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.