The problem of evil and justice It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. Is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
@@a.39886 "and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures." God is upholding all of the universe by His power at all times
Praise be God for the work He is doing in mr James white he is truly gift by God to teach and it’s amazing the grace of God it changes a man. Not I but Christ who lives in me - apostle Paul
what is the program he is using that has the english and greek side by side and as you hover over the english word it highlights the greek word???? that program would be nice for study!!!!!
If you are saying all means all men without exception then you have to also change "draw" to "attempt to draw." All men without exception are not drawn to Christ. The elect in all in world are drawn to Christ effectually. I feel like I've had this discussion many times with Arminians, Molinists and other supporters of prevenient grace.
*If you are saying all means all men without exception then you have to also change "draw" to "attempt to draw."* How does this follow? You're conflating ideas here. The verb "draw" makes zero claims or inferences regarding a final result after the drawing. A person is either drawn to something or they are not. What they do after the drawing has no bearing on whether or not they are drawn. An arminian would say that someone can be drawn to Christ but ultimately not repent. There is no "attempt to draw". You're assuming an effectuality with the word, but the Bible does not. Nehemiah 9:30, in the LXX, helkuo is used of God drawing Israel to repentance by His Spirit, and it shows that the Spirit’s drawing was resisted. This was the Spirit’s action upon them for the divine purpose of turning them back to the Lord, and the key is that the word translated ‘bore’ is actually the word used in John 6 for ‘draw’. Same Greek word that calvinists insist must refer to an irresistible drawing, is used in the LXX, which the early church generally used for its Bible, to refer to God drawing Israel to repentance by His Spirit, but that was resisted. This should really be translated in the English of both the Hebrew and Greek, ‘But you drew them’. Hosea 11:4 / I drew them (helkuo) with cords of a man, with the bonds of love, and I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws, and I bent down and fed them. They will not return to the land of Egypt, But Assyria, he will be their king because they refused to return to Me.
@@TKK0812 Words can be used differently in different passages and the context usually determines the meaning. In virtually all languages however a verb is an action of sorts, but you seem to be saying that this one particular type of verb, "draw" effectively does nothing. It is an action-less action. I don't find this at all convincing. This drawing in your interpretation doesn't effectively produce repentance and faith in those who are "drawn". It does not even change their attitude or their minds. What does it actually do then in your understanding? God "draws" them but they are not "drawn".. Why is the verb directed to men then and not God if it does not affect them but him? Other uses of this verb in the NT refer to people being dragged into court. It can be used to mean draw water from a well. These examples demonstrate an action that does produce a desired result. The action of drawing results in the people or objects being drawn as you would expect from a verb. You used an old testament example (Nehemiah 12:30) from the Septuagint to attempt to demonstrate that sometimes the drawing to salvation is of no effect and therefore nullify or water down Jesus use of it in John 12:32 and John 6. This is a bad example and somewhat disingenuous because a straightforward English translation of the original Hebrew does not use the verb draw in that verse and certainly not in the context of drawing individuals to repentance. Secondly some versions of the Septuagint do not use elkuo in this verse such as this www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=17&page=9 The English translation in the ESV states Nehemiah 9:30 "Many years you bore with them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. Therefore you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands". Certainly the concept of God inviting and exhorting His covenant people to obey Him is present, but drawing them to repentance is stretching the meaning. In any case God's dealings with the nation of Israel collectively should not be used as a direct correlation of how he draws individuals to Christ in the NT. Similarly the verse in Hosea does not say or imply "I attempted to draw them to salvation but they rejected my grace". It says that God showed kindness and love and provision to the people of the nation of Israel but that most did not appreciate what God had done for them and lived lives of selfishness and ingratitude instead of fearing and loving and obeying him. In any case the drawing cannot be inferred to have conferred saving grace in each and every case and I doubt that any commentator would understand it in that way. So, returning to John 6 and the actual context which advocates of prevenient grace attempt to change/undermine by drawing a correlation with John 12:32 and use of the phrase "all men" (which is not a direct translation of the Greek). There is a correlation in the original passage in John 6, but it is not between being drawn and repenting but rather being drawn to Christ and being given to Christ by the Father. John 6:44 "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." Not a good start for the prevenient grace position since those drawn are also those who are resurrected in a state of glory. John 6:65 "And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” So to be drawn to Christ is to be granted to Him by the Father or to have it (the ability) granted or gifted to them. John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 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. 40 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.” 1) All those "given" to Christ by the Father will certainly come - This is not prevenient grace but efficacious grace. 2) Jesus came to do, not attempt to do, the will of the Father. 3) God will is that everyone that He gives to the Son will certainly come to the Son in faith, and that having come they will be kept in their faith and none will be lost but they will all be raised in a state of glory and inherit eternal life. That is the context and message of John 6. There should be no correlation drawn between that and John 12:32. Regardless the word "men" is absent from John 12:32. It simply says all, which can mean all types of people or all those who are inwardly called by God etc.
@@philblagden Thanks for the response, Phil. There are a lot of inaccuracies I want to address, but I want to keep this simple because I don't think our conversation can even get off the ground until we nail down this first point of "drawing". *In virtually all languages however a verb is an action of sorts, but you seem to be saying that this one particular type of verb, "draw" effectively does nothing. It is an action-less action* I actually never said this. You're assuming an effectual outcome from the drawing, but that's your influence stemming from your reformed perspective. I said that the verb makes no claim as to the final outcome of the drawing. Let me repeat. The verb makes no claim as to the final outcome of the drawing. It's like saying that everyone who is tempted will sin, otherwise "tempting" is an action-less action. Well no, because Jesus was tempted and did not sin. That verb peirazetai (tempted) says nothing about what happens after or the effectuality of the tempting. It simply means to tempt. In the same way, you are presupposing an effectuality of the drawing, when in reality the word just means "to draw" and again makes no claims as to the effectuality of the drawing. And it isn't an action-less action, because the drawing is what God does, so our ultimate response to the drawing factors in none. You're only assuming it has to because of your reformed lenses you are viewing this through. So God does draw, and we are drawn, but you're adding in another layer saying it has to also include an effectual outcome otherwise it can't be drawing. The logic and grammar just simply doesn't follow. Now, what we actually can debate is whether it's best understood as "dragging" or "drawing", but it's completely inaccurate to say that a non-reformed perspective must view it as "attempted to draw".
@@TKK0812 So Jesus says "I WILL (definite article) draw all to me" and you say "hold on there Jesus, nobody will be drawn for sure unless they permit it" and yet you say that I am the one reading my theology into the text. You haven't defined ANYTHING about the meaning of drawing except to say that in your opinion Jesus can draw someone, yet the end result is that they are not at all drawn to Him and still reject Him. Again, what exactly does the drawing do? You have only defined what you think it does not do, which is to say it does not do what it implies but fails in that regard. Your parallel to tempting is of no practical use. When Satan tempted Jesus, Jesus was actually tempted, not in the sense that he wanted to sin but that he was presented with a temptation to take a shortcut to power or satisfy his physical cravings and he rejected the temptation because all consuming passion was to glorify the Father by completing the mission He was sent to do and He hated sin with all His being. Giving in to sin and being tempted are not the same thing. The effectual nature of being drawn to Christ, which is the consequence of being granted or given to Christ by the Father is stressed over and over in John 6. "All the Father gives me, will come to me." "No one can come unless it is granted to them by the Father." "No one can come unless the Father who sent me draws Him and I WILL raise Him up on the last day." When Jesus says I will raise Him up on the last day who is he referring to if not to the one drawn by the Father? "Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me." The Father gives some people to the Son, and all of those people come as a result of their being given. The Father teaches some people of Christ and grants them the ability to hear. All those who hear the Father and are taught by Him do effectually come to the Son in Faith. If all are drawn, why are not all given to the Son by the Father? If all are drawn why do some not hear from the Father? If all are drawn, why are not all taught by the Father? Those who hear from the Father and are taught by Him WILL come to the Son. If He is drawing everyone, why not teach them all and cause them to hear?
@@philblagden Phil, I am not denying that Jesus will draw. I also said that we are free to debate the nature of the word helkuo given you see it as somewhat akin to "drag" and I do not. But you continue to miss the point in that there is actually a legitimate biblical and grammatical case to be made to see draw as not being effectual. My comment about you reading your theology into the text was only to point out that it is not allowing you to understand my position, not that I was arguing which view is actually correct. You said in your original post that a non-reformed perspective *must* read it "attempt to draw". *Must* . That is false. My objection is to that claim only right now. I'm not attempting to refute your position on the text. Your complete dismissal of my "temptation" analogy demonstrates that you aren't comprehending what I am saying. You wrote: *Giving in to sin and being tempted are not the same thing* I agree. You are proving my point for me. I wrote in the post before: *It's like saying that everyone who is tempted will sin, otherwise "tempting" is an action-less action. Well no* You attempted to correct me when I had already agreed with the point. You're demonstrating that you aren't carefully reading what I am saying. Just like the word "temptation" makes no claim or inference about the final result of the tempting, the "drawing", *in my view* , makes no claim about the result of the drawing. I could be drawn by an employer to take a certain position by them offering flexible hours, a large salary, vacation etc. I could say the employer drew me in with it's offer. That does not mean I had take the job. It doesn't mean that I didn't take the job. It just means I "was drawn". They didn't "attempt to draw". Again, I know you disagree. I'll happily discuss the nature of the word helkuo and walk through John 6 with you. But I am telling you that your original post is patently false. Can you repeat my position back to me and attempt to steel man it so I know you understand it?
Don't forget, Jews considered Gentiles as "dogs" and even while Jesus was with them they had not understood "mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 3) That's why Peter had to have the vision in Acts 10 of the sheet coming down from heaven and had to be told not to call unclean what He has called clean (Gentiles). That's why Peter then had to explain to his Jewish brothers that "God had granted repentance unto the Gentiles" (Acts 11:18) This is what the "All Men" verses in the bible mean; All people groups or people from *every nation, tribe, people and language* OR put another way, *NOT JUST JEWS* It does not mean "Every single person."
Jesus scared of death? What about this verse? 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Jn 10:18.
Jews and Gentiles = all men. Whenever God's word goes out,it always accomplishes whatever it was sent out to do,it never returns void. So,does the Gospel always save people everytime a person hears it? No,sometimes it causes them to hate Christ and Christians even more ,then this is what it is meant to do in their case.
Chance is no -thing. Grace is effective and irresistible. Humanity is clearly not neutral but hostile. Isaiah 6 is quoted by Jesus as a judgment constantly. Mark 4 Parables as a Judge.
@@MaiaGothmog Bots have been out of control on youtube lately. He sounds like a badly written markov chain, though I'm not sure what reference text he would be using. To respond to your op, White is using the Greek. He just has an English version up for reference. The English version doesn't matter for his point.
Honestly, just simply the removal of "men" makes this verse make more sense in the Calvinistic sense. Is it truly true that men isn't in the Greek? The lsb needs to italicize it
I think the Greek implies "men" i.e. "ανθρωποι". But no, it's not in the Greek. It just says "πάντας" i.e. "all". Also, James is using the NASB 1977 in his presentations.
Cuz freaks know. Freaks always know, but regular folks don't. Too dull and ordinary. Thank Christian hustlers for the chronically spiritually constipated and the wonderful Holy Water enemas that relieve those - ready to be milked of credibility, cash and dignity.
@@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152 Now that you have the Internet, you can finally type Moses online and discover that there's no evidence for Exodus and Moses. Folks are always astonished when they read their spiritual plane tickets, Dude. 2 years ago? Really? Now I am here with no comedy, Dude. Let's chat!
That's true if all men would be drawn to the cross, the fact is in the world not all men drawn to it. So it talk about two group, as the jewish see the world, as jews and gentiles, not refer to a single individuals. And we know from the bible too that "not all Israel called israel", so as "not all the jews and gentile" are the jews and gentiles that drawn to the cross. And it sit harmony with what Jesus said about they who didn't believe; He said that someone believe because the Father drawn him to Jesus. So it's not that every single person would drawn to His cross, but by the grace, mercy and purpose of the election by the God the Father.
Jesus did not fear death because he knew that he would be resurrected to life again on the third day Matthew 12:39, 40. What Jesus rightly feared was that through him being accused and sentenced to death for blasphemy his fathers name would be besmirched. Jesus want to glorify and sanctify his fathers sovereignty. John 17:4. Jesus was never fearful of sin for he was a perfect man without sin. Hebrews 4:15.
Christian universalist don't not believe all will be saved with no consequence. what we believe is that we will all be reconciled to God through Correction. 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved-even though only as one escaping So then, he that is left without chastisement is so left by the Divine judgment, and God is long-suffering towards some sinners, not without reason, but because it will be good for them, having regard to the immortality of the soul and eternal life, that they be not too soon assisted in the attainment of salvation, but be slowly brought thereto after they have had experience of much evil. For as physicians, though they might quickly cure a man, will adopt the opposite of remedial measures whenever they suspect lurking mischief, because by so doing they mean to make the cure more permanent, and think it better to keep the patient for a long time in feverishness and sickness, so that he may make a sounder recovery, than that he should soon seem to pick up strength, but suffer a relapse, and the too hasty cure prove to be only temporary: so God also, knowing the secrets of the heart and having foreknowledge of the future, in His long-suffering perhaps lets things take their course, and by means of outward circumstances draws forth the secret evil, in order to cleanse him, who through neglect, has harboured the seeds of sin; so that a man having vomited them when they have come to the surface, even if he be far gone in wickedness, may afterwards find strength when he has been cleansed from his wickness and been renewed. For God governs the souls of men, not, if I may so speak, according to the scale of an earthly life of fifty years, but by the measure of eternity; for He has made the intellectual nature incorruptible and akin to Himself; and the rational soul is not debarred of healing, as if this present life were all. I believe in a Good parent not moloch.
Nobody said that. The atonement is accomplished and has already saved everyone whom it was intended for outside of time. We creatures are inside of time and some elect have yet to come to faith and to even be born yet.
The problem of evil and justice It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. Is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
Jesus died for the sins of the entire World. There are so many clear verses that state this that to ignore them and to state that he did not is to deny the plain reading of scripture. Here are several verses that show that Christ did indeed die for the sins of the world. "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” John 6:51 Notice how he says he gives his flesh for the life of the World. Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. Romans 5:18 Paul compares what Adam done to what Christ has done since he is the second Adam and says that both actions affected all men. "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 2 Corinthians 5:14 "Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 This verse says that Christ has reconciled the World to God this is why Jesus commands us to go into all nations preaching the Gospel because he has paid for the sins of the whole world. "and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." Colossians 1:20 Once again Paul states that Christ has reconciled the entire World to God showing that Christ did indeed die for all. The reason why not all are saved even though Christ died for all is that not all believe. Ephesians says we are saved by grace through faith. God has abounded towards all men with his grace through Christ and we appropriate what Christ has done through faith. Hebrews 6 :12 says we inherit the promises of God through faith and patience. Romans 5:2 tells us we have access into this grace through faith. All of God's promises are appropriated through faith just as it was with Abraham who "believed God and it was credited unto him as righteousness."
You're problem is you think the word 'world' means everyone. It simply does not. You're dead wrong. 'World' refers to an "orderly arrangement". It's usually refers to a specific arrangement of people - not all people.
Your problem is that you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. Scripture in the plainest language possible says that Christ died for all not only using the word World but also in places like Hebrews it says “Christ tasted death for everyone.” The word used in this passage literally means all or everyone. Instead of accepting what scripture says you try and change the meaning of the word World. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it doesn’t mean what it says. In Corinthians Paul says that “if one died for all therefore all died.” Once again the word used means all or everyone. Isaiah 53 says “all we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” There are so many verses that even if you took out the verses that use the word World there would be enough to refute the doctrine of limited atonement.
The problem of evil and justice It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. Is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
@@a.39886 I would ask where do you get your standard of "good" and "evil" without God. Also I would add that God made everything good, sin and death entered after the fall of man so the problem of evil in the world is actually man's fault. I would also add that God is in control but does not control every event. When someone does evil it's not because God made them but because they chose to do so. That is why God has set apart a day when he will judge the world and all will give an acount of the good or evil they have done.
There's only one way to conclude/believe the word all does not mean all, and that's to be blinded by God. Now, lest you think I'm crazy for suggesting Mr. White has been blinded by God, consider Romans 11:32. What's much more crazy is believing John meant "all kinds" in John 12:32, and that the Greeks request to talk to Jesus in 12:31 proves it. Btw...I quite like James, and enjoy most of his teaching and politics, but the idea that the word all (pantas) NEVER means all in the NT, is absurd. 😄
So, you think the word “all” means every single individual and not people from every race, tribe, nation, and tongue? Then how do you explain the billion people who have lived and died since the crucifixion and resurrection who have never even heard the name “Jesus”?Let alone the true gospels of redemption? For example, what about the tens of millions of Native Americans who never heard of Jesus and the cross? Did Jesus draw them all to him? By your false teachings Jesus either lied or he failed. Proper exegesis of the text shows us that Jesus did not lie and he did not fail. He drew all men to himself. Not just Jews but men from every nation, tribe, and tongue. There are 25 million South Koreans on earth right now who have never even heard the gospel. Millions of them have died never having heard of the cross over the decades..Why didn’t Jesus draw them to himself if he meant that he would draw every individual person to himself? You need to step back and consider what your teachings on this are accusing Jesus of. A Muslim or Atheist apologist would eat you alive.
@shawnglass108 haha! Your last sentence was funny.😂😂 Why so much disdain for the Scripture inspired reality telling us Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD and He purged ALL sin? No one uses the words ALL or WORLD to communicate the idea you mentioned. (People of every kind.) That's one of the weakest Calvinist arguments going, and has no Scriptural basis. As for all the people who have never heard of Jesus: 1 - I pray that God opens the eyes of your understanding to see the absurdity of believing theyre all suffering torment forever. 2 - 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 tell us that Jesus preached the gospel to all those who died in the flood, which tells us hearing from Jesus also occurs after death. 🤓🤓🙏🙏
@ , So, you’re trying to recover from your heresy that Jesus failed to draw all men to himself on earth by completely destroying the Text where Peter says Jesus made proclamation to the Spirits by twisting it to say that you don’t have to accept Jesus in this life because You can do it after death? Even those who God condemned in the flood. Interesting. That’s what happens when you accept heresy. You have to keep adding heresy to cover for the other. I think I’ll just do proper exogesis on the text. Recognize that Jesus was going from a ministry only to the Jews to a ministry to all men. Every nation, tongue, and tribe..and he succeeded! No heresies needed. Amen!
I guess there’s no need to minister and spread the Gospel of Jesus to all ends of the earth. Jesus will just minister to them personally after they die. He’s a better minister than us anyway. Right?..and here I was thinking that people needed Jesus in this life to get to the Father. Silly me!
@shawnglass108 Did condescending sarcasm become a fruit of the Spirit? 😋 1 Peter 4:6 is reality. Jesus being the Savior of the world is the good news.🙏🙏🙏
What a brilliant scholar he is.
I hope he lives a long and healthy life and continues to provide this sort of instruction.
HALLELUJAH!! HALLELUJAH!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem of evil and justice It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. Is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
@@a.39886 "and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures."
God is upholding all of the universe by His power at all times
Bible makes it crystal clear that God is absolutely sovereign and reserves the right to choose his people from every tribe and tongue 🙏🏼☺️
He may not have chosen you then, glory to God right 😮
@@aarontaylor6156 "He may not have chosen you then, glory to God right"
ok servant of Satan
Why won’t he choose me?
Amen.
@@Joel-kw9tj why did God not choose me?
Praise be God for the work He is doing in mr James white he is truly gift by God to teach and it’s amazing the grace of God it changes a man.
Not I but Christ who lives in me - apostle Paul
what is the program he is using that has the english and greek side by side and as you hover over the english word it highlights the greek word???? that program would be nice for study!!!!!
I enjoyed this block of teaching - blessed assurance
If you are saying all means all men without exception then you have to also change "draw" to "attempt to draw." All men without exception are not drawn to Christ. The elect in all in world are drawn to Christ effectually. I feel like I've had this discussion many times with Arminians, Molinists and other supporters of prevenient grace.
*If you are saying all means all men without exception then you have to also change "draw" to "attempt to draw."*
How does this follow? You're conflating ideas here. The verb "draw" makes zero claims or inferences regarding a final result after the drawing. A person is either drawn to something or they are not. What they do after the drawing has no bearing on whether or not they are drawn. An arminian would say that someone can be drawn to Christ but ultimately not repent. There is no "attempt to draw". You're assuming an effectuality with the word, but the Bible does not.
Nehemiah 9:30, in the LXX, helkuo is used of God drawing Israel to repentance by His Spirit, and it shows that the Spirit’s drawing was resisted. This was the Spirit’s action upon them for the divine purpose of turning them back to the Lord, and the key is that the word translated ‘bore’ is actually the word used in John 6 for ‘draw’. Same Greek word that calvinists insist must refer to an irresistible drawing, is used in the LXX, which the early church generally used for its Bible, to refer to God drawing Israel to repentance by His Spirit, but that was resisted. This should really be translated in the English of both the Hebrew and Greek, ‘But you drew them’.
Hosea 11:4 / I drew them (helkuo) with cords of a man, with the bonds of love, and I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws, and I bent down and fed them. They will not return to the land of Egypt, But Assyria, he will be their king because they refused to return to Me.
@@TKK0812 Words can be used differently in different passages and the context usually determines the meaning. In virtually all languages however a verb is an action of sorts, but you seem to be saying that this one particular type of verb, "draw" effectively does nothing. It is an action-less action. I don't find this at all convincing. This drawing in your interpretation doesn't effectively produce repentance and faith in those who are "drawn". It does not even change their attitude or their minds. What does it actually do then in your understanding? God "draws" them but they are not "drawn".. Why is the verb directed to men then and not God if it does not affect them but him?
Other uses of this verb in the NT refer to people being dragged into court. It can be used to mean draw water from a well. These examples demonstrate an action that does produce a desired result. The action of drawing results in the people or objects being drawn as you would expect from a verb.
You used an old testament example (Nehemiah 12:30) from the Septuagint to attempt to demonstrate that sometimes the drawing to salvation is of no effect and therefore nullify or water down Jesus use of it in John 12:32 and John 6.
This is a bad example and somewhat disingenuous because a straightforward English translation of the original Hebrew does not use the verb draw in that verse and certainly not in the context of drawing individuals to repentance.
Secondly some versions of the Septuagint do not use elkuo in this verse such as this
www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=17&page=9
The English translation in the ESV states
Nehemiah 9:30 "Many years you bore with them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. Therefore you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands".
Certainly the concept of God inviting and exhorting His covenant people to obey Him is present, but drawing them to repentance is stretching the meaning.
In any case God's dealings with the nation of Israel collectively should not be used as a direct correlation of how he draws individuals to Christ in the NT.
Similarly the verse in Hosea does not say or imply "I attempted to draw them to salvation but they rejected my grace". It says that God showed kindness and love and provision to the people of the nation of Israel but that most did not appreciate what God had done for them and lived lives of selfishness and ingratitude instead of fearing and loving and obeying him. In any case the drawing cannot be inferred to have conferred saving grace in each and every case and I doubt that any commentator would understand it in that way.
So, returning to John 6 and the actual context which advocates of prevenient grace attempt to change/undermine by drawing a correlation with John 12:32 and use of the phrase "all men" (which is not a direct translation of the Greek).
There is a correlation in the original passage in John 6, but it is not between being drawn and repenting but rather being drawn to Christ and being given to Christ by the Father.
John 6:44 "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."
Not a good start for the prevenient grace position since those drawn are also those who are resurrected in a state of glory.
John 6:65 "And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
So to be drawn to Christ is to be granted to Him by the Father or to have it (the ability) granted or gifted to them.
John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 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. 40 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.”
1) All those "given" to Christ by the Father will certainly come - This is not prevenient grace but efficacious grace.
2) Jesus came to do, not attempt to do, the will of the Father.
3) God will is that everyone that He gives to the Son will certainly come to the Son in faith, and that having come they will be kept in their faith and none will be lost but they will all be raised in a state of glory and inherit eternal life.
That is the context and message of John 6. There should be no correlation drawn between that and John 12:32.
Regardless the word "men" is absent from John 12:32. It simply says all, which can mean all types of people or all those who are inwardly called by God etc.
@@philblagden Thanks for the response, Phil. There are a lot of inaccuracies I want to address, but I want to keep this simple because I don't think our conversation can even get off the ground until we nail down this first point of "drawing".
*In virtually all languages however a verb is an action of sorts, but you seem to be saying that this one particular type of verb, "draw" effectively does nothing. It is an action-less action*
I actually never said this. You're assuming an effectual outcome from the drawing, but that's your influence stemming from your reformed perspective. I said that the verb makes no claim as to the final outcome of the drawing. Let me repeat. The verb makes no claim as to the final outcome of the drawing. It's like saying that everyone who is tempted will sin, otherwise "tempting" is an action-less action. Well no, because Jesus was tempted and did not sin. That verb peirazetai (tempted) says nothing about what happens after or the effectuality of the tempting. It simply means to tempt. In the same way, you are presupposing an effectuality of the drawing, when in reality the word just means "to draw" and again makes no claims as to the effectuality of the drawing. And it isn't an action-less action, because the drawing is what God does, so our ultimate response to the drawing factors in none. You're only assuming it has to because of your reformed lenses you are viewing this through. So God does draw, and we are drawn, but you're adding in another layer saying it has to also include an effectual outcome otherwise it can't be drawing. The logic and grammar just simply doesn't follow. Now, what we actually can debate is whether it's best understood as "dragging" or "drawing", but it's completely inaccurate to say that a non-reformed perspective must view it as "attempted to draw".
@@TKK0812 So Jesus says "I WILL (definite article) draw all to me" and you say "hold on there Jesus, nobody will be drawn for sure unless they permit it" and yet you say that I am the one reading my theology into the text.
You haven't defined ANYTHING about the meaning of drawing except to say that in your opinion Jesus can draw someone, yet the end result is that they are not at all drawn to Him and still reject Him. Again, what exactly does the drawing do? You have only defined what you think it does not do, which is to say it does not do what it implies but fails in that regard.
Your parallel to tempting is of no practical use. When Satan tempted Jesus, Jesus was actually tempted, not in the sense that he wanted to sin but that he was presented with a temptation to take a shortcut to power or satisfy his physical cravings and he rejected the temptation because all consuming passion was to glorify the Father by completing the mission He was sent to do and He hated sin with all His being. Giving in to sin and being tempted are not the same thing.
The effectual nature of being drawn to Christ, which is the consequence of being granted or given to Christ by the Father is stressed over and over in John 6.
"All the Father gives me, will come to me."
"No one can come unless it is granted to them by the Father."
"No one can come unless the Father who sent me draws Him and I WILL raise Him up on the last day." When Jesus says I will raise Him up on the last day who is he referring to if not to the one drawn by the Father?
"Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me."
The Father gives some people to the Son, and all of those people come as a result of their being given. The Father teaches some people of Christ and grants them the ability to hear. All those who hear the Father and are taught by Him do effectually come to the Son in Faith.
If all are drawn, why are not all given to the Son by the Father? If all are drawn why do some not hear from the Father? If all are drawn, why are not all taught by the Father?
Those who hear from the Father and are taught by Him WILL come to the Son. If He is drawing everyone, why not teach them all and cause them to hear?
@@philblagden Phil, I am not denying that Jesus will draw. I also said that we are free to debate the nature of the word helkuo given you see it as somewhat akin to "drag" and I do not. But you continue to miss the point in that there is actually a legitimate biblical and grammatical case to be made to see draw as not being effectual. My comment about you reading your theology into the text was only to point out that it is not allowing you to understand my position, not that I was arguing which view is actually correct. You said in your original post that a non-reformed perspective *must* read it "attempt to draw". *Must* . That is false. My objection is to that claim only right now. I'm not attempting to refute your position on the text.
Your complete dismissal of my "temptation" analogy demonstrates that you aren't comprehending what I am saying. You wrote:
*Giving in to sin and being tempted are not the same thing*
I agree. You are proving my point for me. I wrote in the post before:
*It's like saying that everyone who is tempted will sin, otherwise "tempting" is an action-less action. Well no*
You attempted to correct me when I had already agreed with the point. You're demonstrating that you aren't carefully reading what I am saying. Just like the word "temptation" makes no claim or inference about the final result of the tempting, the "drawing", *in my view* , makes no claim about the result of the drawing.
I could be drawn by an employer to take a certain position by them offering flexible hours, a large salary, vacation etc. I could say the employer drew me in with it's offer. That does not mean I had take the job. It doesn't mean that I didn't take the job. It just means I "was drawn". They didn't "attempt to draw".
Again, I know you disagree. I'll happily discuss the nature of the word helkuo and walk through John 6 with you. But I am telling you that your original post is patently false.
Can you repeat my position back to me and attempt to steel man it so I know you understand it?
Link to full video?
Don't forget, Jews considered Gentiles as "dogs" and even while Jesus was with them they had not understood "mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 3)
That's why Peter had to have the vision in Acts 10 of the sheet coming down from heaven and had to be told not to call unclean what He has called clean (Gentiles). That's why Peter then had to explain to his Jewish brothers that "God had granted repentance unto the Gentiles" (Acts 11:18)
This is what the "All Men" verses in the bible mean; All people groups or people from *every nation, tribe, people and language* OR put another way, *NOT JUST JEWS*
It does not mean "Every single person."
Jesus scared of death? What about this verse?
18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”
Jn 10:18.
Jews and Gentiles = all men. Whenever God's word goes out,it always accomplishes whatever it was sent out to do,it never returns void. So,does the Gospel always save people everytime a person hears it? No,sometimes it causes them to hate Christ and Christians even more ,then this is what it is meant to do in their case.
Chance is no -thing. Grace is effective and irresistible. Humanity is clearly not neutral but hostile. Isaiah 6 is quoted by Jesus as a judgment constantly. Mark 4 Parables as a Judge.
I wonder if Dr. White's going to switch over to the LSB. He's using the NASB 1977 right now.
Brainwashing does not use gizmos, just dazzling wit.
@@martinkent333 What the heck are you saying bro?! You ok?
@@MaiaGothmog Brainwashing does not need gizmos, just dazzling wit and Holy water enemas.
@@martinkent333 You're literally spouting gibberish.
@@MaiaGothmog Bots have been out of control on youtube lately. He sounds like a badly written markov chain, though I'm not sure what reference text he would be using.
To respond to your op, White is using the Greek. He just has an English version up for reference. The English version doesn't matter for his point.
Honestly, just simply the removal of "men" makes this verse make more sense in the Calvinistic sense. Is it truly true that men isn't in the Greek? The lsb needs to italicize it
I think the Greek implies "men" i.e. "ανθρωποι". But no, it's not in the Greek. It just says "πάντας" i.e. "all". Also, James is using the NASB 1977 in his presentations.
Cuz freaks know. Freaks always know, but regular folks don't. Too dull and ordinary. Thank Christian hustlers for the chronically spiritually constipated and the wonderful Holy Water enemas that relieve those - ready to be milked of credibility, cash and dignity.
@@martinkent333😂 Are you doing ok?
@@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152 Now that you have the Internet, you can finally type Moses online and discover that there's no evidence for Exodus and Moses. Folks are always astonished when they read their spiritual plane tickets, Dude. 2 years ago? Really? Now I am here with no comedy, Dude. Let's chat!
@@martinkent333bruh
That's true if all men would be drawn to the cross, the fact is in the world not all men drawn to it.
So it talk about two group, as the jewish see the world, as jews and gentiles, not refer to a single individuals.
And we know from the bible too that "not all Israel called israel", so as "not all the jews and gentile" are the jews and gentiles that drawn to the cross.
And it sit harmony with what Jesus said about they who didn't believe; He said that someone believe because the Father drawn him to Jesus.
So it's not that every single person would drawn to His cross, but by the grace, mercy and purpose of the election by the God the Father.
A God centered gospel is repugnant to the flesh of men.
Jesus did not fear death because he knew that he would be resurrected to life again on the third day Matthew 12:39, 40. What Jesus rightly feared was that through him being accused and sentenced to death for blasphemy his fathers name would be besmirched. Jesus want to glorify and sanctify his fathers sovereignty. John 17:4. Jesus was never fearful of sin for he was a perfect man without sin. Hebrews 4:15.
Christian universalist don't not believe all will be saved with no consequence. what we believe is that we will all be reconciled to God through Correction.
1 Corinthians 3:13-15
13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved-even though only as one escaping
So then, he that is left without chastisement is so left by the Divine judgment, and God is long-suffering towards some sinners, not without reason, but because it will be good for them, having regard to the immortality of the soul and eternal life, that they be not too soon assisted in the attainment of salvation, but be slowly brought thereto after they have had experience of much evil. For as physicians, though they might quickly cure a man, will adopt the opposite of remedial measures whenever they suspect lurking mischief, because by so doing they mean to make the cure more permanent, and think it better to keep the patient for a long time in feverishness and sickness, so that he may make a sounder recovery, than that he should soon seem to pick up strength, but suffer a relapse, and the too hasty cure prove to be only temporary: so God also, knowing the secrets of the heart and having foreknowledge of the future, in His long-suffering perhaps lets things take their course, and by means of outward circumstances draws forth the secret evil, in order to cleanse him, who through neglect, has harboured the seeds of sin; so that a man having vomited them when they have come to the surface, even if he be far gone in wickedness, may afterwards find strength when he has been cleansed from his wickness and been renewed. For God governs the souls of men, not, if I may so speak, according to the scale of an earthly life of fifty years, but by the measure of eternity; for He has made the intellectual nature incorruptible and akin to Himself; and the rational soul is not debarred of healing, as if this present life were all.
I believe in a Good parent not moloch.
Nowhere in 1 corinthians 3 is Paul even close to talking about a universal reconciliation. Does not work in the flow of the chapter.
@@Terror1Void you must still need milk. I am sorry.
@10:08 he misspoke. He said the context is the Jews seeking Jesus and he meant to say the Greeks seeking Jesus.
I thought He was still saving people. Who told you He was done saving people?
Nobody said that. The atonement is accomplished and has already saved everyone whom it was intended for outside of time. We creatures are inside of time and some elect have yet to come to faith and to even be born yet.
Neoapolinarian??
Jesus did draw all to himself after he was lifted up. Pretty much the entire world has heard of Jesus.
These are two different things, all are drawn to Jesus, one; and two, the world has hrard of Jesus.
@@gregorybezanson The world is not drawn to Jesus because they like him. Most of the world hates him. They just know about him.
The problem of evil and justice It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. Is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
@@a.39886 You can fantasize any kind of god you want. The one I’m talking about is in the Bible.
@@aletheia8054 Yet the biblical god Nature is not all loving all merciful isn't that same biblical god?
Jesus Christ was afraid of becoming sin??
Jesus died for the sins of the entire World. There are so many clear verses that state this that to ignore them and to state that he did not is to deny the plain reading of scripture. Here are several verses that show that Christ did indeed die for the sins of the world.
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” John 6:51 Notice how he says he gives his flesh for the life of the World.
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. Romans 5:18 Paul compares what Adam done to what Christ has done since he is the second Adam and says that both actions affected all men.
"For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 2 Corinthians 5:14
"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 This verse says that Christ has reconciled the World to God this is why Jesus commands us to go into all nations preaching the Gospel because he has paid for the sins of the whole world.
"and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." Colossians 1:20 Once again Paul states that Christ has reconciled the entire World to God showing that Christ did indeed die for all.
The reason why not all are saved even though Christ died for all is that not all believe. Ephesians says we are saved by grace through faith. God has abounded towards all men with his grace through Christ and we appropriate what Christ has done through faith. Hebrews 6 :12 says we inherit the promises of God through faith and patience. Romans 5:2 tells us we have access into this grace through faith. All of God's promises are appropriated through faith just as it was with Abraham who "believed God and it was credited unto him as righteousness."
You're problem is you think the word 'world' means everyone. It simply does not. You're dead wrong.
'World' refers to an "orderly arrangement". It's usually refers to a specific arrangement of people - not all people.
Your problem is that you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. Scripture in the plainest language possible says that Christ died for all not only using the word World but also in places like Hebrews it says “Christ tasted death for everyone.” The word used in this passage literally means all or everyone. Instead of accepting what scripture says you try and change the meaning of the word World. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it doesn’t mean what it says. In Corinthians Paul says that “if one died for all therefore all died.” Once again the word used means all or everyone. Isaiah 53 says “all we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” There are so many verses that even if you took out the verses that use the word World there would be enough to refute the doctrine of limited atonement.
@@prohorizon1853
Are you elect of God?
The problem of evil and justice It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. Is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
@@a.39886 I would ask where do you get your standard of "good" and "evil" without God. Also I would add that God made everything good, sin and death entered after the fall of man so the problem of evil in the world is actually man's fault. I would also add that God is in control but does not control every event. When someone does evil it's not because God made them but because they chose to do so. That is why God has set apart a day when he will judge the world and all will give an acount of the good or evil they have done.
🤔....he makes a basic error.
*Contemporaries who walked at the same time as Jesus did on earth.
And all those AFTER he destroyed the realm of death.
There's only one way to conclude/believe the word all does not mean all, and that's to be blinded by God. Now, lest you think I'm crazy for suggesting Mr. White has been blinded by God, consider Romans 11:32. What's much more crazy is believing John meant "all kinds" in John 12:32, and that the Greeks request to talk to Jesus in 12:31 proves it. Btw...I quite like James, and enjoy most of his teaching and politics, but the idea that the word all (pantas) NEVER means all in the NT, is absurd. 😄
So, you think the word “all” means every single individual and not people from every race, tribe, nation, and tongue? Then how do you explain the billion people who have lived and died since the crucifixion and resurrection who have never even heard the name “Jesus”?Let alone the true gospels of redemption? For example, what about the tens of millions of Native Americans who never heard of Jesus and the cross? Did Jesus draw them all to him? By your false teachings Jesus either lied or he failed. Proper exegesis of the text shows us that Jesus did not lie and he did not fail. He drew all men to himself. Not just Jews but men from every nation, tribe, and tongue. There are 25 million South Koreans on earth right now who have never even heard the gospel. Millions of them have died never having heard of the cross over the decades..Why didn’t Jesus draw them to himself if he meant that he would draw every individual person to himself? You need to step back and consider what your teachings on this are accusing Jesus of. A Muslim or Atheist apologist would eat you alive.
@shawnglass108 haha! Your last sentence was funny.😂😂 Why so much disdain for the Scripture inspired reality telling us Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD and He purged ALL sin? No one uses the words ALL or WORLD to communicate the idea you mentioned. (People of every kind.) That's one of the weakest Calvinist arguments going, and has no Scriptural basis. As for all the people who have never heard of Jesus:
1 - I pray that God opens the eyes of your understanding to see the absurdity of believing theyre all suffering torment forever.
2 - 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 tell us that Jesus preached the gospel to all those who died in the flood, which tells us hearing from Jesus also occurs after death.
🤓🤓🙏🙏
@ , So, you’re trying to recover from your heresy that Jesus failed to draw all men to himself on earth by completely destroying the Text where Peter says Jesus made proclamation to the Spirits by twisting it to say that you don’t have to accept Jesus in this life because You can do it after death? Even those who God condemned in the flood. Interesting. That’s what happens when you accept heresy. You have to keep adding heresy to cover for the other. I think I’ll just do proper exogesis on the text. Recognize that Jesus was going from a ministry only to the Jews to a ministry to all men. Every nation, tongue, and tribe..and he succeeded! No heresies needed. Amen!
I guess there’s no need to minister and spread the Gospel of Jesus to all ends of the earth. Jesus will just minister to them personally after they die. He’s a better minister than us anyway. Right?..and here I was thinking that people needed Jesus in this life to get to the Father. Silly me!
@shawnglass108 Did condescending sarcasm become a fruit of the Spirit? 😋
1 Peter 4:6 is reality. Jesus being the Savior of the world is the good news.🙏🙏🙏
The title of this video should be Uncle Jimmy proves the Calvinist God doesn't qualify as "the Greatest Possible GOD".
So sad
Cuz brainwashing makes you a winner!!!!!!!
Careful don't use your free will wrongly and end up putting a bullet through your foot.
@@WasLostButNowAmFound Cuz Jesus Freaks always know........................................
No I think the title used is more accurate.
those that freely seek him. not Calvinism.
You never cease to amaze me how you can understand some scripture so correctly like you have here, and then get other stuff totally wrong.
Keeps you from making an idol out of Dr. White.
What topic does he have totally wrong?
Everybody falls in that category. Name a person in history who has every single doctrine & theology 100% right without any error.
@@adriaanj1808 ,.....Very true.
@@sinfulpirate ,.....He has many topics wrong. I do not keep a list of them handy, sorry.