Arminian Rant on the Ordo Salutis

Billy is doing an excellent series on the ordo salutis at his Arminian Rant blog. Be sure to check it out.

Wrapping Things Up With Gordan on John 5:40

Gordan posted a response to my latest post concerning our discussion on John 5:40. He made the point to me that our dialogue was becoming cumbersome due the length of our responses. He suggested a cross examination to narrow the focus and end the exchange. In private e-mail we agreed that a cross examination would not be feasible due to time constraints and other factors. I offered to write a final response to tie up some loose ends with regards to his latest response. I promised him that it would be my last post on the subject and offered to give him the final word at his blog. Gordan decided that he would rather let me wrap things up over here instead.

I will not be quoting from Gordan in this post in order to shorten its length. If you are still interested in this exchange then I encourage you to read his latest response here to get the proper context for this post. I appreciate Gordan and all the guys at Reformed Mafia. They are passionate about Calvinism, but more importantly they are passionate about Jesus. I will only be addressing a few of his points below:

Regarding reductio ad absurdum:

Gordan spoke of real and genuine life in Christ beginning at an eternal decree. I mentioned that such a position was absurd and would amount to eternal regeneration of the elect. In his response, Gordan contends that he was positing this idea to demonstrate the absurdity of my own position. The problem is that it was never my position that the life of John 5 could refer to any kind of life. My argument was that it referred to the specific new life in Christ that includes and begins with regeneration when one comes to be in union with Him through faith. The person who was contending that the scope of life could go beyond what I was claiming for it was Gordan. In fact, that was his main argument and the comments concerning real and genuine life in Christ beginning at a decree of predestination was taking his position to an extreme and not my own. The only position, then, that Gordan reduced to absurdity with his comments was his own.

Now I think I understand what Gordan meant and said that I believed he misspoke. Gordan affirmed that he does not hold to a position of eternal regeneration, but that does not change the fact that the language he used says exactly that. If real life in Christ for the believer begins at an eternal decree, then we can only conclude that the believer has been regenerated from eternity. Gordan points us to Ephesians where Paul says that we were chosen in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world. This passage, however, does not help him for it does not teach that believers were actually in Christ prior to creation. It only teaches that God determined from eternity to elect believers in Christ. Election is in Christ and only believers come to be in Christ. Real and genuine life, however, does not begin until one believes and is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13). For Eph.1:4 to support Calvinism it must read “chosen to be in Him” but it does not. It can only refer to God’s eternal decree to elect believers in Christ. The only other option is to adopt the position that the elect were in Christ from before the foundation of the world, which would mean that the elect have always been alive in Christ, even prior to being born, which is plainly absurd and unscriptural.

Regarding the need for justification, and therefore faith, to precede life in Christ:

I stated that to assert that regeneration precedes faith is to have sinners attaining spiritual life prior to being justified. I explained that we would then have sinners having life prior to being forgiven on the merit of Christ’s blood. Gordan refers us to OT saints, saying that they were saved before there was any blood to apply. I agree that OT saints were saved prior to the cross, but they were still saved on the merits of the blood of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. Gordan would seem to agree. The point to remember, however, is that the OT saints were justified by faith (in a proleptic manner), and could not attain life until God made them righteous. By faith they drank of the Spiritual Rock that is Christ and attained life in Him.

Gordan raises an interesting point regarding John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. Union with Christ through faith is the God ordained principle for those who are old enough to exercise faith. Faith cannot be the condition of union with Christ for unborn and small children who lack the capacity for saving faith. Many Arminians and Calvinists believe that children are under grace prior to an age of conscious and deliberate rebellion (an age of accountability). If that is the case, then it is possible that this grace was applied to John in a proleptic sense to empower him for the unique ministry that God was preparing him for. The fact remains that for morally accountable adults the Scriptures clearly teach that one comes to be in union with Christ by faith and not before.

Regarding temporal order:

Gordan contends that part of my problem is that I am looking at this in a temporal sense. That is not the case. I am concerned with the logical order. That is the same thing that Calvinists are concerned with when discussing the eternal decrees. These decrees can have no temporal order, but they must have a logical order. This order is what separates infralapsarian Calvinists from supralapsarian Calvinists. Calvinists also generally have only logical order in mind when discussing the ordo salutis. That is the case with Arminians as well. I believe, with Gordan, that faith, justification, and regeneration happen instantaneously with regard to time. The logical order, however, is still significant. If it were not, then why is Gordan insisting that regeneration precedes faith? Our positions could be stated as follows:

Arminian: The moment one believes, he or she is regenerated.

Calvinist: The moment one is regenerated, he or she believes.

Gordan tells me that there is no causation in the text of John 5:40. He tells us that we are reading into the text by saying that “coming” in faith precedes having “life”. I agree that there is no causation there because I do not believe that faith causes regeneration. God causes regeneration when a sinner meets the God ordained condition of faith. That seems to be plainly implied when Jesus says, “you will not come to Me so that you may have life”. One must come [in faith] to receive life. I see an order of events there. If Gordan does not, then I don’t know what language could improve on it. We will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Regarding a wooden use of metaphors:

Gordan agrees that the language of John 5:24, and 25 is consistent with regeneration. He argues, however, that there are other metaphors for regeneration besides spiritual resurrection, and gives some examples. I don’t see how this invalidates the fact that John 5:24, and 25 is using a metaphor for regeneration. To say that there are other metaphors for the same thing does not help things.

I am intrigued by one of his examples. He cites the example of the Lord opening Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. He concludes that “opening the heart” is another metaphor for regeneration. Remember that Gordan’s entire argument boils down to saying that my claims that the life Jesus speaks of in John 5 includes regeneration are inconclusive at best; this despite the context containing plain regeneration language [or metaphors]. I cannot think of a more ambiguous passage that Calvinists use to defend irresistible grace than Lydia’s conversion. The text says that the Lord opened her heart so that she could respond to the gospel. The text does not say that the opening of her heart made her positive response inevitable. It is also worthwhile to ask if the heart the Lord opened to respond was Lydia’s old heart. The text gives no indication of a new heart being opened. If it was her old heart that was opened to respond to the gospel then this account beautifully portrays the Arminian understanding of enabling prevenient grace.

The point is that the context and language of John 5 seems to me to be far more conclusive than that of Acts 16:14 which Gordan has no problem seeing as a definite example of regeneration. Surely there is a lesson here for both of us concerning the ease by which we allow our biases to effect our exegesis.

Gordan also insists that I am being inconsistent by holding a wooden view of the spiritual resurrection metaphor in John 5 while making light of the dead in sin metaphor that Paul employs. Arminians do not try to water down the “dead” of being dead in sin. What Arminians try to do is understand it in a Biblical framework and consider carefully what spiritual death means. There really is no contextual warrant for correlating spiritual death with the inability of a corpse. There is good reason to view it in the context of separation from the spiritual life that can only be found through faith union with Jesus Christ. I would contend that it is more accurate to say that Calvinists use this metaphor in a way that the Scripture never intended, rather than saying that Arminians try to downplay the metaphor. Many Arminians would fully agree with the Calvinist understanding of dead in sin while laying the emphasis on the power of God’s grace to overcome that inability. In any case, I just don’t see any ambiguity in the description of passing from death to life and experiencing a spiritual resurrection in John 5.

There is much more that could be said, but I will leave it there. Gordan has given me the last word so I will not over do it. I am flattered that he thought my arguments were worth his time and I have enjoyed the interaction. We may disagree on the particulars of how God goes about saving sinners, but we are both in agreement that we owe everything to Christ and His amazing grace.

Gordan Takes Another Shot at John 5:40

Some of you may remember a short debate I had with Gordan from over at Reformed Mafia concerning the implications of John 5:40 with regards to the Calvinist understanding of the ordo salutis [Gordan Gives Me Props And Rebukes At Reformed Mafia]. Well, it seems that since the first “hit” was unsuccessful; Gordan has reloaded his Tommy-Gun for another go at me. He fires off plenty of rounds but still manages to miss his intended target (probably because he is too busy repeatedly shooting himself in the foot). Below is his latest unsuccessful attempt to wack me out.

His comments are in quotations:

"Recently, I was in a discussion with a friend (who claims to hate me, in a good natured- way, of course) who proposed that John 5:40 is the death knell of Calvinistic soteriology. I mentioned this claim in an earlier post."

I did not say that John 5:40 was the death knell of Calvinism. I do believe that it is one of many passages which destroy the Reformed view of the ordo salutis. The question being addressed is whether the Calvinist claim that regeneration precedes faith is Biblical or not.

"[For the record, I do not hate Ben (Kangeroodort) although I do have a big, big problem with his anti-biblical soteriology, and I in fact pity him for his choice of NFL teams.]"

For the record, I do not hate Gordan either. In fact, I think I have told him that I love him on more than one occasion (as a brother in Christ of course). Likewise, I obviously have a problem with his approach to soteriology and find it to be based more on the necessary implications of a theological system than on sound exegesis. As for the football comment, all I need to say is that both the Steelers and Cowboys have 5 championships to their credit (though it took the Steelers less trips to the Superbowl to gain theirs); the Steelers are 2-1 against the Cowboys in the Superbowl, beat the Cowboys the last time they played each other (with a rookie Ben Roethlisberger at the helm), and have a more recent championship to their credit….‘nough said.

Here is the verse in the NKJV: “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (This is Jesus speaking to the Jews who sought to kill Him.)

"Ben says this proves Calvinism is wrong. He is fairly certain that the “life” mentioned there must necessarily include Regeneration. He thinks that if I would simply read the text, I’d see that as an inescapable conclusion.

Spiritually dead people have to come to Jesus (i.e. believe in Him) in order to be regenerated. Ben sees that as straightforward, if only we Calvinists would read what the Bible says there.

But after pondering this for some time, both during and since our discussion at his blog, I am left where my objection began. That is, what is the textual evidence for the notion that the “life” of John 5:40 includes Regeneration? (And right here is where we may need a whole ‘nother discussion on what constitutes evidence…)

There are other options for what “life” might mean. It may be synonymous with “salvation,” which I think is not uncommon in John’s writings. Or, it may have to do specifically with “eternal life,” the glorified life post-resurrection.

In fact, I’d propose that this latter idea is suggested strongly by the context of the rest of John 5. (See especially verses 24-26, and 29.) In fact, in the verse right before the one in question (v. 39), it is “eternal life” that is expressly mentioned as that which the Jews have missed in their rejection of the Scriptures teachings about Jesus.

This does no harm to Calvinism. Every Calvinist would say that a person has to believe in Jesus in order to have eternal life."

There is a lot to deal with here. Gordan has been fair enough in representing my view that the “life” spoken of in John 5:40 must at least [if not primarily] include regeneration. Let’s take a look at the passages that Gordan cites in defense of his claims. It should be noted that I was the first one to refer to these passages in our discussion because I believed they further supported my interpretation. Gordan now brings them up as an attempt to bolster his own view.

Before looking at these passages (5:24-26 and 29), something must be said concerning his comment that, “[life] may be synonymous with ‘salvation,’ which is not uncommon in John’s writings”. I agree completely. This is probably the biggest difference in our views. Arminians do not see regeneration as a means to an end (the ability to put faith in Christ), but as the ends itself. Regeneration is the beginning of the new life (which is the eternal life that is found in Christ alone). It is, therefore, the beginning of “salvation”, which Gordan admits is synonymous with “eternal life”. For Calvinists, the purpose of regeneration is to enable (more properly, “cause”) faith in the individual which leads to salvation (i.e. eternal life). The Calvinist, then, sees things like this: life--> faith--> life [eternal life, salvation]. The Arminian sees things like this: faith--> life [eternal life, salvation, which begins at regeneration].

The text in question says, “But you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life.” Gordan believes that there must be another “life” hidden in between the “unwilling” and “come”. The “unwilling” necessitates a need for “life” so that one can “come” to have “life”. For him we should understand Jesus to really mean: “Because you do not have life, you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life”. I am arguing that Jesus has given us enough information without needing to insert a separate sort of “life” in between the “unwilling” and “come”. I think that Jesus is quite plainly telling the Jews that they must come to Him in order to have “life” (which begins at regeneration).

An important question, then, resolves around whether or not the “life” spoken of in 5:40 has any reference to regeneration (the new birth where life begins). I believe that it must, and found evidence for this in the same passages Gordan now refers us to (John 5:24-26, and 29):

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (verse 24)

Look at that last phrase, “but has passed out of death into life”. Doesn’t that sound like the language of regeneration to you? A transition from death to life is a perfect way to describe regeneration, and many Calvinist have described regeneration with that exact same language. Another favorite metaphor for regeneration is “spiritual resurrection” which is just another way of saying that one has passed from [spiritual] death to [spiritual] life. This is the imagery that Jesus now turns to in describing the life spoken of in this context:

“Truly, truly, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the Son of God, and those who hear shall live.”

Here Christ speaks of a spiritual resurrection for those who hear the voice of the Son of God. The previous verse [24] reminds us that hearing unto life includes believing, “…and believes Him who sent Me”. So what have these passages taught us? They have taught us that Jesus is describing the need for these spiritually dead Jews to experience a transition from death to life: a spiritual resurrection! Well what about verses 28-29? Don’t they have reference to the final resurrection? Yes they do, but we must let the context determine Christ’s purpose in looking forward to the resurrection event.

Jesus anticipates that the Jews will object that He has the power to grant new life. Jesus tells them plainly that He does have this power (verse 21, 24, 26) and that not only can He bring about a spiritual resurrection in those who believe in Him, but He will one day call the dead from their graves as well. However, Jesus is speaking not of a specific resurrection to life of believers in verses 28-29, but the general resurrection of the dead. The point Christ is making is that they should not be surprised at His claims to be able to grant life to those who believe since He will one day raise all of creation from the dead in order to judge them (verses 28-29). If He has been given the authority to do that, then surely He has been given the authority to give spiritual life to those who come to Him in faith.

Therefore, I think it is self evident that the context Gordan mentions actually argues against his position while lending further weight to my initial interpretation of the passage in question. Gordan has much more to say on this issue, however, so let’s hear him out:

"But Ben’s contention is that regeneration must be included in that concept because it is the starting point of eternal life. Can’t have the everlasting life in heaven without first being regenerated, after all. So, then, you have to come to Jesus to be regenerated, since it is the beginning point of eternal life."

[A few quick points here before moving on. Gordan has now correlated “eternal life” with “the glorified life post-resurrection” and “everlasting life in heaven”. While these are not improper ways to understand “eternal life”, the gospel of John does not view eternal life primarily in an eschatological sense. John primarily sees and describes “eternal life” as the present possession of those who are “believing”. This is true of John’s epistles as well (see especially 1 John 5:11-13 which is tremendously helpful in understanding how John uses “life” and “eternal life” interchangeably as a present possession). Perhaps he is uncomfortable with how this passage could favor my interpretation if eternal life is viewed as a present possession for those who believe, and therefore opts to define “eternal life” in a way rarely used by John.]

"A couple of problems with that:

1. It still doesn’t answer the question, Who will come to Jesus to be regenerated? How does a spiritually dead person decide to get resurrected? Ben believes in the doctrine of Total Depravity. I think he’d say, no spiritually dead person would choose to believe. But as an Arminian, Ben believes in Prevenient Grace. According to this doctrine, before any sinner may savingly believe in Christ, God must first grant a gift of grace that allows that sinner to overcome his totally depraved nature and make that decision from something like neutral ground.

In short, Arminian Ben sees the same dilemma the Calvinist does, in that no carnal man will or can receive the things of the Spirit (specifically, the Gospel of Christ.) Where the Calvinist solves this dilemma with the doctrine of Regeneration, the Arminian solves it with resistible Prevenient Grace. The two doctrines accomplish the same thing: they allow the sinner to obey the demands of the Gospel.

Now, here’s the catch for Ben. If John 5:40’s “life” must include Calvinistic regeneration (since that is the starting point of life in Christ) then why does Prevenient Grace get a pass? Doesn’t the Arminian process of receiving eternal life in Christ begin with Prevenient Grace? If so, then it is just as rightly included in the “life” of John 5:40 as the Calvinist’s doctrine of Regeneration. That is, they both stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ.

So, if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient Grace."

Gordan is really reaching here. His argument simply does not follow and seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of how Arminians view prevenient grace. I do not believe that prevenient grace must be included in “life” as he contends. The new life cannot be given until one exercises the God ordained condition of faith. This is the order presented to us by Jesus in John 5:40. The “come” of 5:40 is synonymous with faith, just as the “come” of John 6:44 is synonymous with faith. Jesus is therefore saying that one gains life through faith. Prevenient grace comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith. Prevenient grace is described in John 6:44 as a drawing. The Arminian then sees the ordo salutis as: draw [prevenient grace] --> come [in faith] --> life [regeneration, i.e. the beginning of eternal life and salvation]. This order is supported by comparing John 5:40 with John 6:44 [which is what initially provoked this debate]. The fact that one must first come before one can attain life in John 5:40 makes it impossible for us to understand the drawing of John 6:44 as regeneration. It must, therefore, have reference to prevenient grace as Arminians have always contended. Gordan has done nothing to prove otherwise. He has only succeeded in strengthening the Arminian interpretation by drawing (no pun intended) our attention to John 5:21-24, and 26.

Prevenient grace does indeed “stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ”, but that grace is not the same as regeneration. Prevenient grace enables the sinner to believe unto life. John 5:40 tells us that coming must precede life, and John 6:44 tells us that drawing must precede coming. That is exactly what Arminians believe concerning the ordo salutis and Gordan’s statement that, “…if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient grace” is a painfully obvious case of non-sequintur.

"2. Another problem with saying that Regeneration has to be included in any thought of eternal life, is this: why stop there? I mean, why not go back farther? You have to be alive in the flesh before you can be alive in the Spirit, right? So why not include fleshly life in the “life” of John 5:40? You can’t enter into eternal life by faith while you’re physically dead any more than you can believe without being regenerated. So, surely physical life stands just as vitally at the starting point of life in Christ as Regeneration does. Why include one and not the other, aside from the fact that it seems to help your argument?"

And I thought Gordan was reaching with his last comments. This argument barely deserves an answer. All we need to do is look at the context to understand what kind of life Jesus is referring to in John 5:40. We have done that above, and I am confident that any unbiased reading of the text would reveal that Jesus is speaking of a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life: a spiritual resurrection [i.e. regeneration]. Trying to bring physical life into the text is a desperate attempt to salvage an indefensible interpretation.

"Or why not go all the way back to God’s foreordination before the foundation of the world?"

And now Gordan has really given up the ghost.

"Calvinists would say Regeneration only happens because Predestination has already happened long ago, so why not extend the line back to the real, genuine beginning of life in Christ? So then, Jesus would be saying, “You refuse to come to Me, that you may be predestined.”"

Is Gordan really contending that “real” and “genuine” regeneration in Christ begins at some eternal decree? Wouldn’t that make the elect eternally regenerated? Is this really where Gordan is willing to take us in order to preserve his doctrine? Look at this statement again and let the absurd implications sink in:

“Calvinists would say that Regeneration only happens because Predestination has already happened long ago, so why not extend the line back to the real, genuine beginning of life in Christ?”

Surely Gordan misspoke and didn’t think very carefully about what he was saying since I am quite confident that he doesn’t believe the elect have been regenerated from eternity. I think that it is only fair that we give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

While Gordan’s statement is plainly and painfully ridiculous, he is actually on to something very important when he says, “life in Christ”. It is undisputable that spiritual life resides only in the person of Jesus Christ (John. 1:4; 5:26; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John. 1:2; 5:11; Col. 3:3, 4). It is just as certain that we come to be in union with Christ through faith (Eph. 1:13; 3:17). The born again believer is truly a “new creature”, but only “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17). Gordan’s belief that regeneration precedes faith puts him into the absurd theological position of explaining how someone can be given new life outside of union with the only source of life- Jesus Christ. He must also affirm that a holy God can give life to sinners before the blood of Christ has been applied, since he believes that regeneration precedes justification. His theology forces him to accept the unbiblical view that one can be born again before being forgiven (which is part of what it means to be justified). For more on this please see my post: Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

"So this is what I see as the conclusion of the matter, though I am certain others will disagree with me."

…including, I think, most Calvinists.

"As a Calvinist, nothing that John 5:40 says conflicts at all with what I believe is Biblical soteriology."

…which only further demonstrates that his theology controls his exegesis and not the other way around.

"I believe you must come to Jesus to have life. And, ta-da! I remain a five pointer."

…albeit a theologically confused and inconsistent five-pointer.

"The only way this text is a challenge to Calvinism is if you force two things into the text: First, you must force it to include Regeneration when it speaks of eternal life."

No need to force it, just allow the text to speak for itself as has been demonstrated above.

The problem is that there is no good reason to force it that way, and no reason to stop there and not include earlier necessities like Predestination. It can be read in a perfectly harmonious, straightforward manner without that. Second, I think you must conflate Regeneration and Justification. If the two are separate things, this supposed hurdle for Calvinism proves to only be about ankle-high.

The only one who is forcing things into the text is Gordan. The fact that Gordan has to resort to statements about including physical life in the context of John 5 and the absurd idea of eternal regeneration is sufficient proof of that. There is, furthermore, no hint of conflating regeneration and justification in anything I have said. It is true, however, theologically speaking, that justification must precede regeneration. If that were not the case we would have sinners enjoying the new life prior to being forgiven. This may not be the “death knell” of Calvinism, but it should certainly be the “death knell” of the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration precedes faith.

I appreciate the fact that Gordan and I may never see eye to eye on this subject, but I hope that he will at least admit that his initial charge that my understanding of John 5:40 was not based on sound exegesis was without foundation.

Recommended for further reading:

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

Does John 6:44 teach Irresistible Grace?

Does Jesus Teach That Regeneration Precedes Faith In John 3:3, 6?

Fletcher on Being Dead in Sin: Part 1 and Part 2

The Order of Faith And Election in John’s Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep [off site]

Gordan Gives Me Props And Rebukes At Reformed Mafia

Gordan from Reformed Mafia has been kind enough to devote an entire post to some comments I made in a combox at Triablogue. I thought I would return the favor by devoting a post to addressing his concerns. Gordan’s comments are in quotations. I made some spelling corrections in my original comments that Gordan quotes.

"I lifted this from the meta of a post over at Triablogue. Our sometime commenter/fomenter of dischord, Kangeroodort, a/k/a Ben left it there. I don't know that they'll answer it (although I may already be wrong about that) because it is off-topic, so I thought I'd interact with it a bit. The blue font below is all Ben's stuff."

I asked the following comment which has so far been ignored directly, but answered indirectly by saint and sinner:

In the meantime, I have a quick question for you regarding John 6:44. Do you believe that one can "come" prior to regeneration? If not, then I suspect you see the drawing of John 6:44 as a reference to irresistible regeneration. Is that the case?

Would you object to an interpretive translation along these lines:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me first regenerates them [gives them life]"?

S&S later said [concerning the contention that John 6:44 had reference to resistible prevenient grac]: "This is a basic exegetical error in interpreting John 6. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus is quoting the Prophet Isaiah. The quote comes from Is. 54:13, which is in the midst of a passage on the renewed creation and covenant. Like other passages in the prophets (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27), it is thus speaking about regeneration, not a preaching of the gospel which we must then decide upon. Thus, those who are "taught of God" are the regenerate."

So it would seem that the drawing of John 6:44 refers to regeneration in the Calvinist scheme. To say it refers to something less is to concede prevenient grace, which the Calvinist will not do. So it is quite reasonable to understand Jn. 6:44, in Calvinism, as saying: No one can come to be unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life].

I assume that S&S would also equate "come" with "believe" as most Calvinists do. So we could further define the passage as:No one can believe in Me unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life]. We could then simplify the teaching by saying, "no one can come unless the Father first gives them life."Therefore, the giving of life, according to Calvinism, must precede coming or believing. I dare say that no Calvinist would object at this point.

What then did Jesus mean when He said in John 5:40:"...you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. "Here Jesus plainly says that "coming" precedes the giving of life. This flatly contradicts the Calvinists interpretation of John 6:44 and renders such an interpretation impossible. In view of John 5:40, the drawing of John 6:44 can have no reference to regeneration.

God Bless,
Ben

"First, let me give Ben some props here for having a grasp on the Calvinist interpretation he seeks to argue with. I would state things a little differently than he has above, but not all that much. So, yes, it is the standard Calvinist interpretation of John 6:44, that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith."

Thanks for the concession and the “props”!

"See what a nice Calvinist I am, Ben. I gave you some props. In fact, I'll go ahead and give you some more. You have proven to me that you are a thoughtful Christian man who is zealous in the pursuit of truth."

I get props and I get called a thoughtful Christian man. Thanks Gordan, now I know you care.

"But, sadly, those last props come in spite of what you've written in this comment, and not because of it. After reading what you've written, I stubbornly refuse to believe that this is really how you go about studying the Scripture. I choose to believe better of you, in spite of the current lack of evidence. (I'm a hopeless fideist...)"

Oh, so much for the good feelings.

"1. It looks like what you've done here is this: recognized that the Calvinistic take on John 6 is all about who comes to Jesus and why, and you've seen it has something to do with the new life of regeneration. Then, you took some of those key words, specifically "come" and "life" and you've looked with your concordance for other places where the two terms occur in close proximity."

Actually I noticed this while studying all the relevant passages in John 5, 6, 8, and 10 where Jesus has similar discussions with the Jews. Believe it or not, I actually read the chapters. During this study I found some very interesting parallels which I believe render the standard Calvinist interpretation of these passages untenable [as proof texts for unconditional election, etc.]. I appreciate the attempt at mind reading though. What am I thinking now?

"Having found a place like that (John 5:40,) you've compared the way that place speaks of life and coming to Jesus and the way John 6 speaks of life and coming to Jesus. And, lo and behold, we see that you prefer the way that John 5 puts it, and have thus determined that the view you don't like, from John 6, must be wrong."

Actually, I was trying to harmonize the passages and not discard one in favor of the other. Thanks again for trying to read my mind. It is not about what view I like or dislike, but what view is accurate. I suppose Gordan would deny that Calvinists bring a lot of theological bias to the text of John 6.

"2. Let me illustrate why this is a truly horrible way to study the Bible. Let's say, as a Calvinist, I don't like the insistence that John 3:16 shows that God loves every individual in the world. And so, I hunt around in my Bible for other places that speak of the world, until I come to 1 John 2:15, where it says, "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.""Eureka!" I shout. "Now I've got all those synergists dead to rights! They'll never overcome this challenge from Scriptural fact, for I have proven that love for the world is really the opposite of God's attitude!"Does it not immediately occur to you why that would be really dumb?"

It is as dumb as it is irrelevant to the passages in John referring to coming to Christ, as we shall soon see.

"I'm sure it does, Ben, but for our readers let me spell it out: To do that would be to ignore simple considerations of context. Any synergist would be totally correct to then come and rebuke me for being too stupid to see immediately that the passages are not talking about the same things. And that's true, even though John 3:16 and 1 John 2:15 use the same key words, like "God" and "love.""

Back to the snide remarks about me thumbing through the concordance.

"A very simple, surface reading would show me, if I had bothered enough to check, that different things are in view. Again, that's true even though the same author uses the same key words: He's still talking about different things. The only reason I would possibly fail to see that is if I was so ideologically blinded that I was willing to deal fast-and-loose with the Word of God so long as I got to prove my point with it. And shame on me."

All this is very interesting. I agree that the context is very important as well as the meaning of words. I appreciate your illustration.

"3. Apprapos 1 and 2, you try to make your point here by citing a place where the same author uses the same key words, and you've simply assumed that the two different discussions are talking about the same thing."

Actually, I paid attention to context and the meaning of words just like you have so kindly recommended.

"4. But is the assumption of 3 above warranted? The discussion in John 6 is about why some come to Jesus in faith and are saved, and some do not. The matter at hand in John 5 is the sin of the Jewish leaders, who had refused to listen to any of the witnesses that God sent to them. Though they both have in common the presence of sinful unbelief, they really are two different conversations. In John 6, Jesus is explaining to His disciples the "why" of faith, and in John 5, Jesus is rebuking the Jews for the fact of their unbelief."

This is where it might have helped Gordan to carefully read the accounts. Oops, I should be careful not to engage in the same mind reading tactics that Gordan seems so fond of, so I will assume that he did read the accounts but just came to different conclusions. Since I am the one on trial here, I guess it is up to me to demonstrate that I did pay attention to context and the meaning of words.

Gordan is quite right that these are two different conversations. That does not mean that there are not important parallels. In John 5 Jesus is in dialogue with unbelieving Jews. The same is true in John 6. In John 5 Jesus is addressing the unbelief of these Jews. The same is true of John 6. In John 5:33 Jesus tells these unbelieving Jews that His words are intended to save them. This is an important part of the conversation:

“But the testimony that I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.”

Jesus actually desires the salvation of these unbelieving Jews. He wants them to have life in Him. This is the beginning of the dialogue which will eventually lead us to the passage in question. He tells them in verse 38:

“You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.”

The reason these Jews will not accept Jesus is because they are not in right relationship with the Father. They have not accepted the testimony of Scripture and are, therefore, unable to accept the living Word. Because they have rejected the Father, they cannot recognize the perfect revelation of the Father in Christ. Jesus further explains this in verses 44-47. The passage in dispute, however, is John 5:40:

“…and you are unwilling to come to me so that you may have life.”

Gordan will admit that “come” in this passage is synonymous with “believe” but takes issue with “life” having any reference to regeneration [see his comments below].

The passage in its immediate context reads:

“You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” [John 5:38-40]

It is clear from verse 38 that these Jews are in a state of rejection and unbelief. They must, therefore, be spiritually dead. Jesus then tells them that the Scriptures they study will not give them the eternal life they desire and need because they refuse to come to the One of whom those Scriptures testify. The “life” of verse 40 must be the “eternal life” of verse 39. These Jews are dead in their sins and in need of life. Jesus is telling them that in order for them to have life they must come to [believe in] Him.

This is the same theme being discussed in John 6:44. The one’s who come to Christ are those who have learned from the teaching of the Father [John 6:45]. The Jews in John 6 had not learned from God and were therefore not in right relation to Him. Just like the Jews in John 5 who had read the Scriptures but not submitted to them, they were unable to recognize Christ. Had they been in right relation with the Father, they would have responded to the drawing of Christ’s words and came to Him in faith. They could not hear Christ’s words because they had not listened to the Father [compare John 8 and 10]. They rejected the Son because they first rejected the Father who sent Him. Had they known the Father, they would have known the Son and been given to Him.

Gordan continues:

"In addition, I would grant that the "coming" of both passages is a metaphor for faith in Christ. But it is truly a stretch to assume that the "life" the Jews were actively refusing in John 5 is the new spiritual life of regeneration. Can you not see in the passage itself that there are different sorts of "life?" I mean, the Jews were certainly "alive" in one sense, and yet had refused another sort of life. How you conclude that they were refusing regeneration specifically, and neither the spirit-life of faith in Christ (as in Romans 8) nor eternal life with Him in heaven is beyond me. Regeneration is certainly not the focus in John 5: faith in Christ is."

I admit that I have difficulty understanding what Gordan is trying to say here. He is quite right that the Jews were alive in some sense [physically], but because they were spiritually dead, it was spiritual life that they needed. Theologians are in general agreement in calling the beginning of this spiritual life “regeneration”. Gordan seems to think that there is a spiritual life that one can have without first being regenerated. He refers us to Rom. 8 for clarification, apparently forgetting his previous stern rebuke concerning comparing unrelated passages. As He himself admits, Rom. 8 is dealing with the Spirit walk of the believer, and not the topic of conversion from death to life. John 5 is dealing with the need for conversion and the life that comes from an initial faith response. I wonder when Gordan believes the spirit life of Rom. 8 begins? How about the eternal life of John 5:39? Should we not assume that it begins at regeneration? Does not regeneration have reference to the beginning of new life? This is exactly what Jesus is addressing in John chapter 5. The unbelieving Jews cannot begin to experience life until they put faith in [come to] Jesus Christ.

Despite all of this, Gordan then makes the very bold claim: “Regeneration is certainly not the focus in John 5: faith in Christ is.” Gordan is right that faith is part of the focus of this passage, but it is just as true that the result of that faith is in focus as well. All one has to do is read the words Jesus uses and the context of the passage to see this. No concordance necessary.

While I appreciate Gordan trying to educate me in proper exegesis, I think I will stick to the my own method.

Gordan concludes his thoughtful treatment with the following:

"5. And many such things you (synergists, generally) do. Use a passage that isn't about why some believe and some don't in order to argue with the grammatical-historical exegesis of a passage that plainly is. Another example of this sort of argumentation is the resort to John 12 to blunt the force of John 6. (Hey, they both mention a drawing of men to Christ: It has to be the same...except that it's obviously different. But still, the one in John 12 is more likeable, so let's go with that one.)"

I would invite Gordan to read the post I wrote concerning the drawing of John 12:32 compared with the drawing of John 6:44. I would especially like to see him grapple with the theological absurdities I exposed in his position that regeneration precedes faith in my post “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?”.

Till then…

Fletcher on Being "Dead in Sin" Part 2

Fletcher demonstrated that the Scriptures use the word "dead" in more than one way, and to understand the term "dead" with regards to spiritual issues as meaning dead as a physical corpse renders many of these passages, like Rev. 3:1-4, nonsensical. Fletcher also demonstrates the inconsistency in Calvinist thought between what it means to be "dead in sin" and "dead to sin". He states:

"I wonder at the partiality of some persons. If we assert, that “strong believers are dead TO sin,” they tell us very properly that such are not so dead, but they may commit sin if they please, or if they are off their watch. But if we say, that “many who are dead IN sin, are not so dead, but in the strength imparted, together with the Light that enlightens every man, they may leave off some of their sins if they please,” we are exclaimed against as using metaphysical distinctions, and dead must absolutely mean impotent as a corpse."

I believe this to be Fletcher's most significant argument. Calvinists will often appeal to Eph. 2:1, "you were dead in your trespasses and sins", and Col. 2:13 which also speaks of being "dead in your transgressions". From these passages the Calvinist deduces that one can no more respond to God's grace than a dead corpse can respond to outside stimuli. It is said that there must first be a resurrection [spiritual regeneration] before one can respond to God's gracious offer of salvation. We are then told that the regenerated person will "freely" choose Christ according to this new nature. There are several problems with this Calvinist argument.

1) When the Scripture speaks of death it is speaking of the separation of the spirit from the body. To be "dead in sin" is to be separated from a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. Our sin has caused separation from God and has effected our spiritual death (Rom. 6:21; James 1:14, 15). The only cure for our pitiful state is to come into vital union with the only source of life: Jesus Christ (Jn. 15).

2) The Scripture speaks of the believer as being "dead to sin" and a "slave to righteousness" while acknowledging that those who are so dead are still capable of sinning. Paul draws a strict parallel between being "slaves to sin" and "slaves to righteousness" and being "dead in sin" and "dead to sin" in Rom. 6:12-23. Since the believer who is "dead to sin" and a "slave to righteousness" can still yield to the influences of the sinful nature, the world, and Satan, there is no reason to believe that one who is "dead in sin" and a "slave to sin" is incapable of responding to the gracious working of the Holy Spirit without first being regenerated. The Spirit of God bridges the gap of deathly separation and enables the sinner to yield to Christ.

3) There is only one way that a sinner can experience the new life, and that is by union with Jesus Christ. Just as surely as separation from God caused spiritual death, union with Christ is the only way that the sinner can experience new life. It is impossible to have life outside of Jesus Christ. This poses a serious problem with Calvinist doctrine. Calvinism has sinners being regenerated before coming to be in union with Christ. We can only experience the benefits of the cross, however, through union with Christ. Through that union His death becomes our death, His life becomes our life, and His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. None of this can happen prior to union with Him. The Bible is clear that we come to be in union with Christ through faith. Consider the following passages:

"But God being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no man may boast." Eph. 2:4-9

Many Calvinists like to quote portions of the above text because they believe it supports their conclusions that regeneration precedes faith and that faith is a "gift" that God irresistibly gives to the elect. When one reads these passages together such a conclusion cannot be drawn. All of the gracious spiritual benefits of verses 4-7, including the spiritual resurrection described in verse 6, are "through faith" (verse 8). The grammar of verses 8 and 9 do not allow for the interpretation Calvinists often assign to them. The "gift" of God does not refer to "faith" but to the gracious gift of God's salvation. To interpret the gift as faith would render verse 9 nonsensical. It would essentially say that "faith" is not "of works" which would be a meaningless statement of the obvious.

All of these spiritual blessings are said to be "with" and "in" Christ [verses 5-7] which is a recurrent theme in Ephesians and in all Pauline writings. It is especially prominent in Ephesians Chapters 1 and 2. Ephesians 1:13 explains how one comes to be in union with Christ and Ephesians 3:17 tells us how Christ comes to dwell in our hearts. In both cases this union is by faith.

This same thought is paralleled in Col. 2:9-12:

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (see also Rom. 6:4)

Again the theme of union with Christ is obvious. We can also see that our spiritual resurrection is "through faith" in the working [or power] of God, who raised [Christ] from the dead".

It is undeniable that the unregenerate need a spiritual resurrection. It is also undeniable that this resurrection comes by the faith that brings us into saving union with Christ, whereby we can experience all the benefits of His death and resurrection.

Conclusion:

There is no Biblical reason to accept the Calvinist understanding that being "dead in sin" means that one must first be regenerated before being capable of exercising saving faith. This does not discount the need for a powerful working of the Holy Spirit on the unregenerate, but demonstrates that this working does not result in regeneration until the sinner first meets the condition of faith. When the sinner responds in faith to the gracious working and enabling of the Holy Spirit, he or she is immediately grafted into Christ and receives all the benefits of His atonement, which includes regeneration.

I would also like to point out a problem with the Calvinist insistence that one who is regenerated will "freely" choose to put faith in Christ. I believe that it would be more honest for the Calvinist to say that God "causes" the regenerate to put faith in Christ. To say that one freely chooses is misleading. Most Calvinists understand such "freedom" in a compatiblist sense in which we "freely" do what God causes us to do [whether directly or indirectly through circumstances, etc.]. If the Calvinist wants to insist that one freely chooses to put faith in Christ in a libertarian sense [without being caused of necessity], then it quickly becomes apparent that one could not guarantee that the newly regenerated individual would choose to put faith in Christ.

The Calvinist wants us to believe that once a person is regenerate he or she will naturally choose according to the new regenerated nature. The problem with this explanation is that Calvinists also affirm that one is never completely free of the sinful nature until after death. If this is the case then the newly regenerated person can now choose to either yield to the new nature or the old sinful nature. This would mean that there would be no way to be sure that a regenerated person would choose to follow Christ if one is free in a libertarian sense. He or she could choose instead to yield to the sinful nature which still dwells within. The only way to be certain that the regenerate person would choose Christ is to admit that God must irresistibly cause him or her to do so. If that is the case then Calvinist should be honest enough to drop the "freely choose" rhetoric.

John Fletcher on Being "Dead in Sin"

In my interactions with Calvinists the conversation always seems to go back to their conception of being dead in sin. I can show them in Scripture where it plainly teaches that faith must precede regeneration but such efforts often amount to nothing as they will ignore the Biblical evidence and fall back on the unregenerate being "dead in sin" and hence the necessity of regeneration before faith. The question I have always wanted answered is why we must understand "dead in sin" as meaning impossible to respond to God's grace without first being regenerated. The Calvinist will then draw the analogy of the inability of a dead corpse. A corpse cannot hear or see; therefore, one who is dead in sin cannot hear the gospel or see their need for Christ until they first experience a resurrection [i.e. regeneration]. We will soon discover that there are several problems with this approach.

John Fletcher was an early Methodist preacher and theologian. He was close friends with John Wesley. John Fletcher's character mirrored the doctrines of holiness he preached and wrote about. He wrote one of the strongest polemics against Calvinism ever written called "Checks to Antinomianism". To my knowledge no Calvinist has ever tried to refute the strong arguments he put forth in "Checks". Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to get your hands on this book today, and if you do you will pay a high price. Ages Digital Library has provided his entire "Works" on The Wesleyan Heritage Collection CD. There is a link to this CD-Rom in the right column of this blog. Below is a small excerpt regarding the Calvinist conception of being "dead in sins" which plainly controls their thinking with regards to the necessity of regeneration preceding faith. In my next post I will make some further comments on this subject and carefully consider what I believe to be Fletcher's most significant argument. He writes,

I. Availing yourself of St. Paul’s words to the Ephesians and Colossians, “You hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; and you, being dead in your sins, hath he quickened together with him;” you dwell upon the absurdity of “expecting living actions from a dead corpse,” or living works from a dead soul.

1. I wonder at the partiality of some persons. If we assert, that “strong believers are dead TO sin,” they tell us very properly that such are not so dead, but they may commit sin if they please, or if they are off their watch. But if we say, that “many who are dead IN sin, are not so dead, but in the strength imparted, together with the Light that enlightens every man, they may leave off some of their sins if they please,” we are exclaimed against as using metaphysical distinctions. and dead must absolutely mean impotent as a corpse.

2. The word dead, &c, is frequently used in the Scriptures to denote a particular degree of helplessness and inactivity, very short of the total helplessness of a corpse. We read of the deadness of Sarah’s womb, and of Abraham’s body being dead; and he must be a strong Calvinist indeed, who, from such expressions, peremptorily asserts, that Sarah’s dead womb was as unfit for conception, and Abraham’s dead body for generation, as if they both had been “dead corpses.” Christ writes to the Church of Sardis, “I know thy works; thou hast a name to live, and art dead.” But it is evident, that dead as they were, something remained alive in them, though like the smoking flax, it was “ready to die.” Witness the words that follow: “Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die.” Now, sir, if the dead Sardians could work for life, by “strengthening the things” belonging to the Christian “which remained” in them’ is it modest to decide è cathedra, that the dead Ephesians and Colossians could not as well work for life, by “strengthening the things that remained and were ready to die,” under their own dispensation? Is it not evident that a beam of “the Light of the world” still shone in their hearts, or that the Spirit still strove with them? If they had absolutely quenched him, would he have helped them to believe? And if they had not, was not there something of “the Light which enlightens every man” remaining in them; with which they both could, and did work for life, as well as the dead Sardians?

3. The absurdity of always measuring the meaning of the word dead, by the idea of a dead corpse, appears from several other scriptures St. Paul, speaking of one who grows wanton against Christ, says, “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” Now, if this means that she is entirely devoid of every degree of spiritual life, what becomes of Calvinism? Suppose all that live in pleasure are as dead to God as corpses, what became of the everlasting life of Lot, when he lived in pleasure with his daughters? of David with Bathsheba, and Solomon with his idolatrous wives? When the same apostle observes to the Romans, that their “body was dead because of sin,” did he really mean they were already dead corpses? And when he adds, “Sin revived and I died,” did Calvinian death really pass upon him? Dead as he was, could not he complain like the dry bones, and ask, “Who shall deliver me from this body of death?”

Again: when our Lord says to Martha, “He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live,” does he not intimate, that there is a work consistent with the degree of death of which he speaks? A believing out of death into life? A doing the work of God for life, yea, for eternal life?

4. From these and the like scriptures, it is evident, that there are different degrees of spiritual death, which you perpetually confound.

(1.) Total death, or a full departure of the Holy Spirit. This passed upon Adam, and all mankind in him, when he lost God’s moral image, fell into selfish nature, and was buried in sin, guilt, shame, and horror.

(2.) Death freely visited with a seed of life in our fallen representative, and of course in all his posterity, during the day of their visitation.

(3.) Death oppressing this living seed, and holding it “in unrighteousness,” which was the death of the Ephesians and Colossians.

(4.) Death prevailing again over the living seed, after it had been powerfully quickened, and burying it in sin and wickedness. This was the death of David during his apostasy, and is still that of all who once believed, but now live in Laodicean ease or Sardian pleasure. And,

(5.) The death of confirmed apostates, who, by absolutely quenching “the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” the second Adam, are fallen into the miserable state of nature and total helplessness, in which the first Adam was when God preached to him the Gospel of his quickening grace. These are said by St. Jude to be twice dead; dead by Adam’s total apostasy from God, and dead by their own personal and final apostasy from “the Light of the world.” [Fletcher's Works, Vol.1 pp. 199-201, The Wesleyan Heritage Collection]

Examining A Rather Strange "Proof Text" For Irresistible Regeneration

I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated that the Biblical ordo salutis [order of salvation] is not that regeneration precedes faith. I gave both a positive argument here, and negative arguments here, here, and here. Before moving on to examine the other petals of our favorite little flower, I wanted to give some brief attention to what I believe to be a rather odd proof text often urged by the proponents of irresistible grace.

This argument focuses on the grammar of two related passages in 1 John. James White makes use of these passages in The Potter's Freedom. He sets up his argument by first quoting 1 John 1:29,

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him."

He then explains that while one might interpret this text to mean that belief precedes the born again experience, it should properly be understood as "The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" [pg. 287-emphasis his]. The reason for this interpretation has to do with the verb tenses of "believing" [present tense participle- emphasising continuous action] and "born" [perfect passive tense- indicating an action that took place in the past with ongoing results in the present]. He then attempts to bolster this argument with the following comments:

"Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation [that the above exegesis leads to the conclusion that "Belief in Jesus Christ" is the "inevitable result of being born again"]. A means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered of this passage [1 John 5:1] would be to ask how such a person interprets these words from John:

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him." (1 John 2:29)

James White then attempts to put the strangle hold on anyone who might disagree with his conclusions regarding 1 John 5:1,

"Every consistent Protestant would say, 'the reason one practices righteousness is because they have already been born of Him. We do not practice righteousness so as to be born, but instead the birth gives rise to the practice of righteousness.' And such is quite true. But, this means that in 1 John 5:1 the belief in Jesus Christ is the result of being born of Him. The verbal parallel is exact: in 1 John 2:29 'the one practicing righteousness' is a present participle; in 1 John 5:1 'the one believing' is a present participle. In both passages the exact same form is used...Therefore, sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works." [ibid. 288- emphasis his]

I appreciate Mr. White's attempts to find support for his doctrine in the parallel grammar of these passages, but I must disagree with his conclusions. The grammar in no way forces the conclusion that one must first be born again in order to believe in Jesus Christ. Allow me to offer an alternative interpretation:

Mr. White's argument from parallel grammar between 1 John 5:1 and 1 John 2:29 is, in my opinion, a plain case of misunderstanding the text and misapplying the implications. The Greek says nothing more than that the one presently "believing" has been born of God (5:1), and the one who is presently practicing righteousness is born of God (2:29). Of course someone who is presently believing and practicing righteousness has been born of God. The word gennao [born] is in the perfect indicative tense. All this tells us is that an event that occurred in the past has continuing results now in relation to the time of the speaker. While dealing with the past to some extant, the perfect tense is primarily concerned with present time. Wallace says of the perfect tense of gennao, that it simply means "he is now born of God". The Greek grammar does not help the Calvinists case here. The verses do not say whether one became born of God before or after one believed (5:1). All that we can honestly conclude is that if one is now "believing" we can be certain that same person is [and "has been"] born of God. The same is true of 2:29. One who is presently practicing righteousness plainly demonstrates that he or she is born of God.

One of the main issues being addressed throughout 1 John is how one can determine whether or not one is truly saved ["born of God"]. The Gnostic's [i.e. antichrist's] were teaching that there was no connection between behavior and salvation. They believed that the human spirit was incorruptible and could in no way be affected by the sins of the flesh. John directly opposes such teaching numerous times in his epistle (1:5-10; 2:1, 3-6, 9-11, 15; 3:4-11, 15, 17, 18, 24; 4:7, 16, 20, 21; 5:1, 2). This is the context in which we need to consider 1 John 2:29 and 5:1. John is not trying to give us a lesson on the order of salvation. He is encouraging his readers to reject the false teachings of the "antichrist's" who are teaching that one can sin with spiritual immunity, and helping them to understand the true characteristics of God's children.

While these passages fail as proof texts for irresistible grace, I personally see further evidence in 1 John 2:29 that one must first believe to be born again. The passage reads,

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him."

Why does John begin by saying, "If you know that He is righteous"? Because we can only be righteous by being in Him, and if we are in Him we will inevitably practice righteousness as His life and power flows in and out of us. The question then becomes, "How do we come to be in Christ in the first place?" I believe that we have already conclusively demonstrated that we come to be "in Christ" and that Christ comes to be "in us" through faith in Him, and not before (Eph. 1:13; 3:17).

Mr. White's conclusion that, "sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works" simply does not follow necessarily from the context of the epistle or from the comparison of Greek grammar in the above passages. That Calvinists have to look to passages like this to support their doctrine is further testimony to the fact that the doctrine of irresistable grace is a doctrine derived not from the pages of Scripture, but from a prior commitment to a theological system.

Quick Questions For My Calvinist Friends

Calvinists contend that the elect believe due to the influence of irresistible grace. Arminius and the Remonstrants rejected this partly due to the fact that the Bible plainly says that some do indeed resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

The Calvinist tends to retort that this is true only of reprobates. They also divide grace into two categories to alleviate the tension. They call one category "common grace" which has various meanings depending on which Calvinist you ask. The general definition comes from Matt. 5:47, where Jesus says that the Father sends rain on both the just and the unjust. The other kind of grace is "regenerating grace" which is always effectual and only for the elect. Calvinist James White makes some rather dismissive statements concerning this issue in Debating Calvinism,

"The doctrine [of irresistible grace] has nothing to do with the fact that sinners "resist" the common grace of God and the Holy Spirit (they do) or that Christians do not live perfectly in light of God's grace." [197]

He end notes this sentence with the following comment,

"Hence the irrelevance of citing passages such as Acts 7:51." [ibid. 207]

I personally find Mr. White's comments extremely unsatisfying. Just how does one resist "common grace"? Would one of my Calvinist friends please explain? Just how is Acts 7:51 a reference to "common grace"? Such a definition as that given in Matt. 5:47 does not fit the context of Acts 7:51.

So my question is rather simple. When a reprobate resists the Holy Spirit just what exactly is he resisting? If the Holy Spirit has no intentions of regenerating the reprobate and has instead decided to "pass him by", then what on earth is the reprobate resisting? Do you really believe you can resolve the difficulty by saying that he or she is resisting common grace? Just how does one resist the rain? And how does such an interpretation harmonize with the context of Acts 7:51? I invite anyone to explain this to me.

I also want to ask my Calvinist friends how they can harmonize their doctrine of irresistible grace with Isaiah 5:1-4,

"Let me sing now for my well-beloved a song of my beloved concerning his vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choices vine. And he built a tower in the middle of it and also hewn out a wine vat in it; then he expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones."

"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done for it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?" [NASB]

So according to the Lord Himself, He had done all He could do to His vineyard, and yet it still did not produce acceptable fruit. Shouldn't we be able to answer the Lord, "Sorry, but you obviously didn't do all that you could have done Lord. You could have irresistibly caused your vineyard to produce good grapes." The Calvinist, to be consistent with his doctrine, could object in such a way. So here are my last two questions for my Calvinist friends. Would you feel comfortable saying such a thing to the Lord? Would you contend that God did not give sufficient grace for the Israelites to produce acceptable fruit?

Does Jesus Teach That Regeneration Precedes Faith In John 3:3, 6?

Probably the favorite Calvinist proof text for their doctrine of irresistible regeneration is John 3:3, 6. Here Jesus directly addresses the doctrine of the new birth. Calvinists and most Biblical theologians correlate the new birth with regeneration. Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can "see" or "enter" the Kingdom of God unless they are first "born again". Calvinists see in Jesus words the teaching that regeneration precedes faith. They point to two aspects of what Christ said to Nicodemus which they believe demonstrate that Jesus was teaching that the new birth precedes faith.

First, Calvinists lay great stress on the parallel between spiritual birth and physical birth. They will often argue that a sinner can no more decide when he will be reborn than a child can decide when he or she will be physically born. The problem with this approach is that Jesus no where says that we are to understand his words in this way. What about labor pains? What about the passage through the birth canal? Should we also seek to draw parallels from these aspects of physical birth? If not, then why not? How do we know which parallels should be drawn, and which should not. The best approach is to let Jesus instruct us.

Christ's emphasis in these passages is the need for new life and does not deal with the issue of how that life is attained until later in the chapter. If we follow Jesus' discourse we will discover that Jesus answers the question of whether we should draw such a parallel with physical birth. All we can rightly deduce from John 3:3, 6 is that no one can see or enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again. He does not tell us how one becomes born again until later in the passage. We need to be careful not to read our doctrinal biases into Christ's words before he has had an opportunity to further explain them.

Second, Calvinists lay great stress on the word "see". They argue that one cannot believe in Christ until one first "sees" the Kingdom. They believe that "seeing" must precede "believing". Since one cannot "see" the Kingdom of God until one is born again, then it would seem logical that one cannot believe what they "see" until they are born again. This is the more significant Calvinist argument. But will it stand up to scrutiny?

There are a few problems with this argument. First, "seeing" the Kingdom of God does not necessarily mean "seeing" the need for the redemption offered in the atonement of Jesus Christ. One does not necessarily need to fully comprehend the nature of God's Kingdom in order to recognized one's need for a redeemer. This is a false correlation that is not supported by the text. Second, it seems better to understand "see" and "enter" as metaphors for full experience. The Greek word for "see" in this passage is also used as a means of "experiencing" something in other passages. In Acts 2:27, 31; 13:35 and Heb. 11:5 the word is used of experiencing either death or corruption. It is used in 1 Pet. 3:10 for experiencing "good days". It is used for experiencing "sorrow" in Rev. 18:7.

The TDNT (the one volume abridged addition) says of eidon [which is used in John 3 and the other passages mentioned above] and horao [another word for "see"] that:

Often the verbs mean "to perceive" in such senses as "to experience," "to note," "to establish," "to realize," "to know," "to judge," "to mark," "to heed". (pg. 710)

Calvinist D.A. Carson says of "see" in John 3:3:

"To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, "to see the kingdom of God" was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 'to enter life', parallel to 9:47 'to enter the kingdom of God/); it is particularly strong in the Fourth Gospel, where 'kingdom' language crops up only here (3:3, 5) and at Jesus' trial (18:36) while 'life' language predominates. One of the most startling features of the kingdom announced in the Synoptics is that it is not exclusively future. The kingdom, God's saving and transforming reign, has in certain respects already been inaugurated in the person works and message of Jesus." (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John, P. 188)

Since Jesus uses "enter" to further describe "see" it seems unreasonable to conclude that Jesus is speaking of anything other than fully experiencing God's Kingdom. He is describing the transition from one sphere of existence to another.

This was especially relevant in light of the Jewish understanding that they would experience God's Kingdom on the basis of being a descendant of Abraham. Nicodemus would have approached Jesus believing that he was already entitled to a share of God's Kingdom on the basis of the promises given to Abraham in Genesis 13:14, 15 and 17:18. The Jews believed that when the Messiah came they would simply move into His Kingdom on the merits of God's promise to Abraham's descendants and on the merits of obedience to the Mosaic Law. While the Jews believed that they could earn heaven on the merits of their works, they seemed to primarily believe that they were unconditionally promised the eternal inheritance simply because they were circumcised Jews. F. Leroy Forlines describes this important Jewish understanding of salvation.

"We are confronted with two seemingly contradictory concepts in the New Testament concerning the Jewish viewpoint of their own salvation. The first is the concept of unconditional salvation of all Jews as the seed of Abraham. It was this viewpoint that caused John the Baptist to say, 'Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with your repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, we have Abraham for our father; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham' (Mt. 3:9; see also Jn. 8:33-40). The other viewpoint is that they were depending on their own works. This viewpoint is set forth by Paul when he said, 'But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works' (Rom. 9:31, 32)." [Quest for Truth pg. 347-emphasis his]

Forlines then goes on to argue that even the Jewish view on justification by works was in the context of the corporate righteousness of Israel. The Jews then did not view salvation as individual but as corporate, based on the promises made to Abraham and on the corporate righteousness of Israel. He explains,

"It appears that these two observations about salvation among the Jews are mutually exclusive. However, from all that I can gather, Jews were not as concerned with harmonization as some of us are. They were more content to let some loose ends dangle in their thought. E.P. Sanders astutely observes, 'Rabbis were not concerned with the internal systematic relationship of their statements.' [ibid. 348]

He then concludes with,

"Their concept of unconditional corporate election of all Jews was by far the more basic of the two thoughts. All the rest of their thoughts must be weighed in the light of that foundational thought." [ibid. 348]

This is the cultural context in which this dialogue between a leading Jew and Jesus takes place. Jesus is correcting two fundamental misconceptions of the Jewish understanding of salvation. They will not inherit the Kingdom of God unconditionally. They must be changed. They must be reborn. This change does not take place corporately but individually, "No one [individual] can see" or "enter" the Kingdom of God without first being reborn. The Kingdom of God is not unconditionally guaranteed to them. They cannot enter the Kingdom until their sin has been dealt with, for the Kingdom of God is a holy Kingdom. There is need for real atonement before one can enter into the life of God's Kingdom. Since sin brings death "you must be born again". How does this happen? Nicodemus asks Jesus this same question in verse 9, "how can this be?"

Jesus quickly directs Nicodemus to the necessity of atonement. He says in verses 14 and 15, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." So how does one attain the new life necessary for seeing and entering the Kingdom of God? He must look to the lifted up Messiah and believe in him. While Calvinists lay great stress on the analogy of spiritual birth with physical birth, they virtually ignore the implications involved with the analogy of the bronze serpent that Jesus specifically used to answer Nicodemus' question of how one becomes born again (vs. 9).

The Israelites in the desert were dying from the deadly venom of snake bites. The only way they could escape certain death was to look to the bronze serpent that God had provided for their healing. Those Israelites were dying until they fixed their gaze on the bronze snake. Jesus correlates this "looking" to the snake with "believing". When someone believes in Christ the blood of atonement is applied, the curse of sin and death is broken, and new life begins. If the Calvinistic interpretation of John3:3, 6 is correct then Jesus chose a poor analogy to explain to Nicodemus how the new life begins. If their view is correct then we must also believe that the Israelites in the desert were not given life as a result of fixing their gaze on the bronze serpent, but were rather first given life so that they could then look to [or "see"] the serpent. In this view they looked to the serpent because they had already been cured of the venom's deadly effects. They would not have looked to the serpent to secure life; they would have looked to the serpent because they had already been given life. I would venture to say that no Calvinist believes that the Israelites looked to the bronze serpent because they had already been cured and given life. Since this is the illustration that Christ chose to explain the nature of his atonement and the means by which we attain life, it is absurd to believe that Jesus was teaching that the new birth precedes faith in John 3:3, 6. Consider the parallels,

The Bronze Snake:

The Israelites had to look to the bronze serpent to escape the deadly effects of the venom and experience life, "Anyone who is bitten can look at [the serpent] and live...when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake they lived." [Numbers 21:8, 9]

The Crucified Messiah:

Only those who look to the Messiah's atonement by faith in His blood will escape the deadly effects of sin and experience new life, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [as a necessary atonement], that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." [Jn. 3:14-16]

Rather than allowing Jesus to explain His own teaching, the Calvinist wants to "explain" what Jesus meant before He does. If we want to understand what Jesus meant by His comments in John 3:3, 6, we only need to keep reading. If we can resist the temptation to read our theology into his comments we will soon discover that one is born again by believing in Christ and thereby appropriating the benefits of His atonement. Only after the blood of the "lifted up" Messiah is applied through faith can one begin to experience the eternal life that begins at the new birth.

When Jesus said that no one can "see" or "enter" the Kingdom of God unless that person was born again, He was teaching the necessity of the application of His atoning work. Only when sin is dealt with in the life of the individual can that person experience life and move into the sphere of God's holy Kingdom. Jesus made it clear that the soul cleansing benefits of His atoning work are given only to those who "believe" in Him.

Nicodemus may have walked away confused and frustrated but Jesus perfectly explained to him why the Jewish view of salvation was inadequate. The only way for anyone, Jew or Gentile, to attain the life of the Messianic Kingdom is for them to personally put their faith in the atoning work of the Messiah. While John 3:3 and 6, when read in the context of the entire chapter, lends further weight to the Arminian view, it fails as a proof text for the Calvinistic doctrine of regeneration preceding faith.

Is The Drawing of John 12:32 Universal or Particular?

Before examining some of the other Calvinists "proof texts" for irresistible regeneration, we will take a moment to deal with a common Calvinist objection to the Arminian appeal to Jn. 12:32 as an example of universal "drawing".

When Calvinists point to John 6:44 as an example of particular irresistible "drawing", Arminians will often quickly refer to John 12:32 to demonstrate that the drawing of John 6:44 cannot be a reference to regeneration. The reason is that Jesus states in Jn. 12:32 that he will "draw all men" to himself. The same Greek word is used here as in Jn. 6:44. The implication is that if Jesus was speaking of irresistible regeneration in John 6:44, then his statement in Jn. 12:32 would lead to the conclusion that Christ will irresistibly regenerate all men. This would be a plain case of universalism (the teaching that all will be saved), a teaching that both Calvinists and Arminians reject (Luke 13:24). I noted in my last blog that the Arminian conclusion is confirmed by the entry in "little" Kittle,

"There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227]."

Calvinists have recognized this problem and have suggested that Arminians have failed to carefully exegete Jn. 12:32. Calvinists Peterson and Williams state their case as follows,

"Arminian interpreters have appealed to the parallel use of the same word, draw (helko), in John 12:32 and have concluded that God draws everyone to Jesus. There Jesus says, 'But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.' He means that when he is crucified (see Jn. 12:33), he will bring all men to himself in salvation. "All men" here does not mean every individual, however, but Gentiles as well as Jews. We say this because of the context, in which after "some Greeks" ask to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22) he apparently ignores them and talks about his approaching cross (Jn. 12:23-28). But he doesn't really ignore the Greeks; he includes them in "all men" whom he will draw by his death. Jesus thus speaks of all without distinction (e.g. all kinds of people, Greeks as well as Jews) and not all without exception (i.e. every individual)." [Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not An Arminian, pp. 166, 167]

I have no problem with their consideration of John 12:20-22, nor with their statement that he includes the Greeks in "all men". The part I take issue with is their conclusion that when Jesus says "all men" he means only "all without distinction" or "all kinds of people". This is a conclusion that Peterson and Williams have read into the passage based on the necessities of their Calvinist theology. There is no exegetical justification for reading "all men" as "some men" from among "all men" in this passage. It makes just as much sense to say that because Jesus' drawing power would go out to "all men" (without exception), that the Gentiles of Jn. 12:20-22 could then rest assured that they too would have access to the gift of God's salvation. To say that the presence of Greeks in vss. 20-22 necessitates that Jn. 12:32 must be understood in a restrictive sense is a huge leap in logic, and a conclusion which the un-biased reader of Scripture would likely never come to on his or her own. Lets break their argument down to see how sound it is.

1) Jesus says he will draw "all men" to himself (Jn. 12:32).
2) This statement is likely a response to the presence of Greeks who are requesting to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22).
3) Therefore, when Jesus says "all men" he means "some men" from among "all men" (Jews and Gentiles).

It doesn't take too much intelligence to see that 3) does not necessarily follow from 1) and 2).

The Arminian position could be stated as follows,

1) Jesus says he will draw "all men" to himself.
2) This statement is likely a response to the presence of Greeks who are requesting to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22).
3) Therefore, since Jesus will draw "all [conceivable] men" to himself, he will surely draw Greeks as well as Jews.

The conclusion to the first syllogism seems forced and artificial, while the second takes the Biblical data at face value and still accounts for the presence of Greeks which may have provoked Jesus' statement. Robert E. Picirilli gives us a helpful and relevant exegetical reminder in Grace, Faith, Free Will,

"All of us who handle God's Word do well to remember that we do not honor Him with our interpretive ingenuity but with submission to what He says. To say, even to show, that a given statement can be interpreted in a certain way does us no credit at all. The question is always not what the words can mean but what they do mean, here." [pg. 137]

Despite Peterson and William's best efforts, there is no contextual reason to reject the Arminian interpretation of Jn.12:32. When we consider Jn. 12:32 and Jn. 6:44 together we are justified to conclude, with Kittle, that the drawing spoken of in these passages has reference to a universal, and therefore resistible, drawing. This interpretation harmonizes with the Arminian doctrine of universal prevenient grace, and renders Jn. 6:44 useless as a proof text for irresistible regeneration.

Does John 6:44 Teach Irresistible Grace?

As I stated in my last post, there is no more important question with regards to the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism than the question of priority with regards to faith and regeneration. R.C. Sproul writes,

"A cardinal point or Reformed theology [Calvinism] is the maxim: "Regeneration precedes faith." Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe." [Chosen By God, pg. 72]

While many Calvinists will cringe at the charge, they are essentially saying that one does not believe until they are saved [born again]. This is the bare and necessary conclusion when the theological smoke screen of Reformed theology finally clears. I believe that I have already effectively demonstrated why such a doctrine is incompatible with God's word in my last post. We will now take some time to consider some of the "proof texts" that Calvinists have offered to support their doctrine of irresistible regeneration. We will begin where R.C. Sproul began in Chosen By God, with John 6:44,

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." [NASB]

Sproul says of this passage, "The key word here is draw." After briefly, and somewhat inaccurately, describing the Arminian view that the drawing of John 6:44 is not irresistible, he concludes,

"I am persuaded that the above explanation [that this drawing is a resistible "wooing"], which is so widespread, is incorrect. It does violence to the text of Scripture, particularly to the biblical meaning of the word draw. The Greek word used here is elko. Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean to compel by irresistible superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means "to compel". [ibid. pg. 69]

He then cites James 2:6, and Acts 16:19, where the same Greek word is used of forceful dragging.

Steve Witzki, a contributor for The Arminian magazine looked into Sproul's lexicographical claims and came up with some surprising results. He writes,

"After investigating "Big" Kittel's definition for myself, I was surprised to find that it did not agree with Sproul's definition of draw. Albrecht Oepke comments that in John's usage of helkuo "force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element" [TDNT, 2:503]. Yet for Sproul's definition to hold up, John's usage must mean to compel or force. When I turned to find out what "Little" Kittel (the one-volume abridged edition of Kittel's massive ten volume work) had to say on "draw," I was shocked at what it had to say in comparison to Sproul's dogmatic assertions. Here is the entire comment as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley:

The basic meaning is "to draw," "tug," or, in the case of persons, "compel." It may be used for "to draw" to a place by magic, for demons being "drawn" to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227].

What? The compulsion is not automatic? But this is exactly what Sproul and other Calvinists argue that helkuo means in John 6:44 -- God literally and irresistibly compels, drags, or forces the elect to come to Christ. Yes, helkuo can literally mean drag, compel, or force in certain contexts (John 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6), but it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44, nor for that manner, John 12:32. Sproul confidently states that "linguistically and lexicographically, the word means to compel," but where is the citation of all the lexical evidence to support this statement?" [Steve Witzki, Free Grace or Forced Grace?, The Arminian, Vol. 19, issue 1] You can read the rest of Steve's article here.

I would add the description of helkuo given in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words,

"HELKUO, to draw, differs from suro as drawing does from violent dragging...This less violent significance, usually present in helko, but always absent from suro, is seen in the metaphorical use of helko, to signify drawing by inward power, by Divine impulse, John 6:44; 12:32." [328]

Here, the very connection that Calvinists often like to make [that helkuo in Jn. 6:44 has reference to violent dragging] is plainly discounted.

I agree with Forlines' assessment in responding to a similar argument put forth by Calvinist Robert W. Yarbrough,

"I think the evidence Yarbrough presents does suggest that the drawing of John 6:44 is strong. I have no problem with the idea that the drawing spoken of in John 6:44 is a "strong drawing". But I do have a problem with speaking of it as a "forceful attraction". A word used literally may have a causal force when dealing with physical relationships. However, we cannot require that that word have the same causal force when it is used metaphorically with reference to an influence and response relationship. John 6:44 speaks of a personal influence and response relationship." [F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth, pg. 386- emphasis his]

It is quite clear from Sproul's comments and those of other Reformed theologians, that they see the drawing in Jn. 6:44 to refer to irresistible regeneration. In other words, "draw" is synonymous with "give life". Therefore an accurate paraphrase of Jn 6:44 from a Calvinist view point would be,

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me first gives him life."

So, according to Reformed doctrine, no one can "come" unless they are first regenerated [i.e. given life]. Only those who have first been given spiritual life can "come" to Christ. While this interpretation may line up with the teachings of Calvinism, it renders nonsensical two related passages in the gospel of John. Consider John 5:40,

"And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life" [NASB-emphasis mine]

Jesus tells these Jews that having life is the result of coming to Him. Calvinism teaches that coming to Jesus is the result of already having life! If the Calvinist interpretation of Jn. 6:44 is accurate then Jesus should have said,

"And you are unwilling to come to Me because you have not been given life."

When dealing with John 6, Calvinists are quick to point out that "come" is a synonym for faith. They come to this conclusion by comparing the parallelism in John 6:35. They then read this conclusion into John 6:37, 44, 45, and 65. They would likely agree that when Jesus speaks of "eating" His flesh and "drinking" his blood, He is also speaking about faith, for nobody can have such a relationship with God except by faith. John 6:51-58 would seem to confirm this.

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world...I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day...Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your fathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." [NIV]

It is clear from these passages that one must first eat and drink [by faith] the flesh and blood of Christ before they can experience life. The life resides in Christ and flows into those who partake of him by faith. If the Calvinist concept of regeneration preceding faith were accurate, then we would again expect to see Jesus saying something more like,

"If anyone eats this bread [by faith] it is proof that he was already living. This bread is my flesh which I will give only to those who I have unconditionally elected and irresistibly regenerated in the world...I tell you the truth, unless you have been made alive you cannot eat the flesh of the Son of Man or drink his blood. Whoever has been given eternal life will eat my flesh and drink my blood, and I will raise him up at the last day...so the one who is living will feed on me...Your fathers ate manna and died, but he who already lives forever will feed on this bread.

The record is plain. Eternal life resides in Christ (Jn 1:4; 5:26; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6; 1Jn. 1:2; 5:11; Col. 3:4), and only those who come to Christ in faith will experience this life. The Reformed doctrine that one must first experience life, before he or she can come, is out of harmony with the testimony of God's word.

The context of John 6 and the theological emphasis of the gospel of John forbids the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:44. The Arminian understanding of prevenient grace, however, does justice to the context of Jn. 6 and the overall tenor of John's gospel. Steve Witzki said it well when he concluded,

"Let us review the last few comments on the word draw from "little" Kittel:

There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.

What is rather ironic in all of this discussion is that the above definition coincides beautifully with the Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace -- a doctrine that R.C. Sproul denies that the Bible teaches [pp. 123-125]. Wesleyan-Arminians believe that divine grace works in the hearts and wills of every person to elicit a faith response or as Thomas Oden states so well, "God's love enables precisely that response in the sinner which God's holiness demands: trust in God's own self-giving" [The Transforming Power of Grace, p. 45].

God's prevenient or assisting grace is morally drawing all people to Himself (John 12:32). This gracious working of God does not compel or force anyone to believe but enables all to respond to God's commands to turn away from sin in repentance, and towards the Savior Jesus Christ in faith. Thus, with all the strength of Calvinism, salvation can be ascribed completely to God, but without denying genuine human responsibility that Calvinism does." [Witzki, Free Grace or Forced Grace?]

We conclude with the plain declaration of John 20:31,

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."