Reply to Eddy, a gentlemen who kindly commented on my post entitled "John 6:44...an answer to James White's challenge"

Reply to Eddy, a gentlemen who kindly commented on my post entitled "John 6:44...an answer to James White's challenge"

Eddy's Comment August 12, 2019 at 2:16 AM

Hey. Nice review (better than most)! I have to say that I still think the Reformed view has it better, because if the Jews truly followed the Father, why would he need to draw them? Wasn't he already drawing them by the miracles?

 

So you think the drawing mentioned is a supernatural, inward calling? Based on common sense, I would think it is, especially since the word enabled is used, which I think would imply that God has to effectually cause someone to be drawn to Jesus.

 

Also, heliko probably means dragged, so what about that? I also think it means dragged in John 12, but that Jesus is talking about Jews and Gentiles.

 

 

My response:

 

Hi Eddy!  Thank you for your kind feedback and questions. I apologize it has taken so long for me to respond.  Although you’d never know from the speed of my response, I enjoy engaging with others to better understand God’s word, esp. on this topic which has caused much confusion in the church today.  We must all press in to seek understanding of what God truly meant.  Thank you for sharing your perspective and entering into this discussion.

 

I think you might have misunderstood my point. The drawing is not some kind of supernatural inward calling. The drawing takes the form of the words and miracles that the Father has given his Son to speak and do. John 5:19-20,30, and 36 all attest to this. John 6 continues the same line of thinking seen in John 5, not something new. And that’s what we find throughout the Bible. Everything builds on what was earlier written. We have to consider the context of prior chapters and subsequent chapters to rightly understand any particular verse. Although we all say we “know” the importance of this, actually sticking to the context often eludes even prominent Bible scholars.  Or perhaps, even though they know the context, they are so committed to the “traditional” teaching, that they willingly ignore it.  And before you defend “tradition” as being more reliable, consider that tradition was the precise error of the Pharisees and Roman Catholics. 

 

We need to distinguish the parts of God’s activity in this process called “drawing”.  The object of the Father’s drawing is those who were already following him before Jesus’ ministry began.  The target of the Father’s drawing is toward his Son whom he has now sent.  The Father is entrusting his followers to his Son as their new steward. Remember that those Jews who have already been following the Father are going to recognize and want to follow anyone he has sent.  First, they would recognize that only God can do miracles because they believe Psalm 77:14, and they know the history of God’s miracles rendered to liberate them from the bondage of Egypt which the Egyptian magicians could not replicate. And they would agree with Nicodemus who said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” (John 3:2). This understanding that only God can do miracles is fundamental for understanding how God authenticates his sent ones and curates his message. Since Jesus is doing miracles, he is being authenticated by God. It is something that God expects people to understand intuitively. And it is something that an individual does understand when they are listening and not hardening their heart. 

 

And in John 17:6-8, we see Jesus refer back to this “giving over” of those who were already following the Father to now become Jesus’ followers because they recognized the Father in his Son.  We see that the Father has now entrusted them into his Son’s stewardship, which was always the plan from the beginning of time.  Specifically, he says,

 

“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world.  They were yours; you gave them to me, and they have obeyed your word.  Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.  For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them.  They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.” 

 

This is essentially a reprise of John 6:44-45.  Those who had “heard the Father and learned from him” did indeed come to Jesus (v.45).  They were indeed “drawn” by the Father to Jesus (v.44) because they first belonged to the Father.  Before the Son was sent, who were those who followed the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?  They had a relationship with God the Father because they believed him and his word.  So they “belonged to” the Father.  They didn’t belong to the Son yet because the Son had not yet been sent.  But after the Son was sent, the Father drew his followers to his Son so that they would trust Him and follow him even more intimately than they ever followed the Father.  They would recognize the Father in the Son and learn even more about the Father through the Son, whose very purpose was to “explain the Father” (in Greek, literally, exegete the Father, i.e., make him more fully known) (John 1:18).  Furthermore, in John 16:13-15, we see that Jesus plans to send the Holy Spirit, who, just as the Son received from the Father what he made known to his disciples, so the Spirit will receive from the Son what he will also make known to the disciples.  

 

What’s the point in John 6:44 then?  It’s the contrast between those who belonged to the Father and those who didn’t—the Jewish leadership, the religious establishment.  The Pharisees and Sadducees did not believe and know the Father.  So the Father couldn’t give them over to the Son.  He couldn’t draw them to Jesus.  They hadn’t heard from the Father and learned from him.  They had no room in their minds and hearts for God.  They had given their hearts to the world, to love money and power.  They pushed their own agenda instead of God’s and used the synagogue to do so.  They were posers.  Jesus describes them in John 16:1-3, thusly,

 

“…when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” 

 

If they had known the Father, they would have seen him in Jesus and would not do the devil’s work of killing God’s followers.

 

Now, you think that common sense interpretation of the word “enable” should lead us to interpret “draw” to mean a supernatural inward calling. Using “common sense“ is not recommended when interpreting infrequently used words in the Bible. We would normally look at how they are being used in context. And study how the word is used by the same author in other places, then how it’s used by other authors in the Bible.

 

But let’s try it your way. Let’s assume that “enable” and “draws” means a supernatural inward calling. How would that fit with the very next verse? V 45 says, “It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.”

John 6:45 NIV

https://www.bible.com/111/jhn.6.45.niv

 

If draw means some inward supernatural drawing, then why would learning be necessary? If God could supernaturally just turn their stony heart into a fleshy one, what part would hearing and learning play? God would just turn on the light bulb in their mind. Instead Jesus uses “hears and learns” to reflect the process that one follows when they humbly listen instead of crowding out of their minds everything that doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. Furthermore, the Father speaks only Truth itself, so anyone who hears and learns from him, is following Truth. Conversely, those who don’t, follow lies and the evil father of those lies— the devil. As implied throughout Jesus’ teaching in this chapter, inherent in the words “hear and learn” carry the force of individual choice to respond. Just as he said that the work of God was to believe in the one he sent and that believing in him and eating and drinking of him imply individual appeal for a response. And when he tells them, “and still you don’t believe” (6:36), it indicts them for choosing to not believe in him despite what they have seen him do— miraculous signs.

 

It is noteworthy that Jesus doesn’t ever refer to the drawing and enabling as supernatural works. Rather he refers to the signs, which we should clearly understand to be in themselves supernatural works. Jesus always points them to the signs he performed as being the authenticating reason for which they should believe in him. Since a supernatural work was already done in the sign itself, there should be no need for an additional supernatural work of drawing or enabling to make someone believe in Jesus. Jesus never had in mind that a supernatural drawing itself was needed. And introducing this idea only muddles the exhortation to believe and indictment for not believing. Why would God need to provide a supernatural sign to only then have to supernaturally make someone believe in that sign?

 

And how would it fit with vv. 29,35,40 preceding v. 44? Jesus emphasizes over and over that through believing in him they would live forever. In saying this, he assumes that they have the ability to do so and condemns them for not doing so in v. 35: “and still you do not believe”. If the Father had to supernaturally draw them from within, and he decided to do selectively for individuals chosen before time began, how would his emphasis on belief and their failure to believe be so emphasized? Why not just clearly say that the Father chose a secret group of individuals before time who couldn’t believe unless he made them?

 

How would that build on what John has presented up to this point in his gospel? How would it further the purpose of his book stated in both John 1:18 (Jesus explained the Father) and 20:31 (Jesus’ signs written so you may believe and have life in his name)? If God has to give some kind of supernatural enablement that does not involve the actual words being transmitted and understood, why would it even matter that Jesus explains the Father and that miracles are recorded in the book in order to help people believe? If the actual words (which common sense tells us are intended to convey meaning and convince the hearer) are meaningless to the hearer unless God turns on the light bulb, then why even use them? Why not just turn the light bulb on without even using words? And if the signs are useless to convince the audience unless God turns on the light bulb, then why provide them? And why do God’s spokesmen treat them as a means of authentication?

 

I would argue that this is key for understanding the Gospels and soteriology. The signs and miracles, as attested by Moses, Jesus and Paul, are proof that God has sent his prophet or apostle and to listen to them (Deuteronomy 18:18-22, John 10:38, 2Corinthians 12:12). And this is what distances Christianity from the many false religions.

 

Mormonism speaks of a “burning in the bosom”, a subjective emotion-based sensation, for determining truth. Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, and Islam trust in men whom we know to be false prophets. How do we talk to them about testing their prophets if we believe that God— apart from a supernatural inward calling— was unable to convince our totally depraved/disabled minds and hearts before we accepted Jesus? It renders meaningless all real apologetics. And it renders meaningless the words spoken by Moses, Jesus and Paul cited above. It also leads pastors to make incorrect conclusions about so many passages in the New Testament whose true meaning is hijacked by Calvinistic teaching.

 

For example, I once heard a sermon by a visiting alumni at my seminary speak on Paul in Acts 9, and his attempts to convince the Pharisees every Sabbath. The speaker asserted that this amounted to Paul’s arguing from his flesh instead of trusting God to convince their hearts through the Spirit’s work. The lesson? You can’t argue someone into the kingdom of God. Only when Paul left was there finally fruit (Acts 9:31), he claimed. But if this is true, where does apologetics come in? And God’s saying, Come let us reason together? And was Jesus arguing in his flesh when he used arguments? I say quite the contrary. The argument’s truth is presented to dispel the lie so that the hearer will be set free from the lie. Calvinism leads to incorrect teachings that steer us away from the intended meaning God wants us to act on.

 

Furthermore, the importance of faith in the other 90 percent of the book is now relegated to have less importance than these few scriptures that the Calvinist can interpret based on a couple of words (give, draw, and enable). If monergism was such an important teaching, why would God not spend 10 times as much explanation and emphasis on this process instead of the emphasis on faith vs works? I tell you that Calvinism is committing grave eisegesis by reading in an idea that men thought up many years after Christ.

 

So, I have tried it your way. And hopefully you will agree with me that the context in John doesn’t allow for your interpretation. Or at least that it doesn’t offer the best explanation. 

 

First and foremost, we need to take a step back and look up the Greek word for “enable” in John 6:65.  We must ask whether it was translated correctly.  There are times when translators preferred a certain word over another precisely because of their doctrinal persuasion.  So let’s check the word:  it is dedomenon.  It comes from the root verb didomi, which means “to give”.  When we consider that the use of the Greek verb dedomenon is actually a Perfect Participle in the Middle or Passive voice, it probably should be rendered, “has been given”. 

 

When we read all the occurrences of this word in the New Testament, we find that it almost always is rendered “give”. It’s used 11 times in John 6 alone.  In every instance-- except for this verse (and only by few translations)-- is it rendered a form of “give”.  The NAS translates it “granted”.  It is interesting to consider that “granted” can actually mean “given” in the sense of “admit/permit” or “allow”, as in permitting entrance.  Whatever the case, “give” is the most basic meaning of this word, so if we are to use the word “enabled” it should connote the idea of something being “given” by the Father.  The fact that Jesus describes this as a reprise of what he earlier told them (alluding back to John 6:37,39, and 44) about the Father “giving” and “drawing” his followers to Jesus, weakens the notion that God empowered them to follow Jesus through some supernatural means.  Rather the force of dedomenon here is that God had given the understanding to them because they listened to God (cf. v.45). 

 

In other words, the idea of following Jesus as Messiah didn’t originate from themselves or from Jesus himself; it was a teaching the Father had given them.  So once again, the origin question: the whole point-- in light of those who denied Jesus as Messiah-- is that this teaching that Jesus is Messiah came from God.  Contrary to the unbelieving Jews who claimed to know the Father but rejected Jesus (thus disproving their own faith in Father God), these who followed Jesus proved their faith in Father God by their belief.  This does two things: 1) it indicts the unbelieving Jews for being more than unbelievers in Jesus—but unbelievers in God himself; 2) it exonerates those who are following Jesus as those who are doing the right thing, contrary to the accusations from Jewish leaders. 

Passages that support this idea:  John 3:35, 5:27, 10:18, and 17:2-8 supports John 6 with God’s giving to the Son what was first the Father’s. And in respect to our passage in John 6, the Father gave those who were His (17:2- “to all those you have given him”; 17:6- “to those whom you gave me out of the world.  They were yours; you gave them to me…v7: They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.”  Please notice the word I underlined.  Jesus prays “they were yours”.  This means they were following and belonging to the Father BEFORE they were given to Jesus.  And the key is they recognized that Jesus had come from him.  They recognized Jesus’ origin because the Father is whom they knew first.  When Jesus spoke and acted, they recognized their Father in Jesus.  And when one claims to follow God but doesn’t believe in Jesus, this is the precise incriminating evidence Jesus points to.  If you don’t believe him, you must not believe the Father who sent him because Jesus says and does exactly what the Father says and does.  So if you reject Jesus, you are rejecting the Father himself—self-incriminating disbelief! 

 

Cornelius is an example of how this John 6:44 interpretation applies today. Anyone who fears God and listens to him will be drawn by the Father to the Son.

 

Luke 18:17- why would Jesus say: “Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.””

Luke 18:17 NIV

https://www.bible.com/111/luk.18.17.niv

 

To receive it like a little child implies that a child receives it differently AND that an adult has the ability to receive it in the same way if he chooses. The phrase, “anyone who will not” implies a warning to people who could have done otherwise if they chose. When we look to the verse immediately prior to people bringing babies to Jesus, we find what the childlike receiving should look like. And I believe this is part of the context:

 

““I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.””

Luke 18:14 NIV

https://www.bible.com/111/luk.18.14.niv

 

Is the person exalting himself? Is the person humbling himself? Or is God doing this in the person first? Can a person humble himself before God? The Calvinist says No, not until God first opens his eyes and regenerates the person. If this were true and a person could do nothing to heed Jesus’ warning unless God first acted, then how could Jesus say this to warn the listeners? Wouldn’t it be better to just ask God to reveal to him those that were elect and just talk to them? Or better yet, since Jesus knew all things, wouldn’t he know who the elect were and only tell them? The Calvinist argues that Christ’s sacrifice was only intended for the elect. If God only targeted the elect in the expiation, then why not also in the communication of it? That would be consistent. Therefore, because it isn’t consistent, it’s a huge red flag for Calvinist theology.

 

Lastly, whether helkyse means drag.  From a logical perspective, as I argued earlier, it wouldn’t make any sense for it to mean drag if God appeals to people through their senses, minds and hearts.  Either he does some supernatural inward dragging of their soul, contrary to what their totally depraved (read: disabled) senses, minds, hearts (to use the Calvinist meaning) would understand and choose, or else he appeals to those senses, minds and hearts in order to persuade them.  And, as argued earlier, God does appeal through these means by providing miracles, teaching, and empathy.  He is the God who is understandable to any heart that is open and honestly seeking truth rather than playing games. 

 

Eddy, to address your final point on John 12, helkuso is used with the object “pantas”.  It is too strong of a word to mean anything other than “all people” unless the writer qualifies it somehow.  I think it means that Jesus’s crucifixion is something he would use to get the world’s attention, and so draw all people to consider his claims of being the Christ.  It didn’t mean that he would forcefully drag individuals from all people groups to himself.  In fact, this is essentially what he says in the subsequent verses.  My paraphrase: “you should follow me while I am here on earth (while you have my light) so that when I am gone, you won’t walk in the darkness.”  When Jesus judges everyone at the end of the age, He will draw everyone to the cross and ask, why do you think I died there?  What do you say?  And how am I alive now?  It will be the focus of the judgment.  What did you believe about Jesus’ death and resurrection?

John 15:16...Not chosen for salvation…

John 15:16- “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.”

 

Question:
Does God choose us first or do we choose God in response to his work done in Christ two thousand years ago?  This question is at the heart of Calvinism’s doctrine of Unconditional Election—the belief that God, before the world was created, chose only those whom he wanted to be saved and not others.  This is based on God’s choosing and nothing man does or believes.  His choosing is the cause of man’s belief, for no man can believe apart from God’s having chosen them in eternity past then regenerating them in the present.  One of the favorite verses cited by Calvinists is John 15:16.  Is this what Jesus intended when he said these words?  Or was something else in his mind?  Perhaps something completely different? 
 
Answer:
Jesus did not mean that he chose them for salvation but rather for the office of apostleship.  The audience of Jesus’ statement was not all believers.  We should not assume ourselves as the audience of Jesus’ words there any more than we should when he was choosing the twelve disciples to become his apostles.  It was the apostles whom he had chosen. 
 
The context is the Upper Room Discourse, where the Last Supper took place, the Passover meal where Jesus washed the disciples' (i.e., apostles’) feet (John 13) then spends time preparing them for his departure (John 14-17).  After educating them in John 14 about the Holy Spirit, whom he would be sending after his departure, he now exhorts them on the importance of abiding in Him. 
 
John 15 probably happened after leaving the actual Upper Room.  John 14 ends with these words: “Come now, let us leave.”  It is likely that, along their way, they are passing by vineyards when Jesus refers to these object lessons to illustrate how the relationship worked between his Father, himself, and them. 
 
He then tells them the statement under our study.  He reminds them that they had not chosen him but he had chosen them.  What Jesus meant was that he had chosen these disciples for the office of apostleship to be his inner circle of twelve men, future leaders of his church.  He had prayed the whole night before, remember (Luke 6:12-16).  In fact, we see he “called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles.”  Notice that the language used here even parallels the language he used in John 15:16:  chose and designated.  “Designate” is similar in meaning to “appoint”.  And he did not choose all of his disciples for apostleship, only these twelve.  There were many other followers he did not choose for this special office. 
 
The word “appoint” in the Bible, when used in reference to people, means to be put in charge of a special office.  Most often, people were appointed to be a ruler, priest or supervisor.  Here are just a few of many examples:
 
Exodus 18:21-22: When Jethro is instructing Moses:
But in addition, you should choose some capable men and appoint them as leaders of the people: leaders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. They must be God-fearing men who can be trusted and who cannot be bribed. Let them serve as judges for the people on a permanent basis.
 

Numbers 1:50

Instead, appoint the Levites to be in charge of the tabernacle of the covenant law—over all its furnishings and everything belonging to it. They are to carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings; they are to take care of it and encamp around it.

 

Numbers 3:10

Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary is to be put to death.”

 

Deuteronomy 16:18

[ Judges ] Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly.

 

Deuteronomy 17:15

be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

 

Deuteronomy 20:9

When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it.

 

Joshua 4:4

So Joshua called together the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, one from each tribe,

 

Joshua 18:4

Appoint three men from each tribe. I will send them out to make a survey of the land and to write a description of it, according to the inheritance of each. Then they will return to me.

 
Jesus was not referring to salvation; they were already saved.  He hadn’t chosen them for salvation but for the unique office of apostleship.  He was encouraging them to persevere (abide) in his love and produce fruit just as a grape vineyard does.  Branches, as the apostles are called, depend on the vine and exist for the sake of the vine, not the other way around.  The reason a vineyard exists is to produce fruit.  Jesus knew what was in the apostles’ hearts.  He had seen them fighting to be first rather than loving one another and putting Jesus first. He knew that if they didn’t continue in the self-sacrificing love he had demonstrated and would yet demonstrate (and in this way, “abide in him”), they would not bear the fruit that was desired and that would last.  Instead theirs would be fruitless efforts or maybe inferior fruit.  Jesus would be departing soon and thus exhorts them to abide in his teaching and example or else all of his investment in them would not render the results the Father had planned. 
 
Jesus tells them directly in John 16:1 why he was telling them this: “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away.”  Persecution would come to them just as it was coming to Jesus, and he takes the time to prepare them for this.  Rather than bolstering the apostles’ confidence in their eternal security (as Calvinists and so many conclude), he warns them that they needed to have the right mindset in order to not fall away. If his message was that he had chosen them for salvation (the Calvinist one), then why would he need to warn them about falling away?  Think about it…if Jesus had told them pointedly that he had chosen them for salvation from eternity past (and they were unconditionally elected), they would have just received the most reassuring words that they could ever hear—that they would never lose their salvation-- right?  If that were so, then why here would he be warning them that they could “fall away” from him and not be saved? 
 
What are apostles?  Sent ones.  And as Jesus was sent from the Father, now Jesus was preparing to send them into the world after his departure.  He had already been sending them out, but he was preparing them for a bigger work of testifying about him to the world.  In 15:17, he tells them directly, “And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.”  These eleven remaining (Judas Iscariot has been led away by the devil by this point) had been with him since he appointed them as apostles.  His intent was that they would bear much enduring fruit.  So now he reminds them that they didn’t choose him.  Here’s what this means:  He wasn’t part of their plan.  They were part of his.  And the plan was for them to carry the truth forward to others.  He had received it from the Father and now they were to deliver it faithfully to others who would carry it on to yet others.  But this was a special job assigned specifically to the apostles because they had witnessed his life and teachings from the beginning. 
 
So the point wasn’t that he was choosing them for salvation.  That is not the subject of Jesus’ teaching here, and it doesn’t fit the context of what he wants to leave them with as he approaches his departure and prepares them for what is coming.  His point was that he had chosen them for this special office and role that only they could fulfill and that succeeding in it would require them to continue in what he had taught them and demonstrated by his self-sacrificing life.  Now they needed to forget themselves, lay aside their lives—their agendas and self-interests—and live to promote Jesus’ agenda, even to the point of death.  And, as he has reiterated many times in his teaching, death wouldn’t be the end because Jesus would raise them back up (John 5:28-29, 6:54). 
 
Again, his message is:  You did not choose me (for your agenda), I chose you (for the Father’s agenda).  I’m going away soon. Don’t forget, and don’t walk away from it when I leave.  Don’t start building your own kingdoms.  I chose you to build mine.  The Father, the gardener, desires fruit (i.e., manifestation of Christ in these apostles, as well as new believers who will see Christ in them and believe). 

John 6:44…an answer to James White's challenge.

John 6 does not support monergism…Read on for a fresh look at this passage!

Question: 

Are Calvinists right in their claim that God must give a special grace to a sinner in order for them to be enabled to believe in Christ, as their doctrine of Irresistible Grace states?  That they believe this doctrine encompasses the entire idea of God's grace is evident in the name they give to their Calvinist doctrines:  "the Doctrines of Grace". 

James White, one of the most vocal modern-day Calvinists, has made this passage his cornerstone argument for Calvinism. He continually challenges Calvinism's opponents to debate him on John 6 in order to capitalize on what he considers an irrefutable argument.  Is James White's and other Calvinists' confidence in this interpretation warranted?  Does this passage seal the argument for Calvinists?  Is this Calvinistic interpretation what Jesus and the Father intended to convey?  Or are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit grieved by this teaching? 

The Calvinist builds his argument on the following logic to conclude that the purpose of Jesus' words in John 6 were to explain why some believed and others did not:  that the Father alone chooses who will be saved.  They claim that salvation is monergistic—that it is accomplished by God's work alone—and that this verse shows how it is not synergistic (i.e. God's work plus man's faith in Christ).  What is at stake, they argue, is God's power and the effectiveness of Christ's death.  Either God's salvation is effective or it is not.  Is God not powerful enough to save completely, they ask.  Is Christ's death on the cross enough?  God does not need any help to save humans.  He is able to do it all himself, and because of this, he deserves all the glory. 

Here is the logic they use:

1.     John 6:37- "All that the Father gives to me will come to me." 

a.    The Father must give people to Jesus in order for them to come to him.

b.    Since the Father must give, the reason an individual does not come is because the Father did not give them. 

c.     This indicates that the Father has elected individuals from eternity past.  This supports the doctrine of Unconditional Election. 

2.     John 6:44- "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

a.    The Father must draw the individual to Jesus to enable them to come to Jesus. 

b.    The one the Father draws to Jesus is the same individual who Jesus will raise up at the last day. Therefore, all the Father draws to Jesus will be saved. 

c.     You cannot say the Father draws all to Jesus because it would infer the doctrine of Universalism, a doctrine that is rejected based on many Scriptures. 

d.    "Draw", the Greek word "helkuo", literally means "drag".  Thus the idea is dragging the individual without consulting their will.  This refers to the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.  The Father gives irresistible grace to the elected individual, which then enables the individual to come to Jesus.  But, in effect, the Father has dragged a dead (Totally Depraved) person to Jesus.  For a dead person cannot have faith on his own.  They must first be given life. 

3.     John 6:65- "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." 

The reiteration of this requirement that the Father must first enable the person to come to Christ is because there is no way for the "dead" person to understand the teaching of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus. 

4.     John 6:66- "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." 

The reason many disciples ceased to follow Jesus is because they were offended at the teaching of election and irresistible grace. 

So does James White have an airtight case?  Is this an irrefutable argument? 

Answer: 

In an earlier blog, I did a very brief exegesis on John 6:44.  In this current blog, I am presenting a deeper look at the chapter. 

First, a warning on interpretation.  Beware of speakers who exegete scripture to say that there are only two choices for how to interpret a verse or passage.  This is a symptom of holding a closed-minded dogmatic hermeneutic, where all who ignorantly listen are pigeon-holed into one camp or the other in order to "shelve" or discount others’ views.  What this misses are opportunities to consider other perspectives that may reveal true meaning.  And this stymies growth toward truth.  A truth-seeker remains open to other viewpoints and avoids the pitfall of the religious leadership of Jesus’ day; these were exposed as frauds when Jesus shared his unforeseen perspective. 

Monergism is not required in order to demonstrate God's power and Christ's effectiveness.  Nor does synergism discount these.  Synergism is a term used pejoratively by Calvinists to describe the soteriological process held by those who believe in freewill.  By using the term synergism, the Calvinist intends to represent the non-Calvinist's view as one that makes God appear weak, as though he needs help in the salvation process.  Likewise, it poses his view as the superior one in which God is most glorified. 

Many Calvinists say that there are only two possible ways to interpret John 6—their way and the classical Arminian way.  They argue that because the Arminian argument, which requires Universalism, is rejected, that their view wins by default.  Have they ever considered that there may be other ways to interpret the text?  This is the same error as the Pharisees committed in Jesus' day.  They thought they had a corner on the market of interpretation and studied it from every angle.  They failed to consider that they may have been blind to another way to see a passage.  Truth be told, they were quick to find their own meaning in the Bible because their hearts were already inclined toward it.  They expected to find their doctrine throughout the Bible.  And just as those who look for a sign will find one, even if it is offered by Satan himself, the Calvinist finds his doctrine wherever he looks in Scripture.  To the one whose favorite tool is a hammer, everything is a nail.  To the Calvinist, every passage of Scripture is monergism.  It is important for us to maintain objectivity when we come to the Scripture and avoid loving our doctrine more than God himself.  This would be idolatry. 

 A positive in the Calvinist argument:

            One thing right about the Calvinist argument made by James White is that in both v. 37 and 44, the person in part A is the same person as in part B.  So, here's the logical breakdown:

1.         John 6:37-

a.          "All that the Father gives to me

b.          (they) will come to me." 

2.         John 6:44-

a.          "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,

b.          and I will raise him up at the last day."

It is true, according to the grammatical construct, that the person in part A is the same as in part B.  This is essential for understanding what Jesus is communicating.  So the Calvinists got this part right.  I want to make this entirely clear at the outset of my argument.  I repeat:  the Calvinists are right about this part of their logic.  However, (and this is a BIG "however") they misunderstand the thrust of Jesus' argument and arrive at the wrong conclusion.  Nonetheless, because they understand this part rightly, the Arminian argument is an easy target.  The patent Arminian argument goes like this:

1.         John 6:37-

a.         The Father gives all people to Jesus.

b.         All that believe in Jesus come to him.

2.         John 12:32- And when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

3.         John 6:44-

a.         The Father draws all people to Jesus

b.         All who believe in Jesus are raised.

The "all" in part A is not the same as in part B because the latter is limited to only those "that believe".  They often refer to John 12:32 to conclude that God draws all to Jesus through the cross.  Sadly, this is not congruent with the grammatical construct in John 6:37 and 44, and this leaves the Arminian open to easy refutation.  This point being conceded at the forefront of my argument, I will now explain why the Calvinist interpretation of John 6 fails to illumine what was intended by Jesus.  

Glaring holes in the Calvinist argument:

1.  It fails to understand Jesus' audience.  His audience was not us.  We should not assume an uninformed reading of the text would be rightly interpreted.  Contrary to how most people, including Calvinists, approach the Scriptures, you often can't arrive at a correct interpretation by reading the Bible without understanding how the author's intended audience would interpret it.  Just as Christ put on human flesh to explain God to us, he also employed manners of speech that were most appropriate to the people of his day and culture.  If he were to come to us today, he may not have used the same illustrations or manners of speech. 

And while even those with a doctorate learn the importance of accounting for this historical context in seminary, oftentimes they neglect to apply this knowledge appropriately when interpreting the Scriptures.  While we don't question the authority and infallibility of Scripture, we should most certainly question our own interpretive abilities (our assumptions, logic, conclusions).  This is humility.  Therefore, we should never say of our interpretation that "this is what God's word says…and you are rejecting God, not me."  Whenever someone challenges our interpretation, the onus is upon us to prove we have interpreted it correctly.  This starts with appropriately accounting for the historical context in which that passage was inspired.  The writer was inspired by the Holy Spirit; we are not.  We seek the Holy Spirit's illumination but are told to "rightly divide the word of truth". 

The reader brings his own context.  He must seek to understand the context of the text’s historical audience.  Jesus’ audience was the Jewish people who knew Jewish history.  More specifically, it was a mixed crowd of those who were already following God and those who were not.  Remember, that the Jewish leadership, who was in this crowd, were indicted elsewhere by Jesus for being hypocrites-- those who held positions of religious leadership but did not know God.  Their career was to explain God to people, but they did not know the God they were supposed to explain.  They were posers, who enjoyed the power they held and used it for their own advantage over the people.  In Matthew 15:13-14, Jesus says of the Pharisees, who were among the Jewish leadership, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”  What this means is that the Pharisees were not true teachers of God.  They were not authorized by God because they did not listen to God. 

However, there were people in Jesus’ day who did follow God. In John 1:47, it says, “When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, Jesus said of him, ‘Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.’”  Nathanael was a follower of God or else Jesus would not have said this.  Joseph and Mary were followers of God or else they would not have been qualified to be Jesus’ parents.  They were said to be righteous in their actions.  In Matthew 1:19, “Joseph her husband was faithful to the law”.  In Luke 2:25-“Simeon, who was righteous and devout.(D) He was waiting for the consolation of Israel,(E) and the Holy Spirit was on him.”  The point is that, in contrast to the Jewish leadership, there were people in Jesus’ day who were listening to the Father and believed in God.  When Jesus showed up on the landscape and spoke the Father’s words, these God-followers listened to Jesus because they recognized his words as being the Father’s words.  He had the same heart as the Father.  Apart from these two classes of people, there were also people who were not following the Father, but once they listened to Jesus’ words, they heard the Father’s voice in those words and responded to the Father.  The point is that all who listened to Jesus were either already listening to the Father or else recognized God’s voice in Jesus and turned to him.  Jesus said, in many ways, that his words were not his own but were the Father’s.  Therefore, whenever anyone listened to him, they were listening to the Father. 

The contemporary religious leadership did not teach about God accurately.  So the people were not hearing the Father's voice in their teaching.  Once Jesus spoke the Father's words, those who were willing to listen to the Father, heard him, learned from him and were then given by the Father to Jesus. 

But the real group of people Jesus is referring to is those who were already following the Father.  Why would he do this?  Because it is the religious leadership that grumbled (v.41) and did not believe he was sent from God. These religious leaders are the ones who were expected to already be following the Father God.  The fact that they were not is the acute pain point Jesus wants to touch.  By claiming that these religious leaders did not follow God, he calls into question the validity of their position.  If they don't hear and learn from God, why are they in a position of religious leadership?  In doing this, Jesus turns the tables on them and puts them on the defense.  They questioned his origin.  Jesus questions theirs.  Nobody can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them…(and since you don't follow the Father, you can't be drawn by him). 

2.  The interpretation does not fit into the context of John 5-8.  It does not offer a plausible explanation for why monergism would help Jesus' arguments against those who wanted to kill him. 

The Calvinist interpretation (i.e. that the Father gives people to Jesus and none come to Jesus without being drawn by the Father) does not explain why what he said in 6:37 and 44 would be a strong argument against the Jewish leadership.  It would not have been a strong argument for Jesus against the religious leaders.  In fact, it would not help his argument at all, and at best would only muddy the waters.  The religious leaders' retort could simply be that they were "more chosen" than Jesus (from their flawed perspective) because they were the ones in leadership authority and that Jesus was the one not appointed this authority but had come in uninvited to assume authority on his own.  The Calvinist meaning would thus be easily dismissed by the Jewish leadership and the people.  Now, here the Calvinist will argue that they did dismiss what he said so this only supports why they responded this way.  No, the fact that many deserted Jesus at the end of John 6 was for a different reason than this, as I will explain later.  

3.      It does not address the true reason for the grumblers' complaints.  The reason for their grumbling is clearly stated in John 6:42.  It was Jesus' claim that he came from the Father, who is in heaven—the question of ORIGIN.  "They said, 'Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?  How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?'".  The Jewish leaders are offended by Jesus’ claim to have come from heaven.  They are offended on two levels:  a) This is blasphemy to them because that would make him equivalent to God; and man cannot be equivalent to God; and b) It would mean Jesus the carpenter, born under humble circumstances and uneducated, especially compared to the highly-educated religious leaders.

Why would Jesus' response to this be, "The Father did not choose you", as the Calvinist argues?  This would not address the Jews’ question but, in effect, would taunt, "The reason you don't believe is that God did not choose you."  The Calvinist argues that Jesus is revealing the mystery of why these Jews don't believe.  The Calvinist position does not address the question of Jesus' ORIGIN.  The Calvinist anachronistically claims the grumbling was because they didn't like what Jesus said about the Father giving people to the Son; Calvinists think the people are grumbling about monergism.  According to the Calvinist, rather than questioning Jesus' ORIGIN, the grumblers questioned the ORIGIN of the followers' faith.

To understand what Jesus truly meant, we must understand the context.  The context of John 5-8 sets the stage for the nature of this dialogue and is not rightly accounted for by the Calvinist.  In John 5, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for making the same claim, which they rightly interpreted as Jesus' claim of Deity, because he made "himself equal with God" (5:18).  Now in John 6, he claims to be the Bread from Heaven that God gives for eternal life, illustrating not only that God is his Father but that receiving Jesus into one's life is the spiritual food that will enable a person to live forever. The Jewish leadership who heard Jesus' claim to having come from the Father in John 5 and 6 protested and sought to kill him for what they considered blasphemy.  Jesus was claiming to be not only a prophet, but more—the Son sent from the Father God.  

It all emanates from the idea expressed at the start of John’s gospel:  1:18- “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (NIV), or as the NAS says, “explained him”, from the Greek word “exegesato”, where we get the word “exegesis”.  Jesus, the only one who has ever seen the Father, has been sent to earth by him in order to explain him to the world.  He is qualified to do this task and not the religious leaders.  And he is the only one in the world qualified to do so.  The key to understanding the book of John is a theme that repeats often and is summarized in one word:  SENT.  Jesus was SENT by the Father from heaven to the world and will return to heaven.  This teaching sounded too far-fetched to people.  Yet Jesus taught it in many different ways.  The religious leaders did not believe that Jesus was SENT from heaven and, to the contrary, considered it blasphemous.   

That the word SENT is key to understanding John is supported by the fact that it is found 43 times in the book of John in the context of God having sent his Son.  It is found once in the present form SEND in the same context; and one tense or another of the word is found 18 times in some other context.  This makes a total of 62 occurrences of the root word in John.  This is remarkable.  About half (21/43) of the occurrences of SENT in the context of God having sent his Son are found in chapters 5-8, the passage of Scripture in which our text under study is found.  Contrast this frequency with other key words in John:  Love (39, 3 in chp 5-8); Light (16, 2 in Chp 5-8); Son (37, 14 in chp 5-8); Believe (94); Father (110, 34 in chp 5-8).  When you consider that out of these key words, that the most frequently used are Father, Believe, and Sent, it is compelling that what John (and more specifically, Jesus, in chp 5-8) means to communicate to his audience is that he wants them to understand that the Father Sent Jesus and wants them to Believe this.  It is crucial to understand this theme of the Father's having SENT Jesus-- and how blasphemous it was for the Jewish leadership to hear it-- in order for the reader to rightly interpret John 6.  

Starting in John 5, Jesus, in defense against the Jewish leadership's condemnation that he was breaking the Sabbath law of God when he healed the paralytic on the Sabbath, says, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.”  His point? 

a. That if Jesus did a miracle, it had to come from God, since only God can do miracles (Psalm 72:18, 136:4; Exo 15:11; this is why 2 Cor 12:12 is meaningful:  marks of an apostle: signs, wonders, miracles).  In other words, God is the one working through me. 

b. God would never break his own law. 

c. Since God the Father did the miracle on the Sabbath day of rest, healing on the Sabbath is not a transgression of God’s law. 

After learning that the Jews wanted all the more to kill him because he was making himself equal with God, Jesus elaborates on this idea in vv.19ff.  This passage begins Jesus’ most crucial teaching displayed in the book of John, fleshing out what it means to be the SON of God.  Jesus calls God his Father and points them to his Father because it both justifies what he is doing—that it is aligned with God—and indicts the Jews for not following God.  Just as a son looks like his father physically in his mannerisms and traits, so Jesus looks like his Father in his work, character, and heart. 

Jesus explains that the Son can do nothing by himself but only what he sees his Father doing.  Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.  The Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.  The Father gives the Son authority to raise the dead.  The Father has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. 

A key to understanding our passage:  “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”  Thus, anyone who rejects the Son, rejects God himself.  Jesus takes the Jews' allegation that he is breaking the Sabbath and turns it against them, in prime judo form.  It becomes a self-indictment:  their condemnation and dishonoring of Jesus for breaking the Sabbath is, by association, tantamount to dishonoring God who did the miracle through Jesus.  Likewise, believing in Jesus is tantamount to believing in the Father God who sent him:   “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned.”

I will summarize Jesus' points here:

a)    Whatever the Son does is what the Father is doing (5:19).  The Son has a vested interest in God's work because he is not a career religionist; he is part of God's family.  God is his Father and he is God's Son.  There is an intimate family relationship that runs deeper than that which any of the religious leaders can claim.  It is a passion in Jesus' heart for his Father.  He will do anything for him, implicitly devoted to his will, because he is one with him and wants the same thing his Father wants.

b)    John 5:25-29- the Father has given the Son authority to raise the dead and judge them.  This foreshadows John 6:39-40, when Jesus reprises that he will “raise him up at the last day”.  Who is the “him”?  It is the “whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me” in 5:24, who has “crossed over from death to life” and who, when they are “dead will hear the voice of the Son of God…and live,” (5:25). 

c)     The Son can do nothing by himself.  He can only judge as he hears the Father judge.  Thus he judges rightly because he seeks not to please himself but the Father who sent him.   (5:30)

d)    The Son has testimony from i) John the Baptist; and ii) the Father.  The work the Son is doing (i.e. the miracles, which are the calling card to prove God has sent the miracle-worker) testifies that God has sent him.  The Father's word does not dwell in the "Jews" because they do not believe the one he sent.  The TEST to detect whether the word of the Father dwells in a Jew is this:  Do they accept the Messiah about whom the Father foretold them in the Old Testament?  If they reject the Son, the word of the Father clearly is not living in them because his word points them to Jesus.  Conversely, if they accept the one the Father foretold, his word is living in them, for they are open-heartedly heeding his announcements that should have informed them of what to look for.  In v. 39, he encapsulates this idea in these words: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life.  These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."  The Jews revered the Holy Scriptures, but they did not revere its Author nor listen to the heart of God in them.  Instead, they used the Scriptures to support their own dogmatic hermeneutic.  In the case of the scribes and Pharisees, they contorted Scripture to support their doctrine of salvation by works and the need to keep the Law and Mishnah perfectly—a doctrine that enabled them to exalt themselves by appearing to keep the Law and to control the people by holding them to their interpretation of the Law (really the Mishnah).  The materialistic Sadducees contorted God's word (they only believed in the Torah) to support their doctrine that there is no resurrection, no after-life, no soul, and that this world is all there is—justification for materialism.  In both cases, it was self-serving interpretation of the Scriptures to justify their agenda. 

In v.42, he tells them plainly that they do not have the love of God in their hearts.  The reason they do not is that they are lovers of self.  They "accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God" (5:44b).  These self-righteous leaders formed the religious establishment in their nation.  As such, they cajoled and gave their seal of approval to one another to exalt themselves and jealously guard their authority. 

Knowing that their trust is in Moses, the prophet who passed down God's Law through which they seek their works-based righteousness, Jesus rips their trusted foundation from beneath their feet.  He says, "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"  (5:45-47) How can he say they didn't believe what he wrote?  Because, firstly, they were willing to break the command Moses wrote:  You shall not murder (Exo 20:13).  Secondly, they did not accept the Prophet which Moses foretold would come.  (Deut 18:15,18)  Therefore, Moses would stand up to accuse the Jewish leaders before the Father.  Jesus, who they did not trust as a prophet, would not have to accuse them when Moses, whom they did trust as a prophet, would himself accuse them and reveal their shame. 

In John 6:1-24, we find the recording of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand with Passover-- and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that is part of that Festival-- approaching.  This is a fitting time to do a miracle with bread.  When the people follow Jesus to the other side of the lake, Jesus reveals to them their motive:  that they like the idea of getting free meals; they are flesh-feeders, self-seekers and not recognizing him as the Messiah who would satisfy their most profound need for salvation from sin.  When Jesus says, "You are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed," this means they should have followed him for the miraculous signs.  This was the right thing to do.  They should have understood that the miraculous signs showed he was from the Father God. 

  

4.  It does not offer a meaningful explanation for why Jesus says in John 6:45, "It is written in the Prophets, 'They will all be taught by God.'  Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." It completely fails to understand the role Jesus is playing in the salvation work in relation to the Father.

5.  It does not offer a reasonable interpretation for why “disciples” would leave Jesus.  In this sense, it does not account for the dynamic nature of following Jesus, which is dynamic simply because God appeals to wills that are free.  God communicates in such a way that expects his audience to respond in faith.  And his communication states conditions which, if met, would result in a promised outcome.  If, indeed, the individual listening has a will that is unable to respond—unable to meet the requirement—this would be deceptive and tantalizing speech.  God neither deceives nor tantalizes.  His heart is good and desires good for his creatures.  He doesn't act as humans do.  This is part of the sense in the words, "Your ways are not my ways."  The perverted logic that God demands a faith humans are incapable of (when they are already incapable of fulfilling the Law), is the same logic for which atheists blaspheme God.  Folks like Christopher Hitchens have a field day with this and this only pushes them farther from him.  Preaching such a doctrine does a disservice to God. 

Above I outlined the Calvinist argument, which I will now attempt to refute.  My argument is as follows:

1.     John 6:37- "All that the Father gives to me will come to me." 

a.   There are people in Jesus’ day who have been listening to God and following God before Jesus began his ministry.  They are the true believers in God, in contrast to the religious leaders who hounded Jesus.

b.   God will entrust the stewardship of his followers to his Son. 

c.    Jesus is God’s representative on earth and says and does only what his Father who sent him says and does.  When God’s true followers hear Jesus they hear his Father and understand that Jesus was sent from God the Father. 

d.    They follow Jesus as God’s Son.  The Father has thus given them to the Son. 

e.    Since the Father must give, the reason an individual does not come to Jesus is because they do not listen to the Father. 

2.     John 6:44- "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

a.     The only way someone will come to Jesus is if they follow the God who sent Jesus.  Therefore, when someone does not accept Jesus, it reveals an important fact:  they don't listen to God.  

b.  The one the Father draws to Jesus is the same individual who Jesus will raise up at the last day. Therefore, all the Father draws to Jesus will be saved. 

c.     You cannot say the Father draws all to Jesus because it would infer the doctrine of Universalism, a doctrine that is rejected based on many Scriptures. 

d.    The Father had many followers before Jesus began his ministry.  His plan is to draw them all to his Son. 

e.    The Father “draws” all his followers to Jesus through the words and actions of Jesus that the Father has given Jesus to say and do.  This includes the teaching that comes from God and the miracles that only God can do. 

f.      These that the Father “draws” through his Son’s words and actions are the same ones that he will raise at the last day. 

g.  This is an indictment on the Jewish leadership, who did not follow God the Father.  The reason they did not follow Jesus is because they did not follow where the Father draws.  And the Father draws all his followers to His Son.  

3.     John 6:65- "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." 

The reiteration that the Father enables people to come to Christ is because those who were not continuing to follow Jesus through this difficult teaching of eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood, (which was a figurative and spiritual teaching), were disbelieving of Jesus because they were disbelieving of the Father himself.  The one they were rejecting was not Jesus alone but God himself, for Jewish leaders the one they made a living teaching about.  In contrast, those who follow the Father will recognize him in his Son’s words and actions and are thus enabled by the Father to come to Jesus.  The Father thus gives these followers to the Son, in fulfillment of John 6:37. 

4.         John 6:66- "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." 

a.         The word “disciple” simply means “follower”. 

b.         There were many who “followed” Jesus who did not truly believe in him or his Father God.  Among these were those who followed with evil motives (e.g. the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes, who sought to discredit Jesus).  Others may have been curious but unbelieving. 

c.          The reason many disciples ceased to follow Jesus is because they were not true disciples of God himself. 

d.         Those who continued were true followers of God.  They show their belief by believing that he has “the words of eternal life…and to know that [He is] the Holy One of God.” (John 6:69)

e.         Jesus’ statement that he had “chosen…the Twelve…yet one…is a devil” (v.70) does not mean a choosing unto salvation.  He had chosen them to be his apostles, a special office in his kingdom.  Proof that he had not chosen them to salvation is that:

     i.     Judas Iscariot, one of the chosen Twelve, was not saved since he betrayed the Lord. 

     ii.     Where this event was recorded, it is written that Jesus was choosing them specifically to be his apostles.  (Luke 6:12-13)  It does not say that he chose them for salvation.  

Conclusion: 

John 6 does not support monergism.  Calvinists are not right in their claim that God must give a special grace to a sinner to enable them to believe in Christ.  Grace is absolutely resistible.  That is why we must work both smart and in the Spirit’s power of humility and love to draw unbelievers.  Salvation is accomplished by God's work alone when one has submitted to him.  However, it is unable to save one who won’t submit to God and accept his grace.  While one may call this acceptance “synergy”, it is not the kind of synergy most think of.  It is merely the kind of synergy that a doctor needs to treat a patient; a recognition of need and a willingness to be treated.  What is at stake is not God's power and the effectiveness of Christ's death.  God’s power that created the millions of galaxies doesn’t need to be defended by his minute creature.  It will stand on its own.  God is shown to be more powerful in saving someone that he doesn’t have to control or bestow an unwanted gift.  And here’s why…

What God wants is a mutual love relationship with his creature.  If he made grace irresistible it would require for him to have created a different kind of creature who doesn’t have the ability to love.  For love is a choice.  This is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was all about in the garden.  If one doesn’t understand this, they will be forever troubled by this temptation.  The Calvinist does not have a good answer to this. 

Christ’s death is sufficient and God’s salvation is effective for any who submit to him.  Contrary to what Calvinists say, God deserves all the glory even though he only saves those who accept him.  Likewise, he deserves all the glory even though he doesn’t save those who resist him.  He deserves the same glory we would ascribe to a man who didn’t force a woman to love him or who was faithful to a woman who accepted him.  The prized Calvinistic logic that I once held fails to protect God’s glory and instead robs him of it by distorting God’s character.