreign context of "free will" theology is inserted out of nowhere, and the text is left in a jumbled mess.

"Foreign?? Out of nowhere?? Already in John 5:40 Jesus said to them: "and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." Sounds very much like Jesus expects them to make a volitional act of their will to come to Him. Jesus puts the onus on them for refusing, not upon God for not predestinating them."

Yes, out of nowhere and foreign: think for just a moment about what John six, as a unit, teaches. Jesus gets a "good crowd." He works a miracle that excites them and puts them in awe. They want to make Him king. He sends them away, and sends His bewildered disciples away in a boat, only to come to them in their need on the water. The next day the would-be disciples follow Jesus to Capernaum. What does He do? He preaches a sermon that John tells us causes them to question, and grumble, and eventually walk away because they will not look to Him for anything other than physical food (not spiritual sustenance). Quite literally He drives away false professors and fake disciples with words that continue to make men stumble to this day. He is in control over every event: sovereign, purposeful. And so I repeat: to insert into this text the idea that the rebellious creature man is, in fact, able to control His ultimate work through the exercise of his fallen and enslaved will is to turn it on its head, to call night day and white black. There is no reason to be found on any level for doing this: outside of the previous commitment to that belief that causes a person to read it into the text of Scripture. And that is exactly what we have seen over and over thus far in this dialogue. Even if John 5:40 formed the context of the next chapter (which it doesn't),

(128) Okay, let me call the reader's attention to what Dr. White has just done, again. He has casually divorced John 5:40 from the discussion. To him it is irrelevant, even though it comes just one chapter earlier than John 6. A few paragraphs ago, he did the same thing with the belief of the people in John 8:31 - - he dismissed it as irrelevant. Earlier he did the same thing with 2 Timothy 2:12-13 ("if we deny him he will deny us"), but then later quoted 2 Tim 2:10 to prove there was an "elect" people. He did the same thing with Ezek 33:11; 18:23, claiming that they were merely "Old Testament passages." Yet in another place, Dr. White appealed to Romans 8:29-30 and Eph 1:5-11 to support his exegesis of John 6:37-39. By this arbitrary selection of verses, we can see what is really happening: Dr. White has developed an acute syndrome - - one which disclaims any verse that doesn't support his exegesis of John 6. And yet we are told the Reformed theology is "biblical" and that people like me go by "sola ecclesia." Go figure.

it would hardly help Mr. Sungenis overthrow the immediate context of the chapter itself. The text says: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The irony is that the phrase "come to Me" does echo the subject of 6: 37ff, but to just the opposite conclusion that Mr. Sungenis is suggesting! Jesus said they were unwilling to come to Him, and, as He taught in 6:44, unless the Father supernaturally draws a person to Christ, they will always remain unwilling! This is the God-glorifying, ego-shattering truth that man's religions simply will not accept.

(129) Yes, but none of this proves Predestination without free will. I agree, as Dr. White wrote so eloquently, "unless the Father supernaturally draws a person to Christ, they will always remain unwilling! but where have I ever said anything differently? But how does that truth deny Free Will? As Romans 3:11 says, "There is none who seeks after God." You see, Dr. White cannot disprove that the Father gives us free will and then draws us. He keeps assuming that the "drawing" is the only movement of God in view. But from our vantage point, it would be silly for God to draw a man unless the man had the free will to make a decision - - a free will that was given to him by God's grace and works with God's grace. That's why Zech 1:3 and Ezk 33:11 say what they do. The way Dr. White deals with this is to claim that the "drawing" is irresistible, but we have shown that such use of "draw" is denied by John 12:32 and have also shown that no passage in John 6 explicitly teaches his view. Dr. White's view of John 6 is contrived, in keeping with his Calvinism. My view deals with the text as it is given, not only in John 6, but John 5-8. Let me reiterate. The Jews are being given up to unbelief as a punishment from God. He is blinding them. They have, of their free will, refused to come (John5:40) and therefore God is ceasing His drawing of them. If they are not drawn, they cannot be given, and they will not come.

JRWPrev: In fact, the reader may well notice that Sungenis' interpretation does not follow the flow of the text: it skips from one section to another, even making 6:40 determinative in the meaning of the words that come immediately before it, rather than following the logical method of realizing that 6:40 is to be interpreted in light of what comes in 6:37-40.

By this I think Dr. White has implicitly admitted that John 6:40 gives him much trouble, just like John 5:40 would probably give him much trouble, since both verses speak about the responsibility of man to make a decision for God."

No, this is an implicit admission that Mr. Sungenis' attempted response did not engage in exegesis that follows the flow of the text, allowing a thought to develop in the order presented in the text. Secondly, man is responsible to make that decision: and unless it is being suggested that God is unrighteous to hold men accountable to His law even when man is dead in sin and living in rebellion (and enjoying it, I might add), there is no contradiction between these truths.

(130) No, we're not complaining that it is unrighteous for God to hold men accountable to His law when man is dead in sin and living in rebellion. Quite the contrary. We object to the suggestion, that Dr. White makes on one side of his mouth, that "man is responsible to make that decision," yet on the other side of his mouth claim that God's pleading with man to repent is only for the purpose of eventually judging man in sin and not for the purpose of hoping that man will repent (Zech 1:3; Ezk 33:11; Matt 23:37). I used to do this as a Calvinist, too. I used to preach from the pulpit and say, "Yes, man is responsible to accept God and repent of his sins," but all the while I knew, and didn't want to advertise too heavily, that, in reality, God did not give them the power to repent of their sins, because He had predestined the majority of them to Hell without considering their free will. Once I discovered what an insidious and contradictory theology this was, I abandoned it. But I understand why someone like Dr. White holds to it. He, like Calvin, thinks it is so logical. But what happened to Calvin will happen to you. If you think out his position to its logical conclusion, you will, at sometime, realize that you have made God the author of sin. Huldriech Zwingli DID take Calvin's view to its logical conclusion, and he declared that "God is the sinless author of sin."

Be that as it may, I am not ignoring John 6:37-39. I have stated before, and I will state again, that John 6:37-39 teaches that the Father is responsible for bringing people to Jesus. But John 6:37-39 does not say that the Father brings them to Jesus because they were predestined, without their free will. All the passage says is that whoever is given by the Father comes to Jesus. There is no way Dr. White can disprove that the reason the Father gives them to Jesus is due to the individuals free will response to God's grace.

We have seen that this is a complete misreading of the text that not only ignores many portions, words, and phrases, but ignores the relationship they hold to one another.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12