Series on the reformed usage of Romans 9:11-24 -- Part I

This passage is the favorite reformed pillar of the doctriens of God's grace, in particular the dogma of double predestination is derived solely from this text. One might very safely bet there is no volume on the basics of Calvinism on the book market that gets by without making reference to this passage. Since many issues are to be dealth with in this context, I decided to divide this work into several parts.

In the light of recent occasions, I'll first address what I feel is a very basic snare Calvinists have been caught in and really enlightens where Calvinism's core problem is rooted. For not only was I just lately confronted with this challenge and asked to engage in the exercise suggested there, but someone also used a similar "weapon" in a recent comment: I'm speaking of verse Romans 9:19:

One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?'

The question anticipated here by the author of Romans is due to the preceding statement that God hardens whom he wills. Since the hardening is by God, the virtual objector is questioning God's justice. Now, the section of Romans 9-11 is very much concerned with the topic of divine hardening. Though I'll be dealing with the passage in-depth in the subsequent parts, I'll start with the reformed usage of verse 9:19 in particular, because it fits well as a response to the challenge posed by "int3grity" as mentioned above. But not only that. It fits well because this is probably the most frequently quoted verse by Calvinists I have encountered and it provides an entire basic framework for reformed presuppositions.

It is noteworthy that Calvinists do not have any idea about the divine hardening itself. Reformed theology doesn't contemplate how the sovereign God actually does this intervention and what is going on when God hardens someone. In other words, there is no deeper interest regarding the matter of the hardening and no idea whatsoever about a "hardening mechanism" or a divine "hardening instrument" that could be comprehended. No, in reformed circles these questions are never even touched to begin with. The assumption is that the hardening procedure itself is somewhat unfathomable and no attempts are made to peer into that. Since the subject of divine hardening is so prevalent and fundamental for an understanding of the section Romans 9-11, I'll start off with this topic. To be precise, in this part I'll be arguing that the key to a correct understanding of Romans 9 lies in an understanding of the hardening. Furthermore and in particular, I'll be arguing that if someone doesn't understand the hardening mechanism, it is because he is hardenend himself. Hence, it is absolutely vital to capture wisdom and knowledge about this subject. For how is anyone supposed to understand the scriptures (in this case Romans 9:11-24) rightly if he has been hardened? Therefore it is reasonable to seize on the matter where I think Calvinism's core problem is hidden.

So does the bible in general and Paul in particular reveal anything regarding the mystery of divine hardening? Among other things, one thing which can be affirmed and which I indicated in previous posts, is that the sovereign Lord hardens people by the law he has given them. What does this mean? One can distinguish three covenants God established with mankind. First, the covenant with Adam in the Garden Eden, second the Mosaic law and third the new covenant of faith in Jesus Christ.

As a matter of fact, the destructive effect of the mosaic law is a main thought put forward in the epistle to the Romans. The law which was given by God and meant to bring eternal life, effectively brought the opposite: death!

Rom. 3:20:
Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

To become conscious of sin or to have knowledge of sin is to be hardened.

Rom 7:13:
Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognised as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (Emphasis added)

"Become utterly sinful" refers to hardening. Since the law is by God, it is divine hardening.

1 Cor 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

The law originates with God. It is the hardening instrument that leads to death.

Rom 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

While the law brings knowledge of one's sin (=hardening), the law itself is certainly good, because it is from God. God's law hardens. This is how God "hardens whom he wills". Whom does God will to harden? To be precise, he hardens everyone who opposes the law. Not the law is bad, the transgressors of the law are!

As a matter of fact, the destructive effect of the new law of faith, the gospel commandment, is another main news put forward in the same epistle. What is the gospel's functionality as a divine hardening mechanism? The hardening is also encountered by Jesus Christ’s role as the cornerstone with an ambivalent function. Concerning this cornerstone Romans 9:33 says

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.'”

Christ, the cornerstone can work in two ways: If you believe in him, he is your savior. If you reject him, he is your stumbling stone. This stumbling function that makes people fall is divine hardening, for it was God who laid this stone in Zion! Jesus didn't come on his own but was sent by God.

How then, does Jesus Christ’s hardening work? If you believe that God raised the crucified Kyrios from the grave and accredited him by lifting him up to heavenly glory, then you believe that the crucifixion had a redemptive, good meaning.

Now it becomes interesting: If you are a sincere Jew and if you don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God and approved of by the Father, then you believe that God’s final word about Jesus was the curse of crucifixion, for “cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree”. As a sincere Jew who doesn’t believe in Jesus, you would have to conclude that Jesus did not only lack approval of God, but to the contrary: What Jesus taught (for instance the ethics of the sermon on the mountain, about Sabbath keeping, about fasting, food regulations etc) was explicitly despised by God. Thus, as a Jesus rejecting Jew you have to infer that Jesus’ teaching was not only neutral or wrong but really an abomination! And so you’d be confirmed in your mosaic law keeping efforts that only bring knowledge of sin and divert from ever gaining eternal life. You’d be hardened in your stubborn legalistic death-bringing works religion. You’d be reaffirmed of your works religion more than before! That’s how divine hardening works via Jesus’ role as a cornerstone. God isn’t actively involved in any development of evil!

John 12:48

There is a judge for those who reject me and do not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

The word is either your saving nourishment or a forensic hardening instrument. Since it is the Word of God, it is divine hardening. If you reject Christ, salvation is farther than before.

Now, the epistle to the Romans emphatically affirms the destructive (hardening) effect of both the mosaic law and the newly bestowed "law of faith" (Rom 3:26-27). What is left is the very first law God gave to mankind. Does this entail a divine hardening effect, too?


Most assuredly, it does. The very first law sounded:

Gen 2:16-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die.'


Let us return to the starting question in this article, namely the question phrased in Romans 9:19 ("One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?' ") and remember how it was prompted. (Note, this is Calvinism's favorite question to raise).

Paul had just said that God is free to bestow mercy on whom he wills. I think one would hardly object to this. But Paul also pointed out that God is equally free to "harden whom he wills". Now, the letter to the Romans is written as a diatribe. Paul emulates a public speech before an imaginary audience gathered around a speaker, where he anticipates hecklings from the audience and answers them. This literary style is a practical way to get controversial issues across. Such anticipated questions occur several times in the letter (eg. v3:5; 6:1; 6:15; 7:7). Is the situation in 9:19 different? Well, while Paul is indeed going to answer this question in the remainder of the section, the treatment of the imaginary objector's question is rebuked in that way for a special reason. For what is the queston of v.19 if not a question about God's goodness? "Why does he find faul?" is an inquiry about justice which certainly has to do with the question of what it means to be good. It is certainly touching the possibility of injustice which is of course quite the opposite. "For who can resist his will?". So these are questions touching the ultimate realities about good and evil. The contemplation about God's goodness in his dealings with the world as outlined by Paul, are nothing else than attempts to gain knowledge of good and evil, questions like that are attempts to understand the ultimate standard of morality. Now, what is the usual human method to attain knowledge of good and evil? For instance, what would the imaginary objector of Rom 9:19 have to do in order to satisfy his thirst for knowledge? Well, if we think of Adam as a representative of natural humankind, and his behavior as exemplary of man's ways, then one can state that humanity's method to attain such knowledge is to take from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's "Adam's method". Philosophy. Trying to figure out the things of God by human wisdom. Though nobody is literally eathing an apple (or whatever the forbidden fruit was), this doesn't undo the inanity of human wisdom to capture divine truth. It rather reaffirms the sobering result: Trying to understand good and evil results in ever increasing perplexity the more one struggles to understand.

Eating from the tree of knowledge is the man-like approach to solve things. Like Calvinism. What does the fruit of the forbidden tree bring about? It doesn't provide saving knowledge, but rather spiritual darkness. Darkness is the absence of enlightenment and the opposite of salvation. You cannot see and hence cannot know any truth. The fruit of the forbidden tree brings death. It brings knowledge of sin--in other words: It hardens.

Now, what does this have to do with Rom. 9:19, the understanding of divine hardening and int3grity's task above? After having eaten from the forbidden tree and fallen into spiritual darkness, man constantly repeats the same procedure in order to gain knowledge. The knowledge of his sin doesn't make him wise. No, he rather grasps after the same fruit again and again in hope to receive knowledge why he grasped after it for the first time. Man ("Adam") applies the only method available to him, to receive knowledge of good and evil:--The forbidden fruit that won't help.
Every man-made vain exercise to understand the things of God, considering his goodness, justice, relationship towards mankind etc. are repeated bites into the fruits of this very tree.

So lets return to the starting question:

"Why does God still find fault with me?"

Okay, what should we do to answer this question? Is God unjust? In other words, is God evil? Obviously the answer can only be attained by the fruit designed to bring that knowledge, no? So let's take a bite into the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Why does God hold me responsible anyway? -- Take of the forbidden fruit: Bite!
Why is there evil anyway? -- Grasp for the fruit again--Bite.

Given that background one might as well ponder int3grity's many "hard questions" and answer them by man's method, shall we?.....

---

-Was it unfair for God to rest mankind's eternal destiny in the will of Adam by giving him a choice to eat of the forbidden fruit?

To answer this question, imagine yourself standing under the tree of knowledge. Then break a fruit off the tree and bite in to get the answer!

-If it's unfair that God imputes the original sin of Adam to all men for no reason but their race is it unfair that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to some for no reason but His grace?

Bite!

-If God cannot impute the original sin of Adam to all men, how can He impute the righteousness of the Last Adam to any man?

Bite

-Does man's inclinations control his will or does man's will control his inclinations?

Bite

-Why is the question always whether sinners CAN choose Christ and not why do sinners EVER choose Christ?

Bite

-Is decisional regeneration dependent upon whether man's will is free or is it a question of whether man's will is good? (Jer 13:23)

Bite

- Why is it so hard to believe that our free will can be limited by our ability, and our ability can be limited by our nature, and our nature is wholly corrupted by sin? (1Cor 2:14; Rom 8:7-8)

Bite

- Is it fair for you to demand God to be fair according to your fallen notions of fairness? (Rom 9:14) Is it not fair to say that if God was fair to all sinners it would not fare well for you?

Bite

- Is it unfair for God to predestine for some a conformity to Christ which others have no desire for anyways? (Rom 8:29; 3:11)

Bite

- How do texts about God's universal love for all mankind nullify texts about His electing grace for all kinds of men? (John 3:16; 1Tim 2:4; Rev 5:9; Acts 13:48)

Bite

- Did GOD love you before you were saved in the exact same sense and way that HE loves those who he knows will always reject HIM? (Rom 9:11-16)

Bite

- Does the future exist because GOD knows it or does the future exist because GOD decreed it before HE created time? (Isaiah 46:10)

Bite

- Did GOD know who would be saved & who would be lost before HE created time or was HE surprised when Adam sinned & resort to "plan B"? (2 Thes 2:13)

Bite

- Is God's desire to preserve man's final self-determination greater than His desire to keep men from being unsaved?

Bite

- Did God esteem His desire to have a world in which there are final self-determining people more highly than He esteemed His other desire that nobody be lost?

Bite

- Does your cultural upbringing have any influence on who you are, the way you think, and the decisions you make? Do these influences God has allowed in your life have any bearing upon how you respond to the Gospel call if, in fact, you ever hear it?

Bite

- Is it truly possible to make any decision unaffected by outside influences in our lives? Is God in control of our influences?

Grasp another fruit and bite!

- If God loves everybody in the exact same way, why doesn't He orchestrate all events, circumstances, influences and inclinations of all people everywhere in such a way as to equally compel them all to willfully become His sheep? (John 10:11; 10:26)

Bite

- Does God know the future? Does He know what is required to persuade individuals to choose Christ? Does He exercise this persuasion upon all people equally customized to their varying inclinations?

Bite

- Does God temporarily remove every outside influence, preconceived idea, personality trait and psychological malady in order that a person can make a completely neutral free will decision to choose Christ? Would He not have to do this as well as give Gospel revelation to all people in order to be fair?

Bite

- If God gives a universal 50-50 chance for all people to choose Christ equally, shouldn't there be a 50-50 conversion rate?

Bite

- Which is more unfair: for God to have to graciously regenerate people before they can willfully believe the Gospel or for God to create people within circumstances where they will never hear or have a chance to willfully believe the Gospel?

Bite

- If there is no other name (Jesus) under heaven by which people must be saved (Acts 4:12) then how can the unevangelized get to heaven?

Bite

- What is the eternal destiny of the unevangelized? (Rom 10:13-14)

Bite

- Why aren't all people saved if it is God's desire to save all people? (Isaiah 46:10; Rom 9:18)

Bite

- Is there something more powerful than God in the universe that is usurping His will for all men to be saved?

Bite

- If it's possible for God to will that a sinful act come to pass without willing it as an act of sin in Himself to achieve His sovereign purposes (ie. the crucifixion; Acts 2:23), what higher prerogative of God restrains His desired will to save all people?

Bite

- Is there a greater will in God that supersedes His desire that all men repent and be saved?(Rom 9:22)
Is the display of God's wrath in judgment against sin a good thing or a bad thing? Why does God desire to show His wrath? (Rom 9:17)

Bite

- Since God's decreed will (Rev13:8; Isa 53:10) was for Satan (1Sam 19:9) to inspire Judas' (John 17:12) betrayal (Matt 27:4) of Christ to be murdered (Exo 20:13; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28), could it be said that God is willing to allow that which He does not will (Lam 3:32-33; Isa 53:10a) in order to accomplish that which He does will? (Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:11)

Bite

- Will Christ save all of those that He intends to save or will He fail to save any person that He intends to save? (Acts 13:48)

Bite

- What is the difference between you and others which caused you to choose Christ while they reject Him? (John 6:37; 10:26)

Bite

- Is there anything that God did for you to bring about your salvation which He didn't do for those who reject the Gospel? (John 6:44; Acts 16:14)

Bite

- How can you deny God's right and power to effectually call people to salvation and then pray for the lost?

Bite

- If a sinner rejects the Gospel over and over again, and you ask God to open their heart to believe it, are you not asking Him to violate their free will?

Bite

- If God answers your prayers to save someone, does He not violate their power of autonomous choice by working in them in response to you asking for them to be saved?

Bite

- Why pray for people's salvation if God would be unjust in exercising selective sovereign influence upon their will in a more persuasive way than He does for individuals who have not been prayed for?

Bite

- Does God require unsaved people to pay for sin in hell that Jesus already paid for on the cross?

Bite

- Did Jesus atone for the sins of those who died and went to hell before He came into the world?

Bite! (Shouldn't you be standing knee-deep in apple cores by now?)

- If Jesus, the Good Shepherd, laid down His life for the sheep, why isn't every individual in the world one of His sheep? (John 10:11; 10:26)

Bite! Isn't perplexity ever increasing?

- Did Jesus die for the sin of unbelief in which Christians lived before they believed? If so, what about the sin of unbelief of people who never believe?

Bite

- If people go to hell because they don't believe in Christ (John 3:18), and unbelief is a sin, and Christ died for all sin everywhere, then why do people go to hell if they don't believe in Christ?

Bite

- Are people sanctified in hell or is their sin of unbelief perpetual for eternity? If unbelievers continue in unbelief (rejection of Christ) for eternity in hell, how could Jesus have finally paid for a sin that has no final ending point? (Mark 3:29)

Bite

- Are sins atoned for by Christ in the past or are they atoned for at the moment of the conditional exercising of faith on the part of the believer?

Bite

- 1. If GOD had created humanity and allowed sin to enter the world, but chose NOT to provide a Savior or redemption for ANY person ever, so all people who sinned went to hell under HIS wrath for eternity without any hope of salvation, and you were an angel in heaven observing all this, would you be happy with GOD?

Bite

- 2. If GOD created angels and allowed them to rebel, but chose NOT to provide a Savior or redemption for ANY of those who fell, so they went to hell under HIS wrath for eternity without any hope of salvation, and you were a person who, through Biblical revelation, knew all this, would you be happy with GOD?

The less you see the more you think you can see, don't you? - Bite!

- Why are people happy that satan and demons will be cast into hell without any hope of salvation? What makes people more deserving than angels?

Bite

- Is it unfair that God limited the atonement to fallen man but not fallen angels

Bite

- Was God unjust for not providing a savior for fallen angels? (2Pet 2:4)

Bite

- Do angels have free will?

Bite

- If man has completely neutral liberty to choose salvation, are Christians also free to choose to become unsaved?

Bite

- Does God take away a Christian's freedom to choose or reject Christ after they are born again?

Bite

- How can a Christian temporarily have eternal life? If eternal life is present, is it not eternally present for every person who has it without exception? How can a person presently have eternal life and then cease to have it after they die? Doesn't eternal life begin the moment you have it? If you can loose it, how can you possibly have it to begin with? (John 10:28; 6:40)

Bite

- Is it not possible for a Christian to live as though their salvation depends upon them and yet believe that it exclusively and ultimately depends upon God? (Phil 2:12-13)

Bite.

---The End of the Story---

---

How vain and hopeless "man's method" is! Eating from the forbidden fruit (seeking knowledge of good and evil) has a hardening result, just like the mosaic law and unbelief in the gospel. "Why then, does God still find faul?" -- Bite again .......

The anticipated question of Rom 9:19 is the ignorant inquiry of someone who hasn't yet received the good news and the full story. That's crucial. Paul is going to unveil the mystery of God's plan in the salvation history. In fact, the whole discourse was actually prompted by the question about Israel's fate and how it was possible for Israel to miss the Messiah. Calvinists who quote this verse over and over again, have no idea what divine hardening is about. They rather invoke Adam's method, the wisdom of the world, as seen above and do not realize that they are in the same position as the imaginary objector of Rom. 9:19. For here the word is true: "They know not the One who sent me!".

That's the irony of the reformed use of Rom. 9:19.

Eternal life is by epignoskos (knowledge) of the true God (John 17:3). Epignosko is contrary to any idea of inscrutability and transcendence. Nobody is saved in the state of a mere submitter to an unfathomable God. Emphasizing God's sovereignty just doesn't cut it. "They know not the One who sent me". A confession of the lofty oneness of a sovereign ruler just doesn't save anyone. You might point out the sovereignty of God all your life and still be be lost. Epignosko of the true God--in the bible a technical term for conversion to Christianity--is not compatible with ignorance regarding the ways of the Most High. As long as you keep pointing to the reality of divine hardening without any plan whatsoever how to un-harden the hardened and without any concept of the background of this divine work--it demonstrates the stubborn condition of your own hardedness.

---

To conclude, do we have a proof-text that God is the author of sin? By no means! We have seen that unless one knows the gospel (including the entire story of Romans 9-11 in context, rather than a few verses ripped out of coherence), one cannot possibly understand Israel's situation and the mysterious course of the gospel. One must not stop at v. 19, but continue to read the whole story, a task Calvinists regularly fail to accomplish. The holy God is neither the author of sin, nor do we have evidence for double predestination here. Yet sadly, that's Calvinism's characteristic doctrine. It's the bad fruit of divine hardening.

About calvinism's theodicy

I just read and commented on this blog post about Calvinism's treatment of the problem of evil.
I said that there is nothing to ground culpability in reformed theodicy, except mere definition. In this sense, the calvinistic Greater Good Defense, which argues that the existence of sin in God's world serves a greater good, is untenable. What do Calvinists think is the ultimate greater good, that is served by the existence of sin? Usually, the answer given is that the greater good is the exertion of God's mercy and His justice. In order for these holy attributes to become displayed, there must be foregoing sin. But the question of culpability remains open. What grounds mankind's guilt? Mere definition?

The circle of reformed theodicy goes like this:

-Why is there sin in a world governed by God? (Starting question)

-Because it serves an ultimate good purpose, a greater good

-What is this greater good?

-It is the demonstration of God's mercy and his wrath

-Basically, what are mercy and wrath?

-They are responses to guilt

-Why or on what basis is there guilt?

-Because humans sinned

-Why did they sin?

(Circle closed)

---

Calvinists can still avoid this inconsistency by conceding that they simply don't know what the greater good is, and some calvinists in fact hold to this position. They leave this up to God's inscrutable mysteries. Fine, but then calvinists should stop claiming their system provides the only plausible response to the problem of evil, for an appeal to mystery is no answer at all, since theodicy is about a logical explanation of the co-existence of God and evil.

But even if one grants that there is some greater good served by evil, reformed theodicy has a problem. Why does God not realize this goal in a straight way, without the means of evil? Why does he go into debt like an investor in order to achieve a profit in the future? Is he uncapable of achieving this profit without utilizing evil? If yes, he isn't omnipotent. The other option is, that God wilfully decided to use evil in order to realize the greater good. In other words, the way through evil is appreciated by God. In this case, God wouldn't be holy. The very usage of evil would be willed by God himself, as a part of the greater good. However, to discard God's holiness isn't a valid option either. Thus, as long as the calvinist holds to a conjectured greater good without knowing what this is, he must either throw God's power overboard or his love and goodness. In a christian spirit, both options are utterly untenable. Of course there is a third option left, that is to deny the reality of evil. The calvinist can define evil away by the argument that since God uses the means of evil, which serve a greater good, these means must actually be good--evil is defined away! After all, the logical problem of evil only exists if God's attributes of omnipotence and goodness are as real as the existence of evil. But needless to say, the denial of evil's reality is biblically absolutely untenable as well.

Thus, calvinism's theodicy is a folly.

Rebuttal of the reformed usage of John 6:37-44

John 6,35-45 is a favorite calvinistic passage to bolster the doctrines of grace. Especially verse 44 along with verse 65 is one of the most frequently cited statements by calvinists. It is used to argue that the submission to the gospel of Jesus Christ is impossible for natural man. Calvinists interpret this verse as saying nobody can believe in Jesus Christ on his own unless he is enabled so by God the father. This is the most frequently used reformed prooftext that faith must be a special gift from God. In this paper the reformed usage of John 6,35-45 is scrutinized.

---

It can be shown that the reformed interpretation of John 6:37-44 commits three basic exegetical fallacies:

1) It infringes the head-members-principle.
2) It disregards the principle "Scripture interprets Scripture"
3) It lacks support from plausibility and common sense.

This paper however, suggests an alternative interpretation that avoids the above blemishes.

Ancient documents usually lack meta data like disclosed introductions, chapters, conclusions, overviews etc. that we are accustomed to use and to find in modern writings. After all, these meta data alleviate following the author the way he intended to be understood and apprehend the right understanding. The bible authors used to write without punctuation, spaces and any outward structure, resulting in text strings difficult to handle. In particular, there is the problem of determining the author's objective and his writing's overall purpose. A variety of issues might be conveyed in an arbitrary way and coherence hard to find. However, if there is a certain key issue treated in a writing, then the head-members-principle demands that every part of the text is serving this key issue, the head, by contributing information that support the key issue. Thus, the key issue or the principle theme is the writing's "head", which is subdivided into several "members", the particular elaborations, explanations that constitute the text, the body.

A particular thought or theme conveyed in a writing is derived from a superior, preceding subject, which itself might have a predecessor and so on, up to the ultimate head subject. In the final analysis, a certain textual part subsumes or fulfils its subservient parts and ultimately everything is subordinate to the head, and thereby serving the author's goal.

Again, especially in ancient documents it is often difficult to determine whether there is one key issue that dominates the writing, because texts might as well consist of various fragments of information without coherence and so treat of different subjects. But if we are lucky, the author left a hint to his principle theme that is underlying his writing, thereby providing the hook on which the entire text is hung up. This provides the first clue to approach the text.

The text passage under scrutiny is contained in the gospel of John. Now, can we tell whether there is a key issue in the gospel of John, and if so, what is it? Fortunately, John didn't leave his readers uninformed about his overall intention. The key issue is given by verse 20:31:

"These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name"

The purpose is evangelical and the account's key issue is to provide the necessary teaching about Jesus Christ to convert the readers to the gospel. Therefore, we should expect that everything in John's gospel account serves this goal in one way or another. Now, what about verse 44, what status does it have in the body? The sentence of John 6,44 is embedded in the larger context of the bread of life teaching and seems to be made in passing. Even the repetition in v.65 doesn't change the status of this remark as a passing comment. One might object that the verse should still be more appreciated and this may be granted. But in any case, the notion that "no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him", is a minor matter in between and is settled in the text structure in a way one might sketch like this:

Now, while it is true that every part of the whole text must be compatible with the key issue, this doesn't necessitate that every part in itself actually contributes a real informative profit to the key issue. A writing might contain literary embellishments, comments made in passing or some "by the way"- insertions that don't seem to provide any informative value to the head and thus, are without use to the key issue in and of themselves. Besides, the author can side-step into a relative subject to gather additional information, in order to return to the original subject later with an additional informative avail. This is mustering knowledge from somwhere else. In such a case, the relative subject in itself might be quite alien to the orginal key issue. However, in this case it must still be apparent and traceable in which way this side-step is ultimately beneficial to the key issue and contributing to it. So it might not always be easy to determine in what way a piece of text is necessary or useful or whether it is dismissable.

However, there is one thing that cannot be: There can be no member in the text in opposition to the key issue. It is not allowed to have, say, a minor matter somewhere in between that thwarts the very principle theme, the key issue of the whole writing. Everything must be compatible with the overall issue and it isn't possible for the left little finger to work against the head. Rather all members must constitute a textual body that ultimately buttresses the head. Thus, if a part of the text, a member, suggests something incompatible with the head, then the important hermeneutic head-members-principle is infringed. In this case, the exegete should by any means seek an understanding that avoids this blemish. And generally spoken, an understanding that aligns with this rule should be preferred over an interpretation that breaks it.

Now, what about John 20,31 and John 6,44? The entire gospel account (the body) is an exhortation to believe in Jesus Christ and to provide the basis for that faith. The readers shall come to faith by this very text. However, if John 6,44 means that nobody can believe on his own and that faith is dependent on divine enablement, then there is a problem. The entire writing would lose its balance. While 20,31 is an exhortation to the addressees, v.44 would override this key issue, by putting the initiative of faith on God. Thereby it would undermine the exhorting and encouraging key issue. If the fulfillment of the key issue (to believe in Christ) is really out of the readers' hands, then v.44 is lifted up on the rank of the key issue and the whole text structure is out of balance. This is not to say, that we have a logical contradition here. No, that is not the case and this must be very clear. Theoretically, it is still possible that John's originally intended meaning is indeed what the reformed position holds. However this is doubtful, for we would have a severe hermeneutic blemish. The notion, that v.44 suggests that the issue of faith or unbelief is based on God rather than the entire textual body at hand (see 20,31), grossly violates basic hermeneutics. In this case it would be very unlikely that the author would not elaborate on this paradox any further. But there is more. If the calvinistic understanding of v.44 is correct, it is unlikely that the author would have structured his text the way he did, rather we would expect a text structure that contrasts two opposing main subjects and is built around the elaboration on this paradox. The shape of the text would be two-headed, highlighting the thought of John 20,31 on the one hand and the thought of John 6,44 on the other hand.

But of course, the gospel of John is not structured that way. The hierarchy sets v.20,31 above 6,44. To interpret v.44 as conveying natural man's inability to fulfill 20,31 without divine enablement, smells like fine-print. In fact, it is turning the textual hierarchy upside down. It is the "real truth" between the lines, which can easily be missed by a casual reading. In the midth of the bread of life discourse, the alert reader would find that with respect to the principal theme, there is a rub in the matter. Yes, it is very improbable that this is John's intended meaning.

Thus, if there is a convincing alternative to the awkward reformed understanding of 6,44 which doesn't deny man's innate ability to obey the gospel, then that interpretation should be preferred. And this alternative shall be delivered in the following, so let's get to the beginning of the passage, and examine it again.

The context of the discourse in John 6 is crucial as well. Calvinists start their argumentation by pointing to v.36 which says: "But I have told you that you have seen me and still do not believe". Now a calvinst commentator said, beginning at verse 37 Jesus explains their unbelief and the following discourse revolves around the explanation why some don't believe anyway. That's an unwarranted assumption. Rather it seems v.36 is a constatation that refers back to the preceding v.35. Jesus remarks that what he just said about the bread of life is of no use to these folks because they don't believe anyway. And this constatation is the point of contact that prompts the continuation of the sermon in a certain direction. It isn't self-evident what the said bread from heaven has to do with the person of Jesus, the speaker of these very words. Thus, beginning at v.37 Jesus continues the teaching about this precious bread from heaven and explains why it is necessary to believe in him with respect to the obtainment of this bread and about the consequence of unbelief. But nothing indicates that v.37ff is a disclosure of the reason why people disbelieve. Notice that explanatory statements are oftentimes introduced by the word "for", which refers to a preceding statement. This makes it clear that a reason is now provided. Yet v.37 isn't phrased as a reason for v.36. Rather v.37 follows v.36 as a deepening of the subject of the bread of life and its background. The motivation for Jesus to proceed his saying with v.37 is the underlying truth that the audience will not receive this bread unless they believe. However, there is no reason to assume that the passage 6,37-44 is a treatment of the mystery of unbelief which is unveiled. Jesus doesn't deal with the question why some folks, upon seeing and hearing the son of God, nevertheless stay in unbelief. This is absolutely important to grasp here, because calvinists make the unwarrented assumption, that the passage under scrutiny is a disclosure of the secret of unbelief.

That brings us to v.37 which is pivotal. It is grammatically noteworthy and its semantics are decisive with regard to the whole remainder of the sermon. The understanding of v.37 will essentially shape the interpretation of the rest of the passage. After all, the verse raises some interesting semantic issues.

First, what do the terms "give" and "come" mean in v. 37?

Second, the sentence structure is noteworthy. There is a double-arrival at Jesus. Does "give" have the meaning of a gift or a promise or a credit? Or does it simply refer to a transfer? Objects are first given to Christ and then come to Christ. There seem to be two ways on which one and the same object arrives at Christ. The giving might denote a promise that is later fulfilled. But this is unwarraned so far.

Third, why is "all" neuter and "whoever" personal in v.37? And again, why is "all", which is given and "it" which is raised up, neuter in v.39? Why not "all those" or "everyone" in v.37 and 39? Is there a deeper meaning behind this use of genders?

So what does it mean for the Father to "give" something to the son?

The following suggestions come to mind:

i)To give anticipates the idea of to draw in v.44. Hence, v.37 says that all who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ.

ii) To give denotes the pre-eternal decree of God where he decided to join a people to Christ. Thus, it denotes a definite decision of God, a promise to the son which is realized in the time of the world, when the individuals of this people actually believe in Christ and become adopted as sons.

What about i)?

It is strange why the meaning of drawing, according to calvinism the enablement to repent and believe in Christ, would be set equal to God's giving to Christ. To give me = To enable him is a weird way to say the same thing. The giving of v.37 indicates a transaction. There is a sender, a recipient and an object of that transaction. The Father is the sender, the giver. The Son the receiver. The one drawn would now be the object given. Such linguistic gymnastics appear somewhat awkward. Besides, the determination of the meaning of to give would be shifted to the determination of what to draw at v.44 means. The smooth reading would at first be interrupted by the ambiguity of what v.37 is actually all about.

What about ii)?

To think of God's actions before the foundation of the world and God's decree here, is quite far-fetched unless there is further support by the passage itself. But there is nothing which would render this interpretation nearby. Furthermore, the present tense of to give doesn't seem to suggest the absolute past tense of the decree of God. Calvinists, who adopt ii) might point out that God's decree is an eternal reality and the Father beyond time and so the usage of the present tense might be plausible. But v.39 uses to give in the present perfect ("has given"). If the giving refers to the eternal decree before the foundation of the world and the present tense at v.37 denotes its timeless nature, why then the present perfect at v.39? Or is the giving in v.39 again something different?--It's highly unlikely that the giving of v.39 refers to something else than the giving at v.37, considering the textual flow and the closeness of the words' positions. Thus, the argument that gives at v.37 is present tense because it denotes the timelessness of the decree, is very weak. Such arguments can only be understood from a precommitment to reformed theology. The present perfect in v.39 seems to be simply underlining the fact that Christ could possibly only lose what has alreday come to him. You cannot lose something you don't have yet.

But what about to come. Is it synonymous with to believe? An argument in favor of the equal meaning of the terms may be based on v.35, where the Lord says whoever comes will never be hungry and whoever believes never be thirsty. The unity of eating the flesh of the son of man and the drinking of his blood suggests that to come is a picture of faith and simply meant as another vocable for to believe. But there are good reasons that there is still a significant difference in meaning and a purpose why two verbs (to come and to believe) are used to express supposedly one and the same thing. Why do both these words occur in the passage, rather than a consequent usage of believe only? It might be just a linguistic device illustrating a believer's faith as an approach to the savior, showing how he escapes from his sinful state into the arms of a welcoming savior. Accepting that reading, the term come in that passage is indeed nothing else than a metaphor of faith. However, it can be shown that there is a convincing reason why Jesus chose to express his teaching that way and why there is a crucial semantic distinction between the words.

With regard to the interpreation of John 6:35-45 we can conclude so far, that since v.37 is grammatically so special and the proper meaning of the words "give" and "come" are unclear so far, we should be careful with our following interpretation.



It is vitally important to get the correct meaning of v.37.


The "bread of life" is only handed down by John. On the other hand, John omits another important concept of the synoptics--the gospel of John is not a gospel of the kingdom of God. Well, of course it is since John doesn't teach another gospel, but the phrase "kingdom of God" which is an absolutely prevalent motif of the synoptics, isn't contained in the entire johannine gospel account. All of Jesus' many sayings about the kingdom aren't narrated by John at all. John puts the truths in other ways. Another characteristic is the absence of parables in John's writing. On the other hand, the bread of life teaching which is the topic of the passage under scrutiny here, doesn't occur in any other gospel account. The evangelist John, who certainly reports about the same Jesus and the same apostles and the very same truths taught by Jesus, uses different traditions to convey the gospel message. It is quite outstanding that John's gospel of the kingdom of God gets by without mentioning that kingdom. The illustrations and imagery used are different.

Why is this observation important? Because sound exegesis is, among other cirteria, based on comparative studies where this is possible. If there are several scriptural witnesses to the same state of affairs then one might use a juxtaposition of these different accounts to develop a coherent interpretation. In such a juxtaposition one and the same truth might be approached from different angles. Thus, if we had another account of the bread of life discourse that portrayed the same issue as in John 6, then we might compare these accounts and perhaps gain deeper insights. After all, this John 6 discourse, including the critical sayings of vs. 37, 44 and 65 is without further support. No other biblical author seems to be confirming these critical verses. While Jesus introduces the last supper and Paul mentions this christian custom as well, a comparable elaboration isn't found elsewhere much less a backing of the pivotal verses 37,44 and 65.

Since John is writing about the same Jesus and the same gospel, the question needs to be asked whether the other gospel accounts contain anything treating of the same subject as John does in this discourse. Does our passage under scrutiny stand in isolation? Or is there another way of teaching the same spiritual realities as the bread of life in the other gospel accounts?

When we consider v.6,15 we see that the crowd that had been fed by the foregoing miracle, wanted to have Jesus as their king. The one who was able to supply bread forever, should be lifted up on the throne. Of course Jesus baffled this plan by withdrawing from them, but wasn't Jesus really sent to become a king? Yes, he was sent to become a king reigning on the throne of David. His kingdom shall outlast the world and his kingship shall last forever. Yes, Jesus was going to become a king. However, He was sent to take the throne of the kingdom of God. In other words, there was already a king who would hand over the kingdom to his son: God. The crowd was trying to make Jesus king by force. But Jesus' enthronement would be a transaction between his father and him. God the Father is king over the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ, the prince, is his successor.

When we consider this with regard to the passage John 6:35ff and the bread of life teaching, is there a relevance anyway? Most assuredly this is most relevant.

What does the teaching about the bread from heaven to do with the kingdom of God? Note, the kingdom of God is described in many ways and with many illustrations one of which is found in Matthew 22,2-14: The parable of the wedding feast. The kingdom of God is like....

The kingdom is compared to a king who organizes the wedding for his son. The son is the prince, the successor. Naturally, this one will be the next to sit on the throne. Now, the parable has an interesting allegory or comparison of the kingdom and its whatabouts. The kingdom of God is like....

What is the plot of the narrative in Matthew 22:2-14?

The father organizes the wedding feast and issues the invitation. He calls the guests that are to come to the person of honor, his son. It is important to notice that the son is not concerned with the preparations of the wedding, but the father is doing that. The king is going to hand over the kingdom to the prince, the father is going to give the kingdom to his son, and this is mirrored by the Father's giving a people of worthy guests to his son's wedding. The kingdom of God is like....

And Jesus' kingship is vastly different than what the unbelieving people of John 6 expected, as will become clear.

Another prevalent NT motif doesn't occur in John: The wedding supper of the lamb of God. Alternatively, John gives us the bread of life teaching. Both elements point to the same spiritual reality. The wedding supper is God's precious gift to the overcomers, the saints. It is agape, the closest communion with God. It is the joy of fellowship with God, of sitting on his rank at his table and the enjoyment of his communion forever. Since God is absolutely self-sufficient and self-sustaining he himself fulfills all needs. Thus, with respect to the wedding dinner there is actually no need for an additional extra "accessoire" that would be the basis for eternal joy, rather the wedding supper is divine in itself -- the flesh and blood of God himself. Thus, the bread of life is another illustration for the wedding supper of the lamb of God. Communion, the eternal and closest union with God. Obviously there is a similarity between the parable of the wedding banquet (see also Luke 14,15ff) and the bread of life discourse in John 6, which we are trying to understand.

If the kingdom of God outlasts this age while the rest of the world is going to be destroyed, then in order for someone to outlast the world he must be an inhabitant of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God shall last forever, overcoming the world, and likewise those who attend Christ's wedding banquet will never perish. Entering the wedding feast and sitting down to sup with God is comparable to entering a saving ark.

"All that the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."

The king had first called a set of acquaintances (the Jews) who proved unworthy which led the king to the rejection of this group and to issue another invitation (gentile mission). The people chosen now and called by the servants, are those on the crossroads, the pagans out of the nations, "anyone you can find". The king (God the Father) gives "the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame" (Luke 14:21) to the son. He chooses those from the highways and hedges as guests for his son, and compels them to come, without respect of persons.

Not everyone can come. Righteouness required! The king will not admit everyone!

"Good and bad" people are picked up now. This gathering of persons is like a fishing net that is thrown into the water and musters both good and bad fishes. Of course, the fishermen are only interested in the good exemplars.

Why won't Jesus cast anyone out? -- Because he is doing the will of the father: To reign over the kingdom which shall outlast the world. He shall reign without defeat forever. So will all the inhabitants of that kingdom, the guests at the banquet! They will likewise be raised up at the last day.

Why is Jesus saying anyway: "I will never cast out"? What is he referring to in the context of John 6? -- Well, there are actually persons "coming" on their own terms who will not be admitted to the wedding. In fact the father will not allow them entrance.

"When the king came in to see the guests....."

The man without a wedding garment (Matthew 22,11-13) was not honoring the king, nor his son but came on his own terms. He was "drawn" by selfish motives, not by divine motives. He lacked righteousness. Righteousness implies doing the will of God. Many a man in the audience of John 6 that were gathered around Jesus, were expecting to receive the bread of the world from a king of this world and have a happy empire of this world where they could pig-out. They wanted to make Jesus king, but on their own terms. They wanted this king to supply bread forever, but according to their agenda. But as a matter of fact, God the Father would make Jesus king and surrender the kingdom to his son! If anyone wants the desired bread from heaven, they have to come to the kingdom that Jesus would receive. There they would find the bread that you can eat and don't die. Can anyone come to that kingdom? How can you come?

Isaiah speaks of the righteousness of God as “garments of salvation” and “robes of righteousness” (Isa 61:10).

"The wedding garment, made of bright white linen is the righteous deeds of the saints" (Revelation 19,8-9)

No one can come to the wedding banquet without proper attire. No-one can receive the bread of life without the righteousness in the sight of God. The king didn't spare the acquainted guests that engaged in severe iniquity and inteded to have worthy guests in his wedding hall. It is clear that unworthy (unrighteous) persons are not welcome. In fact they are eliminated at the entrance.

The Father doesn't give sinners to Christ, but saints!

An absolutely crucial observation. Yes, exactly right here is the clue! Calvinists interpret John 6:37 as sinners being the objects of the divine transaction here. Dirty Sinners are picked up by the Father and moved to the son, so that the son should in turn cleanse them. It is very doubtful that this is the right perspective to begin with!

We can make the first constatation: The meaning of "to come to Christ". To come to Christ is equal in meaning with the obtainment of the precious bread from heaven. There can be no doubt about that. "Come to me" is synonymous with the receipt of the desired bread of life. Put differently, to come to Christ is in parallel with coming to the kingdom of God which is becoming the kingdom of the son of God. And since the kingdom of God is a picture of heaven, the concept behind "coming to Me" or "coming to Christ" is ultimately the entrance to heaven. But this can be buttressed further. After all, sound exegesis demands a proper understanding of the terms and expressions used and the way expressions are used sometimes is a peculiarity of the particular author. Thus, the question must be asked how the author of an available scripture uses a certain expressions elsewhere. So are there further occurences of the phrase "to come to me" in the johannine gospel account, apart from chapter 6? Yes, there are two more occurences of "coming to Christ": In 3,21 and 5,40.

The first occurence is in the judgment passage:

"But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

The fact that this verse is in reference to judgment underlines the fact that the phrase "come into the light" is eschatological in meaning. And it presumes righteousness in the sight of God. Those and only those who have good works will come to the light. To come to the light then is in parallel with coming to Christ.

The second verse (5,40) says "But you will not come to me to have life". This seems to carry the meaning of coming to the source of the water of life and Jesus is presenting himself as the fulfillment of the jewish messianic hope. The eschatological connotation shines through here also.

Israel's salvation and the establishment of a messianic reign did not happen as the majority of Jews was expecting. The messianic era (gold) did not replace the old age (brown) in an abrupt break like this:

Rather the new age of God's kingdom (gold) would begin while the old age (brown) continues up until the last day. Then the old world will be destroyed and the kingdom of God continue forever. The result is a parallel co-existence of the visible present age and the yet invisible kingdom of God. They are overlapping and it is vital to enter the kingdom now, that is, to "enter the ark" that will overcome the current age. This crossing to God's kingom is the meaning of "coming to me [Christ]":

This is the right perspective on the relation between the current world and the coming age. The new age began with Christ's mission on earth and is currently invisibly co-existing with the old world (Luke 17,21). It will last forever. So the eschatological sense of "to come to Me [Christ]" fits in the johannine gospel narrative and is probably the intended sense of that phrase. (This temporal double nature of salvation (already/not yet) is also prevalent in the epistle to the Hebrews.)

Above I raised the question why Jesus differentiates between coming and believing in this discourse. Lest misunderstandings arise it should be emphasized here that all believers come and all who come are believers. Believing and coming are interchanging and they are overlapping just as the kingdom of God is overlapping with this current world. The double tension of salvation, that is, the already/not yet-double nature of the messianic kingdom shows this current parallel existence of the old world and the kingdom of God. Thus, the eschatological, future salvation is reaching into the present age.

Now, v.37 says whosoever comes will never be cast out. Faith is a mere mental assent, something personal and invisible. Casting someone out somehow denotes a forceful act. It awakes the association of a physical action. If coming means to believe, that is, a mental activity then how does "casting out" relate to this? Here it seems that the "coming" has an eschatological connotation. It means to come to the kingdom of God, to come to heaven. It doesn't merely denote a person's belief but a consequence of that belief. Furthermore, coming is something only righteous ones can do.

The following is decisive with respect to the interpretation of John 6:35ff:

When speaking of salvation Calvinists often reduce this to the soteriological meaning thereof: The legal delivery of sinners from their sins. In other words, the objects of salvation are sinners, the enemies of God, and these are saved from his wrath by being imputed the righteousness of Christ. This is the soteriological mode of salvation. Yet there is another level of salvation taught throughout the scriptures: The eschatological mode of salvation. The salvation of the saints from the world. Yes, God is ultimately the savior of the righteous. Nothing unclean will enter heaven, nobody who works iniquity will enter the heavenly city and become partaker of God's kingdom. In the final analysis no sinners are saved -- the saints are! This is the eschatological aspect of salvation and it is crucial to see the difference. The picture of coming to Christ's wedding dressed in fine wedding attire is a metapor of the eschatological salvation of the saints. If someone comes in street clothing (as a sinner), he will not be permitted.

One must be righteous before one comes to Christ's meal.

This is the meaning of v. 44. The gospel is both an invitation and a commandment. It is obligatory for the righteous ones to attend. You must be "drawn" by the love for God. Loving God, however is righteousness.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". (v. 6,44)

This is, as said above, a sentence that doesn't have another witness in the bible by another author. But the truth that some persons are unable to be saved is pointed out elsewhere too. See Luke 13,23-27:

23 Someone asked him, 'Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?' He said to them, 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, “Sir, open the door for us.” 'But he will answer, “I don't know you or where you come from.”'Then you will say, “We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.” 27 'But he will reply, “I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!”(Emphasis added)

The inquiry about salvation in v.23 is eschatological. Israel's ultimate salvation is meant here. Some will not make it through the narrow door. They will be unable. Why? The reason for the inability is given in v.27: iniquity. This is most probably the meaning of John 6:44. Nobody can enter heaven as a sinner. Righteousness is the prerequisite. That's plausible. But if so, how does anyone become righteous so that he may be welcomed to the wedding supper of the lamb of God? How does anyone receive the righteousness of God? -- Read the key issue that subsumes the entire gospel of John (John 20:31) -- it is by faith in Jesus, the son of God. Believe! Here is the reason for the interchanging use of "coming" and "believing" in that discourse.

Verse 64-65 have Jesus remark that not all in the audience believe. If they don't believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God however, they will stay in their sins and if they are sinful, they won't be able to come to Christ. The Father will not grant them access to the royal society. Considering the reformed understanding that coming is synonymous with faith, one might pose the question, why Jesus isn't simply saying that nobody can believe in him unless granted by the Father. Why doesn't the text read: "Some of you don't believe...that's why I told you that no one can BELIEVE in me, unless it is given him by the Father"?

So there are two senses of "salvation". The first sense, the soteriological sense, is along the lines of the question: "How do I get my sins forgiven?". The underlying problem is the lacking righteousness in the sight of God and the suffering of his wrath. The dirty clothes of wicked works, the lacking wedding garment, which is the dress code for heaven are the underlying misery one must be saved from. Hence, this meaning of salvation denotes a legal action.

The second sense, the eschatological sense, is the entrance to the kingdom of God, the passing through the narrow door (Luke 13,22-30), the bride's coming to the wedding supper of the lamb of God, the arrival at the holy city, the coming to Mount Zion, the trespass from the old world to the kingdom of God (even if it is still invisible). This is the ultimate meaning of salvation. And clearly, the objects of ultimate salvation are the righteous not the wicked. The saints, not sinners. And this is also the salvific meaning behind the Lord's words in John 6.

Thus, the calvinistic interpretation of John 6:35ff is based on the wrong perspective. The deeper problem stems from the fact that the meanings of the critical expressions "all", "come", "give" and "draw" are not set per se. Instead, these words are ambiguous. Now, a correct understanding of a text isn't solely determined by its grammar, its logical coherence and its smooth readability, but also by semantics. That means it is determined by the assignment of meanings to the naked expressions used. The interpreter must find the right setting for these vocables and determine their meaning. Thus, the interpretation of John 6:35ff depends decisively on how the meaning of ambiguous expressions is set.

So the error of the reformed understanding of John 6:35ff can be illustrated by the problem of consonant texts. In a consonant text, the skeleton of words is provided, but this of course doesn't determine a word completely much less does it enable the reader to pronounce the word. Rather the vowels must be filled in and that in the right way. Now, compared with the passage John 6:35ff one might say the expressions "give" "come" "all that", "draw", the syntax, the order of sentences etc. are like the consonants. They comprise the necessity and are indisputable. They aren't subject to debate. But in order to understand the passage, one must know some semantics too, which can be compared to the vowels. And this semantic problem is the assignment of meaning to ambiguous words. Calvinism does this by imposing sophistic theological concepts on the words.

--draw = inward address, effectual call, regeneration

--all that = the elect

--give = pre-eternal decretive promise given to Christ

--come = god-given saving faith

Consequently, the calvinists finds 3 of the doctrines of grace in that short passage: Total Depravity (v. 44), Unconditional Election (v.37) and Irresistible Grace (v.37).

But it is far-fetched to read the idea of pre-eternal election into v.37, because of the reasons provided in the beginning of this article. It is also far-fetched to find Total Depravity in the passage, because the idea that natural man is unable to believe the gospel is just outlandish and without any further scriptural support. More, there is a plausible explanation of v.44 which agrees with the NT's overall teaching. And last but not least it is far-fetched to read Irresistible Grace in the reformed sense into v.37 because the meaning of "give" in v.37 is already ambiguous (is it equal to the "drawing" in v.44 or is it the promise given to Christ prior to the foundation of the world?).

It has been shown that John 6,37-44 doesn't stand in isolation without any further biblical witness to bolster the truth conveyed there. Rather the expectation that John's unique bread of life teaching should somehow be treated by the synoptics also, has found confirmation. The truths described in the johannine gospel account align with the kingdom motif which is so prevalent and fundamental that it is nearby to seek parallels to this motif, rather than introduce completely new sophistic concepts into the passage. The latter is what the calvinistic interpretation does. And it is unjustifiable to impose complexity and foreign concepts on a text without a need to do so. Rather, the principle that scripture should interpret scripture should lead us to consider a juxtapositon of gospel accounts in the first place and develop our interpretation in harmony with these scriptures. This should especially be seen as the proper way since the synoptics approach the same truth and the same Jesus Christ from different angles. On the other hand, the calvinistic introduction of three of the "doctrines of grace" into this passage imposes a theological complexity onto the passage that is unnecessary and hence, illegitimate. This is especially true because the notion that faith in the gospel is basically impossible for sinners, betrays common sense. Thus, the reformed usage of John 6 is without a reasonable hermeneutic basis and can only be comprehended by a stubborn precommitment to reformed theology.

Finally, a few more words why the reformed usage of the passage betrays common sense. The notion of sinful man's incapability of faith is bizarre. The exhortation and even commandment to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the core of the entire NT literature. Are we really to think that an arcane dogma is hidden as fine-print in the midth somewhere? Though it is convincing that natural man is unable to conform to the ten commandments and live a sinless life in the flesh, it is not equally convincing that he should not be able to repent of his sins and embrace the gospel of grace! The new covenant of the gospel (Rom. 3,21ff) has been bestowed in order to successfully save the fallen mankind that couldn't be saved through the old law of works. Thus, it is highly implausible that natural man shall be unable to believe in Jesus Christ. This is especially true in light of the exhortation throughout the whole New Testament to do just that!

---

To conclude, in light of John's key issue (John 20:30-31), it would require an extraordinarily strong argument for the reformed interpretation of John 6,37-44 to be plausible. This holds especially true for the doctrine of total depravity which calvinists claim to find evidence for in John 6,44. Yet such extraordinarily strong argument in favor of calvinism cannot be made, especially since there is another interpretation which is both in accordance with the rest of the bible and avoids textual imbalance. That interpretation therefore is by far superior to the reformed one.

The passage John 6,37-44 is part of John's unique way of teaching about the communion motif. Communion is the expression of agape, the fellowship with God in the form of supping together. This communion is God's love for the saints, the overcomers of the evil world, those who have washed their clothes and proved worthy. The pivotal difference between this and the reformed interpretation lies in the question of whom the Father gives to the son--saints or sinners? The calvinist assumes that the father joins sinners to Christ. Yet this article has argued why the objects of this divine transaction are by no means sinners, but saints. Far be it from God to give sinners to his son! Likewise, those who are granted to come to Christ and are drawn by the father, are no sinners, but righteous ones. Yet calvinists would have sinners to be the objects of this divine transfer. Though the text is syntactically unambiguous, the calvinistic understanding stems from a neglect of semantics and comparative studies. These are the errors of the calvinistic interpretation of John 6,37-44.

Reply to "christianclarityreview" on the subject "Is God the author of sin?"

There is a reformed blogger out there who recently posted an argument why God is the ultimate origin of evil. Yes, this person is seriously teaching that the Holy One is the ultimate origin of sin in the way that he wanted sin to enter the world. The basis for this vehement contention is a very simple process of elimination, which goes like this: "Free will" (a buzz word for this fellow) cannot be real, therefore God, who is holy, must have willed sin. This post is dedicated to refuting this heretical contention and the blogger is asked to repudiate his dogmas.

Concerning the definition of sin this blogger says "sin is in fact a living creature" and not an act. However, scripture gives us a definiton of sin, as follows: Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3,4)

There you have it. Sin is the transgression of the law. The transgression of God's law is to do what is contrary to His will, not what is in accordance with God's will.

In the following I will address this blogger, who calls himself "christianclarityreview", with "CRR".

---

Now, CCR holds that sin is in accordance with God's own will. Let's scrutinize this by means of the holy scriptures and see what's going on in scenes that treat of the final confrontation between sin and the holy God: The final judgment. It seems CRR the last judgment in mind also, when he says things like this:

"You should well consider what your answer will be if He asks you: “What are you doing in a speech I made for liars, thieves and murderers after I sent you myself as Word? Why did you think to mix that speech with me?” God being physically present in you is the actual new birth in Jesus Christ."

Now, CCR is making two statements, one about the final trial at the divine law court and one about what he thinks is the actual new birth in Jesus Christ. I will comment on these important things in the following.

I don't believe CRR takes the reality of sin in the face of a holy God serious enough, much less knows what he's talking about. So there is something serious to say in response to his heretic contentions.

You probably know the story of the guest without a wedding garment in Matthew 22,11-14. This story is part of the parable of the wedding banquet where the king chooses and calls people to come to the wedding feast of his son.

The metaphor of the wedding garment stands for the righteous deeds of the saints (Revelation 19,8-9; Isaiah 61,10; Col 3,12+14). No wedding attire means no righteousness and thus sinfulness. The situation in Matthew 22,11-14 is forensic.

Now let's meditate a bit about judgment. Judgment has to do with the establishment of guilt or innocence, right? Books are opened where all one's deeds are enrolled, even the sins. Now, how is sin detected?

Sin is detected by conviction. Lets contemplate what conviction is about. Conviction is a situation, a condition where the accused has run out of arguments and has no valid explanation why/how/in which way he is innocent. If there's some corpus delicti and you are charged, but are able to trace the guilt away from you to some source outside yourself, then you have exculpated yourself. You are excused and have justified yourself. In a perfect, just legal system you'll then be acquitted. However, conviction is a situation where the accused is unable to "pass the buck". There is nothing/nobody left whom he can put the blame on. For example if you are charged of shoplifting but you can credibly explain that you were forced by a group of big buddies outside to go into the shop and steal and were unable to resist, then the guilt has been shifted and you are free. If you stand before the law-court being accused of damage to property because you broke the window of someone else's car then the verdict will depend on how your defense is. If you can explain truthfully that there was a baby in the car, 30°C temperature and nobody around and you were saving the child from a fatal heat stroke then you will surely be acquitted and in fact be innocent. So if you can provide a true explanation why you are innocent, then you are indeed innocent, and will be acquitted provided the justice system is perfect.

So how is the sinner convicted? He is unable to locate the source of sin outside himself. On a trial, a delinquent is convicted by the inability to repel the accusations charged against him. He cannot provide a valid defense, fending off the blame. On the other hand, if the accused can provide a valid explanation that he is innocent (and if justice system is perfect), then he will be acquitted. If the accused can explain why he is not guilty then he will be found not guilty.

So what actually is conviction? It is the lack of a plausible defense, the lack of a rational explanation of your case. You are convicted of sin if you have no valid explanation of your actions that would convince the court that you are not guilty.

---

Back to the parable in Matthew and the man caught without a wedding garment. Does the king who notices this man immediately have him cast out? No! He takes him to task. This is judgment ("When the king came in to see the guests....". This inspection of the guests is judgment). God will not condemn anyone without a fair trial. So why is the man expelled from the banquet? Because he has no proper clothing? To be precise, he is ultimately expelled because he cannot answer the question

"How did you get in here without a wedding garment?"

The man cannot defend his sinfulness (lacking wedding garment). In other words, he cannot explain, how it was possible for him to come into the wedding hall without proper clothing.

Now CCR, what does this have to do with the question of God's authorship of sin? Note, the king had had trouble with unworthy acquaintances before, and was intending to have worthy guests. Besides, the king has dominion over the wedding hall, right? And I will be demonstrating that the man without the wedding garment cannot answer exactly the question "Why is there sin anyway?" He cannot answer the question, how it was even possible for evil to enter into God's own creation?!

Lets ponder the possibilities, shall we? How indeed did the man come in? Consider these 2 basic options:

i) He came through the public gate like everyone else, after all everyone was unconditionally called, right?

ii) He crept in secretly through a backdoor, a window, chimney etc. He sneaked in.

Is any of these 2 options possible?

In the first case, God (the king) would have called sin into existence, being the author of sin. It would have entered God's creation by God's own volition (through the main entrance).

In the second case, sin would have crept in beyond God's control (a security fault) and God (the king) would not be sovereign over his world (the wedding hall) .

The first case is incompatible with God's goodness and holiness. The holy God didn't call evil into his creation in any way. If so, the king wouldn't take the poorly clothed man to task, would he? Rather, there seems to be a case for the security staff here. The king's doorkeepers would surely not have permitted this fellow through the main gate.

The second case however is incompatible with God's omnipotence and sovereignty. Can God (the king) not grant security? Can evil creep into his creation out of his control through some secret holes? Is God not really sovereign? Of course not, so that option is untenable as well. Furthermore, since eveyone was unconditionally invited, why should anyone sneak in secretly? What would be the point in such action?

CRR would outrightly opt for the first case and say God willed sin to enter his dominion, right? Of course, your article on God's creatorship of evil couldn't be any clearer.

But now it becomes really interesting!

The question that keeps standing in the room is this: How then, did the man without the wedding clothing get in? It is remarkable that the narrative is silent here. And here lies the key to the parable. The man cannot explain how it was possible for sin to enter God's world. Recall what I said about trials and the detection of guilt/innocence. The guilty cannot explain why they sinned, why they lied when they lied for the first time, why the were selfish, why they cheated, stole, and so on and so forth. When do humans tell their first conscious lie in their life? Lets say at hardly three years according to psychologists. Who teaches or gives them the advice to lie? The parents? The elder siblings or buddies? No -- they do that out of themselves. The guilty, convicted sinners cannot explain their life and their works. They cannot explain why they sinned anyway. In other words, they cannot defend themselves and are hence convicted as described above.

So what about the origin of lies, for example? Whence lies? Since the parents usually don't teach their children to tell untruth, nor are they persuaded to cheat by other children, what's left? Do they inherit the desire to lie? Is the first lie prompted by some inherent influence, originating with the parents? If so, what prompted the parent's first lie in their lives? So when contemplating the origin of your own sins, you quickly reach humanity's first sin--Adam's transgression.

CRR, how are the evil ones detected in judgment? The evil ones are those who cannot explain evil. Their own iniquity. They fail the "wedding garment" trial. When they stand in the judgment of God and the books are opened, and their deeds are pronounced then they won't be able to explain their sin and hence defend themselves. Or to pick another Calvinist's words whom I was lately corresponding with:

If God didn't want sin to enter the world, then why did sin enter the world despite God's wishes to the contrary? Is God impotent to prevent sin from entering the world?

If the king didn't want guests with street clothing, then why did they enter the wedding hall despite the king's will to the contrary? Are we to think the king cannot grant security and sinners can creep in any time through the chimney? How does this all fit together? The man cannot tell and this ignorance prompts his condemnation.

CCR, the man who came without proper clothing is bound hand and foot lest he climbs in outrightly again. His dwelling place is the outer darkness. In the darkness nothing can be seen and hence, no truth be known.

If God is omnipotent then he doesn't need any evil and can hinder it.
If God is love and all-benevolent then he doesn't want any evil.
Whence then evil?

CCR, I, a helmet tell you that you will never, ever be able to reconcile the above trilemma by your own wisdom. Your man-made calvinistic sophistry cannot make you see in darkness. Natural man's hand and feet are bound and he cannot make any move out of the darkness toward a solution to that problem You are in the spiritual darkness where you have no discernment regarding the truth about God. The one you call your God you do not know, CRR!

The "Greater Good Defense" is just one among many man-made attempts to reach God by man's easysolutionism. You should abandon your heretical dogma of God's authorship of sin. God is holy! Abolish your wicked doctrines!

The omnipotent and perfectly holy, loving God is not the author of sin in any sense. Easysolutionism like Calvinism is a vain attempt to circumvent God's ways.

Now, recall CRR's words above:

God being physically present in you is the actual new birth in Jesus Christ."

If you are speechless at judgment when you are asked: "Why did you cheat?" , "Why did you kill?", "Why did you steal?",Why did you lie?" "Why did you dishonor my name?" "Why did you covet?",

Why, Why, Why, Why...???

then this speechlessness shows one thing: That the WORD is not in you. You are unable to defend yourself. If however, the Word is not in you, then Christ is not in you, for Christ is the Word. If Christ is not in you, then what you are uttering is actually NOT THE NEW BIRTH IN JESUS CHRIST!

Note, the parable ends with the words "Many are called but few are chosen". God will not leave the elect in ignorance. They will know God and be worthy guests in his presence. The elect will not be left in their false man-made easysolution-boxes, but know the truth.

Jesus said: "They will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (John 6,45). Those who have been taught by God will come to Christ's wedding banquet and not be cast out!

-a helmet

Some objections against the calvinistic usage of 2 Peter 2:1

I just found a defense of the reformed usage of 2 Peter 2:1, which is a quite rarely mentioned verse by Calvinists. Someone is providing reasons, why the verse is not incompatible with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. The post can be found here

However, the author doesn't deal with all objections raised against the reformed treatment of that verse. There are some issues that would be worth considering in a fair treatment of the passage. The following is a comment on that post.

---

Concerning the question of the term “Master” (despotes) for Jesus Christ, this can be based on Jude 4, where the same term is indeed used for Jesus:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about2 long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Emphasis added)

The perversion of grace is directly linked to the “despotes”, Jesus Christ, here. And it is quite likely that 2 Peter and Jude were written by the same author. Thus the application of despotes in 2 Peter 2:1 to Jesus Christ is not unsupported.

Regarding the reality of ownership and the term “bought”, notice as well what v.20-22 say about the false teachers.

2 Peter 2:20-22
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’7 and, ‘A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.’ (Emphasis added)

“They” are the false teachers. The two facts, 1) that their apostasy causes them to be worse off than before and 2) that it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness to begin with, point to a real corpus delicti, something substantial, something real, that was hurt or infringed by these people, because their guilt is now greater than before.

It is said that these people “have known the way of righteousness”. Of course one can only know what is true. One cannot know something false, but only erroneously believe that a wrong proposition is true. If there was no “real” basis for these false teachers (redeeming blood of Christ for them) to know, then they could not reject it, there’d be no corpus delicti in the first place. They would have rejected something unreal in the first place.

However, 2 Peter 2:20-22 suggests a real situation (”a sow that is washed”) and something which is discarded afterwards. A rejection of falsehood (no redeeming blood in store for them) would be no basis for sin.

-a helmet

Comment on the latest reformed attempt to deal with I Timothy 4:10

Alan Kurschner from A & O Ministries just posted an exegesis of 1 Timothy 4:10. This post is an evaluation of the argument made there. Here's the verse:

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10).

In the following, Alan Kurschner's (AK) words will be in blue.

First, the purpose behind AK's considerations about the faithful pursuit of the good doctrine remains unclear. Why is the observation that the only other instance of a perfect tense in this immediate section is found in verse 6 interesting? What is the point here? The same question must be raised concerning the phrase "have followed" about which he notes that this is an uncommon term in the New Testament, only used four times . Why is this constatation noteworthy? This doesn't become clear in the following.

AK then asks what is meant by "who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe"?

And suggests pondering "certain questions". Is there a theological connection between "the living God" and its qualifier "who is the Savior of all people"? What does "all people" mean here for Paul? Does it mean all people without exception or distinction? And most importantly, how can God be the Savior of those who do not believe? Or is there some other element that has escaped our notice?

It is interesting how the fourth question, how God can be the savior of those who do not believe is ultimately answered. Regarding 1 Tim. 4:10, calvinists have asked whether God has to actually save someone in order to be rightly called that person's savior. Or is it justifiable to call someone "savior" who is such in principle, even without actually saving?

But AK doesn't ponder another crucial question: Why is Paul making this statement in the first place?

A universalist reading should be ruled out since that would contradict Paul's unambiguous teaching in his corpus that many will indeed perish eternally.

I doubt that Paul's teaching is really that unambiguous. The scriptural foundation that some persons will definitely never benefit from God's grace is not that strong. I wouldn't categorically rule a universalist understanding out on the basis of Paul's scriptural corpus. But let's put that aside here.

AK says that according to Arminianism, the term "Savior" here must mean "possible Savior" . But according to his own interpretation which he calls the monotheistic exclusivism view, it is about the same. This notion regards Jesus as a principal way and a merely hypothetical savior.

But if Christ died for all sins, then there is no legal basis for him to punish or condemn any sinner to perdition; thereby making the Arminian an inconsistent universalist. What basis is there to punish the same sin twice: on the cross and on the sinner. There is none.

Objection! Only if one adopts a particular conception of the nature of the atonement and a certain line of reasoning do these ramifications follow. The origin of this theology is found in John Owen's atonement syllogism which assumes a direct assignment of units of punishment to units of sin. According to this view, the ransom of Christ's blood and undergone punishment is in some way proportionate to the amount of sin it covers. The idea of a proportionality and assignability of certain sins to a certain "amount of suffering" is fallacious in that it does injustice to the biblical concept of atonement. I, a helmet, have been debating this subject here, a comment thread where my rebuttal of this limited atonement rationale can be verified.

In addition, the context here does not state what Paul means by "all people."

Objection! We can derive from the context what people the author has in mind here. The following contemplations are helpful.

The purpose of the letter is pastoral. The young minister Timothy is instructed regarding various pastoral issues, particularly the proper behavior towards heretics, apostates and other opponents of the faith. Timothy was facing hypocrites and grumblers (v. 4:1-2) and is exhorted to be faithful to the "trustworthy saying" (v. 4:9) the good news of the gospel, and to "strive and labor" because of two underlying truths:

1) Unlike the dead idols worshipped by the false teachers and heretics, and the inanity of the old wives tales (v.4:7), the "trustworthy saying" is the word of the LIVING God. It pays to work for a living God, but it doesn't pay to work for dead idols and engage in exercises that don't contribute anything to the real life, which reaches out into the age to come. The living God is worth trusting, hoping and laboring for.

2) The struggle is not for Timothy's and the sake of the faithful ones alone. Rather the pastor is exhorted to put up with the heretics, because even these difficult fellows he must cope with are meant to be heirs of God's grace and hence, of His salvation. Timothy is urged to defend the truth against hypocrites and heretics and the basis for this encouragement is the objective fact, that God as the savior is mercifully reaching out even to these persons ("all men") as well. Why should Timothy struggle with heretics and suffer reproof? What's the point in such efforts? The point is that God is not only the savior of the faithful who diligently follow the trustworthy saying, but the savior of the heretics and idolaters, too! The fact that God is the savior of all men is emphasized as the fundament of hope for the pastor that his work is not in vain and as the encouragement to strive forward in the ministerial and evangelistic work.

So much concerning the context. AK doesn't contemplate the question why Paul is making this statement in verse 10 anyway. Why is Paul even saying this in this context?

However, AK claims: Paul makes it clear that he is referring to "all sorts of people,"

No, that's unwarranted. To the contrary, it is nearby to think that "all men" denote a wider group than the corpus of believers.

I conform with AK in my rejection of the "physical preserver" view. I agree that the term soter (savior) is soteriological.

AK's understanding of "savior of all men" is that God (and by extension Christ as Redeemer) is the only true Savior in the world, therefore humanity cannot find any other competing Savior outside of the living God. They have no other Savior to turn to.

As said above, the saviorhood is regarded as merely hypothetical here. Christ is not just a possible savior, but a theoretical savior only. But if we take it that way, how is this different from the universal, unlimited salvation view? The pivotal question that arises here is: Is he, or isn't he? If all men "have no other savior to turn to", does this mean that Christ is indeed everyone's savior? If yes, I see no difference between the arminian "possible-savior-view". But if no, then the title "Savior of all" is meaningless and cannot be accepted. However, what else would the title "Savior of all" imply than the reality of an unlimited atonement?

Another problem arises. If the saviorhood is merely theoretical but unreal then the word "especially" (malista) which indicates a precision of the former term, is quite awkward. For Christ wouldn't really be the savior of "all men" at all.

It is not by mistake that the phrase "living God," a term that suggests monotheism, is connected with this verse. This phrase is often found in the context of polytheism (e.g. Acts 14:15; 1 Thess 1:9; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4). Since there is only one God who is alive, there is only one Savior for humanity to embrace.

Okay, but the mention of God's being the savior of all men is prompted by the mention of idol worshippers that are obstacles to Timothy's missions. Timothy's confidence shall be grounded on the fact that even the idolaters are meant to be heirs of God's salvation. This and the emphasis that Timothy's God is a living God, are the basis of his ministerial efforts. If the "savior" of 1 Tim. 4,10 is merely some reminder of monotheism, why doesn't Paul mention God's creatorship or his role as the only sustainer? After all, the verse might as well go: "who is the creator of all men, especially of believers". So why is Paul making this remark in the first place?

Finally, AK presents an altogether different interpretation, namely the one that translates "malista" as "that is". In this case, the verse simply says God is the savior of all men, meaning the believers. It is questionable whether this translation is best. But in any case, the adoption of this interpretation throws all of Kurschner's previous considerations overboard. He must decide: Either he takes the view he calls "monotheistic-exclusivism" or he takes the view endorsed by George W. Knight, the "malista=that is" view. The two are mutually exclusive and can't both be right.

To conclude, the reformed exegesis by Alan Kurschner fails to see the broader picture. The epistle's purpose is pastoral instruction and a lot has to do with what might nowadays be called church discipline. It is comprehensible from context what "all men" refers to and why the phrase "living God" is used right there. Yet AK doesn't grasp the coherence of 1 Timothy 4:10. The resulting interpretation is unconvincing to say the least.

-a helmet

Response to a commentor at "Triablogue" on John 6 and calvinism

I've been discussing the reformed usage of John 6 over at Triablogue. For the sake of length, I'll post my latest response here.

---

Neal,

OK, in your ordo salutis the word “imputation” doesn’t occur. So I ask again: Are the objects given by the father to the son sinners or righteous? Does the father pull sinners toward Christ or the righteous ones? The “whoever” who come to Christ (v.37) are these sinners or not? That’s crucial!

you have a tendency to oversimplify and setup strawman arguments as evidenced from the above.

So when does a person become righteous? In other words, when does imputation occur? Put differently, when does the obtainment of clean clothes occur? That’s not evident from the ordo salutis, however if you think the father drags sinners to Christ in John 6,44 you have a very doubtful perspective to begin with.


but we don't need a helmet to translate them for us.

I wasn’t speaking of translation. We don’t have linguistic issues here, but semantic ones. I asked: “What does the "giving" denote here?” Well, lets face the possibilities, shall we? The following suggestions come to mind:

i)To give anticipates the idea of to draw in v.44. Hence, v.37 says that all who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ.

ii) To give denotes God’s pre-eternal decree where he decided to join a people to Christ. Thus, it denotes a definite decision of God, a promise to the son which is realized in the time of the world, when the individuals of this people actually believe in Christ and become adopted as sons.

What about i)?

It is strange why the meaning of drawing, according to calvinism the enablement to repent and believe in Christ, would be set equal to God's giving to Christ. To give me = To enable him is a weird way to say the same thing. The giving of v.37 indicates a transaction. There is a sender, a recipient and an object of that transaction. The Father is the sender, the giver. The Son the receiver. The one drawn would now be the object given. Such linguistic gymnastics appear somewhat awkward. Besides, the determination of the meaning of “give” would be shifted to the determination of what “draw” at v.44 means. The smooth reading would at first be interrupted by the ambiguity of what v.37 is actually all about.

What about ii)?

To think of God's actions before the foundation of the world and God's decree here, is quite far-fetched unless there is further support by the passage itself. But there is nothing which would render this interpretation nearby. Furthermore, the present tense of “to give” doesn't seem to suggest the absolute past tense of the decree of God. Calvinists, who adopt ii) might point out that God's decree is an eternal reality and the Father beyond time and so the usage of the present tense might be plausible. But v.39 uses “to give” in the present perfect ("has given"). If the giving refers to the eternal decree before the foundation of the world and the present tense at v.37 denotes its timeless nature, why then the present perfect at v.39? Or is the giving in v.39 again something different?--It's highly unlikely that the giving of v.39 refers to something else than the giving at v.37, considering the textual flow and the closeness of the words' positions. Thus, the argument that “gives” at v.37 is present tense because it denotes the timelessness of the decree, is very weak. Such arguments can only be understood from a pre-commitment to reformed theology. The present perfect in v.39 seems to be simply underlining the fact that Christ could possibly only lose what has already come to him. You cannot lose something you don't have yet.

Regarding “all that” you said:
Do you really need these things spelled out for you? "All that" refers to a class of people, as most people would take the meaning in everyday usage, while "whoever" denotes an individual. What's so hard about that?

But what if “all that” which is given refers to the ”summing up of all things in Christ” or ”to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.” (Eph 1,10) ? In other words, if “all that” refers to the kingdom which is spread throughout the world and going to be brought under Christ’s kingship?

If that is what the “all that” refers to, then the pre-eternal decree view is unapplicable here.
But take the other possibility. If the “giving” (v.37) means nothing else than the “drawing” (v.44) does it make sense to view the “drawing” as corporate in any sense, such that a collective neuter (“all that”) would make sense? Not according to Calvinism.

I said: “Is there a double-arrival at Jesus (given then come)?”

Note, “to give” doesn’t have to have the meaning of a gift, a present. Neither does it have to mean a promise. Basically it simply means to hand over. If that’s the case then there’d be some strange double-arrival, at least upon a natural reading, right?

Only to one who is trying to escape the normal usage of the words are they ambiguous.

I’ve gone through very normal considerations about the terms used. We’ve seen that the ambiguity stands. V. 37 is grammatically noteworthy and the underlying semantic background unclear so far. How one understands v.37 will decisively shape one’s interpretation of the rest of the passage.

Who claimed that [6,44] is the key issue? Just because it is not the primary issue doesn't mean it isn't taught in scripture.

I was addressing a basic(!) exegetical rule, the head-members-principle.
Ancient documents usually lack metadata like disclosed introductions, chapters, conclusions, overviews etc. that we are accustomed to use and to find in modern writings. After all, these metadata alleviate following the author the way he intended to be understood and apprehend the right understanding. However, if there is a certain key issue treated in a writing, then the head-members-principle suggests that every part of the text is serving this key issue, the head, by contributing information that support the key issue. Thus, the key issue or the principle theme is the writing's "head", which is subdivided into several "members", the particular elaborations, explanations that constitute the text, the body.

Again, is is sometimes difficult to determine whether there is one key issue that dominates the writing, because texts might as well consist of parallel fragments of information without coherence and so treat of different subjects. But if we are lucky, the author left a hint to his principle theme that is underlying his writing, thereby providing the hook on which the entire text hangs. This gives us the first key to approach the text.

The text passage under scrutiny is contained in the gospel of John. Now, can we tell whether there is a key issue in the gospel of John, and if so, what is it? Fortunately, John didn't leave his readers uninformed about his overall intention. The key issue is given by v. 20:31:

"These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name"

The purpose is evangelical and the account's key issue is to provide the necessary teaching about Jesus Christ to convert the readers to the gospel. Therefore, we should expect that everything in John's gospel account serves this goal in one way or another. Now, what about verse 44, what status does it have in the body? The sentence of Jn 6,44 is embedded in the larger context of the bread of life teaching and seems to be made in passing. Even the repetition in v.65 doesn't change the status of this remark as a passing comment. One might object that the verse should still be more appreciated and this may be granted. But in any case, the notion that "no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him", is a minor matter in between and is settled in the text structure like a finger at a body.

Now, while it is true that every part of the whole text must be compatible to the key issue, this doesn't imply that every part in itself actually contributes a real informative profit to the key issue. A writing might contain literary embellishments, comments made in passing or some "by the way"- insertions that don't seem to provide any informative value to the head and thus, are without use to the key issue in and of themselves. Besides, the author can side-step into a relative subject to gather information, in order to return to the original subject later with an additional avail. This is mustering knowledge from somewhere else. The relative subject itself might be quite alien to the original key issue. However, in this case it must still be apparent and traceable in which way this side-step is ultimately beneficial to the key issue and contributing to it. So it might not always be easy to determine in what way a piece of text is necessary or useful or whether it is dismissable.

However, one thing cannot be: There can be no member in the text in opposition to the key issue. It is not allowed to have, say, a minor matter somewhere in between that thwarts the very principle theme, the key issue of the whole writing. Everything must be compatible with the overall issue and it isn't possible for the left little finger to work against the head. Rather all members must constitute a textual body that ultimately buttresses the head. Thus, if a part of the text suggests something incompatible with the head, then the important hermeneutic head-members-principle is infringed. In this case, the exegete should by any means seek an understanding that avoids this blemish. And generally spoken, an understanding that aligns with this rule should be preferred over an interpretation that breaks it.

Now, what about John 20,31 and 6,44? The entire gospel account (the body) is an exhortation to believe in Jesus Christ and to provide the basis for that faith. The readers shall come to faith by this very text. However, if 6,44 means that nobody can believe on his own and that faith is dependent on divine enablement, then there is a problem. The entire writing would lose its balance. While 20,31 is an exhortation to the addressees, v.44 would override this key issue, by putting the initiative of faith on God. Thereby it would undermine the exhorting and encouraging key issue. If the fulfilment of the key issue (to believe in Christ) is really out of the readers' hands, then v.44 is lifted up on the rank of the key issue and the whole text structure is out of balance. This doesn’t mean a logical contradiction. Theoretically, it is still possible that John's originally intended meaning is indeed what the reformed position holds. However this is doubtful, for we would have a severe hermeneutic blemish. The notion, that v.44 suggests that the issue of faith or unbelief is based on God rather than the entire textual body at hand (see 20,31), grossly violates basic hermeneutics. In this case it would be very unlikely for the author not to elaborate on this paradox any further. But there is more. If the calvinistic understanding of v.44 is correct, it is unlikely that the author would have structured his text the way he did, rather we would expect a text structure that contrasts two opposing main subjects and is built around the elaboration on this paradox. The shape of the text would be two-headed.

Your logic is faulty.

I wasn’t speaking of a logical contradiction here, but of a severe exegetical faux-pas, that infringes the basic head-members-rule.

Regarding the second basic exegetical fallacy, the failure to let scripture interpret scripture, you wrote:
I agree. Hence in addition to John chapter 6:37-65, I also previously pointed you to these: John 12:37-40, Isaiah 6:9-10, Proverbs 21:1, Ezekiel 37, Acts 13:48, 2 Thess. 2:13-14, 2 Tim. 1:9, Eph. 1:4,5

The context of John 6,37ff is the bread of life. The critical verses 37 and 44 are embedded in this context. Where is the situation of this discourse treated by other authors in other writings? Do the scripture references you’re stating here treat of a comparable state of affairs as John 6? I don’t think so. What do John 12:37-40 or Acts 13,48 have to do with the mysterious bread-of-life teaching which we are trying to understand? Compare equal state of affairs!

Regarding the third basic exegetical fallacy, regarding plausibility, you wrote:
Finally we get to the crux of the issue. You find it objectionable because it betrays your notion of common sense.

No. It is very plausible that natural man is unable to never sin. But it is very far-fetched to think that the exercise of faith in Christ is equally impossible for natural man. Now, a claim that is far-fetched requires extraordinarily strong arguments in its favour to be plausible. Yet such a strong argument for Calvinism cannot be made. Every sincere exegete would expect far-fetched claims to be elaborated extraordinarily thoroughly, because this would be likely for the author to do. If you throw common sense overboard, you cannot do any sincere exegesis but engage in sheer sectarianism.

Note, that my interpretation avoids all the fallacies above and is therefore to be preferred over the Calvinistic understanding.

-a helmet