Another Question for the Arminian

[John Bauer]

If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, ... [and I will] not lose one person of every one he has given me ...
(John 6:37-39)

 

[Josheb]

(josh pulls up a chair in anticipation) Can't wait to read the answer.


.

 

[ReverendRV]

If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, ... [and I will] not lose one person of every one he has given me ...
(John 6:37-39 NET)

That's bottom-line stuff...

 

[Rella]

If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, ... [and I will] not lose one person of every one he has given me ...
(John 6:37-39 NET)

Yes, indeed. Why?

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, indeed. Why?

I don't think that was a Yes or No question...

 

[Rella]

I don't think that was a Yes or No question...

The question was "If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?" Posted by @John Bauer

I merely agree that if God wants all to be saved, "WHY" does he not give all to the Son. No yes or no required.

 

[His clay]

If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, ... [and I will] not lose one person of every one he has given me ...
(John 6:37-39 NET)

While I'm not an Arminian, and I disagree with what I'm about to mention . . . Perhaps, the Arminian will say that the Father gives to the Son all those who He foreknew of their choice to believe.

 

[Carbon]

If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, ... [and I will] not lose one person of every one he has given me ...
(John 6:37-39 NET)

Well, either saving all isn't His plan, or there is another way of salvation.

 

[Carbon]

While I'm not an Arminian, and I disagree with what I'm about to mention . . . Perhaps, the Arminian will say that the Father gives to the Son all those who He foreknew of their choice to believe.

I'm sure some would say such

 

[Josheb]

While I'm not an Arminian, and I disagree with what I'm about to mention . . . Perhaps, the Arminian will say that the Father gives to the Son all those who He foreknew of their choice to believe.

Suppose that is the argument presented. Where would we find that in scripture because neither John 6:37 nor John 10:29 ever mentions the sinner's choice?

 

[His clay]

Suppose that is the argument presented. Where would we find that in scripture because neither John 6:37 nor John 10:29 ever mentions the sinner's choice?

I'll leave them to try to salvage an argument I already disagree with.

 

[Josheb]

I'll leave them to try to salvage an argument I already disagree with.

(i've got another chair)

 

[makesends]

His clay said:
While I'm not an Arminian, and I disagree with what I'm about to mention . . . Perhaps, the Arminian will say that the Father gives to the Son all those who He foreknew of their choice to believe.

Josheb said:
Suppose that is the argument presented. Where would we find that in scripture because neither John 6:37 nor John 10:29 ever mentions the sinner's choice?

I'll leave them to try to salvage an argument I already disagree with.

I'll play devil's advocate: While the word, "choice", isn't included in those two verses, it is in other verses, such as, "Choose you this day...", and also in other arguments such as the meaning of the word, "foreknowledge", and....nevermind...

 

[Hazelelponi]

play devil's advocate: While the word, "choice", isn't included in those two verses, it is in other verses, such as, "Choose you this day...",

I’d simply note that this is a clear example of lifting words out of their context. There’s a substantial difference between a gathered nation publicly ratifying the Mosaic covenant (Deuteronomy 30:19) and individuals being chosen by God according to His sovereign grace in salvation. The former—corporate covenant obedience under the law—does nothing to negate the latter, nor does it suddenly transform God’s sovereign election into a libertarian free will choice by man.

The shorter answers are better when responding to confusion as opposed to longer posts teaching, it's just about bringing forward the logical point, yes?

How do we know when to include more teaching? Or is it more like teaching logically?

 

[John Bauer]

While I'm not an Arminian, and I disagree with what I'm about to mention . . .

Duly noted. And I will play along accordingly.

Perhaps, the Arminian will say that the Father gives to the Son all those who he foreknew of their choice to believe.

That would work if John 6:37 said, "Everyone whom the Father gives me had come to me."

But that is not what it said.

 

[John Bauer]

If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?

You have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.
(John 17:2)

 

[makesends]

I’d simply note that this is a clear example of lifting words out of their context. There’s a substantial difference between a gathered nation publicly ratifying the Mosaic covenant (Deuteronomy 30:19) and individuals being chosen by God according to His sovereign grace in salvation. The former—corporate covenant obedience under the law—does nothing to negate the latter, nor does it suddenly transform God’s sovereign election into a libertarian free will choice by man.

The shorter answers are better when responding to confusion as opposed to longer posts teaching, it's just about bringing forward the logical point, yes?

How do we know when to include more teaching? Or is it more like teaching logically?

One phenomenon I have noticed is the demand with expected cooperation from the opposition, that the opposition deal with the "freewiller" on his own terms, answering him according to his own assumptions and precepts and even use of language. It is one of the things that marks those who insist on self-determination, that expects everyone, including God, to think in their way.

This is why, to me, arguing with them is almost fruitless, except that the Word of God will not return to him void, until they get a proper mind as to the person and nature of God himself. I almost always want to, but don't, start there with them. I don't because the logical sequence that flows from that is too long and full of confusion and reactions. But that's where it needs to start.