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

The divine nature of saving faith is here denied by Mr. Sungenis. The person who has been drawn by the Father to the Son (John 6:44-45) hears and learns from God and does not deny Christ, hence 2 Timothy 2:12-13 is not making reference to such a person. Keep these statements by Mr. Sungenis in mind as we come to the discussion of 6:38-39 and the will of the Father for the Son.

 

(61) Dr. White has proven my point about his siding with only one understanding of "God's will" in John 6. To maintain this understanding of God's will, Dr. White dismisses 2 Timothy 2:12-13 (which gives a different understanding of God's will than the one Dr. White sees in John 6) as not relevant to the discussion. Even at that, notice that Dr. White has not explained 2 Tim 2:12-13 even in its own context, rather, he just ignores the impact of the passage altogether.

I had addressed this tremendous passage in TPF in these words: Many stop at verse 37 and miss the tremendous revelation we are privileged to receive in the following verses. Why will Christ never cast out those who come to Him? Verse 38 begins with a connective that indicates a continuation of the thought: verses 38 and 39 explain verse 37. Christ keeps all those who come to Him for He is fulfilling the WILL of the Father. "I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." The divine Messiah always does the WILL of the Father. The preceding chapter in John's Gospel had made this very clear. There is perfect harmony between the work of the Father and the Son. And what is the WILL of the Father for the Son? In simple terms, it is the Father's WILL that the Son save perfectly. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." It is vital to remember that this continues the explanation of why He does not cast out the one coming to Him. We must see this for some might be tempted to say that the Father has entrusted all things into the hands of the Son, and that this passage is saying nothing more than the Son will act properly in regards to what the Father has given Him. But the context is clear: v. 37 speaks of the Father "giving" the elect to the Son, and v. 39 continues the same thought. Those who are given infallibly come to the Son in v. 37, and it is these same ones, the elect, [footnote: Jesus uses the neuter pa'n again to refer to the elect as an entire group, though the fact that this group is made up of individuals is seen in their being raised to life and in their individually coming to Him.] who are raised up at the last day.

(62) Notice how many times Dr. White refers to the WILL of the Father. (I have capitalized them). Again, Dr. White is working on the unproven premise that John 6 is using "God's will" such that it cannot be frustrated by man's sin.

Sungenis replies: Notice how Dr. White inserts the word "elect" into John 6:37, but the verse does not mention the word elect. It only says, "ALL that the Father gives to me..." The neuter of pa'n does not mean anything crucial here, since most pa'ns in Greek are neuter, unless a masculine or feminine referent is in view.

Two obvious replies: 1) the term "elect" is thoroughly biblical (Romans 8:33, 11:7, 2 Timothy 2:10).

(63) I find it interesting that Dr. White refers to 2 Timothy 2:10 to support his prerogative to use the word "elect," yet this is the very context (2 Timothy 2:12-13) that I used above to counter Dr. White's assertion that those chosen could not eventually deny Christ, to which he said that 2 Tim 2:12-13 was not making reference to such a person. In fact, 2 Timothy 2:10-13 is one of the clearest passages to support the Catholic position. Paul mentions the "elect" in verse 10, so we know who he is addressing. But then, addressing the same "elect" people, he says two verses later, "If we deny Him, He also will deny us." Who else is addressed here beside the "elect"? The only ones involved are the "elect," yet it is said that they could "deny" Christ and that he would "deny" them. So, from now on, every time I see the word "elect" in Dr. White's writings, I'll just refer him to 2 Tim 2:10-13, the great anti-Calvinist passage teaching synergism - - that the elect could deny Christ.

Of course it is not used in John 6:37-39, but one must seriously ask Mr. Sungenis who, then, is being referred to if, in fact, the people given by the Father to the Son in John 6:37-39 are not the same body in view in Romans 8:33 or 2 Timothy 2:10?

(64) I refer the reader to 2 Tim. 2:10-13, as I stated above.

Did Paul endure "all things" so that someone other than those given by the Father to the Son would obtain salvation in Christ Jesus? Of course not. So the term is not being "inserted." The term is used in Scripture of this very group, so why not use it here? 2) The Greek term pa"/pasa/pan is 3-1-3 adjective declinable in all three genders: every instance of pan is, of course neuter: pan is never masculine or feminine, for obvious reasons. So, Mr. Sungenis is simply wrong to say "most pans in Greek are neuter." All uses of pan in Greek are neuter. His statement would be as erroneous as saying "most uses of tauth" in Greek are feminine." No, all uses of tauth" in Greek are feminine. That's just basic knowledge.

(65) Dr. White knows that I was just making a hyperbolic/satirical comment about pan, yet he tries to make it appear as if I don't know what I am talking about. See below regarding more detail on pan.

Secondly, since it seems Mr. Sungenis is not familiar with the declension and forms of pa"/pasa/pan, he has missed the point, a point noted in most critical commentaries on the passage. Pan is a neuter singular. Yet, it is being used of the people the Father gives the Son. Generally, one would use a masculine plural to refer to a group, or at least a masculine singular when emphasizing the "singularity" of the group (similar to using the singular word "crowd" though there is a composite unity inherent in the term: a crowd is a singular entity made up of a plurality of individuals). Yet, as I pointed out, when speaking of the elect of God as a singular whole, Jesus uses the neuter singular. The object of God's elective decree is a distinct and definite people, entrusted to Christ for full salvation. Then, when the Lord speaks of the individual who, upon being drawn and enabled of the Father, comes infallibly to Christ, the masculine singular is used (6:40). Mr. Sungenis may not think this relevant because he is unfamiliar with the discussion of the text and the forms found therein, but it is relevant to any meaningful exegesis.

(66) The commentaries that make the point about the use of the neuter pan are careful not to throw the word "elective decree" into the grammar as Dr. White has done. The commentaries are careful to say that pan simply refers to all believers throughout time. The same commentaries say that a masculine adjective could have been used, but the neuter is just a little stronger in getting across the point. Yet Dr. White assumes that there is a big distinction between the neuter and the masculine.

Mr. Sungenis then added: "Incidentally, with regard to inserting the word "elect," Calvinists do the same thing with 1 Timothy 2:4. The verse says, "God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." John Calvin and his followers say that the only way this verse can be understood is to read it as: "God desires all the elect to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Likewise, they will say of 1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the elect of the whole world." But neither verse is saying what the Calvinist wants it to say."

A couple of quick points: the actual interpretation offered by Reformed writers regarding 1 Timothy 2:4 is that "all men" means "all kinds of men." I discussed this in TPF, pp. 139-145 (and 1 John 2:2 in TPF pp. 274-277).

(67) We'll have to thank Dr. White for admitting that he has changed the words of 1 Tim 2:4 to read "all kinds of men" rather than what the text says, "all men." They are two totally different propositions. The Greek word for "kind" is "genos," but that is not used in 1 Tim 2:4.

But just to show that Calvin's interpretation was hardly anything new, I offer the following words from Augustine, Chapter 103 of the Enchiridion: Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He "will have all men to be saved," although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: "The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:" not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him. Or, it is said, "Who will have all men to be saved;" not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by "all men," the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances, - kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, "For kings, and for all that are in authority," who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior," that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: "Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb." For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by "every herb," every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by "all men," every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if "He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth," as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.

It surely seems Augustine held to the view that "all men" in this passage is contextually defined as all kinds of men long before Calvin did. If viewing the passage in this way indicates a Protestant predisposition, does it follow that Augustine was a Protestant?

(68) Augustine had four interpretations of 1 Tim 2:4 in his theological career. I point this out in Not By Faith Alone. Why did he? Because Augustine struggled with understanding the proper sense of "God's will" that I brought up previously. But the Calvinists don't struggle with it at all. They have only one interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4 - - their interpretation. Why? Because they have presupposed that there is only one will of God - - a predetermined will. But as we have seen, other Scriptures will not support that one-sided view of God.

Be that as it may, I continued in TPF by stating, "Resurrection is the work of Christ, and in this passage, is paralleled with the giving of eternal life (see v. 40). Christ gives eternal life to all those who are given to Him and who, as a result, come to Him."

Mr. Sungenis replies: "I can't help but notice that Dr. White has skipped over the details of verse 40."

Please note: Anyone who reads the chapter in TPF knows that I did no such thing: what Mr. Sungenis is responding to here is my discussion of 6:38-39. The last time I checked, verse 40 still comes after 38 and 39! Secondly, I dealt with verse 40 in the specific comments I offered in the article Mr. Sungenis is responding to. To say I "skipped over" anything in light of the facts to the contrary either shows that Mr. Sungenis began responding without reading the entirety of the article first,

(69) I didn't know he was quoting from TPF. I was just going by what Dr. White wrote to Scott Windsor, so I can't be faulted for not referring to TPF.

or he is simply misled.

(70) Ditto.

The verse says, "this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one who perceives the Son, and believes on Him, may have everlasting life..." In Greek, "perceives" (or "see") and "believes" are in the Greek active voice, which means that the individual is doing the perceiving and the believing. If the perceiving and believing were irresistibly forced upon them by God, and it was Jesus' purpose to emphasize such passivity, then we would expect the Greek passive voice. Again, it is hard to know how to respond to this kind of assertion, as it 1) shows such an incredible lack of understanding of the Reformed position it seeks to critique, and 2) is based upon another errant conclusion based upon the original language. First, the Reformed position that Mr. Sungenis was exposed to at Westminster Seminary says that man actively believes in Christ. It is the function of the regenerated spirit, made in the image of Christ, to trust in Christ, cling to Christ, hold to Christ, look to Christ. I would challenge Mr. Sungenis to find anything in Reformed theology that says otherwise. Someone just wasn't listening during Systematic Theology class!

(71) I wish Dr. White would spare me his opinions of my seminary years, because obviously he wasn't there to know what went on. Yes, I know the Calvinists try to make it appear that man "actively" believes. I used to say the same thing. This is how we did it: God draws the elect irresistibly, without their free will. Once drawn, God justifies and regenerates them. Once regenerated, they have a will that is now "active" for Christ, a will that "actively" believes, shall we say. But notice, this "active" belief is after the fact that they have been irresistibly drawn without their free will. But is that what John 6:40 says? No. The active voice of John 6:40 is used coincident with the Father's will and prior to receiving eternal life and being raised. There is no chronological sequence of unconditional election and irresistible grace that precedes the active believing of John 6:40. Dr. White is just reading those concepts into the verse, as he usually does.

Next, Mr. Sungenis is perfectly correct in identifying the voice of the terms in the passage, but he misses the truly significant point: these are not finite verbs, but substantival participles. Literally the text says that every "seeing one" and "believing one." John often uses the present participle as a substantive, especially oJ pisteuvwn, "the one believing," and that in contrast to those who do not have abiding and saving faith. To take the simple appearance of the active, ignore the fact that it is found in a participial form, and then apply this to a straw-man misrepresentation of the Reformed position, provides us with a glaring example of poor argumentation. There is nothing in either the Reformed position, and much less the grammar and syntax of substantival participles in the Gospel of John, that would begin to explain why Mr. Sungenis wrote what he wrote above. Is he seriously suggesting that Jesus would have to have used a present passive participle to describe the result of God's work of regeneration in the heart of His elect? "The one being believed" makes no sense, of course: John never puts "believe" in the passive participial form. Since Mr. Sungenis insists that this is what John would have to do, could we ask him to provide us with a translation of the text as he insists it would have to be? Just how would Mr. Sungenis change the active voice present participle into a passive, and how would he then translate it? To insist that John would have to use a passive voice for the truth of God's work of regeneration to be true is utterly and completely vacuous.

(72) Another red-herring. Dr. White is assuming that there are such things as passive substantive participial forms. The active participial substantive is referring to the action performed by the subject, as in John 1:12 (But as many as received Him, to them He gave..." where "received" is an active voice, substantive participle). If either John 1:12 or John 6:40 had wanted to teach that belief was only a result of the Father's decree and not also a volition act of the human will, John would have used a passive voice with a present, aorist, or perfect tense, and most likely in the indicative mood. But he didn't. Instead, he used a tense and voice (an active substantive participle) that can signify only one thing: an individual who was not programmed to believe but an individual who is believing by an act of his will.

Mr. Sungenis continued, "Also, note that the verse does not say that the "will" of the Father is directed to making the individual perceive and believe, but only to raising them up on the last day."

Again one is hard pressed to know how to reply to such a statement. Obviously, the ones Jesus raises up at the last day do perceive and believe: hence, if the Father's will for the Son is that He raise them up at the last day, and they must perceive and believe, how can the Son be held accountable for the end of the process and not the means?

(73) The Son is not held accountable for the means. The verse does not say such. The Son is accountable for one thing: raising those that are given to him. He is not accountable for the giving. Only the Father is. And yet the verse also says that the Father is not making them believe.

That would be like saying to the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team, "We are holding you accountable to win the championship, however, that has nothing to do with winning any games before then." One does not attain the end (the championship) without the means (winning games).

(74) Bad analogy, since a basketball team only has one head coach. John 6:40 has two participants, the Father and the Son.

All those raised up on the last day looked and believed on Christ: if Jesus alone is held accountable for the resurrection of the people of God to eternal life at the last day, as 6:38-39 teaches, then it follows with absolute and undeniable inevitability that He must be able to fulfill the Father's command.

(75) According to John 6:40, Jesus raises, and is responsible to raise, those that the Father gives him. Jesus does not determine, or is responsible for determining, who will come. Jesus obeys the command of the Father by raising up those that the Father gives him. Period. Dr. White, on the other hand, is adding a reciprocal relationship into the verse that is not stated in the verse.

This means He must be able to raise dead sinners to new life, and that is exactly what He does!

(76) Of course. Who denies that? But he raises only those the Father gives him. He doesn't determine who will be raised.

In fact, there is no verse in John 6; or the entire gospel of John; or the entire New Testament, that says God irresistibly forces belief upon the individual. Conversely, if Dr. White can find just one, then he wins this argument.

Given that Mr. Sungenis' assertions have been shown to be uniformly a-contextual, it would seem the "argument" is already over. Of course, we must again refute the false use of the term "force," as resurrection is not "forced" on dead men. Jesus did not "force" Lazarus from the tomb: He gave Him life, and Lazarus responded the only way a resurrected man can: by coming forth.

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