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

(28) No, I do agree. But I disagree that the passage contains the word "elect" (Dr. White used it twice in the above sentence, but its not there). By throwing in the word "elect" Dr. White wants you to assume that those who come to Christ are forever saved, will persevere to the end, no questions asked. But he can't prove that. I again implore Dr. White to take that passage only for what it actually states. It says only that all those who come to Christ are given to Him by the Father. It teaches that no one can come to Jesus on their own initiative. The Father is the one who brings them. That's it. Finale. But Dr. White keeps reading his Calvinistic doctrine into the verse.

 

the use of the masculine participle showing the personal faith that results from the work of grace in the heart; the initial discussion of the present and perfect tense uses of "give"; and the perfection of the work of God in that all who are given come to Christ. The words are plain, as is the meaning. I continued in TPF: And since all of those so given infallibly come, we have here both unconditional election as well as irresistible grace, and that in the space of nine words! It becomes an obvious exercise in eisegesis to say, "Well, what the Lord really means is that all that the Father has seen will believe in Christ will come to Christ." That is a meaningless statement. Since the action of coming is dependent upon the action of giving, we can see that it is simply not exegetically possible to say that we cannot determine the relationship between the two actions. God's giving results in man's coming. Salvation is of the Lord.

To which Mr. Sungenis replies: "I would agree with Dr. White that we cannot say that 'we cannot determine the relationship between the two actions,' but whether Dr. White's 'determination" is the correct one is something that he can't prove.' There is no question, truly, concerning the relationship of the giving of the Father and the coming of the elect.

(29) You see how Dr. White keeps throwing in the word "elect," even after I pointed this out to him almost a dozen times in my previous rebuttal? Everything he says is colored by his doctrine of absolute Predestination.

Of course, all of man's religions, that refuse to give to God the authority to freely bestow His grace as He sees fit, must find some way to reverse this order,

(30) No, this is a misdirection attempt. Catholicism is not "refusing to give to God the authority to freely bestow His grace as He sees fit." It is disagreeing with the criteria and mechanism Calvinism proports God is using, and it's resulting implications. Catholicism says God is free, insofar as His character allows Him to be. But God cannot lie. The opposite of this would be Nominalist theology, which says God can do anything He wants, even make a square circle, or have a donkey procure the atonement. If God cannot lie, then He is not free to plead with all men to repent, yet know that He has predestined the majority of them not to repent. God is not free to do that, because Scripture is clear that there is one thing that is impossible for God, and that is to lie. This should end the argument, if only Dr. White would see reason.

for if it is the giving of the Father that determines the coming of any human, then salvation is theocentric, all to His glory, and is not under the control of man. As to being able to prove that the giving precedes the coming, that is not even disputable. No argument can be presented that can overthrow the simple grammar of the verse: those given, come. Period.

(31) No one here is "overthrow[ing] the simple grammar of the verse." Those given, come. Period. If Dr. White wants to call that "theocentric" that's his prerogative, but it doesn't disprove Free Will; it doesn't specify the criteria for how God gave them to Christ. Dr. White keeps working under the false premise that if Free Will is involved that somehow it is no longer theocentric. Theocentric is not defined as God's prerogative to save some and damn the rest, arbitrarily. That is despotism, not theocentricity.

Although we can agree that those whom the Father gives will come to Jesus, there is simply nothing in the passage that says their coming was based on an "unconditional election," nor that, once they come to Jesus, they will remain there "irresistibly" without any chance of falling away.

As we will see, Mr. Sungenis bases the identity of those given upon their "free will" act of coming; this reverses the text, and makes the giving of the Father conditional upon human action (standard Arminianism makes the same mistake).

(32) False. The verse does not eliminate any conditions for the Father's choice. It only says that all those that come to Christ were given by the Father. Period. You can see how blinded Dr. White is to his own theology. He keeps assuming that "giving" or "given" means absolute predestination, but the verse doesn't say that. It only says that the Father gave. What the criterion for the "giving" is the text does not tell us.

Hence, the "condition" he adds is human action (faith), which this passage says is actually the result of the election, not the means.

No, neither John 6:37 nor John 6:39 nor John 6:44 mention the words "faith" or "belief," so it is not correct to say that those words are the "result," nor is it proper to throw in the word "election" again. We can say this much, however: when "belief" is mentioned in John 6:40, we notice that the verse does NOT say that the "belief" is a result of the Father's "giving."

Therefore, unless he wishes to suggest some other "condition," the election is, in fact, unconditional and free.

(33) John 6:37, 39, 44 do not address the issue of conditions, so it is wrong to assume that they are conditionless. If any of the verses had said, "All that the Father has predestined, without the free will of man, to come to Jesus, will come to Jesus," then Dr. White would have a case - - the passage would be teaching the unconditional, irresistible election of those who come to Jesus. Unfortunately for Dr. White, the passage doesn't say such.

Secondly, it seems Mr. Sungenis is confused regarding the term "irresistible grace." The phrase refers to God's gracious act of regenerating a dead sinner and granting new life. It is not a term referring to the truth that Christ does not lose any of those given to Him. That truth is plainly and without question referred to in 6:38-39.

(34) I know what irresistible grace is. I also know that it must work in conjunction with the other 4 points in Calvinism, which means that irresistible grace leads to "not losing any." One cannot be true without the other.

Those two thoughts are put there by Dr. White, but they are not in the text. If read carefully, the text says only that those who come to Jesus were given to Him by the Father.

Correction: it says much more. It says ALL who are given to the Son by the Father will come to the Father, and every one who comes is never cast out.

(35) Dr. White is making it appear as if I've never noticed the word "all" in the passage. If you check my previous rebuttal, and this rebuttal in earlier paragraphs, you will see that I always include the word "all" in my exegesis. It just happens to be left out of the above statement, but not for any particular reason. But the word "all" does nothing for Dr. White's case. Would we say that only half of those the Father gives come to Christ? Of course not. The criterion God used to decide how He was going to give the people to Jesus is not stated in verses 37, 39, or 44. Dr. White keeps assuming that absolute predestination is the criterion (because his Calvinism forces him to), but that is not in the text. We do know that whatever criterion God used, once He has the people, He will give them all to Jesus, without exception, therefore "all" will come.

Speaking of putting words into John's mouth, look at what Dr. White did to the last part of the verse. The verse actually says, "I will certainly not cast out." Dr. White's version says, "is never cast out." There is a big difference between the two. The Bible's version is qualified. It only says that Christ will not cast out; Dr. White's version is absolutistic. It says that one is NEVER cast out. Now you can see how Dr. White keeps reading his Calvinism into the verses, since Calvinism teaches that once in, one can NEVER be cast out. The Bible is clear, however, that when we sin without repentance we cast ourselves out of Christ (2 Tim. 2:12-13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; and many, many other passages).

The priority of the Father's giving to the coming of the one given introduces election and sovereignty; the "all" introduces election and irresistible grace; the promise of the Son never to cast out any who come to Him introduces the security of the elect in Christ, which is then expanded upon in 6:38-39 where the reason for His never casting anyone out is fully explained in light of the Father's will. So, nothing has been inserted into the text at all.

(36) I am continually amazed to see at all the Calvinist terms that Dr. White finds in such simple verses: "election and sovereignty," "security of the elect," "election and irresistible grace," and yet he claims that "nothing has been inserted into the text at all"!

"There should be no argument here, since the alternative is to say that the people themselves, without the Father's power, brought themselves to Jesus. Catholic theology has never taught such a thing."

Note that by not dealing with the appearance of "all" in the text, Mr. Sungenis is able to avoid the actual force of Jesus' words. Surely it is a different thing to say "Some general folks the Father gives the Son will come to the Son" than "ALL that the Father gives Me will come to Me." The one involves the necessity of the effectiveness of the drawing of the Father to the Son, the other does not. One leaves room for synergism (as in Roman Catholicism), the other does not.

(37) I've dealt with the word "all," here and in my previous rebuttal. Again, it does nothing for Dr. White's case, except show his desperate attempt to salvage Calvinism.

"Also, the passage says that, once they come, Jesus will not cast them out. It doesn't say that the people cannot take themselves out of Jesus. Dr. White is simply reading into the verse what his theology has dictated to him."

In reality, of course, the reader can see this is untrue. Verses 38-39 will explain that the one who is given by the Father to the Son is the same one the Son will raise up on the last day in perfect harmony with the Father's will for Him.

(38) How does this prove Dr. White's point? Of course those who are given by the Father are the ones the Father wills to be raised on the last day. Why would He desire otherwise? If He gives them He wants them to be raised. But Dr. White is assuming that God's "will" means that there is no possibility that someone could fall out of God's will through unrepentant sin, but he hasn't offered any proof for that contention, other than his own Calvinistic belief that it has to be that way. Again, read Ezek 33:11 and ask yourself: Was it the Father's will that all of Israel repent? If you answer No, you're calling God a liar. In the rest of Ezekiel and you'll notice that not all of Israel repented. So how could one conclude that God's "will" for them in Ezek 33:11 was realized? The only way Dr. White answers this is to say that God's pleading for them to repent was only for the purpose of bringing them to judgment, not to repentance. In the end, Dr. White's attempt to save God's will from being frustrated only turns out to making God a disingenuous despot.

To posit the idea that the object of the combined love of the Father, Son, and Spirit can be lost by the exercise of man's almighty will is to say that the Son can fail to do the will of the Father, the very thing the text precludes.

(39) Dr. White thinks that if he can emphasize God's power enough then it will seem ludicrous for someone to claim that God's will can be curtailed by the sin of man. But the text does not get into the degree of God's power. We know God is all powerful. That is not the issue. The issue is HOW does God use that power: to overpower man into believing or to give him the Free Will to work in concert with God's grace. That is the only issue at stake here.

The only way to read these words and not see the perfection of Christ's work and the resulting security of the believer is to reject the theocentricity of the text, and adopt, a-priori, a man-centered standard that then allows you to ignore those elements of the text that indicate otherwise.

(40) More rhetoric to make the reader think that if he considers the Catholic position then he is going to have a man-centered gospel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real theocentric theology is the one that says God remains sovereign even though he gives man Free Will. Calvinism teaches that God can only be sovereign when man doesn't have a Free Will. It doesn't sound like the Calvinist God is very powerful to me.

I had written in TPF: But note as well that it is to the Son that they come. They do not come to a religious system. They are coming to Christ. This is a personal relationship, personal faith, and, given that the ones who come are described throughout the passage by the present tense participle, it is not just a coming that happens once. This is an on-going faith, an on-going looking to Christ as the source of spiritual life. The men to whom the Lord was speaking had "come" to Him for a season: they would soon walk away and follow Him no more. The true believer is coming to Christ, always.

This is the nature of saving faith. Sungenis responded:

"Again, Dr. White is reading more into the verse than what is there. I don't desire to make a big issue of the Greek present tense participle, but I should add that Dr. White's interpretation of it is conveniently applied to his Calvinistic theology, which teaches that once a person starts on the road to faith he will never lose his faith and he will inevitably reach heaven."

Mr. Sungenis has completely missed the point. Yes, saving faith is on-going, as I said: but the reason for the security of the believer is not based upon the actions of the believer, but upon the faithfulness of Christ the Savior. I am not, in the above cited words, addressing what Mr. Sungenis assumes. I am, however, pointing out something that is well known to students of John's gospel: he regularly describes saving faith through the use of present tense participles and verbs (especially the use of the present tense substantival participle "the one believing," oJ pisteuvwn), while describing surface-level, fleeting faith through the use of the aorist. My application in the above words is direct and simple: saving faith is not a one-time, surface level thing, but is an on-going faith that keeps looking, keeps believing, keeps trusting. Again, the only way such words can make sense is within the context of a theocentric reading of the text: they are meaningless within the context of Rome's man-centeredness.

(41) I didn't miss the point at all. I know what Dr. White is saying, and what he is not saying. Pay attention to Dr. White's use of "true believer" in the sentence "The true believer is coming to Christ, always." By this Dr. White means that the believer has no choice but to keep coming, since he is irresistibly drawn till he dies. He has no choice in the matter. It was all pre-programmed out for him. If for some reason he no longer "comes" to Christ then, according to the Calvinist system, he was never "coming" in the first place. Calvinism is a system that tries to cover all the bases. That is what is behind Dr. White's statement above, though he has not admitted that to you. He would rather have you make it an issue of theocentricism versus anthropocentrism. Dr White says, "Yes, saving faith is on-going, as I said: but the reason for the security of the believer is not based upon the actions of the believer, but upon the faithfulness of Christ the Savior." When did I ever say that Christ was going to be unfaithful? That is the whole point of John 6:37, 39, 44; John 10:28-29. If Christ wasn't faithful then we wouldn't be able to come for one second, let alone for a lifetime. But how does this prove predestination, election, eternal security, irresistible grace and the lot? No at all. It only comes into play when one comes to the text with a presupposition that "Christ's faithfulness" means "predestination, election, eternal security, irresistible grace."

"That application is not provable from the text. The present participle is merely telling us that the one who comes to Jesus will not be stopped from coming. In other words, if one attempts to come to Jesus, Jesus will not pull the rug out from under him and say, "Sorry, I changed my mind, I don't really want you to come after all," like the Greek and Roman gods used to do. Jesus is faithful. The question is whether we will be faithful to Him. That is why 2 Timothy 2:12 says: "If we deny Him, He will also deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.""

There is one problem in the above paragraph: coming and believing are parallel phrases in John chapter six and elsewhere. "The one coming" is "the one believing." Is Mr. Sungenis consistent in his assertion? Would he say that in verse 40 the only meaning to the substantival participle "the one believing" is that it is "merely telling us that the one who believes in Jesus will not be stopped from believing"?

(42) No, since John 6:37 ends with "I will certainly not cast out" whereas John 6:40 ends with "I Myself will raise him up at the last day," they are two different thought structures with two different meanings. Obviously, there is no issue about "stopping the one believing" in John 6:40 since there is no issue of "casting out" to confront. John 6:40 is merely saying that the one believing will be raised. John 6:37 says the one coming will not be cast out. Or John 6:37 could say, "the one believing will not be cast out," since as long as he maintains his belief he has the promise that Christ will not cast him out. But what happens when he stops believing? That is the $64,000 question. In John 5:40 Jesus uses the word "come" also, yet He says, "you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." Notice how the responsibility to "come" is put in the hands of the Jews, not merely in the hands of the Father. But Dr. White has eliminated that question from his repertoire, since he presupposes that a "true believer" cannot, under any circumstance, fall from belief. (By the way, "come" in John 5:40 is an aorist infinitive, which counters Dr. White's theory above that aorists refer to "fleeting faith").

I wrote in TPF: "And the one who comes to Me I will never cast out." The true believer, the one "coming" to the Son, has this promise of the Lord: using the strongest form of denial possible, [footnote: Here the aorist subjunctive of strong denial, ouj mh; ejkbavlw e[xw, "I will never cast out." The idea is the emphatic denial of the possibility of a future event.]

Mr. Sungenis replied: "So far so good. There is definitely a strong denial here. I have already said above that Jesus is faithful. He will not pull the rug out from anyone. But watch what Dr. White makes of this "strong denial.""

The reader should note again the difference between viewing salvation as the work of God, where it is Christ who actually saves His people (Matthew 1:21) and viewing it as the cooperative effort of man and God where Christ makes salvation possible but does not actually save.

(43) As Yogi Bera said: This is like de javu all over again. I used to use the same verses, like Matthew 1:21 above, to try to prove Calvinism, but you'll notice that the verse only says that Christ saves His people, not that they are predestined without regard to their Free Will. Who else would Christ save?

There is simply no basis in a synergistic, man-centered religion for a belief in the security of the believer, since there is no foundation capable of sustaining the doctrine. In other words, without a Savior capable of saving, you can't have security!

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