More evidence John
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 апр 2025
- Here we will see how the conclusions drawn by Calvinists in John 6:44 create contradictions in Matthew and Luke, and we will look at other passages in John 6 that show verse 6:44 REQUIRES the elements of free will and man's cooperation.
Link to our original John 6:44 video...
• John 6:44 against Calv...
Link to our Matthew 23:37 video...
• My 2nd favorite eviden...
"Understanding verses in Greek is not stronger than understanding context." Amen! This is why laymen can read the Bible for ourselves and come to a right understanding without learning Greek, without an expert dictating to us what it *really* means.
Understanding both is better than understanding either individually. You can, to an extent, understand its meaning, but when you can read the Greek, you are closer to what the author actually wrote.
Unless you are James White, the Oracle of TULIP.
Yeah I'm pretty sure God is powerful enough to have His word translated to another language, so we do not need a Guru to know His word. Which is exactly why I read the KJB, because all the other translations take out verses and change the meaning of what the Church has had the whole time.
@@michaelfaber6904The translators of multiple Bible translations are very qualified to translate Greek. We have the convenience of viewing multiple translations very quickly so we don’t have to be Greek experts to understand a text.
Great point on the Greek. I have studied and read Greek for 22 years, and while it does provide light in many passages, it is no silver bullet against context. Great observation Nick!
10:34 Context is always KING "Isolating verses in Greek does not trump Context"....True, the most important thing among Calvinists is that scriptures be found to insure Calvinism survive. This is valued above correct understanding of scripture. As Kevin Thompson said.. they do not read the Bible in Explore mode to discover what it says... but in Conformation mode to support what they already believe.
Context is so important. I always remember a wise saying by a Bible school principal. He said whenever students came with a question about a specific verse, he would say he was busy for a few minutes. “Sit there, and, while you’re waiting, read the chapter or section before that verse, and continue reading the next chapter too,” he would say. “By then, I’ll be free to discuss the verse with you.” In nine times out of ten, he said, the student said he/she no longer had a query; it made sense now. So they left, not needing any further help!
Verses 11:25-27 provide the context. …you have hidden from the wise….you revealed to little children…such was your will…to whom the son chooses to reveal.
I love your content!!! It is always enlightening, thorough, and based on scripture. This video definitely proved its point. The Calvinist, sadly, will just ignore your whole argument and say, “you just don’t understand Calvinism.” Lol
...and he's back. Thank for posting and for "contending for the faith"
Hello there 👋🏾 new subscriber. I pray that Calvinist eyes will be open to the truth. 🙏🏾
The point about Jesus' other "unconditional" promises to all of "you" his audience elsewhere in John 6 and about the prophet Jonah's message is an excellent argument. They are stated without a conditional but the conditional is implied and understood by the audience. None of them think that some sort of secret mystical drawing is going on that they have absolutely no say in. They understand from the Old Testament that blessings are contingent on their choosing Yehováh over other gods, choosing life over death, choosing repentance over rebellion, etc.
Sorry, Jerm 31. Also the idea that God is sovereign and you freely act are not incompatible!
Your argument from Matt 11 is very strong. That is a really great connection. Good job!
If you also include Jesus’ clarification of v44 in v64-65 to support the idea that the Calvinist interpretation is incorrect, you have a certain 1-2 punch to undermine the Calvinist interpretation of v44.
“There are some of you who do not believe, and for that reason I said they were not drawn by the father.”
That makes the drawing conditional on faith.
I agree... the contention with john 6:44 is not that God must draw to be saved but rather"WHO"does he choose to draw. Its depends on who is willing to recieve the love of the truth
Have NEVER heard the argument from Matthew 11. Was familiar with the verse but never made the connection. Thank you!!!
This is why scholars always say, "Context is KING."
The Calvinist Jesus tells 'group A' in John 6:27 that eternal life is avaliable to them, when they reject him, he tells them in Jn. 6:44 that salvation was never for them to begin with. Lol
He is quite a deceiver.
Huh? John 6:44 is just explaining how people are drawn to the Son by the Father. Verse 27 is talking about a specific people that are given everlasting life BECAUSE the Father has set a seal on him.
What does this have to do with a “Calvinist Jesus”? It’s the reading of the text.
In regards to Matthew 11:21, the rest of Matthew already paints Jesus as being more than persuasive, without resorting to salvific terrorism. So, God does the miracles for whom He chooses, but what He's saying in 11:21 is that Bethsaida and Chorizan already received way more love and persuasive proof to believe; and it was "God's choice" to actually not give Tyre & Sidon that much. If Jesus had thrown Himself off the Temple mount, the Sanhedrin and rabbis WOULD have submitted, but not because Jesus had come to them humbly (11:28-30) but if He flew down under the support of angels, that WOULD have terrified them into submission, instead of being persuaded by His love, mercy and genius. Does 23:37 strike you as gathering them from tender parental love, or because He persuades them through miraculous cruelty?
You were predestined to write this comment, in no way was it your free will choice 😂.
@@SheepDog1974 1974? You're 50 years old, and you're response is a shitpost? You literally made me sad.
@@thecrimsonpookashell4485 it's your choice to be sad, or were you predetermined to be sad?
You want to engage in text debate and argue the validity of "your theology" but cannot come to grips with the elementary error of your deterministic fatalistic worldview.
The point of Matthew 23, is that Jesus could have arrived with a legion of Angels, and even then some would have refused to believe. Some just chose not to believe. You however endeavour to make God the determiner of that choice, striping God of his attributes and sovereignty.
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What dost thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon his creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” AW Tozer - The Knowledge of the Holy.
@@SheepDog1974 predestination doesn't discount choices. Both are obviously biblical. Why would you pit one against the other.
@@matt_h_27. I agree. Predestination is biblical, BUT not the way you and other reformed believers hold to predestination. Yes God did predetermine some things, events etc... but nowhere in scripture do we read that God chooses whom he will save and whom he will not arbitrarily unconditionally.
He predestined himself as the second person of the Trinity to become incarcerated in order to provide God the Father's propitiation once for all time, for ALL people.
His Grace is conditional upon, belief, in faith and obedience in Jesus Christ.
John 6:44-45 45 teaches how God draws them, *it is WRITTEN in the prophets and they shall all be TAUGHT by God therefore everyone who has heard and LEARNED from the Father COMES TO ME* Calvinist's claim this drawing is a direct. operation of God the Holy Spirit working to draw man to Himself and this drawing cannot be resisted. The real context is God draws them by teaching i.e. the gospel and there is no miraculous work that the Holy Spirit does on the individual to cause an irresistible desire to follow Jesus. Simply, they are taught the gospel and that is how God draws them.
It is so obvious. Those who learned by being taught, as written in the prophets, come.
It depends on how you interpret the word drawn. It doesn't necessarily imply an intent by God to pull an individual in. For example, a light will draw a moth in, but the light isn't physically pulling the moth in. The light shines and the moth sees it as something desirable and migrates towards it. God shows us the light and we can chose to move towards it or not. If the chosen were selected before the earth was created, why would God send Jesus to teach us to repent?
Calvinism has another branch that is called infralapsarian where God's sovereign choice is in light f the Fall.
Very well stated. Thanks.
So the dozens and dozens of verses in The New Testament which support Calvinism, are all taken out of context?
yes.
😂@@John17apologetics
You nailed it. Calvinism is a false gospel. It is a doctrine of manichean gnosticism, that started with Augustine. It most definitely is not found in the Bible and makes God to be evil. God loves everyone and has made a way for all. That is why the Bible says Gods will is that no man should perish but all come to repentance.
@@IronSharpensIron127 the video's author is admitting that Jesus knew that others would be saved if given the proper amount of grace and yet purposefully withheld that grace from those people so they wouldn’t be saved? And yet he's trying to claim that this is in argument against doctrines like unconditional election and limited atonement? If anything, it further proves unconditional election and limited atonement.
NO. Acts 16:14 Jerm 31...
John 10:38 But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and may understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
Matt. 11:21 is a "Woe" text which is much more likely one can conclude Jesus's use of exaggerated language rather than John 6:44. In fact Jesus often speaks more prophetically when pronouncing woes. This genre uses more imagery and figurative language.
Furthermore, if it were the case that God knew exactly what to do to get Tyre and Sidon to repent and refused to do it wouldn't that cause more of a non-Calvinist problem?
Good objection! Rather well put, I dont think it quite works though, unless we are saying to send Jesus back in time to Tyre and Sidon. The works that would have caused them to repent were not abstract works of God but the works of the incarnate son of God Jesus. Remember too while Jesus is certain His works ‘would’ have caused them to repent, by Gods rules he cant go back in time and do them right? There is no evidence that they were not given sufficient light to repent, God judged them on the light they had been given temporally, and not unfairly, Mathew 11:23 makes that clear. While Sodom will be judged for their wickedness like Tyre and Sidon, Sodom will recieve a lesser punishment due to recieving less light than the crowd infront of Jesus
How does that work in Calvinism? If Sodom and the crowd in front of Jesus are both non-elect, how are they judged differently for different levels of light? No matter how much light the non elect receive they wont come to Christ. If a calvinist will say, well God sends them more light to make their punishment sorer to judge them for their unbelief, then its two problems, one God is sending them more light to judge them for a nonbelief he effectually caused to be such and not be able to change, free choice is the only way that point works
Second, Ezekiel 33:11 says “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”
Ezekiel 33:11 KJV
So God, for as long as He lives, takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, yet effectually wills that wicked people who cannot believe will recieve worse punishments by sending them more light even tho it wont do anything, make it make sense
Great to see another thoroughly scriptural basis for the refuation of Calvinism, which is to be brutally honest, "another Gospel" and one to keep well away from
amazing argument, Leighton needs to see this
send it to him.
he never responds to me..🤣
10:36 EXACTLY RIGHT. Greek is great, but it doesn’t trump context!
P.S.: Just saw a bunch of other people saw this same thing in your video & called it out! Lol
Let's imagine a Calvinist being honest when sharing hidden parts of their doctrine if someone asked what they believed...
"God may hate your child. God made most people to glorify him in hell for all eternity with having zero choice. Our leader John Calvin was instrumental in murdering many people. Anytime you see the words "world" or "all" in the bible it means only the elect. Having just the bible will not suffice as we recommend lots of other books to understand the bible. A child being abused was ordained by God."
I love the Calvinist folks, just can't agree with their twisted theology.
I just finished discussing another false dichotomy with a confused Armininian, and then I see yours; the title of your video. Sheeesh!
@@accordingtothescriptures3470 🥱
You are fully correct in stating that debating a single verse is futile.
But, not only in Greek, but in any language. No one can bastardize a few words (Because of preferred words and word order that seem, alone, to support some other topic).
The debated portion starts here, or at least should:
Joh 6:24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
Joh 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
We see that Jesus couches everything in faith, always.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Faith, again.
Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Joh 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 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.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Faith
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
The reason I said is because you hve no faith.
The reason the Father does not bring them to Jesus, to give them to Jesus is because they are not of faith.
Those given to Jesus is unique language, found in no other Gospel.
He will lose none is found only three times in all the Bible, all in this Gospel.
I will not, I did not, he fulfilled his statement that he will not lose any.
John 6, 17 and 18.
Judas Iscariot was not one given, because Jesus said he would not send away any given to him. He sent Judas away)That which you do, go now and do, quickly"
Finally, I used to think that Jesus was modifying his original claim in John 6, "I will lose none" into "I lost none, except for one".
WELL, that is the opposite of not losing one, when yo lose one!
Living in Mexico, They use the exact same form of speech and it is like this "I have not lost any eggs, but a loaf of bread"
WE can use the rule of substitution to see the same, by using the words Jesus used "I have lost none of the ones the father gave me, but the betrayer alone, so that scripture may be fulfilled"
This reads very clumsily in English, but very naturally in other languages.
It is not an admission that Judas ws one of those the Father Gave toJesus, but it is a statement that he was NOT one of those.
9:39 ok. So I get your argument. Please help me. Are you saying that Jesus said that God did a work that resulted in one group not repenting yet another group would have. In other words, two groups of people, with the same work of God, have two different responses. One accepted his offer of restoration and the other did (would) not. Therefore, to teach that a work of God that leads to repentance must always result in the person actually repenting contradicts Jesus. Jesus assumed the element of belief that the person has to exercise.
I kept hearing James say 'effectually drawn' in the debate. Leighton wasn't making that the main issue in his argument, but I would have said that the question of the text is who does the Father draw? All or just the elect? If God is drawing all people, then Calvinism isn't the correct conclusion.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 the only people explicitly said to be drawn and "given by the Father to the Son" are the apostles, in john 17.
@John17apologetics OK. So you would say this is a different drawing than when the Son of man is lifted up and draws all people to himself?
@@truthtransistorradio6716 the drawing is the same. The one doing the drawing is different.
The Father draws in John 6.
The Son draws in john 12.32
Maybe someone else here already said this, but I heard James White say (in the debate, I think..) that when Jesus says that about tyre and sidon, that he's just using an expression of exasperation-- that in those cities, being so especially wicked, even they were more reachable than these Pharisees. I understand the inconsistency of this explanation (why be exasperated over something you've causily determined, for one thing), but somehow it seems to work for me in explaining away this verse in Matthew. We non calvinists have similar explanations of other verses, where we appeal to the verse being using a literary device or being merely expressive. Curious what you'd you say to James White's explanation.. I'm always trying to refine my arguments against Calvinism 🙏❤️
Heard him say it too.
In that case, Jesus' rebuke collapses.
"If tyre and sidon had received the works that you received, they would have..... well.... i suppose they wouldn't have done anything different".
White has done the same thing with Matthew 23.37. "It's just a judgment passage about the pharisees." As if we're supposed to ignore all the facts that Jesus presented about israel's children not coming to him.
@@John17apologetics I definitely see your point, and that level of inconsistency is a problem for me as well, which is why I could never be a Calvinist. But they have no problem with the idea of Jesus proclaiming things one way but knowing full well it's another. They change every warning in the Bible that implies real choice to a mere proclamation of God's holy standards. So while your thoughts on the tyre and sidon passage works for us, I don't think it works for Calvinists, is all I'm saying
I am trying to get out of a calvinistic church but the pastor agreed to first have a discussion with me over the TULIP and if I am not convinced then I can leave but I must say it has been hard because. we are currently in T of the TULIP which he brought up Genesis 3 and 6 and. I responded with Genesis 4 how God says Cain can do well, he them jumps. to saying that God gave a law to Israel that he knew were impossible to keep, I tried responding with Deuteronomy 30 and Isaiah and tried to also show that those who managed did it by faith, he then. moved to Ephesians 2:8-9 and also John 6:44. I have responded to John 6:37 and 44 but I think your explanation using verse 27, 32-33 and then Mathew 11:21 should be it but these guys are stubborn, he keeps bringing something else to defend it.
I am no theologian but I think even if he doesn''t change and I eventually leave the church I would have planted a seed. Please pray for my family and I.
@@emmanuelokello9183 nothing in genesis says man lost the ability to understand truth, or man fell into a depraved state where they can no longer believe in God, or anything of the sort.
Adam and Eve's eyes were OPENED, not closed. And they gained the knowledge of good and evil. They didn't lose knowledge.
@ He keeps going after verses without conceding when when shown, He also brought up Romans 3 which I said the context in Psalms 14 is different and brought the story of Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch but he did not give me much attention and brought Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 6:37,44. Do you think I will have any hope with him?
@emmanuelokello9183 yep. They all memorize the same prooftexts.
In romans 3, all the old testament references in verses 10-18 have the book-ends from verses 9 and 19 showing that Paul was only addressing Jews in these verses.
"None (of them) are righteous".
"None (of them) seek God."
Etc...
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both **Jews and Greeks** that they are all under sin- 3.9
The word here for Greek is "hellenists". They were hellenized Jews who lived in Gentile nations. Actual non-Jewish Gentiles don't get addressed until verse 29 when Paul uses the word "ethnos".
And verse 19...
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says **to those who are under the law**, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
- again showing that everything Paul cited here, he only meant it to make a point for his Jewish audience at Rome.
@@John17apologetics Thank you 🙏
@@emmanuelokello9183 in ephesians 2.8 there are 4 words to focus on.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves. It is the gift of God,
Ephesians 2:8
Grace "chariti"
Faith "pisteos"
This "touto"
Gift "doron".
The greek text does not allow Grace and Faith to be the "Gift" spoken of, for 2 reasons.
First
Touto and doron are both neuter, while Grace and Faith are both feminine nouns.
If this/gift referred to "grace and faith" then this/gift would have to match in gender.
Second
Touto/doron would have to match in number, but they are both singular. They would have to be PLURAL to refer to both "grace and faith".
Paul did not say *these are the gifts*. He said *this is the gift*.
Therefore the only conclusion that the Greek text allows is for the gift to be the whole scenario that "we are saved by grace through faith, not of works."
- That is "the gift" of God.
God doesn't give people faith.
That defeats the whole purpose of faith in the first place.
This was brilliant...
Great video! Keep up the amazing work.
The drawing in John 6:44 is evidence of the judicial hardening of Israel to accomplish the atonement:
(v37) Who are those that the Father gives? Those that are His. Faithful Jews.
(v44) Those who are drawn CAN come. Those who come will be raised.
(v45) Who are those that have heard and learned from the Father? Believing Jews.
(Rom 11:4) Who are "those who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Faithful Jews.
(11:5) They are the remnant of 1st century Israel, chosen because they remained faithful.
(11:7) Those that obtained it [grace] did so by faith, not works, and the rest were hardened.
Thus those that are drawn and CAN come are those who believed God and remained faithful to Him. Those Jews that were unfaithful were hardened, just like Pharoah, to bring about salvation. They were not being drawn or given to the Son by the Father, but if they did not continue in their unbelief, they can be grafted back in per Rom 11:23. Their hardening was conditioned upon unbelief and their being grafted back in, likewise.
RUclips throwing random theology stuff in my feed. I can see the Calvinist side and what you’re saying. I guess I lean Calvinist? Because of what I read in the Bible I see a lot of God choosing and us responding. How do prophecies come to pass unless ordered? You said God repented with Nineva, was he wrong? I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand.
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Jonah 3:10 KJV
God does have a sovereign plan. He did order creation, the moon stars and the sun. He also determined that Jesus would come and one day die for our sins, but prophecy does not negate man's responsibility and free will choice. In the midst of our choices and consequences God's ultimate desire is fulfilled. And we see this with his relenting of punishment on the ninevites - God chose to offer grace because the ninevites repented and believed in the Lord.
God's will is that no man should perish but all come to repentance.
Jesus said
If I be lifted up I will draw all men to me.
1st John 2:2 says that Jesus is the propitiation for all men.
John 3 16 says that God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Calvinism is a false Gospel and the only way Calvinist can get their false gospel is by denying the Bible. Which MacArthur very much does if you get his study Bible and read what he says about the verses I just gave you. God has made a way for all men. He is a beautiful awesome God!!!
@@IronSharpensIron127 You are saying God's will is conditional? I can see a whole lot of biblical issue that will arise from that viewpoint. John 3:16 isn't whosoever believes... It not a future tense, its present tense, so it reads "those believing'. Finally quoting 1 John 2:2 makes me assume your a universalist. If ALL have had their sins atoned, then why do we need to come to him. I see most comments in the anti-calvinist camp implying that Calvinism is the hyper side only. Which is why most go with reformed, as I don't follow Calvin anymore than you follow Arminius. Strawmaning Calvinism is poor a argument.
@@kal_eide armenianism is also un-biblical my friend. No I'm not a universalist. Yes John 2 2 says he is the propitiation for everyone, yes the Bible says that God's will is that no man should perish but all come to repentance. Which means that God provided a way for all men. Yes John 3 16 is really in the Bible. All five points of Calvinism are very un-biblical. I do know what those points teach because I used to be a Calvinist before I became a Christian. Jesus really did die for everyone, he really said that if you put your faith in him you will be saved. It's really the choice of the individual rather they go to the kingdom or go to Hell.
These are amazing points.
I also like to press them on why God would command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31) if He was controlling who could and who couldn’t.
Furthermore I like to point out that 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God desires all men to be saved and doesn’t wish that any should perish, but if unconditional election were true, then these verses are contradictory. If God desires all men to be saved, and He controls who believes and who doesn’t, then all men would be saved. These verses only make sense with an interpretation that God allows free will and knows ahead of time who will freely choose to accept the Gospel.
Amen! I use that and other repent passages all the time.
You have no idea what you are talking about LOL. We teach God has a sovereign will and yet mankind has a free will. You freely choose yet it was ordained!
@@SugoiEnglish1 lol who is “we?” Because that’s not what Calvinist’s teach. They teach irresistible grace, which means you don’t get a choice, God chose you and you can’t resist it. Do you not know your own false doctrine? Or are you confused as to the issue at hand?
It is a contradiction to claim that a person has free will, but was also unable to resist God’s grace. You can’t reconcile the two by any logic. 🤦🏻♂️
They change the word all to mean some in every single instance. The word all has lost all meaning. Yet somehow God is not a respecter of persons & commands us to show no partiality, love our enemies, & forgive everyone.
@@BingoNamo-gb8pz I learned that the hard way. I tried to have this conversation with a Calvinist and he pulled the whole “we need to examine this in context” (which I agree things need context) but this case he then did exactly what you just said. He asserted that this meant that God desires all kinds of men to be saved (not addressing the fact that it also says he doesn’t want any to perish.). It soon became clear that any attempt at reasoning with him was going to be futile.
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN unto me.” - John 12:32
Never understood why this verse alone isn’t enough to refute the Calvinism approach to John 6:44.
Bc they redefine what “all” and “world” means throughout the scripture except when it’s not necessary to keep their point alive
John 3:7: "You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again'" why john talking born again ? More error in your theology
@@SirOlgaC4 Jesus was talking. Not John. And again, everyone agrees that you must be born aagin.
@@John17apologetics Yes everyone agrees in born again but not many undestand why you need to be born again
Why over complicate Joh 6:44 & 45...v44 The Father draws all men unto Him... Joh 3.16...the cross is drawing all men and v45 those who choose to follow Him (listen and learn) come to Him.... The essence of the Gospel and God's grace. Even a child can understand this. Why add anything to that? Why interpret it through the other John's teaching ( Calvyn) just stick to the original John, as he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not like the other John.
Just a thought
How can I get a hold of you?
@@SimpleMindedBibleBeliever i can usually respond to comments pretty quickly.
Are you telling me we have to read more than one verse or a few to understand super important doctrines??? Ain’t no way. lol
Not to mention John 6:44 is smack in the middle of the Bread of Life discourse.
you should watch the other 2 videos i provided links for.
@@John17apologetics will do, thanks!
The Calvinist will just insert a parenthetical/assumption and tell you, “they would have BEEN CAUSED to repent.”
This is how they handle Romans 1, which defies Calvinism with the very first theological portion of the book.
Do a study on the word SEEK, list out the passages talking about God’s relation ship to man, and you will find a dozen passages that contradict Calvinism. Instead of realizing that Paul, while making a point to Jewish believers, is quoting a passage from 2 identical Psalms to harken back to a well established OT framework, they add stuff to the OT passages as if Paul is flipping existing scripture on its ear and giving it new meaning.
yeah. it's very sad that Calvinists won't allow God to desire reciprocal relationships with His own creation, without challlenging Him.
Of course Jesus's point would have been mute if he meant "caused to repent" because then it wouldn't actually be their fault at all.
@@John17apologeticsthey just can’t believe in a God that’s powerful enough to create man with the ability to choose.
@@John17apologeticsAmen. Also doesn’t their view undercut why we would even need a Savior at all?
If God decrees it, then why do we need anything besides that? Or am I oversimplifying their position?
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
You should look into that word Tasso, and it's opposite Antitasso and where they occur in the NT and how they are translated.
acts 13.48 is a beautiful passage. i dont know why calvinists think it says "as many as were immutably appointed by God to believe since before the foundation of the world, got regenerated and believed"....... but it doesn't say that.
@@nathancjarrett Not the middle voice though...passive hence the translation he quoted stands and why the majority of translaters rendered it so.
@@SugoiEnglish1 I think both sides have a case for their reading of the word. It's not a good proof text for the purpose it gets used for. Whether the majority of translators follow a particular path can be a useful guidepost at times, but when there is broad range for a possible interpretation of a word, which I think there is in this case, we should be hesitant to take a position that the verse definitely supports our preferred doctrinal position. It's like arguing with someone who calls a flathead screwdriver a paint can opener. You may rightfully declare that's not the most common use for that tool, but you'd be wrong to tell someone it can't be used to open a can of paint. I've read a bit of the interpretive conflicts on this verse, and I think it becomes a Rorshach test for theologians. They are going to see what they expect in Acts 13:48.
Those that are sincere in their want for peace and truth are drawn to God because that is what God is, peace IN truth,
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:…
John 6:44 (KJV)
Amen
Haven’t seen anyone say that the context of John 6:44 is smack in the middle of the Bread of Life discourse. That seems to be first proper context.
(Interesting part of John 6:44 is that the "him" in the 2nd clause is NOT being drawn. So, the one who is raised up is the one who isn't drawn, if we take it that way.)
How do you read that?
@@SheepDog1974 I think there is a period after "Draws him." The next clause is repeated from verse 40, and I think Jesus is referring back to what He said there, where the one raised up is the one who beholds and believes., and then adding verse 45.
Well done, my friend.
My Calvinist boss says I am not following biblical theology regarding God’s power admd his authority or sovereignty. He were not following what Calvin says in the first chapters of Vol. I of THE INSTITUTES. Then he goes a little crazy when I keep pressing on the issue of free will and choice. He prefers to pontificate rather than discuss.
@@TomSnyder-y7u "Mr (Boss), how am i able to "not follow biblical theology regarding God's power, authority and sovereignty"? Am i using my free will, my own volition, my own agency and my own discernment to reach a conclusion which God didn't intend for me to reach?? Because, then it would appear that the charge you have raised against me serves as a refutation of your own understanding of God's sovereignty, authority and power. As far as im concerned God is always 100% sovereign, whether he controls and decrees everything or absolutely nothing. I don't understand how you can claim God's sovereignty and authority and power are all at stake merely because i believe or don't believe something."
That's what i would say.
It's utterly silly for calvinists to act like they hold a monopoly on understanding God's sovereignty.
that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, “Of those whom You gave Me I have lost none.”
This is great.
Also John 6 in context:
Jesus confirms he is here to do his father’s will. Ie “all those the father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down to not do my will, but the fathers will, and this is the will of him who sent me that I shall not lose any one he has sent me, but raise them up on the last day. “
Then he goes on to define what the fathers will is. VS 40. “For it is my father’s will, that everyone who looks to the son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day”.
Ie those who believe in the Son are the ones who his father gives him, and he raises up on the last day.
So later in the chapter where he says “and no one comes to me unless the father draws them” is a reference back to the previous definition of who are the people that the father gives him? Those who believe in Him, Jesus. He is simply re-stating what he has already said.
So who can come? Only those who the father sends him, who’s that? Only those who believe in the son. Why can’t they come? Because they didn’t believe, Jesus even says later. “And yet there are some of you who still do not believe”.(So they can’t come).
That's good but how can you believe in the Son without God drawing him to the Son?
Not a Calvinist as I do not believe God planted in the world a sleeper cell, that when He calls they are saved always.
Yet and still we must be drawn to Him, then the question is how?
He draws us to Jesus, as the purpose for the bronze serpent, that anyone that look upon Him and believes will have life.
His love draws those that are loveless, eternal life draws us who are dead, His mercy draws those that are suffering etc.
The works that Jesus had done also drew them during that time, for healing.
What do you think?
@@MyRoBeRtBaKeRBut God draws all people, simple solution.
They also ignore the 13 times in John 6 where Jesus says that the man has to do the choosing/believing, etc. If Jesus was teaching unconditional election and irresistible grace, he sure lied a lot.
being his sheep is only one avenue of believing.
he did miracles specifically for those who were not already following him like sheep.
ruclips.net/video/d7ugvegnL70/видео.htmlsi=JkB0wrJDZQX_wQKp
@@John17apologetics Drawing men to Jesus. Not an effectual calling.
Lets wed the two passages together...Yes, if the miracles of Christ had been done in Tyre and Sidon they WOULD have repented....right after the Father drew them.
Let's not edit scripture to make it fit calvinism.
In Calvinism there is no hypothetical ‘would’
The question I like to pose is who is not being drawn in John 6:44. From calvanist, I get the non elect or the reprobate. The problem is an inclusive statement dose not equal an exclusive statement, the negative inference falocy. The problem is that the text never states calvanist doctrin its context has to be injected into the text.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Ezek 18:21-24 (KJV)
The arrogance of this generation thinking they are better than past generations.
Amen
I feel like I’m the one in class who doesn’t see the point you are making and is too embarrassed to ask. Except I’m asking :)
One of the things that shows determinism in John 6 is this passage:
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.”
John 6:37 LSB
Here it seems to show a deterministic giving (when it says “will come to me” it also says “all” not “some” that the Father gives) combined with a not losing them (“I will never cast out”). Said in my language: “Every single person that the Father gives me will certainly come to faith in me and are eternally secure in me.”
Anyhow, as far as your connection to the “woe’s” from Matt 11, I simply do not understand how that relates at all. If you or anyone reads this, please help me see what you are saying because I can’t comment on it unless I understand the argument. Surely Jesus isn’t wrong but I don’t even understand how what you are seeing there makes him wrong. Thanks!
thank you so much for your non-combative question.
6.37 is covered in my earlier video which i linked in the description.
my point is, the Calvinist conclusion from 6.44 is that the only way anyone believes is if they receive a unilateral, monergistic, 100% effectual work of God in them. - if that's correct, then in matthew 11.21 Jesus' audience should have come to faith, because he says "you DID receive something that would have resulted in even tyre and sidon repenting!" and in Calvinism, the only thing that qualifies is that effectual work of God which they presume from 6.44
@@John17apologetics- ok I think I get it now. Thank you very much for clarifying!
Let me see if I can push back a little and if this would matter or not to the argument you are making.
Let’s say had Jesus came to those cities and done those works, the Father would have given them to Jesus as it say there in John 6:44. So it’s a true hypothetical. Jesus would have done the works and the Father would have drawn them. Now, that didn’t happen though because Jesus never did the works there.
Now, in relation to Jesus’s audience, he did do the works… and so according to the Calvinist, God just don’t draw them through the works.
Remember the Israelites who saw all the plagues in Egypt, saw the sea parted, saw the mountains burst with lighting and thunder as God gave the law to Moses, saw the millions of dove just up and die out of nowhere for them to eat, etc, miracle after miracle? Do you remember those people? What did Moses tell them?
“And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, “You have seen all that Yahweh did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders. Yet to this day Yahweh has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandal has not worn out on your foot. You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am Yahweh your God.”
Deuteronomy 29:2-6 LSB
This sounds very much like the Calvinists are saying is going in here in John 6. Doesn’t it? God just didn’t allow them to hear, understand, see, etc which is what the Calvinist would say is going on to the John 6 people who stopped following Jesus and to the audience in Matt 11.
By the way, there is evidence of this very same thing going on in John 6. Recall that Jesus had already performed an amazing sign by feeding thousands of people, showing the ability to multiply food at will. Look at the below:
“Therefore they said to Him, “What should we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?”
John 6:28-30 LSB
These people had just seen the work he did with the loaves and fish. And yet still didn’t believe and wanted even more signs! Like waaat?!?
i work nightshift. I'll be sure to read the whole comment when i get off. 👍
@@babylonsfall7I won't hijack the thread, and look forward to John17's response - but Jesus answered your question in John 6:63-66. They just did not believe. The Israelite issue of belief has been the same since Moses' time with Pharoah, and it is no different than in John's account. 5:24 affirms the Israelites obstinate disobedience and rebellion of God's revelation of the Messiah.
God desires relationships to be reciprocal. His blinding of israel was a judgment upon the older generation for breaking the covenant they had agreed to, and it was a preventive measure for the new generation so they wouldn't enter into the covenant with Him under any compulsion when it is presented to them beginning in Deut 29.10. Moses then continues laying in front of them all the consequences and outcomes of their decision, up until 30.15-20 when he finally requires them to make their choice of life knowing and loving God, or death without Him.
john 6.28-29 is written as an objective genitive. "that you believe" is not a work that God does. it's a deed God requires. and if He irresistibly makes them believe, then their belief is alltogether pointless.
Mathew 23.37
Is Jesus speaking to the priesthood the religuios establishment,
Not the people?
ruclips.net/video/-rAJe4CbdRE/видео.htmlsi=lXey_sSLKaqXhD6C
Honest question? Is anyone considering that this refers to the Creator Father’s creation(Draw) of the new body that Christ the Redeemer redeems from the Earth?
I read the Bible literally and avoid understanding it by figurative language, because this creates understanding that is dependent upon cultural norms, eras, and our continuously differing bias by associations.
Prodigal father vs. Calvin's god
Let me try to understand what reformed Theology has proposed with the following analogy:
According to this theology, "we are not created equal, but before creation,god by his divine decree has predestined some for heaven and damned others to hell".
As someone who believes he was created in the image of God but with a fallen nature, I try to be a loving parent myself to ALL six children. Not wishing to play favorites I still believe I must help those who are not doing so well, even if it may lead to envy in others who don't need extra attention, support and charity.
To suggest that I would ever randomly abandon or scorn some children at any stage of their life is preposterous, obscene and immoral. Moreover, as the product of loving parents it would be unthinkable for us to be gratified in seeing harm or suffering to a child not yet born . But that is exactly what the 16th century double Predestination doctrines of calvinism are saying.
Yes "i chose them before they chose me"", I would never wish harm, rather do everything within my power not to let "anyone snatch them from my hand", nor let them "perish". Moreover, I would never "cast them out" but in the end like the all loving father, I would even die for any or all of them.
There would be no Easter Sunday without a good Friday in one's life. Perhaps it is only through experiencing trials and personal suffering that the path to self knowledge, wisdom and truth is possible.
Amen! 👍
❤ "isolating verses in Greek is NOT stronger than context"
Does this mean the Father is drawing everyone in John 6?
Came across this passage today and figured I’d share because I think it’s just another instance in which the Bible shows that God has foreknowledge of what we would all freely choose to do in any given situation but doesn’t control what we do, but instead leads us.
Exodus 13:17-18 ESV
17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near. For God said, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.” 18 But God led the people around by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea. And the people of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt equipped for battle.
This seems to contradict the Calvinistic idea of theological determinism, i.e., that God controls whatever everyone thinks, believes, and does (Divine Sovereignty.). If that were the case, He would have no reason to even consider that they might change their minds. He would simply not allow such a thing to occur. Instead, God knew that if He had led them by the way of the land of the Philistines because he knew they would cower and turn back. This shows God uses His Divine foreknowledge along with our free will. He leads us but we ultimately choose whether or not to follow.
Yes! All the way back to Genesis 3.22-23. God removes them from eden "lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever."
What are you talking about God?? Don't you predetermine all our actions and our reactions??
Ugh. Calvinists.
@@John17apologetics I had a Calvinist double down on that argument. He agreed that he believes that God determines what everyone believes and does. I had to point out the performative contradiction of him trying to change my mind if such a thing were true 🤦🏻♂️😂.
Isaiah 26:10
10
But when grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and do not regard the majesty of the Lord.
This verse alone refutes the idea of irresistible grace.
This is really good.
The one singular question to ask a Calvinist is: Did any one person in the Old Testament get regenerated, since regeneration is only through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Heyyyyy... you must be a dispy... huh?
Yes, every single person that looked forward to Christ in history (e.g., the patriarchs of old looking forward to the Messiah) are saved in the same way that we are saved when we look back to Christ at the cross 2,000 years later; by virtue of the new covenant. Even Adam, if he believed in the promise of the serpent crusher in Gen 3:15, is saved by virtue of putting his faith in the Christ, even if he was back then only portrayed in types and shadows.
@@Hez0 BOOM!
Another layer we often miss, is that my “acceptance” is not a guarantee of salvation. There are many that profess belief, but God judges the heart perfectly and does not accept the false confession as per the end of John 2. Both man and God do have a choice.
Without articulation both sides you end up with Catholicism/Condition security where we do/say something to begin a process by which we might be saved, or Free Grace where you can have an emotional moment or mental ascent (name it and claim it salvation), walk away from God the very next moment and be eternally secure. Either system on the opposite end of the spectrum is really a works based system where salvation is controlled by man.
I guess it depends upon what you mean by "acceptance"
@@bwc6520 Pretty much. The heart is evil and deceptive above all else! Salomon even spoke of men making professions, and God testing them to reveal that they were just dogs (Ecc 5 I believe?) The way is narrow, and many will try to find away around the sheep gate. Wolves (unbelievers) in sheep’s clothing (people who pass out fruit test, but are still really just wolves). The of 2Peter 2 who passed their fruit test, and were accepted as elders and teachers and yet their judgment never ceased (never saved). They left because they were never of us. The 2nd seed plated in stone (unchanged heart) that has no root (Jesus) and burns up. The Mosaic Jews i used as an example for the book of Hebrews saw, tasted, experienced and professed, but the KNOWLEDGE was not united with FAITH, and without faith…. There are dozens examples of false professions in scripture, and each time they are described as never being saved.
Jeffrey. The term “works based salvation” gets thrown around a lot and it usually would be defined as “I have to do x, y or z in order to earn my own Salvation”. Is that what you mean also?
@@PatrickSteil No, but God has defined what saving faith is, and He is the intimate judge. In the end of John 2 MANY BELIEVE IN HIS NAME, which is Free Grace is the lowest possible denominator that accept as being grace and not works, but then Jesus does not entrust Himself to them because He knows what is in their hearts.
His most repeated phrase in the Bible is TO GAIN YOUR LIFE YOU MIST LOOSE IS. FG either hits that with multiple layers or metaphor or claims it was not written for us because surrender would be a work, when God declares He seeks hearts that are humble and contrite, again not written for us in the FG framework.
God promises to change our hearts so the we desire to obey Him, and walk in the works He has laid out for us. This is what Paul describes in Romans 7 with a cleansed Spirit that wants to obey, but still having the broken flesh constantly eating with that spirit.
Somehow in the FG framework, us doing what God is working in us to do becomes backloading salvation with works, even if the works are works of God done in and through us.
Even camps that disagree with FG refuse to admit what is clearly laid out in the opening of Hebrews 11 (which again, not for us in most FG frameworks). If you look on Lexi Logos (I don’t use Christian sources because they all have obvious denominational bents) the Greek word for FAITH has a dictionary definition that is an exact composite of the two Greek words translated as SUBSTANCE/ASSURANCE and EVIDENCE/CONVICTION. So the writer WAS giving us a dictionary style definition of FAITH as being the FOUNDATION (grace THRU faith) and EVIDENCE given in the court of law.
This is why Paul (which most FG frameworks believe completed the gospel or had a different gospel) says twice (Corinthians and Romans 12) that everyone receives FATIH, just before he starts teaching on gifts of the Spirit, because every believer receives at least one gift that is divine proof being worked out through is that God exists, just as Hebrews 11 defines faith.
This proof is not even for my benefit, or preparation for heaven, because that has already been sealed. That proof, like the sign gifts which were abused in Corinth/Pentecostalism, is given to draw others to Jesus like the light we are COMMANDED/FORMED to be.
I find it odd that Calvinists/Lordship camps are at odds with FG. The core of Calvin’s system is that any thought, desire or action of man having any part in salvation would be a work. FG seems to take the exact same idea and simply move it to post salvation declaring any thought, desire or action of a man to be a work, and therefore completely optional.
@@jeffreybombaThanks. I haven’t studied the Free Grace much.
What would you say the Catholic view is?
So if Jesus knew that the regions Trye and Sidon would come to repentance if He showed them His mighty works, why didn’t He if He desires all to come to repentance?
@@ProfesionalBondservant because God is not mocked. Neither will he wait forever. Romans 1 shows this. He eventually gave them over to their sinful desires after they suppressed the truth long enough. 2 thessalonians 2 also shows this, because they refused to receive the truth, so He gave them over to their own delusions.
Hebrews 10.26-31.
Hebrews 3.10-12.
@@John17apologetics What does God being mocked have to do with any of this subject?
@@ProfesionalBondservant when God provides someone with sufficient evidence, it is a mockery of them to reject him. Sowing corruption and expecting to reap everlasting life is mockery of the truth. God does not need to acquiesce to their resistance and keep providing them with more evidence.
Great point but there's a far greater point to be made.
Read verse 44 and then read verse 65.
Why did the followers turn away?
Because they weren't among those drawn who would belief the bread was Jesus' flesh they needed to eat. Those who believed and were drawn, would go on to eat His flesh in the Eucharist.
The first Christian writings verify this is how the ones drawn understood Jesus. The rest, in verse 6:66 walked away.
References: the Didache on the Eucharist; Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist; Justin Martyr on the Euchsrist.
God bless.
Some will point to Jesus' words being spirit and the flesh accomplishes nothing in verse 63.
There are at least 3 problems with that interpretation.
1. Jesus spent the entire discourse insisting they had to eat He flesh. He even said the bread is He flesh.
2. It makes no sense that those who turned away would do so AFTER Jesus said His words were spirit and the flesh accomplishes nothing. They would, instead, then understand and stay.
3. The early church writings I cited above all took Jesus to mean His bodily flesh as did all the ancient churches, East and west, Orthodox and Catholic across the entire known world and through the centuries.
John 6:37,44,65 is about Jesus choosing his disciples. That’s why in verse 70 he says ”Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?“
you should watch my other videos in the description.
So what you are say is that Christ did not completely pay for sin. That salvation isn't complete without your freewill. And once you express your faith then salvation is complete.
I'm not the one saying that. Jesus said it.
Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
John 6:28-29
- written as an objective genitive. literally stating "this is the DEED God REQUIRES."
Complain against Jesus all you want.
Is everyone drawn?
No. Neither is anyone drawn irresistibly. Acts 7.51 shows this, as well as romans 10.21
@@John17apologetics Thanks for the reply. Trying to understand your position better. Do you have to be drawn to come to saving faith?
Context trumps Greek! Love it! Excellent!
Most Calvinists don’t know this, but Jesus’ “therefore” in verse 45 explains who the Father draws to the Son in verse 44. The debate should only last 30 seconds.
Seriously. That’s always the solution to just about every Calvinist mis-teaching, “just read one more verse…”
Precisely why a broad understanding of various versions, helps one understand context. The KJV (not that I use this version exclusively) in this case helps understand the context that even the OT Israelites would have understood that it was by faith in the One to come, Messiah Jesus Christ.
Do words have any meaning for you?
Great stuff! Thanks for sharing.
I think this was actually brought up in the debate by Leighton, though not that specific passage, and James gave the example of Nineveh. Jonah preached to Nineveh about the coming judgment of God, and Nineveh repented. Does that mean they were saved and had eternal life? Nope. Especially considering that, some time later, they went right back to their old ways, and God eventually brought the judgment upon them that He has promised.
Jesus is not saying in the passage in Matthew or Luke that these people would've repented in the sense that they would have had eternal life, but they would've have repented merely to save their own skin. The passages aren't even really talking about that subject. The main point Jesus is making is that the Jewish people have had far more light than these other places, and so their judgment will be worse because of their continued rejection of that light.
"For godly sorrow produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world brings about death." - 2 Corinthians 7:10
There is a kind of repentance that is without regret that leads to salvation, and there is a kind of repentance that leads to death because it is of the world. To prove your point, you'd have to show that Jesus was specifically talking about a godly sorrow and repentance in the passages you mentioned.
Leighton and i spoke about it a week before the debate.
If Jesus was referring to earthly sorrow unto death, then his rebuke failed. He is exhorting chorazin and bethsaida to conduct themselves the way tyre and sidon would have. If your theory was accurate, then Jesus was telling them "Shame on you for not dying".
There is zero chance Jesus was doing that. This is asinine.
I'm not sure what you mean by "then his rebuke failed." Jesus's whole point is that Israel's judgment will be greater than that of Tyre and Sidon because they were shown more (signs and miracles), and yet they did not repent. How is that Jesus telling them "shame on you for not dying"?
This discussion isn't about peoples' ability to repent and believe. Worldly sorrow brings death because it doesn't lead to saving faith like godly sorrow does. You even gave the example of Nineveh. Nineveh repented, and God relented of the judgment He was going to bring on them, though not permanently, since they later went back to their wicked ways. So you literally gave an example that disproves your own point. Jesus isn't talking about their ability to believe and have eternal life. Nineveh didn't believe, and they didn't truly turn to God. They repented temporarily, but they eventually went back to their wicked ways, and God brought upon them the judgment He had promised.
@@corbinyoung925 YOU said it was! You said there's an earthly sorrow that brings about death, so i had to prove Jesus was talking about a Godly sorrow instead!! All i did was show you how utterly stupid your option was because they DIDN'T repent.
And Nineveh slid backwards more than 100 years later. I don't know how long you think people live, but the generation that repented was NOT the same generation that got judged later.
You calvinists are insufferable.
You'll believe absolutely ANYTHING just to keep your theology from sinking. You think Jesus didn't want them to believe because he only used the word "repent"???
Congratulations! You just claimed Jesus was sharing a false gospel in Matthew 4.
Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to *PREACH*, and to say, 👉REPENT: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.👈.
Clearly he preached for people to go to hell since he didn't use the word "believe". Right???
- this is your logic.
Great video. Be blessed.
I enjoyed your argument. Draw=Salvation, Specific Miracles=Salvation, D=SM
Although for the Jews SM≠S.
I believe they could simply draw the distinction between Sufficient for salvation and Efficient for salvation.
This debate has gone on for hundreds of years. To tell a fellow Christian: if your view is right, then Jesus is wrong. Very rude and inappropriate way of making your case.
It seems that this debate has come a long way. They used to burn us at the stake for rejecting their Calvinism, you know. 🤷
Man these were great insights!
regeneration is from God only. Santification is both way. God and you.
BINGO! 🎯,Interestingly, Jesus used these cities as an extreme example because, historically, both Tyre and Sidon were considered wicked since the time of Abraham. Ironically, in Acts 21 Paul stops in Tyre and finds believers there. "who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem."
Paul, the chief sinner: “Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.”
Yes everyone has capacity to trust in christ but at what level? 1% or 100%
I have a Calvinist friend. He is a pastor. Do you guys remember the mercilessly way that many children were killed in Israel by Hamas? putting them in ovens, tearing out their eyes with sharp knives? well, Our calvinists friends believe that God did that!
sad. huge difference in God commanding and decreeing the death of children, and israel rejecting their God to the point that they've cast Him away and told Him he isn't welcome to protect them anymore.
Jesus is in tears in Luke 19.41-44 when he says now their enemies will come in and destroy them, because they rejected him.
Great analysis.
You come into your own conlcusion what mighty works is.
All 5 points of calvinism makes out God as a liar cause every single point contradicts bible verses and doctrine of Jesus Christ becasue 5 points is logical conclusions (wrong ones)from some verses Calvinism take biblical terms like predestination, depravity, atonment,election and make own doctrine with using those terms in it. Calvinism is wrong on every single thing they teach but mix it with bible verses and christian doctrine and end product seems legit.
Incorrect
Jerm 31...emphasizes God doing something! God isn't just active in the cross and resurrection and then leave humans to decide to act in faith. I will put I will I will...
This argument has been going on since Augustine. No different. This argument has not nor does it weaken the Calvinist point of view which is the biblical point of view.
I find it humorous how many people try so hard to disprove this view and at the same time confirm it through their own arguments.
You didnt even watch the video
@@John17apologetics
Yes sir I did.
And like I said have listened to many arguments against Calvinism and have yet to find anything to disprove it.
Have a blessed day
@@rogeliosalazar4103 explain john 6.27.
Good stuff, keep it up. Calvinism is demonstrably wrong. 🙏✝️
ruclips.net/video/wVqQi_vBzr8/видео.html
If people have free will then Jesus was wrong. He didn't have to die for anothers sin. One could live a life with free will to not sin.
Keep in mind: We must believe in free will. We have no choice.
The privilege of free will was bestowed on us by God as one of His design features. Who told you it was a divine human superpower?
@@dannymcmullan9375 share the link?
Calvinism, or any other "doctrine" like it take away from God's divinity. As humans, we think in three dimensions typically. There are no "dimensions" with God. YHWH knew at the beginning of time each and every person who would choose to believe in His son Jesus to have eternal life. However, we get the choice to do so, and everyone is presented with the same evidence at some point in their lives. The bigger issue to me is how no church I have attended in the past five years preaches the Gospel at each and every sermon. People need to hear the Gospel regularly, so they are equipped to share it daily. This is our charge in "The Great Commission" to go and make disciples of all nations. Your spiritual walk is not meant to be you only as a member in the audience. It is a personal, daily, multiple times a day walk, that is the most beautiful gift any of us could ever receive.
John 11:45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him.
It always goes full circle, back to man being given free will to make a choice, either way.
Free will was lost in the garden however. Paul said humans are DEAD in sin!
@dionsanchez2775 That is NOT what Paul was talking about, obviously. He was referring to us being dead spiritually dead in our sins, with no hope without Jesus' death on the cross to pay for our sins.
in your calvinism, it would be impossible for believers to sin at all. romans 6.2, 1 peter 2.24 we are all dead to sin now.
in other words, you have misunderstood Paul's intentions.
@@John17apologetics "My calvanism"? I am in no way a Calvinist. Believe me, in no way. I believe in mans God given free will to choose Jesus.
@@arkansasboy45 lol. Not yours. DionSanchez above
How do you deal with John3. Where Jesus had said you most be born again. Salvation is of The Spirit. We have nothing to do with it. You had nothing to do with your physical birth why do you think you have something to do with your Spiritual birth..
Yet if you deny and reject Jesus as Lord "you have something to do about your spiritual death" .
Do you see how that works?
Have you read Romans 6:23 lately?
Nicodemus brought up the comparison of physical birth. not Jesus. who told you physical and spiritual conception were parallel?
do you also assume the spirit regenerates you and then you have to wait 9 months before you can actually express faith??
If you are fully santify you can still reject God. Just like lucifer.
John17apologetics a play on acts17apologetics? 😊
yes, but John 17 is also my favorite chapter. found my first defense against islam here. also found my first defense for the trinity and my first defense against calvinism.
They follow Calvin more than Jesus.
As I read matthew 11:21 and I see repentence, but I don't see faith. I would say it would be an argument if Jesus had said repented AND believed.
so, in Matthew 4, is Jesus telling people they can enter the kingdom of heaven without believing??
"Matthew 4:17 (KJV) From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Mighty works...can the work be regeneration?
Exactly my point.
It needs to be regeneration, because thats the only thing that "would have" caused tyre and sidon to repent (in calvinism). But it can't be regeneration, because chorazin and bethsaida didn't repent. So calvinism self-destructs.
What happened to Nineveh right after that? Why is the audience still not repenting? Because they are not His sheep. John 10:27. Who are His sheep? The ones the Father has given to Him(verse 29). Every point you think you just made in this video is no point at all.
@@Kooch2004 you must be new. Welcome!!
Enjoy: ruclips.net/video/d7ugvegnL70/видео.htmlsi=DhBkxGn-jQXTGQmS
@@John17apologetics I appreciate the kindness but new theology is old heresy 9 times out of 10. I’ve watched multiple of your breakdowns now and they have all been misleading or flat out wrong.
@@Kooch2004 perhaps then you should reconsider Calvinism after you get acquainted with the opinions of Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides, Saturnilus, and Simon Magus.
@@John17apologetics no sir, you can’t leave biblical truth for man’s opinions.
@@Kooch2004 calvin already did. There isnt a single shred of evidence for calvinism in the Scriptures. Again. I gave you five names that you should research.
You should also research islam while you're at it.
Calvinism is both absurd and laughable.
I have seen all of your prooftexts. Exactly zero of them are used in their proper context, as the authors intended.
You are assuming that all repentance is salvific
i am assuming that Jesus spoke an actual rebuke against them, and not a self-defeating accusation. yes.
@@John17apologetics do you think that the ninevites were eternally saved when they repented?
@@truthfirst2983 i have no evidence from the scriptures to believe THAT particular generation was lost.
Nineveh doesn't go astray until atleast 100 years later.
@@John17apologetics arguments from silence are very weak
God confirms even further in John 6:65, what John 6:44 is saying. Not what Calvin said. Many who aren’t Calvinist believe what James White brought out of the text but “they must be Calvinist” for some reason. To attack Calvin’s position and all else who agree who don’t consider themselves “Calvinist” in regards to Limited Atonement is to attack God and Holy Writ. The smart channel guy is an example. Folks are just to obsessed with this guy named Calvin basically their escape goat to preach a free will man’s gospel. They use the name Calvin more than the Calvinist themselves. Like kids name calling
Already covered 6.65 and 6.70 and 6.37 in my first 6.44 video.
Go watch it before you start throwing accusations around
Just to be clear, you’re admitting that Jesus knew that others would be saved if given the proper amount of grace and yet purposefully withheld that grace from those people so they wouldn’t be saved? And you’re trying to claim that this is in argument against doctrines like unconditional election and limited atonement? If anything, it further proves unconditional election and limited atonement.
just to be clear. you completely avoided the argument. Jesus said bethsaida and chorazin DID RECEIVE "something" that WOULD HAVE resulted in tyre and sidon repenting, yet bethsaida and chorazin still didn't repent. therefore your irresistible mechanism by which God drags people to faith CANNOT be the answer.
I love the fall out from the Flowers - White debate because White and Calvinism is being exposed for what and who they are. A lie against the salvation afforded all of us by the love fueled death and Resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Thank you brother for preaching truth. God continue to bless you 🙏
I recently involved in an exchange with a Calvinist over Baal Gate. (Strange enough, no appeals to the Greek.) They were using Romans 11, 32 as a proof text of Total Depravity. I'm doing the "Look at the Context!" which falls in death ears.
Wait. Wait. Wait. The Calvinist was using Rom 11:32…to TEACH Total Depravity????
11:32 explicitly shows Total Depravity is an idiotic concept because 11:32 teaches regeneration of all people, nullifying TD completely. It, along with verses like Rom 5:18 disprove Calvin and Augustine in TD. SMH