CalvinDude.com

I just got back from a week-long conference (well, just under a week-long). But I see that William Birch has responded to my previous post. He actually misunderstood it exactly the way I had foreseen he would :-D

Birch writes:

But inherent in Peter’s confession here are at least two significations: 1) there is an admission that Calvinism must be taught; i.e., Calvinism is not the result of a plain reading of the text; and 2) Calvinism has a tendency to breed Gnostic proclivities in its adherents.

First off, the Gnostic comment is not only false, but inflammatorily so. Birch knows that to accuse a Christian of “Gnostic proclivities” is a strong charge, and needs to be strongly demonstrated. Am I to conclude that when he reads Deuteronomy 29:29, he concludes Moses was a Gnostic?

But that well-poisoning he has committed is irrelevant. My comment in no way is an “admission that Calvinism must be taught” – at least, not any more so than any other theology (see Romans 10, specifically verse 17). Rather, as I stated, my point was a response to the ridiculous claim that members of SEA have made, and which Birch continues to repeat, that one naturally reads Arminianism in the Bible.

(By the way, it really does annoy me that Birch and company seem to think that Christians are magically enabled to understand Scripture instantly without putting forth any study into it, and completely ignoring the rich history of Christian thought throughout the ages. I in no way deny the perspicuity of Scripture here, but the reality is that the Bible is a book and it takes thought to understand the passages presented. No one should doubt that the Ethiopian eunuch was an intelligent man—for he was literate in a time when most people were not, and was also a court official—yet he said to Philip, “How can I understand [Isaiah] unless someone explains it to me?” Furthermore, teaching is a gift of the Spirit. Not all are able to rightly divide the Word of truth. That Scripture is clear enough for any who hears it to be saved does not mean that it is clear enough for everyone who hears it to be Billy Graham, R.C. Sproul, Billy Birch, or James White. But enough of this tangent.)

I fear that Birch is in a bit of a bubble here, as are (sadly) most of the people I’ve interacted with at SEA. Because they are in an Arminian bubble, they view the world through their Arminian lenses. It is natural that they would believe the Bible teaches Arminianism, since they believe that to be the case. Yet, I’ve talked to several people (including on this conference I just attended), and the fact of the matter is that the average Christian does not find Arminianism in the Bible. Instead, what he finds can be summed up this way (to paraphrase my roommate at this convention): “I don’t know what I believe. I read passages on predestination and I start going, well, yeah, it’s in there. Then I read, ‘Whosoever will’ and swing back the other way. I just don’t know which way to go half the time.”

If Birch’s claim is even accurate (BTW: he asked me for my numbers when I was relating my anecdotal evidence to him; but I was responding to his anecdote, and he needs to bring forth some numbers showing all these supposed new Christians who immediately spout Arminianism), it is because A) most Christians haven’t read anything other than what has been cherry-picked for them to read by their pastor; B) they lack the context to understand Scripture.

I think it truly telling that the less Biblical knowledge that the average Christian has, as can be demonstrated from any Pew Poll you’d like to look at comparing Christians today with Christians 100 years ago, the smaller the Reformed movement gets per capita. You never find ignorant Christians creating something like Reformed theology. You find them creating emergent churches that worship free will, they start to deny the existence and reality of hell, they begin to doubt sin is real, etc. Nowhere do ignorant Christians manufacture Reformation theology.

In any case, I will have more to say later, but for now it’s time to wind down from my trip.

Earlier this morning, I found out that Michael Sudduth has renounced Christianity in favor of Hinduism. Sudduth was a Reformed philosopher. I did not know him personally, nor have I interacted much with him—if I have, it would have only been through a comment or two on Triablogue. As such, I won’t say much about his renunciation in particular.

It does bring to mind other conversions, however. I have read comments from some of the Arminians at SEA who have said that any new convert to Christianity who reads the Bible will automatically find Arminianism. Arminianism can be read in Scripture, they say, while Calvinism must be taught. (I would counter by asking why it is that we trust those who are least experienced in Christ, who have followed Him for only a short time and who have not developed a long relationship with Him, would have some kind of inside knowledge about Him that those who have travelled the path of sanctification for many years would somehow lack. That is, why trust the immature Christian to show us the truth as opposed to the elders in the Lord?)

The direction of conversion is fairly one-sided when it comes to Calvinists and Arminians. I can think of countless individuals who have converted from Arminianism to become Calvinists—indeed, I am one such individual myself. However, I only personally know one (Billy Birch) and can only think of just a few others, such as Clark Pinnock, who have gone from Calvinism to Arminianism (and Pinnock doesn’t really fit, since he then continued on far to the left of Arminianism, embracing Open Theism). This is not to say that I don’t know of some former Calvinists; just that Calvinists do not tend to convert to Arminianism. Instead, the former Calvinists who I know (other than Birch) are now almost all atheists, with a liberal Metropolitan Church goer (having embraced homosexuality), two Roman Catholics (a married couple), and now, with Dr. Sudduth, a Hindu too.

Now, I’m sure that part of this is due to the circles I run in. I know more Calvinists to begin with, so I’m sure some such as Billy Birch would know of more former Calvinists who are now Arminian. Yet it still strikes me that even Arminians would acknowledge that there are far more former-Arminian Calvinists around than former-Calvinist Arminians. And this would seem, to me, an indication of the direction of sanctification in the lives of a believer toward the Reformed position as one matures in Christ.

In what may seem to be a bit paradoxical, I also think this shows the truth of the Reformed position in the fact that former Calvinists so often will renounce Christianity altogether. After all, consider the following passage:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Calvinism is Christianity. If I did not believe that, I would not be a Calvinist. This is not to say that Arminians are not Christians, however. Rather, I hold that Calvinism is simply a more consistent form of Christianity. If Arminians will grant me that (arguendo), consider this:

1. Calvinism is a more consistent form of Christianity.
2. Those who reject the more consistent form a Christianity have nowhere more consistent within Christianity to go toward.
3. Therefore, it is more likely that to reject the more consistent form of Christianity, one will reject Christianity as a whole.

This does seem, at least to me, to make sense. To abandon the more consistent form of Christianity results in the desire to abandon Christianity as a whole. One would not logically expect many to step back to a more inconsistent form of Christianity if they have trouble with Christian beliefs. And if you couple this with the belief that Christian sanctification will result in Christians becoming more consistent, we have two facts that seem to lead inexorably (or, dare I say, irresistibly) toward Calvinism.

1. More Arminians become Calvinists than vice versa, indicating the flow of sanctification.
2. More former Calvinists reject Christianity completely than convert to a different form of Christianity, indicating that Calvinism is the more consistent version of Christianity.

While the above is certainly not ironclad, relying on concepts that seem to be most plausible rather than formal logic, I think it ought to give food for thought to the Arminian. I would be quite interested in what the Arminian thinks of deconversions from Christianity.

A belief popular amongst some philosophers, especially in the Molinist camp, is the idea of Trans-World Depravity. Put very simplistically, TWD is the idea that if agents have libertarian freedom, then there is no possible world in which there will not be at least one free agent who chooses to sin. This is usually brought forth in theological arguments between Molinists and Calvinists, but is also used a great deal in Arminian theodicies.

I believe that the idea of Trans-World Depravity actually may work very well to help neutralize moral arguments Arminians use against Calvinism, when one couples the existence of TWD with the effects of Total Depravity and study the effects of what it means in terms of God foreordaining evil. Since these are all big subjects, I will take a few moments to unwrap what I am saying here.

(As a side note, I’ve been thinking about some of this for many years—specifically a variation of the concept of TWD—although I only recently was able to sit down and put through my first attempt at a cohesive concept when responding to William Birch on his blog. Sadly, the comments were closed before I could get very deep into it, which is why I’m writing this blog post now.)

First, let’s look a bit more into at least one concept of TWD. I propose, for the sake of argument, that it is impossible for a free agent, who has libertarian free will, to continue in that state indefinitely. For a brief explanation of what that is the case, let us suppose the usual concepts of freedom of the will involved. An agent is presented with a choice to either sin or not sin. And let us presume that the moral agent is upright and righteous, but yet still retains a non-zero chance of choosing evil for all the classical reasons non-Calvinists give (e.g., “It’s not true freedom unless there’s some risk that the agent chooses what you do not wish him to choose”, which is a paraphrase of an argument I read from C.S. Lewis in the notes of an old Study Bible).

So we have a free agent with a non-zero chance of choosing to do evil. Now, this non-zero chance can be very, very low. Let us say that it’s extremely low. Suppose only one chance in a billion. However, the kicker is this: the moral agent is not making just one choice.

Consider the Garden of Eden. Adam was told not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was a standing order. That means that Adam had to continually follow it. If there was ever a time when Adam broke that command, then he would be a sinner. So this means that each time he’s presented with a choice, he has a one-in-a-billion chance that he will sin, according to how it’s been set up. The longer Adam is in Eden, the more likely it becomes that Adam will actually sin, to the point that given a long enough timeline it becomes a guarantee that Adam will sin.

Even with odds such as one in a billion, since Adam would not die and since the command would presumably never be revoked, then the mere existence of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil guarantees man will fall into sin, even on Molinist/Arminian grounds.

Let us now couple that with the effects of Total Depravity. As Classical Arminians, such as William Birch, are quick to point out, Arminians also believe in Total Depravity of the same kind that Calvinists do. Once Adam sinned, all men are born depraved as a result of Original Sin. However, Arminians usually posit some form of prevenient grace, whereas Calvinists speak of common grace. The idea is that God’s grace must be granted toward the sinner—even to sinners who do not turn to Christ—in order to keep the sinner from being as evil as he or she would have been without that grace.

So let us stick with this concept of depravity—as I said, one that both Arminians and Calvinists can agree on since we’re not talking about how one becomes saved. The result is this: we are depraved and corrupted in all our ways, but God’s grace keeps us from being as evil as we otherwise would be. God’s grace serves as a buffer to keep us more righteous than we otherwise would be, even for the non-believer.

Under this view, what is hardening (such as when God hardens Pharaoh’s heart)? It is the removal of that grace, such that the depravity shows all the more obviously. Again, Arminians and Calvinists will agree that God did not make Pharaoh sin when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Rather, Pharaoh did not deserve the grace of God and God chose to remove that grace, and the result was that Pharaoh’s true evil nature was unrestrained and ran rampant. The same thing can be seen in passages such as Romans 1, where Paul writes that God gives over sinful men to the lusts of their flesh. That is, He removes the restraining grace and allows them to fall deeper into sin.

Now, if both of these concepts are true—if it is the case that it is impossible for a moral agent who has a non-zero chance of sinning in any given choice meaning the necessity of Trans-World Depravity; and if the penalty for sin is that one’s offspring are born depraved such that they need the grace of God to be less evil than they would have been—then at this point, there is no longer any basis to say that God is committing evil when He foreordains sin in the world.

Consider the following example. Let us stipulate an arbitrary scale, that 100 is the maximum amount of evil that any given person could do. Let us further suppose that, given depravity, we would all be sinners at 100 Evil on the scale. That would be absolutely ruinous—in fact, that is where sinners end up in hell when God removes all His grace completely from them.

Now given the depths of evil that 100 would be, it’s quite likely that the absolute worst person on Earth was really only something like a 10 on the Evil scale, but let’s make it a bit more drastic. Let’s put Hitler at 75 on the scale. Finally, let us stipulate that God foreordained that Hitler would be a 75 on the Evil scale.

What are the ramifications of that? Arminians are quick to say that Calvinism has God forcing Hitler to commit sin to be at that 75. But that is to ignore the reality of depravity. God is not forcing Hitler up to 75 Evil; He is forcing Hitler DOWN to 75 Evil from 100 Evil. In other words, God is actively ensuring that His will be done, yes, but He is doing so in a way that is preventing more evil from occurring. In other words, by God foreordaining that Hitler would be a 75 Evil, He is keeping Hitler from being a 100 Evil. Yet, because most of us are higher on the scale, and because we assume that where we’re at is the status quo, it is easy for us to say that God is forcing Hitler to be more evil than Hitler would have been. The reality is the opposite. God is forcing us to be less evil than we would have been, and He is not forcing Hitler as much.

TWD and Depravity combine to take away any reasonable argument that Arminians have that the Calvinist God is forcing anyone to do evil, even when God foreordains sin. Because we would be maximally evil if we could be, and because it is necessary that morally free agents will sin, then any act we do less than 100 Evil has been tempered by undeserved grace.

To consider an analogy, look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is a necessary feature of physics. In closed systems, entropy will necessarily increase. I maintain that it is not only possible, but certain that this type of thing is true of righteousness too. That is, without God actively and constantly exerting His own power to grant grace, any agent will necessarily fall. Therefore, just as it is impossible for God to make a square circle, I maintain that it is impossible for God to make any moral being who could stand righteously on his or her own power. Therefore, God could allow Adam to make any decision within Adam’s power, and the determined result would still be sin, and this would be no more unrighteous for God than it is for God to now withhold grace and harden sinners, as we know He does in Scripture.

Some Arminians I know have put forth the proposition that love, in order to be genuine, must be free. This linking of freedom and love immediately opens up two different conundrums. On the one hand, if love is free then it cannot be immoral not to love. Secondly, if love is free, one cannot be commanded to love.

Let’s see how that is the case.

Hypothesis:
1. It is not immoral for God to not love all.
2. If love is free, it cannot be commanded.

Definitions:
1. A moral good is doing what ought to be done.
2. A moral evil is doing what ought not to be done.
3. An amoral action is an action that is neither a moral good nor a moral evil.
4. An immoral action is equivalent to a moral evil.
5. Perfectly good beings always do a moral good action.
6. Perfectly good beings never do an immoral action.
7. Perfectly good beings have freedom to either do or not do an amoral action.
8. A free action is something that one is not compelled to do.
9. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action.
10. Commands ought to be done.

Starting Premises:
1. God is a perfectly good being.
2. Love is a free action.
3. All actions are one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral.

Argument:
1. God is a perfectly good being (Premise 1).
2. A perfectly good being always does a moral good action (Definition 5).
3. Therefore, God always does a moral good action.

4. God is a perfectly good being (P1).
5. A perfectly good being never does an immoral action. (D6).
6. Therefore, God never does an immoral action.

7. God is a perfectly good being (P1).
8. A perfectly good being has freedom to either do or not do an amoral action (D7).
9. Therefore, God has freedom to either do or not do an amoral action.

10. Love is a free action (P2).
11. A free action is something that one is not compelled to do (D8).
12. Therefore, love is an action that one is not compelled to do.

13. A moral good is doing what ought to be done (D1).
14. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action (D9).
15. Therefore, one is morally compelled to do a morally good action.

16. A moral evil is doing what ought not to be done (D2).
17. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action (D9).
18. Therefore, one is morally compelled not to do a moral evil (i.e. immoral (D4)) action.

19. An amoral action is an action that is neither a moral good nor a moral evil (D3).
20. There is no “Ought” in amoral actions (Extrapolated from D3).
21. Therefore, one is not morally compelled either way regarding amoral actions.

22. One is not morally compelled either way regarding amoral actions (21).
23. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
24. Therefore, amoral actions are free actions.

25. One is morally compelled to do a morally good action (15).
26. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
27. Therefore, morally good actions are not free actions.

28. One is morally compelled not to do a moral evil (18).
29. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
30. Therefore, immoral actions are not free actions.

31. All actions are one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral (P3).
32. Love is an action (from P2).
33. Love is one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral.

34. Love is a free action (P2)
35. Morally good actions are not free actions (27).
36. Therefore, love is not a morally good action.

37. Love is a free action (P2)
38. Immoral actions are not free actions (30).
39. Therefore, love is not an immoral action.

40. Love must be either moral, immoral, or amoral in its action (restating of 33).
41. Love is not a morally good action (36).
42. Love is not an immoral action (39).
43. Therefore, love is an amoral action.

44. God has freedom to either do or not do an amoral action (9)
45. Love is an amoral action (43).
46. Therefore, God has freedom to either love or not love.

Let us add a supposition now.

Supposition 1: God does not love all.

47. God does not love all (S1).
48. All actions are one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral (P3).
49. Love is an amoral action (43).
50. Therefore, it is not immoral for God to not love all.

PROVEN: Hypothesis 1—It is not immoral for God to not love all.

More simply now:

51. Commands ought to be done (D10).
52. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action (D9).
53. Therefore, commands are morally compelling.

54. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
55. Commands are morally compelling (53).
56. Therefore, commands are not free.

57. Love is a free action (P2).
58. Commands are not free (56).
59. Therefore, love cannot be commanded.

PROVEN: Hypothesis 2—If love is free, it cannot be commanded.

The implications from this will be in a future post.

I have recently been brushing up on my Koine Greek, and part of the process I use in addition to learning vocabulary words by rote is to read an interlinear New Testament. I think this is useful as it gives real world examples of how Koine writers structured their sentences.

Today, I read through John 12, and an interesting fact struck me about verse 32. Arminians often point to John 12:32 to counter Calvinistic claims from John 6:44. That passage states the no one comes to Christ unless drawn by the Father. John 12:32 records Christ’s words where He states that when He is lifted up (a reference to His death by crucifixion) He will draw all men to Himself. Arminians argue on this basis that while it is true that no one can come to the Father without being drawn, all will be drawn.

The first interesting point, which is not an essential point but is still worth noting, is that nowhere does John 12:32 say that Christ will draw all men. In fact, the Greek word is simply “all” with no noun attached. Literally, the passage reads: “And I, if I am lifted up from the Earth, I will draw all to myself.” This leads some interpreters to conclude that it’s better to translate the passage as “I will draw all things to myself” rather than “all men.”

But the second point is far more profound and relevant. Often Calvinists respond to an Arminian quoting John 12 by pointing out that the context of John 12 is irrelevant to the context of John 6. Nowhere is that more plain than by this simple point: John 6:44 begins (literal translation): “No one is able to come to me unless the Father having sent me should draw him.” Therefore, the one doing the drawing in John 6 is the Father. Yet Jesus, in John 12:32, states that Jesus is the one who is doing the drawing: “I will draw all to myself.” These are clearly two different instances of drawings, regardless of who (or what) is being drawn.

One of the perennial issues that rises between Calvinists and Arminians concerns the definition of the word “all.” Even in English, “all” has varied meanings depending on the context in which it’s used. But I think one of the most critical issues that is largely ignored by anyone when addressing the word is the simple grammatical question. What part of speech is the word “all”?

“All” is an adjective. As anyone who’s been homeschooled, and as 2.6%^{[citation needed]} of publicly educated people know, an adjective modifies a noun (or anything else that functions as a noun, such as a pronoun); a noun is a person, place, or thing.

This means that whenever you read the word “all” in a sentence, you have to ask the immediate question, “What is the adjective ‘all’ modifying?” In other words, you read “all” and you find the person, place, or thing that it could modify: “All who? All where? All what?”

So let’s look at a verse like 2 Peter 3:9.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Now there are two key adjectives in this sentence that cause a dispute between Calvinists and Arminians. Obviously, the “all” in “all should reach repentance”, but also the “any” in “not wishing that any should perish.” “Any”, like “all”, is an adjective that modifies a noun (“Any who? Any where? Any what?”). The Arminian claims that “any” and “all” are universals; that is, they apply to every single person. In other words, they read the above passage in this way:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any person ever made should perish, but that all persons ever made should reach repentance.

Now, obviously an Arminian might use “man” or “human” or “mankind” instead of “person” there. That’s not really relevant. The point is that the Arminian is inserting into the text a noun that is not found in the sentence itself (which also explains why it could be a different word).

The Calvinist, on the other hand, looks at the passage and says, “There is a noun already in that sentence which functions perfectly well as the noun being modified by ‘any’ and ‘all’; namely, the noun ‘you’.” We read the passage:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any of you should perish, but that all of you should reach repentance.

Naturally, this itself will not settle every dispute, even if the Arminian grants that “you” is the better noun here.  After all, the next question we must ask is “What is the extent of the noun being modified?” In the above example, it would be to ask, “Who make up the ‘you’ in the sentence.” In 2 Peter, the “you” is the “you” in verse 1 (“…I am writing to you, beloved”). However, I don’t want to delve into that too much, since it would make it easy to miss the point I’m trying to make.

When we see adjectives in Scripture, where do we get the nouns that the adjective modifies? Do we get them from the sentence as it has been written, or do we inject into the sentence whatever noun we need in order for the sentence to make the theological point we want to make? Which method can more rightly be called “exegesis”?

An argument Arminians often use is to say, “If God meant only the Elect when He used the word ‘all’ then why didn’t He have the word ‘Elect’ added there too?” But that argument cuts both ways, as you see in the example from 2 Peter—the word “man” is not there after the “all” either. But what is in the sentence is the noun “you.” If we are to ignore the noun actually provided in the sentence to insert a new noun, we better have an airtight reason to do so.

Seems my tactic of ignoring the honest publisher’s summary, the online videos, the other sermons that the fellow has preached, the folks who’ve read a book before saying the author was dangerously close to hypocrisy, or any number of other ways one could state a prima facie ignorant assertion about the hoopla surrounding the hoopla surrounding Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, keeps catching the attention of some. In fact, one of my posts on the Bell fiasco so far may best be expressed something like this: a bunch of words pretty much unrelated to the content of anything remotely similar to the topic at hand. And, it seems to naturally follow from that: if you ignore the evidence for something that other people do not ignore then they are the fools, not you.

Truth be told, my granddaughter, who is but 3 years old, has a higher IQ than I.

On the other hand, your average band of “scare quote” websites which specialize in reason and rationality instead of hating on James White, has this to say:

But the Bell kerfuffle was just a trap which Schultz cleverly set to ensnare the grand muftis of modern Arminianism: Ben Witherington, Peter Lumpkins, Scot McKnight, and Roger Olson. He knew they’d take the bait, rushing to the defense of Bell.

What is there to say? Some people read to understand and write to clarify. Others–unfortunately, like so many Internet apologists named Peter Lumpkins–read but do not understand and write but only confuse. But just because a post starts pretending to be from the National Enquirer as reported by Mitty Muckraker in no possible way could indicate this column could possibly be satire.

We know who is really behind it. James White*.

With that, I am…

Peter

* Some unaccomplished theologians** insist White embraces what is known as historic Hyper-Calvinism

** These are collectively known as “Peter Lumpkins.”

It’s now time for us to look in-depth at John 6. The passage begins with the words “After this.” The “after this” refers to the words of Christ that were the basis of what we just looked over in John 5. So, John’s narrative flow is keeping with the context we just saw.

To recap, John 5 taught us that the Father loves the Son, the Son does only that which He sees the Father do, that the Son does nothing on His own, and that the Son submits to the Father.

So after teaching this we learn: “Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick” (John 6:1-2). In keeping with some of the themes John has already established, we see that once again people are following Christ because “they saw the signs.” Just as Jesus first said with Nathanael in chapter 1, there are people who will believe because of what they see. And as He said in John 5, His signs are also testimony that He is who He claimed to be—the Son of God.

But Jesus was about to perform an even greater sign:

Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he would do (John 6:3-6).

Philip, as you may recall from chapter 1, is Nathanael’s brother. What is interesting about this exchange is that we see that Jesus already knew what He was going to do, but that the disciples were in the dark. The point Jesus is making, therefore, isn’t just to perform another sign, but to perform it in such a way that the disciples will understand deeper truths. Jesus’ isn’t a magician who does tricks just for fun. He has a reason for what He does.

The passage continues:

Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, about five thousand in number. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.” So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves left by those who had eaten. When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (John 6:7-14)

Jesus once more demonstrates His sovereignty over creation. All things were created through Him, so He is able to do whatever He wishes with matter. But it is not simply the case that Jesus rearranges matter, such as He did in turning the water into wine or in curing the lame man—here, He creates matter ex nihilo. There was no bread, and Christ created it. He created so much that they had twelve baskets left over, and this was after “they had eaten their fill.” Jesus didn’t just break a loaf of bread into 5,000 tiny pieces—each person ate “as much as they wanted.” The result was that the people recognized that Christ was truly the promised Messiah, and we read: “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (John 6:15).

Christ had not come to be a physical, political king. He had come to usher in a spiritual kingdom at this point. The people wanted Him to overthrow Rome, but that was not God’s plan. Therefore, Christ withdrew at this point, in order to maintain the purpose of God’s plan.

Before John gets back to this portion of the narrative, He relates to us a scene of what occurred next:

When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened. But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.” Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going (John 6:16-21).

Once again, Christ’s power is made manifest. He rules over physical laws. Yet this sign here was one that only the disciples were privy too, unlike the feeding of the 5,000 which, by the nature of the miracle done, was publically known to all 5,000 men (plus however many women and children were with them). Both of these miracles were done with the disciples specifically in mind, but the ramifications would be much wider:

On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (John 6:22-26).

First we see that the people who were there knew that Jesus had gone off by himself, and that He had not gone in the boat with the other disciples, yet somehow He had appeared on the other shore. While they did not know that Jesus had walked on water (indeed, for all they knew, perhaps Jesus had another boat hidden away), they suspected that it was some kind of miraculous occurrence. Yet Jesus’ words are very striking: “You are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.”

Up until this point, while Jesus has seemingly been partly critical of those who believed Him solely because of the signs they saw, He never disputed that the belief based on the testimony of those signs was false belief. Here, however, we see that Christ knows that the crowd who followed after Him had an even baser motive than simply seeing more magician tricks. They weren’t even concerned with the miracles and signs they saw—they were motivated solely by hunger!

Naturally, if you know the Old Testament, you cannot help but think of the story of Jacob and Esau, when Esau (the older brother) sold his birthright to Jacob (the younger) for a bowl of soup. Esau was hungry, and in his hunger he sold out everything of value. Similarly, here, the people are hungry and want to be fed. They are not even concerned about the deeper, spiritual issues, for only their own stomach is important to them. The net result is that, like Esau selling his birthright, these people would sell their spiritual birthright for food, while those who were not Jews (such as the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4) ended up reaping the benefits of the birthright that was sold.

After rebuking the crowd, Jesus cautions: “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal” (John 6:27). This passage is not dissimilar to the passage in John 4, with the woman at the well, when Jesus pointed out that He had streams of living water. While the Samaritan woman dealt with thirst and this crowd with hunger, the spiritual lessons are the same. Physical food and drink comes and goes; spiritual food and drink is eternal.

The crowd seemed to grasp that Jesus was talking about spiritual matters now, for we read: “Then they said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’” (John 6:28). Jesus’ response to this question is very interesting: “Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent’” (John 6:29).

The first thing to note is that in both verses (28 and 29), the phrase translated “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ) is in the Genitive Case, which is the possessive case. In other words, while it is translated “of God” it could just as easily be translated “God’s.” So the question would be: “What must we do, to be doing God’s work?” and Jesus’ response: “This is God’s work, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Now the bare reading of that passage, which I will shorten to “God’s work is that you believe in him”, seems to say that belief in Christ is, itself, something God must do. It’s God’s work to believe. However, given the context of the question, one could still maintain that that is not Christ’s intended meaning. Given the ambiguities in the text, I would not press the verse too far. However, to say that belief itself is God’s work is quite consistent with several other passages of Scripture, which say that faith itself is a gift from God.

Secondly, it is interesting to note that the question asks about plural works, but the response is singular. The Jews asked “What must we do, to be doing the works of God” and Jesus said “This is the work (singular) of God.” Jesus was either turning the phrase around (as He often did) to sort of hoist the crowd on their own petard (i.e., “You ask what works you need to do, when God is the one who does the work, and this is what He does”) or, at the very least, Christ is saying that there is nothing needed other than faith. The Jews asked for plural works, and Christ responds with a singular answer: nothing is needed beyond faith.

After saying this, the crowd responds:

So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’” (John 6:30-31)

This response is quite telling, for we see that the crowd is yet again seeking to turn the conversation back to getting free food from Christ. Ironically for them, the previous day Jesus just did give them “bread from heaven to eat” and yet here they were asking for more. But, as is often the case when asking for things from God, the people wanted to make it sound more spiritual, so they put it as a request for a sign. This despite the fact that the sign had already been given. Indeed, it is little wonder that Christ had already preempted all of this by pointing out that they had not come for a sign but because they wanted food.

So Christ presses them:

Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:32-33)

So Christ first corrects the Jew’s misunderstanding about the source of manna. It was not from Moses, it was from God. He then moves the question to the spiritual realm once again. And the response? “They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always’” (John 6:34).

It is interesting that all the way through this point, the give and take matches exactly to that of the woman at the well in John 4. Compare John 4:13-15:

Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”

So Jesus promises the woman at the well water that will make you never thirst, and He promises to the Jews bread so that they will never hunger. The woman responds “Sir, give me this water” and the Jews respond: “Sir, give us this bread.” Thus far, things seem to be going in parallel. But now, in John 6, something radically changes:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe (John 6:35-36).

Just two chapters earlier, in a very similar exchange, Jesus worked a sign with the woman at the well. He showed her His power by stating something that only a prophet from God could have known. She believed in Him. Here, in John 6, the crowd says the same thing to Christ, yet Christ does not work another sign for them. Instead, He says: “You have seen me and yet do not believe.” He tells them that they had already received more than enough evidence to come to faith, and yet still they do not believe.

What is it that could explain the difference between the woman at the well and the crowds who had seen Christ’s work just the day before? Jesus told the woman at the well mere words, indicating knowledge that no one else could have possibly known. He did a far greater work in feeding 5,000 people with food created ex nihilo. Yet the woman believed on the basis of a lesser work, and the crowd who received a much greater work did not believe. Why did this happen?

Christ will explain it as we continue. But first, He lays more groundwork:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:37-40).

This passage is very key to understanding how the Gospel functions. Remember what we read in John 5. The Son does nothing on His own accord. He does that which He sees His father do. And He does all that the Father wants Him to do.

What does the Father want? “That I [Jesus] should lose nothing of all that he has given me.”

Note the logic of the position here. The passage says all that the Father gives to Christ will come to Him. Then we have the second premise: “whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Logically, these two premises provide us with a firm conclusions:

Premise 1: All the Father gives comes to Jesus.
Premise 2: Whoever comes to Jesus is never cast out.
Conclusion: All the Father gives will never be cast out.

Jesus further links the phrase “will never cast out” to having eternal life, which is to say this passage is speaking of salvation. For we see another premise:

Premise 1: All the Father gives comes to Jesus.
Premise 3: None given to Christ shall be lost.
Conclusion: All that the Father gives to Christ are saved (or, negatively, None that the Father gives to Christ are lost).

Finally, Jesus links being given to the Son with faith itself:

1: All the Father gives to Christ are saved.
2: Everyone who believes Christ is saved.
Calvinist Conclusion: All that the Father gives to Christ will believe in Christ.
Arminian Conclusion: All who will believe in Christ are given to Him from the Father.

Up until this point, there is no reason for any disagreement between the Calvinist and the Arminian to enter into the discussion. The logic is very straightforward. But when we get to this final syllogism, there is a bit of ambiguity in the language thus far. That is, if one assumes, as the Arminian does, that we are dealing with corporate election, then those who are given to the Son must be those whom God foresees as having faith. The Calvinist, on the other hand, views this as individual election, and thus those who are given to Christ result in faith.

The question, as we continue in the passage, is which of these two conclusions is supported by the context?

First, let us examine the response of the Jews:

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:41-42)

The Jews understood that Christ was making claims of divinity here, that He had come from heaven. And instead of accepting Him, they grumbled. They pointed out that they knew His parents, and questioned how He could possibly be divine.

Jesus’ response was:

Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:43-44).

It cannot be stressed enough that this is in response to the Jews’ grumbling. Consider the flow of the conversation up to this point, which to paraphrase it for emphasis is like this:

Jesus: I am the bread of life. But you won’t believe. All that the Father gives me comes to me, and they all believe in me.

Jews: Bah, how can you say you came from heaven? We know your family!

Jesus: Quit complaining. I just told you that no one can come to me unless the Father draws him. You obviously are not one of that group, so you’ll never understand this.

As I said, it cannot be stressed enough that Jesus’ statement here is a response to the grumbling, and as such His response boils down to, “Stop grumbling. You aren’t elect so you won’t get it.” (And if you do have doubts this is Christ’s intent, it will become even clearer as we continue)

But secondly, we find in this statement the answer to which of the two conclusions drawn above (The Amrinian Conclusion and the Calvinist Conclusion) is correct. First, let us examine the logic of this verse by itself.

Jesus says: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” We know that this is a universal statement. But what happens to those who are drawn? “And I will raise him up on the last day.”

To be drawn by the Father is equivalent to being raised up on the last day. And as we saw earlier, being raised up means you have been given by the Father to the Son, and that you have faith in the Son. The universal negative—no one comes to the Son unless they are first drawn by the Father—means that it is impossible for God to be basing who is given to the Son on faith. Instead, faith itself must be the result of having been given by the Father to the Son.

Jesus’ next words confirm this:

It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life (John 6:45-47).

Again, note that it is God who teaches His chosen, and everyone who hears from the Father comes to Christ. Jesus immediately links this to faith: “whoever believes has eternal life.” It is important to note that in the context, we see that being taught by God is equal to having faith in Christ; and we see that being taught by God is also equal to being drawn by the Father. In other words, the conclusion this passage forces us to make is that the very drawing of the Father simply is the exercise of faith in Christ. If faith in Christ is being drawn by the Father in the context of this passage, then that means that the genesis of faith in Christ is in the Father, not in ourselves.

Jesus finishes by stating:

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh (John 6:48-51).

It is no surprise that the Jews still did not understand Christ here.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum (John 6:52-59).

Since this passage further links feeding on Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood to eternal life, we recognize that these are equivalent statements to having faith in Christ, being drawn by the Father, and being given to the Son by the Father. Furthermore, we see a connection: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.” Again, this fits the language found in John 5, where we see that the Son does only that which He sees the Father do.

The result of all of these statements was the opposite of what happened with the woman at the well. She believed, and many from her town did as well. But here, Jesus lost disciples:

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:60-65)

And this is the final nail in the coffin of the Arminian interpretation. As the dust begins to settle, we see the disciples grumbling about the difficulty of what Christ said. His response: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” Again, this fits with what we’ve read in John 1 and in John 3, when Christ said to Nicodemus that one must be born of the Spirit. Jesus’ words were spirit and life, and yet, as He pointed out, there were some who did not believe. John adds a parenthetical that Jesus knew from the beginning who would not believe and who would betray Him. But it is interesting to read the passage without this parenthetical. You get:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

And there, in a nutshell, we see the Triune purpose at work. The Father gives to the Son, the Spirit gives life to those who are given, and those who believe in the Son have eternal life. And no one can come to the Son unless it is granted by the Father precisely because the word of life is grasped only by those who have the Spirit.

And now we see the aftermath of this teaching:

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him (John 6:66-71).

Jesus’ message cost Him disciples. Yet the true disciples, chosen by God, understood that His words were the words of eternal life. They believed in Him, except for Judas Iscariot, who would betray Christ.

So let us summarize the key points by looking at the premises alone once more:

Premise 1: All that the Father gives comes to Christ.
Premise 2: None who come to Christ are cast out.
Premise 3: None given to Christ will be lost.
Premise 4: Everyone who believes in Christ will be saved.
Premise 5: No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him.
Premise 6: Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to Christ.
Premise 7: Whoever believes has eternal life.
Premise 8: Whoever eats the bread of life will live forever.
Premise 9: Whoever feeds on Christ has eternal life and is raised in the last day.
Premise 10: The Spirit gives life
Premise 11: The flesh is no help at all.
Premise 12: The words of Christ are spirit and life.
Premise 13: No one can come to the Son unless granted by the Father.

It is my contention that only Calvinism is consistent with all 13 of these premises. And we shall examine the logic of this position in more detail in the next post.

In keeping with our themes running through the book of John, it’s time to examine John 5. The chapter begins with Jesus causing some controversy by healing an invalid on (horror!) the Sabbath. When confronted by the religious leaders for breaking the Sabbath, He said: “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (verse 17). The Jews knew precisely what Jesus was claiming at this point, and John tells us: “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (verse 18).

Jesus’ relationship with the Father takes on special emphasis at this point, and it’s a thread seen throughout the rest of John. We’ve already seen from John 1 that Christ is characterized both as being God and as being with God, which is to say that He is divine and yet distinct from the Father. In the relationship of the Trinity, the various Persons of the Godhead take up different roles. One of the biggest problems we in America have is understanding the fact that differences in function do not indicate differences in value, for as we shall soon see, the Son submits to the will of the Father—yet this does not make God the Father more divine than the Son.

Since the relationship of the Son to the Father will be a key point in John 6, it’s helpful to see it expressed here. This is not the first place keys to this relationship are mentioned in John, of course. John 3:35 tells us “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.” However, John 5 does begin to give us more in-depth meaning into the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

Jesus begins: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (John 5:19). From this passage, we see that A) Christ willingly submits to the Father and does “nothing of his own accord”; and B) He does everything that the Father does. The second half establishes Christ’s equality with the Father even as He takes on the role of doing only what the Father commands. Since Christ can, and does, do all that the Father does, He is no less divine and no less God than the Father is. Again, it is important to remember that a difference in function does not mean a difference in value.

Jesus continues: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing” (verse 20). In other words, even though the Son’s role is to be submissive to the Father, the Father loves the Son. This is not a relationship of spite and power struggles, but rather the perfect relationship—one that is only hinted at in even the most perfect of marriages (marriage being the most often used metaphor to describe the relationships in the Godhead). And since the Son does what He sees the Father doing, and the Father loves the Son, the Father shows the Son all the He (the Father) is doing, so that the Son can do likewise. And this is not a limited thing, for Jesus finishes verse 20 by saying: “And greater works that these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” In other words, God is showing Christ even greater works than have already been shown, so that Christ will do as the Father has done, and the result is that those who view it marvel—and in the process of marveling, give glory and praise to God.

Jesus next explains some of what these greater works are. “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will” (verse 21). It is important to note that not only does this passage yet again establish that “in him was life” (John 1:4) but that Christ will give such life “to whom he will.” This indicates yet again that Christ is sovereign over whom He gives life. It is His choice.

Jesus continues: “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (verses 22-23). Again, this emphasizes Jesus’ equality with the Father. The Father has given judgment to the Son, something that only God can do. As a result, whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father either. Father and Son are linked intrinsically; you cannot serve one and not the other.

Since all judgment is given to the Son, He can say: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (verse 24). Again we are told whoever has faith (believes) has eternal life. The Son is life, and to believe in Christ means you have “passed from death to life.”

This death to life transition is important. Jesus says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man” (verses 25-27). Again we see emphasized that both the Father and Son are said to “have life in himself.” Essentially, this means not only that neither can die, but that neither were created, for to have life in yourself means you are not dependent upon anything else for your life. Therefore, your existence is a necessary existence—you cannot cease to exist. And since Christ is sovereign over creation and because He can give life to whom He will, He promises that the dead will hear His voice and live.

Jesus continues: “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (verses 28-29). And here we see an important truth. Everyone will be resurrected, whether good or evil, not just Christians. Those who are saved by their faith shall be given the resurrection of eternal life; but those who reject Christ will receive the resurrection of judgment. But regardless, all will be resurrected.

At this point, some might wonder about whether Christ might become a bit of a loose cannon since He has this authority. But He says: “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me” (Verse 30). Again, Christ submits to the will of the Father. The Father has told Him to judge justly, and so He says, “As I hear, I judge.” But one of the critical things to keep in mind is the fact that Christ can do nothing on His own. He and the Father are One, and He does the will of the Father.

As for Christ’s judgments, he says: “If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true” (verse 31)—this was because the legal standard of evidence required two or more witnesses. Therefore, Jesus continues: “There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John” (verses 32-36).

John the Baptist was of course famous in those days, and taught Christ was the Messiah. As Jesus points out, John’s testimony corroborates His own claims. Yet He has even more evidence: “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent” (verses 36-38). So first the works He does are evidence Jesus was the Messiah, and secondly the Father Himself has borne testimony. Importantly, Jesus makes this connection: “you do not have his words abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.” There is therefore a connection between having the Father’s words abiding in you, and believing in the one He has sent.

And what are the Father’s words that abide in us? The Scripture: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (verses 39-40). Note here that Christ is saying that Scripture is the word of God. After all, He says “The Father…has himself borne witness about me” and then says of Scripture “it is they that bear witness about me.” So God the Father speaks through the Scriptures. The problem, therefore, was not that the Scriptures are incapable of providing knowledge for someone to have eternal life. The problem is that after reading the Scriptures that bear witness about Christ, the Jews “refuse to come” to him and have that life.

Jesus continues his argument: “I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (verses 41-44). Now He gets even deeper to the core issue. Those who do not have the words of the Father testifying to them, who don’t believe in Christ, “do not have the love of God within” themselves. They “do not seek the glory that comes from the only God” and therefore are condemned.

But Jesus concludes: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (verses 45-47).

The Scriptures spoke plainly of Christ. The Jewish leaders had access to this, and they searched the Scriptures seeking eternal life. Yet they did not have the words of the Father within, they did not have the love of the Father, they did not believe what they read. The fact of the matter is that simply having access to the Scriptures is not sufficient to save anyone.

So before we head off into John 6, let us recap what we have learned about the relationship of the Son to the Father, and about how it relates to the Gospel. First, the Father loves the Son. The Son does only that which He sees the Father do. The Son does nothing on His own; He submits to the Father. This difference in role is not indicative of a difference in value—Christ is just as much God as the Father is. Furthermore, we see that both the Father and the Son have the power of life. Christ has been given the authority to judge the world, and for those who read the words of His Father and reject them, it is by those words that they will be judged.

Additionally, we are now able to add some further information into the table on the Gospel we’ve already established, so let’s update that now:

As we continue in John, we will be focusing mainly on the areas where the Gospel is most clearly demonstrated. However, there are obviously some other important themes that crop up between those areas. One such theme relates to the expectation of receiving signs. We first see this demonstrated in John 1:43-51, where Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael as disciples. When Philip told his brother Nathanael that he had found the Messiah promised in the Law and that the Messiah was from Nazareth, Nathanael scoffed: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (verse 46). But Philip persisted and took Nathanael to see Jesus.

When they showed up, Jesus surprised Nathanael by saying, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” (verse 47). This being an unusual greeting, Nathanael understandably asked in the next verse: “How do you know me?” If we were to put it in today’s terms, it would be like someone you first meet poking fun at you by exclaiming, “Behold the perfect man!” and you respond with, “You don’t even know me!” But Jesus responds by demonstrating that He most certainly did know Nathanael: “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you” (verse 48). Given Nathanael’s response to this, it is apparent that the fig tree must have been in a wide open area where Nathanael could see all the surrounding countryside and know that there was no one there. Furthermore, given Jesus’ statement about how Nathanael was a “true Israelite” it is quite apparent that Nathanael knew Jesus knew what Nathanael had said to Philip, despite no one being around. As a result, Nathanael says: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (verse 49).

And now we get to the thread that will show throughout John. Jesus responds: “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe?” In other words, Jesus is fully aware that those who follow Him often do so simply because they see signs and wonders. Their faith is a faith in a magician, and not a faith built on love of who He is. And while Jesus promises that there will be even greater wonders that Nathanael will see, we will quickly find in the rest of John that it is not enough to seek out Christ just to see miracles.

Jesus’ interaction with those who seek signs is shown even more clearly in John 2:18, where we read: “So the Jews said to him, ‘What sign do you show us for doing these things?’” This moves beyond what happened with Nathanael, where he was given a sign he didn’t specifically ask for and immediately recognized Jesus was the Son of God, to the Jews demanding a sign. This continues through to John 4:48, where Jesus seems to criticize the official at Capernaum who asked for his son to be healed by stating: “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.”

A second theme that recurs is found in the beginning of John 2. This is where Jesus performs what is considered His first public miracle at the wedding in Cana by turning water into wine. This theme actually fits with what we’ve looked at in John 1 in the previous blog post, namely that everything that has been created was created through Christ (John 1:3, 10). Because Christ, as Creator, is sovereign over His creation, we see here that He is able to manipulate His creation to convert water into wine. Very similar to the potter and the clay motif, Jesus is here showing that He can make the world into whatever He wants. Later on, we will see that Christ can heal people with physical infirmities—again demonstrating His sovereignty over His creation. And when He feeds the 5,000 in the beginning of John 6, we will see that Christ’s power extends far beyond just manipulating what already exists into actually creating ex nihilo new things. Again, these miracles attest to His divine power by showing He is sovereign over His creation.

But while these things are definitely of note and should be examined by all Christians interested in the Scripture, I want to turn to focus on the next time the Gospel is expressed in detail, in John 3 when Jesus talks with Nicodemus. John 3:16 is probably the most often cited verse regarding the Gospel, although it only addresses one aspect of the Gospel. When we examine the entire chapter in light of the summary of the Gospel in John 1:11-13, we can see that John’s themes remain consistent throughout, and we can further tease out more information regarding each of those themes. Let us first recap the Gospel summary from John 1:11-13.

First, there are two groups of people in view. 1) Those who did not receive Christ when he came: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” 2) Those who did receive Him: “But to all who did receive him…etc.”

So we have the following:

Of those who did receive Him, we are further told they:

1. “believed in his name”
2. became “children of God”
3. “were born…of God”

To update the table:

This third point can be further broken down:

1. They were born “not of blood”
2. They were born “not of the will of the flesh”
3. They were born “not of the will of man”

Let us now examine John 3. The chapter begins (John 3:1-8) thus:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

The immediate parallels to John 1 are obvious, but let’s look at them anyway. John 1 tells us that we become children of God by being born of God; John 3 tells us that we must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God. This is fairly straightforward and by itself does not add new information to what we learned in John 1. However, Nicodemus’s response is one that most of us would have—how can we be born a second time, after we are already old?

Jesus’ response is to expand a bit on what we learned in John 1. See, John 1 tells us that we are not born of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man; John 3 explains this to us by stating, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The reason that we cannot be born children of God by the will of the flesh is because being a child of God is a spiritual matter, and the flesh can only beget flesh. It takes the Spirit to beget spirit.

Of interest is that Jesus uses the metaphor of the wind and compares that to the Spirit. In Greek, the same word is used for both “spirit” and “wind”, the word πνεύμα (pneuma), so the play on words is even more obvious there. But note carefully what is said: “The wind blows where it wishes.” Not only that, but “you do not know where it comes from or where it goes.” From our perspective, the wind is capricious and unpredictable, impossible to pin down, incapable of being boxed in. “So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” The metaphor Christ uses can only make sense if the Spirit’s work is not conditioned upon anything in the person who is born of the Spirit.

In other words, this very statement only makes sense in light of unconditional election. For Arminians who believe in a conditional election, this would mean that we could, in theory, know “where it comes from or where it goes” because we could see what satisfies the condition (usually, preexisting faith). But being born of the Spirit must have some element that, from the human perspective, appears to be almost random. And that could only be the case if election is unconditional.

John 3 continues (verses 9-21):

Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

This passage gives us a lot more information on those who do not receive Christ, including their motivations and reasoning, but it does also provide a little more clarification on those who accept Christ too. For one thing, we see that those who believe in Him will “have eternal life.” This is said both in verse 15 and verse 16. Furthermore, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned.” Finally, we see that the believing person “comes into the light” and for a specific reason: “so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

On the other hand, the nonbeliever “is condemned already” for not believing in Christ. He is judged, and the judgment is “people loved darkness rather than light because their works were evil.” The motivation for the sinner who rejects Christ is to stay out of the light: “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light.” The fear is that “his works should be exposed.”

After this, John 3 ends with the testimony of John the Baptist, who says (in verses 35-36): “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” This echoes the fact that to believe in Christ is to have eternal life. But we see that to not believe in Christ is the same as to disobey the Son. And the result is the one who does so “shall not see life.” Furthermore, “the wrath of God remains on him.”

We are now able to combine these facets together with what we learned in John 1 for our more in-depth view of the Gospel:

We are almost set to delve into John 6. Before we do so, however, there will be one more stop at John 5. But as this post is already lengthy, that will be the subject of the next entry.