God's decree and ordination.

[Sheepdog]

subtitled, "A Corollary to the 'Corollary to Calvinism True or False' Thread"

After my last reply to rhutchin in the other thread, i got to thinking more about the topic of God's ordination. you see, i was exposed early to the Calvinist explanation of God's decree and such, and have since taken it for granted. However, after commenting on it, i got to thinking a little bit deeper about the usage of these words. you see, i observed before that many Biblical terms we've come to take as technical, theologic terms are in fact not originally so technical. For instance, "church" in the original Greek simply means "assembly," and the same term is used of Jews assembling before Moses (Acts 7:38) and in one case it is even used of rioters in Ephesis (Acts 19:32). likewise, the same word for "angel" can, depending on the context, just mean "messenger." The Bible does speak of human "messengers," and there are cases where some translations mistranslate one for the other. one possible example might be the seven "angels" of the churches in Revelation 1-3.

if this is the case, then what are we to make of passages where God is said to "ordain," or "decree," or even "elect" something? If i'm not mistaken, all three of these terms were also used in the human politics of the day. I know Caesar Augustus was said to decree the census in Luke 2:1. Secular authorities "ordained" or made commands (Luke 3:13). "Election" i'm not so sure about, though i suspect the word derives from the political process in ancient Greek democracy. Even if not, it may be similar to a king or governor "appointing" someone to office. (I don't know much at all about Greek etymology, i must admit.)

Now, it is permitted that when applied to God or Biblical language in general, these words may take on a special meaning. For instance, it is evident that "angles" from God can be properly understood as supernatural beings that can reveal themselves in a visible and audible form. Nevertheless, God chose to reveal Himself and His ways using this language, and so we ought not "supernaturualize" such words unnecessarily.

For instance, consider the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith. "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..." (quoted from Aneotos here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...0&postcount=32)

Should this be the proper understanding of God's ordination, Biblically? With human kings, if a person failed to adhere to what was decreed, they would be punished severely. The Confession, here, seems to say that it is not even possible for a person to fail to do as God ordained. But what if, Biblically, we ought to understand God's ordination in the former mode than the latter? In other words, are we talking about moral mandates or logical mandates?

For an example of what I'm thinking, consider Acts 13:48, When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed. Now, Calvinists have historically taken this to mean that all of these people believed because they were elected unconditionally. However, in terms of political appointments, could someone resist being appointed to a position? One could, but in so doing would bring shame on themselves and perhaps even punishment from the sovereign who would be insulted by such an action. If we were justified in applying this understanding of appointment to the passage, then it would have nothing to do with election (as Calvinists define it), but rather what it means is that all the Gentiles which God wanted as servants in His kingdom came to believe, whereas the Jews in the audience resisted (see v. 46). Thus, this is not a statement of whether election is conditional or is irresistable, but it simply means what it says: all the Gentiles God had appointed happened to believe.

Honestly, I'm not so sure that this perspective would pan out Scripturally. I can't think of any passages where "ordination" or "decree" or "election" is obviously being used in a special manner. Ephesians 1 might be an exception, but even there I'm convinced the Calvinist interpretation begs a vital question: that the good pleasure of God's will is independant of anything about us. But, perhaps there are passages i'm just not recalling at the moment. So i hope this thread will be open ended.

The only immediate rebuttal i can think of (pending, of course, actually passages that show one of these words being used in a special sense in relation to God) is that since God is absolutely sovereign, then when they are used of Him, by golly they mean He cannot be resisted. But this understanding of sovereignty is wrong-headed. I've used an apt analogy before. consider two kingdoms, Canukistan and Usalonia. They are about equivalent in land size, coastal area, money in the treasury, number of subjects/citizens, etc. Each is ruled by a king. In each the king may decree any law they see fit.

There was a great war. The King of Canukistan compiled a list of all the men of fighting age. Of that list, he separated it into two lists. Men in the first list were drafted to fight in battle, while the men in the second list were executed. The King of Usalonia decreed that any men of fighting age are to go to battle, and any who resisted were to be executed.

Question: Which king is more sovereign?

Answer: It is a trick question because, assuming the info given is exhaustive, both are equal in sovereignty over their respective lands. It is tricky though, as one chose to be more meticulous in how he acted in his sovereignty. But, notice that the question doesn't as how they act out there sovereignty, but which is more sovereign.

When i originally created that analogy, i do so to simply demonstrate that in Arminianism, God is no less sovereign in any way that matters than according to Calvinism. however, in rethinking this topic, i can now see it is more apt than i first realized. If God wished to construe His decrees, such that they can be disobeyed (though at the peril of the disobediant), is He not in His sovereignty free to do so? I see no reason to say not.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Sheepster,

... many Biblical terms we've come to take as technical, theologic terms are in fact not originally so technical. For instance, "church" in the original Greek simply means "assembly"...

Yes, that is what I have come to be thinking as well, in many instances.

But what if, Biblically, we ought to understand God's ordination in the former mode than the latter? In other words, are we talking about moral mandates or logical mandates?

Certainly it's not a moral mandate here!

Acts 17:31 ... because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.

So at the very least, it can't mean that, in every instance.

For an example of what I'm thinking, consider Acts 13:48, ... and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed. ... it simply means what it says: all the Gentiles God had appointed happened to believe.

But "Gentiles" has been inserted here! That's not actually what it says, rather, "all appointed, believed." Now if this is a moral mandate, the Jewish people who had just rejected the gospel were being given this moral mandate, too! So "all who were appointed" must not mean a moral mandate, even here.

The only immediate rebuttal i can think of ... is that since God is absolutely sovereign, then when they are used of Him, by golly they mean He cannot be resisted. But this understanding of sovereignty is wrong-headed.

I have the wrong head? I wonder if they can be exchanged, but first I'll check the expiration date...

If God wished to construe His decrees, such that they can be disobeyed (though at the peril of the disobediant), is He not in His sovereignty free to do so?

Maybe this Scripture is pertinent, here?

Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Then in the call to salvation, we read words such as these:

Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

So then the only alternative here, it seems to me, is that God's purpose here is not the stated one, "... so that you will live" is not actually the reason God gives this command.

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

I am not going to get sucked into this at this time, but I have a question concerning the comment below.

Certainly it's not a moral mandate here!

Acts 17:31 ... because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.

So at the very least, it can't mean that, in every instance.

How can you say this is not a moral mandate when it is about God's judgment? If God does not judge our actions, then He would not be moral. The fact that he does indicates that this day is established for that purpose.

One of my major complaints with Reformed thinking is that it divorces morality from God, making it only a human institution.

Swordman53

[Sheepdog]

Hi Sheepster,

Certainly it's not a moral mandate here!

Acts 17:31 ... because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.

So at the very least, it can't mean that, in every instance.

i'll difer to Swordman here, but will add that it would be analogous to a king appointing a day for a alledged murder to be judged on. i suppose in this sense it cannot be resisted (well, other than seeking God's mercy while one still can, but we need not get neck deep for now). nevertheless it is moral, though morally contingent on God rather than on man. i suppose someone could get away with saying it is both/and.

But "Gentiles" has been inserted here! That's not actually what it says, rather, "all appointed, believed." Now if this is a moral mandate, the Jewish people who had just rejected the gospel were being given this moral mandate, too! So "all who were appointed" must not mean a moral mandate, even here.

no, because it doesn't say that all were appointed, but simply that all those that were appointed believed. you got the conditionals a bit confused. Now, i'd also note that even if "Gentiles" is not in the original text, it is implied, as Paul immediately before said he's going to the Gentiles because of the Jews' contempt. but even if it isn't, it just means the Jews in this case simply weren't appointed.

Maybe this Scripture is pertinent, here?

perhaps....

Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

this is indeed true, but the key question is, what does God desire, precisely, that he word does? For example, God Himself gave Moses the law. Does this mean that, since Israel persistently disobeyed the law, that God's purpose for the law failed? To borrow Paul's favorite exclaimation, may it never be! (NASB) Rather, Paul tells us one of the purposes of the law:

Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the descendant to whom the promise had been made. It was administered through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary is not for one party alone, but God is one. Is the law therefore opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given-because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ-to those who believe. Now before faith came we were held in custody under the law, being kept as prisoners until the coming faith would be revealed. Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith Romans 3:19-24.

The NASB says "tutor" rather than "gaurdian" (NET, above), but i think the point is made. In this sense, the Law which God gave did not return empty, but did exactly what God intended for it to do: to "imprison" the people and act as a gaurian until "faith" (i.e. Jesus) came.

Then in the call to salvation, we read words such as these:

Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

So then the only alternative here, it seems to me, is that God's purpose here is not the stated one, "... so that you will live" is not actually the reason God gives this command.

That seems to be the case. The implication, from what i can tell, is that God wanted them to repent so they may live, but perhaps the purpose was to allow the people to make that decision for themselves. Otherwise, why say it and not just make them repent (by changing their desires, or what have you)? This seems to actually make my case: the word nevertheless accomplished what it was set to do. That is, it put a moral impetus on the people to repent, lest they perish. "The ball was now in their court," in other words.

[GoBahnsen]

I am not going to get sucked into this at this time, but I have a question concerning the comment below.


How can you say this is not a moral mandate when it is about God's judgment? If God does not judge our actions, then He would not be moral. The fact that he does indicates that this day is established for that purpose.

One of my major complaints with Reformed thinking is that it divorces morality from God, making it only a human institution.

Swordman53

If you were to get sucked in, I would want you to enlarge upon the statement above.

[Swordman53]

If you were to get sucked in, I would want you to enlarge upon the statement above.

lol - Three weeks and counting.

Swordman53

[AVmetro]

Well, my immediate comments are that ordination obviously has some intent behind it. Given God's exhaustive foreknowledge, I'd ask why God would ordain an individual to ________ if He foreknew that said individual would not accept?

I'm sure that your definition of "ordain" is possible, I just question whether or not its application to such things as election is biblical. Especially in the context of God's Sovereignty and exhaustive foreknowledge. Afterall, God is not a human, fallible, earthly king with limited power and influence.

In regards to Acts 13:48 you said:

Sheepdog:

... Now, Calvinists have historically taken this to mean that all of these people believed because they were elected unconditionally. However, in terms of political appointments, could someone resist being appointed to a position? ... If we were justified in applying this understanding of appointment to the passage, then it would have nothing to do with election (as Calvinists define it), but rather what it means is that all the Gentiles which God wanted as servants in His kingdom came to believe, whereas the Jews in the audience resisted (see v. 46). Thus, this is not a statement of whether election is conditional or is irresistable, but it simply means what it says: all the Gentiles God had appointed happened to believe.

I think the fallacy in your interpretation lies in not realizing that the "appointment" is the cause of the "belief." This is evident as it is only "as many as" within the Gentile group that believed. It was only the "as many as" whom were "appointed to eternal life" who are said to subsequently "believe." In other words, the Gentiles didn't just "happen" to believe, they believed because God ordained them to eternal life. This is another instance where many, like with John 6:37, reverse the order. It is not "as many as believed, God appointed to eternal life" but "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." For this reason, I don't believe your definition of "ordain" would work in this example.

AV

[Swordman53]

In regards to Acts 13:48 you said:

I think the fallacy in your interpretation lies in not realizing that the "appointment" is the cause of the "belief." This is evident as it is only "as many as" within the Gentile group that believed. It was only the "as many as" whom were "appointed to eternal life" who are said to subsequently "believe." In other words, the Gentiles didn't just "happen" to believe, they believed because God ordained them to eternal life. This is another instance where many, like with John 6:37, reverse the order. It is not "as many as believed, God appointed to eternal life" but "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." For this reason, I don't believe your definition of "ordain" would work in this example.

AV

I think Sheepdog has done an analysis of John 6, so I will let him address that.

Concerning Acts 13:48 and that second clause you are interested in - there is a very interesting lingustic challenge there. There are two words in the nominative, a correlative pronoun (as many as) and a participle ("were set"). One identifies the subject and the other is acting adjectivally of the other. Which do you believe is the subject and which is the modifier?

As for the question of when the appointment occurs, the context and the linguistic structure argues that it occurs when "they were glad and praise the word of the Lord". That is, when they believed.

Swordman53

[PaulT]

I think Sheepdog has done an analysis of John 6, so I will let him address that.

Concerning Acts 13:48 and that second clause you are interested in - there is a very interesting lingustic challenge there. There are two words in the nominative, a correlative pronoun (as many as) and a participle ("were set"). One identifies the subject and the other is acting adjectivally of the other. Which do you believe is the subject and which is the modifier?

As for the question of when the appointment occurs, the context and the linguistic structure argues that it occurs when "they were glad and praise the word of the Lord". That is, when they believed.

Swordman53

Isn't it nice that Luke takes the guessing work away in Acts 15:14?

[Daniel]

Although the apostles were married some clergymen still insist that priests should not be married. When was a sacrament viewed as 'bad' for someone??

I wish to say a happy father's day to all priests who had the courage to keep a family besides the congregation!
• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

We do not allow advertisement links, nor links espousing unorthodox teaching, as this link did. Please ask a mod before posting links like this

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Swordman53]

Isn't it nice that Luke takes the guessing work away in Acts 15:14?

If you are suggesting that the "appointment" is simply to take a people from the Gentiles, you are correct. The timing is tied jointly to Paul's statement in 13:47 and the subset of the people defined in the first clause of 13:48 (a correlative pronoun/adjective will generally limit a larger set).

Swordman53

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Certainly it's not a moral mandate here!

Acts 17:31 ... because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.

How can you say this is not a moral mandate when it is about God's judgment? If God does not judge our actions, then He would not be moral.

Oops, no I meant the second "ordained," the last word in the sentence. This ordaining cannot be a moral mandate directed to Jesus!

Lee: ... if this is a moral mandate, the Jewish people who had just rejected the gospel were being given this moral mandate, too! So "all who were appointed" must not mean a moral mandate, even here.

Sheepdog: no, because it doesn't say that all were appointed, but simply that all those that were appointed believed.

But if "appointed" is a moral mandate, then the Jews who did not believe were appointed, too! And then those who were appointed, some of them, in fact did not believe.

Sheepdog: The NASB says "tutor" rather than "gaurdian" (NET, above), but i think the point is made. In this sense, the Law which God gave did not return empty, but did exactly what God intended for it to do: to "imprison" the people and act as a gaurian until "faith" (i.e. Jesus) came.

I agree that that is one purpose! But Jesus also said all the law will be fulfilled in every detail, which surely means people will really obey it! So then we must also hold that the purpose of the command, "Do not steal" is indeed so that people will not steal (how could we reject this possibility?), and that this will indeed be fulfilled, in the fulfillment of the law, in Christ.

Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

Lee: So then the only alternative here, it seems to me, is that God's purpose here is not the stated one, "... so that you will live" is not actually the reason God gives this command.

Sheepdog: That seems to be the case. ... Otherwise, why say it and not just make them repent (by changing their desires, or what have you)?

Maybe this command was part of the process of bringing them to repentance, even after death? Which is an awkward alternative, nowadays, but the alternative is even more awkward. For it requires concluding that God does not necessarily state his purpose, when he ... states his purpose.

Blessings,
Lee

[Sheepdog]

Well, my immediate comments are that ordination obviously has some intent behind it. Given God's exhaustive foreknowledge, I'd ask why God would ordain an individual to ________ if He foreknew that said individual would not accept?

Someone could likewise ask why the king, were he to have exhaustive foreknowledge, would give the "whicked" servent a talent if he knew the servent would be foolish with it (Matthew 25:14-30).

I'm sure that your definition of "ordain" is possible, I just question whether or not its application to such things as election is biblical. Especially in the context of God's Sovereignty and exhaustive foreknowledge. Afterall, God is not a human, fallible, earthly king with limited power and influence.

I already addressed the Sovereignty issue: a sovereign God could sovereignly choose to give people a degree of freedom. The concept of foreknowledge as applied by the New Testament is also something i'm rethinking (don't worry, i don't anticipate going to the Open View any time soon).

I think the fallacy in your interpretation lies in not realizing that the "appointment" is the cause of the "belief." This is evident as it is only "as many as" within the Gentile group that believed. It was only the "as many as" whom were "appointed to eternal life" who are said to subsequently "believe." In other words, the Gentiles didn't just "happen" to believe, they believed because God ordained them to eternal life.

except there is nothing, linguistically, to demand that interpretation. lacking that, all you did was negated what i said, without really giving a good reason why.

(BTW, i'll read that article later tonight, Sword)

This is another instance where many, like with John 6:37, reverse the order. It is not "as many as believed, God appointed to eternal life" but "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." For this reason, I don't believe your definition of "ordain" would work in this example.

except that neither passages are giving us any cues in regards to what is causing the other. John 6:37 simply reports that all those who are given to Christ by the Father are also those who come. Indeed, there is warrent for taking 37 in the reverse order.

For instance, consider the context. After Jesus feeds the 5000, they come seeking him... not because of the miracles, but because they ate and had their full. The implication is that they come seeking more food. This prompts Jesus to tell them to seek food that doesn't perish, but "endures for eternal life." They ask what they must do, and Jesus answers that they must believe. Now check this out: they challenge Jesus to do another miracle so they would believe. But what miracle to they have in mind? "Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" v. 31. Of all miracles, why cite the one about manna? Unless... they are seeking this "bread" (thus eternal life) so they could have it now, despite their current unbelief, and then maybe later they'll believe. Jesus sees where this is going, and thus goes into the discussion which includes 37.

Consider further the rest of Jesus' argument, 38 through 40. In 38, Jesus says that this (that those who are given and come he will not send away) is because Jesus came to do the Father's will. What is the Father's will? that Jesus will not lose any, but He will raise them up (pointing to the General Resurrection). Jesus then further elaborates God's will: "For this is the will of my Father-for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." v. 40. This grounds the whole point back into the earlier discussion, and thus i propose that this section is recursive. That is, in light of the context above (which warrents a discussion on the necesity of faith, not one of election), this is the proposed interpretation:

1) The Father's will is that all who believe be saved.
2) Because of this, God's will is for Jesus to not lose anyone given to Him, but to save them all.
3) Jesus came to do the Father's will, not His own.
4) Thus, Jesus will not cast out anyone who comes to Him, because those who are given to Him are those who come to Him in faith.
5) Likewise, those who come to Him will never "hunger" nor "thirst" (euphemisms for eternal life).
6) The people do not believe; therefore, they were not given to Jesus by the Father; and therefore, it is not the Father's will that Jesus save these people; and therefore, they do not get eternal life.

Whereas the Calvinists would like to have Jesus going off on a tangent here about how God unconditionally gives people to Jesus, we see that the more sensible (I'd almost say, more logical...) understanding is that Jesus is unpacking what their unbelief entails; that is in short, they are not going to receive the living bread of eternal life.

[Sheepdog]

Oops, no I meant the second "ordained," the last word in the sentence. This ordaining cannot be a moral mandate directed to Jesus!

oh i see. but still why could it not be a moral mandate? it seems the idea trying to be captured here is a sovereign king (God the Father) ordaining/appointing a subordinate (Jesus Christ) to a high ranking position (that is, judge over everyone). Jesus definitely wouldn't give it up, but could he? I'd be uneasy about that, to say the least! Regardless, it isn't a logical ordainment like i see in the WFC by any means.

But if "appointed" is a moral mandate, then the Jews who did not believe were appointed, too! And then those who were appointed, some of them, in fact did not believe.

this is just plain wrong. there is no obvious way that "moral mandate," when applied to this passage, means all were appointed.

i think i now see where you are going with this. i think "moral mandate" is a misleading term, here. you'll have to pardon me about that. it's not so much that God didn't want the Jews to believe (i think He did). but the way i had applied "appointment" here would be more where God had appointed these people roles in the Kindgom of God, and now that is going to be actuallized since the people now believed. there is no "appointment to belief" here, in other words.

I agree that that is one purpose! But Jesus also said all the law will be fulfilled in every detail, which surely means people will really obey it! So then we must also hold that the purpose of the command, "Do not steal" is indeed so that people will not steal (how could we reject this possibility?), and that this will indeed be fulfilled, in the fulfillment of the law, in Christ.

that is in a sense a purpose of the Law, but it cannot be in the same sense as Is. 55:11. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be that the Law should be obeyed, but it will just be. meaning, it isn't that "thou shalt not steal," but quite simply no one would ever steal. ever. Obviously this is not the case.

Maybe this command was part of the process of bringing them to repentance, even after death? Which is an awkward alternative, nowadays, but the alternative is even more awkward. For it requires concluding that God does not necessarily state his purpose, when he ... states his purpose.

except that "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone" isn't a stated purpose, per se. All it tells us is what God's purpose is not: that he just loves to destroy people.

[AVmetro]

Hi, Sheepdog,

Someone could likewise ask why the king, were he to have exhaustive foreknowledge, would give the "whicked" servent a talent if he knew the servent would be foolish with it (Matthew 25:14-30).

I actually have several thoughts to that. But that would be getting off track now that I know you don’t hold to God’s foreknowledge in the sense that I thought you had because the question expected a response from that viewpoint.

I already addressed the Sovereignty issue: a sovereign God could sovereignly choose to give people a degree of freedom. The concept of foreknowledge as applied by the New Testament is also something i'm rethinking (don't worry, i don't anticipate going to the Open View any time soon).

I understand that He “could” but I’m asking whether or not He does. All I’m saying is that we can’t say “this sense of the word works here, so hey, why not here?” The issue is much more complex than that.

except there is nothing, linguistically, to demand that interpretation. lacking that, all you did was negated what i said, without really giving a good reason why.

The linguistic issue is actually up in the air, as far as I’m concerned. I admittedly don’t know Greek very well, so I have to ask others when it comes to this sort of thing. I received the following comment but I’m expecting more, in depth.

Bob Vincent states:

I am sure that Barry our Moderator could comment far more competently than I can, but I would simply reply that the verb form of the word translated
"appointed" is the perfect passive participle, which, when compared to the
other verbs in the sentence speaks of an earlier action.

"When the Gentiles heard (verb: present active participle) this, they were
glad (verb: imperfect active indicative) and honored (verb: imperfect
active indicative) the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed (verb:
perfect passive participle) for eternal life believed (verb: aorist active
indicative)."

As the United Bible Societies' handbook -- certainly no Calvinist propaganda
piece -- points out: "Those who had been chosen for eternal life is a
phrase which occurs frequently in rabbinic literature. The meaning is
clearly that those whom God had chosen became believers, and the translator
must not attempt to weaken this meaning." Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida. _A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles_. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1972.)

As to the rest of my argument, what I attempted to demonstrate was that “corporate election” was not in view but individuals (as I had anticipated that that kind of response might come up).

except that neither passages are giving us any cues in regards to what is causing the other. John 6:37 simply reports that all those who are given to Christ by the Father are also those who come. Indeed, there is warrent for taking 37 in the reverse order.

Having read your piece on John 6 some time back (on your site), I wrote a rough response shortly after for if and when I decide to engage in a lengthy discussion on that passage (which would most likely take place here and would most likely involve you). I don’t believe it discusses the necessity of faith (at least in the sense you take it) but the reason why this particular group refuses to believe in Him despite all that has occurred before them. I believe vs. 40 is the rub of your argument but I believe it can be taken differently (i.e., descriptive of those given to the Son) and I attempt to demonstrate this by drawing a line back to the preceding vss. latching on to important key words.

But in short, I believe it is fairly obvious that the “coming” is predicated on the “giving” of the Father to the Son. He names a specific group (those ‘given’) and what they will do (“come to Me”), which is in opposition to what the people before him have not done. He doesn’t simply state two aspects of a group that just happen to be juxtaposed. There is much more I can say (and have said) but I don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion on John 6 based a side comment when speaking of Acts 13:48! J I’ve learned my lesson on side-tracking from too many anti-Trinitarian debates…

I'd say my second paragraph of this reply sums up what I think about this issue. Is there anything more you want to reply in those regards before this thread gets more mixed and varied topically?

If not, I'm going to stick with its cousin "corollary" thread. ;-)

AV