How Does God “Give” People To Jesus (John 6)?

February 16, 2018

A favorite chapter sometimes used in an attempt to prove John Calvin’s Unconditional Election theory is John 6, verse 37a (“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me”) and 65 (“no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father”). But whatever else we might say about those two texts, they both state there is a condition to election/salvation – a sinner must “come” to Jesus.

So just how does God give people to Jesus? If we notice the similarity of our phrase “no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” to a phrase in verse 44 of the same chapter “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him,” we see that the way God gives people to Jesus is by drawing them. And how does God draw them? The very next verse says “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” Verse 45 therefore shows how the Father draws people – thru teaching, hearing, and learning (Rom 10:17, 1:16), not by force. Notice again from John 12:32 (“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”) that Jesus draws not by force but by motivation, for example, the thankfulness of knowing what Jesus did for us on the cross. It can’t be by force, because John 12:32 states God draws ALL men, but we know from other passages that not all will be drawn successfully (saved).

It is the same as how God gives repentance (Acts 11:18b); Rom 2:4 says God “leadeth thee to repentance”; it is not done by force. It is also the same as how God gives us our daily bread (Matt 6:11), through means – working a job to earn a living. The Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:8), but it also says Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15, 8:32, 9:34). How can both of those facts be true? The answer?: God hardened Pharaoh’s heart through means, not against his will by force. And neither is the John 6 “coming” forced/unconditional. John 5:40 proves that – “But you are not willing to come to me that you may have life.” (NKJV).

The fact that God gives people to Jesus can’t prove salvation is unconditional as the Calvinists assert. That would contradict John 17:12 (“… those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition …”) which illustrates that some God gives will ultimately be lost.

Keep in mind there exists what is generally referred to as God’s successful call, but also a call of God that is not necessarily successful. Let me illustrate with the following two sentences: “Everybody I called came to dinner” and “Some I called didn’t answer, so they were left out.” The former sentence refers to a successful call (the call was completed on both sides), while the latter refers to a call that is not necessarily successful (the call may not have been completed). It is the same with God’s call: Rom 8:30 (“and whom He called, them He also justified”) refers to God’s successful/accepted call, while passages like Prov 1:24 (“Because I have called, and ye refused”) and Matt 22:14 (“many are called, but few are chosen”) refer to God’s call before it is accepted or rejected. John 6:37 obviously refers to the accepted call (completed on both sides) of those with an honest and good heart (Luke 8:15). Even then, verse 66 shows that many called by Jesus at that time ultimately rejected Him.

Conclusion: The John 6 election is clearly conditioned upon belief – verses 35, 40, 47.

hear Bible Crossfire every Sunday night at 8:05 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131

non-subscribers can listen live at


Does John 6:39 Teach Once Saved Always Saved?

February 8, 2018

Last week I was talking to the host (Matt) of a radio program loyal to Calvinism. We were discussing on air the issue of Once Saved Always Saved, and Matt brought up what I think is his favorite verse in defense of the Once Saved Always Saved theory. Here is how that verse (John 6:39) reads “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing ….”

On the surface the verse might appear to teach what Matt was contending for, but Jesus’ prayer in John 17 shows it does not. John 17:12 reads “… those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition …” Matt cut me off two or three times to keep me from reading John 17:12 on the air, because he knew the verse would quickly and conclusively prove to all honest truth seekers that his use of John 6:39 was unsound. Finally I was able to blurt out and read the verse when Matt took a pause.

Matt’s use of John 6:39 ignores the difference (that even Calvinists recognize) in God’s predestined will and God prescribed will. “God’s predestined will is unconditional and therefore, unstoppable.” That is mentioned in passages like Acts 2:23. God’s prescribed will is what God wants, but does not necessarily force to happen. A good example of God’s prescribed will is found in passages like Mark 3:35 and I Thess 4:3 (“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication” – ASV). I Thess 4:3 doesn’t mean it is impossible for Christians to commit fornication; instead it means God desires that Christians not commit fornication. It should be obvious John 6:39 is talking about God’s prescribed will since Judas is mentioned as an exception to the rule stated.

Which leads into my next point. Matt’s use of John 6:39 also ignores the fact that general rules often have stated exceptions. For example Luke 16:18a (“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery”) expresses God’s general rule that all divorce and remarriage constitutes adultery, but Matt 19:9a (“…Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery”) states the only exception to that general rule. I am sure Matt would agree with this “general rules sometimes have exceptions” concept demonstrated by Luke 16:18 and Matt 19:9, so why can’t he see the same thing might be going on with John 6:39 and John 17:12?

There are hundreds of Bible verses that conclusively prove Once Saved Always Saved is a false doctrine. Drop me an email and I will send you a long list of them.

John Calvin Didn’t Know God Wants All To Be Saved

February 1, 2018

Of course God wants all to be saved …

II Peter 3:9 The Lord is … not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I Timothy 2:3-4 … God … will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

This contradicts Calvin’s theory that God wants only some to be saved, that is, the elect.

Calvinism also puts the blame on God for those who are lost. God wants all to be saved, but Calvinism teaches God only forces belief on some so that only that some can be saved.

Absurdity on top of absurdity!

What Does The ‘Washing Of Regeneration’ Refer To?

January 25, 2018

Titus 3:5 reads “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” I’ve heard many brethren say the phrase “washing of regeneration” in this verse refers to baptism, but I don’t think that is exactly right. Instead it refers to the forgiveness of our sins – which does occur at baptism according to passages like Acts 2:38.

Compare the phrase to a similar phrase in Rev 1:5b “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” When the Bible uses the word “wash” to refer to the shedding of Jesus’ blood for our sins, it is using an analogy to compare our spiritual cleansing to something we might physically wash. Our salvation is the cleansing of our sins since our sins are what cause us to be lost, that is, in need of salvation (Rom 6:23).

And that exact point is made in Tit 3:5. This washing/forgiveness of our sins (in the mind of God) happens when we are regenerated according to the verse. That confirms what John 3:3-5 is saying. Salvation from sin occurs when we are “born again” or regenerated. Additionally, being “born again” involves being “born of water and of the Spirit.” That tells us the “washing of regeneration” occurs when we are baptized in water.

Acts 22:16 (“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”) mentions another phrase parallel to Tit 3:5’s “washing of regeneration” – Saul was told to “wash away thy sins.” Both phrases are referring to the forgiveness of our sins, and Acts 22:16 confirms again that that happens at our baptism.

The phrase “remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 (“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”) is another parallel to Tit 3:5’s “washing of regeneration.” And Acts 2:38 also tells us this spiritual washing/cleansing occurs at the point of baptism.

The phrase “washing” of Tit 3:5 is not an illusion to the incidental physical washing the water of baptism might do, but is referring to the washing away of our sins (via the blood of Christ) that occurs when we are born again. That does happen to occur when we are baptized, but we learn that from other passages (not Tit 3:5).

I Cor 13:8-10 – Mixing Apples and Oranges

January 18, 2018

I Corinthians 13:8-10 reads “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” A contrast between the “part” and the “perfect” (complete) is being made in this text. Let me illustrate something we can learn from that contrast …

If Fred offered Ethel a piece of an apple, and Ethel replied, “no thank you, I want a whole one,” would Ethel be asking for a whole apple, or for a whole orange? Ethel would be asking for a whole apple, not necessarily for the same apple that the piece offered came from, but a whole apple nonetheless. How would Fred know Ethel wanted a whole apple and not a whole orange? Because the whole would be of the same nature as the part.

Similarly in I Cor 13:8-10 – the perfect (complete or whole) is being contrasted with the part. The existence of this contrast indicates that the whole must be of the same nature as the part. Since the parts are the means by which they received the revelation of God’s will in parts (not a partial second coming of Christ), and since the whole must be of the same nature as the parts, then the whole (the perfect) must be the means by which we receive the revelation of God’s will in whole, that is, the completed New Testament law.  Since the New Testament has been completed (perfected), and since the parts were to be “done away” when the perfect came, therefore the parts (the miraculous gifts including tongues and prophecy) have been done away.

What Is The Perfect In I Cor 13:10?

January 11, 2018

I Corinthians 13:8-13 is admitted by all to teach that the miraculous spiritual gifts would cease “when that which is perfect is come.” But what does “that which is perfect” refer to? Many claim it is referring to the second coming of Christ, but consider the following illustrations …

• I am going to quit my two part time jobs when I get a _____.

□ glass of water

□ full time job

• The power being out, we read by candle light till the electric _____ came back on

□ shaver

□ lights

• When they moved to Dallas, they rented an apartment until they could buy a ____.

□ box of fried of chicken

□ house

• Instead of hamburgers I would rather go get a _____.

□ box of fried of chicken

□ house

• God’s revelation in parts will be done away when _____ in whole is come.

□ the 2nd coming

□ God’s revelation

Conclusion: The perfect of I Cor 13:8-10 is the complete New Testament law/revelation, and therefore the miraculous gifts ceased when the New Testament law was all completely revealed and put into one place (in the Bible) – so listeners could use it to verify what is being preached to them.

A Typical Response To The Bible Crossfire Radio Program

January 6, 2018

Following is what Anton Bergen from Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada) wrote on Facebook on Jan 2, 2017 regarding one of my Bible Crossfire radio programs …

So my friend Patrick Donahue actually believes that unless you’re baptized, you can’t be saved, you can’t get to heaven. What say you, my Facebook friends, do you agree with Patrick? I do not, and I’m willing to stand alone on this. … Why do I keep pointing this out? Patrick has a megaphone, a half hour program on satellite radio with possibly millions of people tuned in on Sunday nights. I find that he’s not careful enough in his teachings. Most of the calls he gets is from people who disagree with him and argue his points. …

Notwithstanding Anton’s stance, what do the following passages clearly teach on whether or not a sinner has to be baptized to be saved?:

· Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be [condemned].

· John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

· Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

· Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

· I Pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Could Jesus Have Sinned? Heb 2:17-18

December 28, 2017

Some say it was impossible for Jesus to sin since He was God, but that overlooks the fact that Jesus was also a man. Hebrews 2:17-18 reads “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”

Passages like this one affirm that Jesus became a man fully. It says Jesus was “made like unto his brethren” and goes on to say Jesus was tempted and is therefore able to “succour them that are tempted.” Since Jesus was made like us, and we can sin, then Jesus could sin also. And if Jesus really couldn’t sin, then He really can’t succour (empathize) with our struggle against sin, because Jesus never had to face the actual possibility of sin as we do.

To say Jesus couldn’t have sinned eliminates the greatest accomplishment in human history. This man Jesus lived his whole life without committing even one sin, even though he was tempted to the same extent we are.

Is It “Water Salvation” To Teach A Sinner Has To Be Baptized To Be Saved?

December 22, 2017

Regarding baptism, certainly the power is not in the water; it is in the blood/death of Christ.

The question is → When does the blood of Christ wash away sins, before or after (at) water baptism?

· II Kings 5:14 – Naaman “dipped himself seven times in Jordan” and was cleansed of his leprosy. Was the cleansing power in the water? No, the power was with God. But when was he cleansed of his leprosy, before or after he dipped seven times in the water?

· Numbers 21:4-9 – The Israelites who looked upon a brass serpent set on a pole were healed of their snake bites. Was the healing power in the brass? No, the power was with God. But when were they healed of the poison, before or after they looked upon the serpent?

It is the same with regard to water baptism and the washing away of sins. Acts 22:16 (“arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins”) clearly teaches that a person’s sins are not washed away (by the blood of Christ) until said person is baptized.

Is It Wrong To Teach Topical Bible Lessons?

December 14, 2017

It seems that some are emphasizing textual (expository) sermons so much these days, it’s like they think to preach a topical sermon would be wrong. But Isaiah 28:9-10 teaches us that a perfectly valid way of teaching “doctrine” is “precept must be upon precept, … line upon line, … here a little, and there a little.”

As a matter of fact, almost all of the sermons or lessons in the New Testament are topical. For example the most famous sermon in the Bible, Jesus’ Sermon On The Mount (Matt 5-7) touches upon a large variety of topics and Old Testament passages. Peter’s first gospel sermon in Acts 2 quotes extensively from at least three different Old Testament texts, but has a common theme/topic (“Jesus Christ, and him crucified” – I Cor 2:2) throughout. And just a casual reading of Stephen’s Acts 7 sermon informs us that it references many different Old Testament passages; it about as far from a one text expository sermon as you can get.

Some say topical preaching allows the preacher to avoid touchy subjects. That is true, but so does textual preaching. I once heard a sermon by a “textual only” type preacher on a text that mentioned fasting, but no comment was made concerning Christians fasting today. If a preacher is not intent on preaching “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), he is going to leave off talking about some subjects whether he is preaching topical or textual sermons.

Do I think topical preaching is superior to expository preaching? Absolutely not! I think the long standing custom of using the Bible classes (Sunday School) for studying assigned texts of the scriptures, and using many of the worship services for topical sermons is a good tradition. That way we get a healthy diet of both types of teaching, with one method not unnecessarily emphasized over the other.

The main thing we need to remember is that it is our duty to “preach the word” (II Tim 4:2). As long as we do that, it doesn’t matter so much whether it is via topical or textual arrangement.