Is John 6 Only About the Apostles?

You'll constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this, God's offering, God's offering,

God's offering, God's offering, God's offering. They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a Biblical truth.

Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus, he says, Lazarus, come out, and Lazarus said, I can't,

I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. Do you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ?

And then you take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durtbin. It shows in this kind of sequential format.

Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things?

No. Some new

Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.

Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief. A verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

I, people just went after me horribly when

I used terminology years ago and all I have to do is now just go look at the

YouTube channel. It's a one string banjo. It's just just one topic just and it's one note.

It's what it is. So I'm fairly certain I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that this

Eric Kemp guy has been on with Leighton and, you know, doing their two, three hour synergistic ritualistic thing that they do.

But it is a article posted on the Soteriology 101 website. John six is not about you.

OK, John six is not about you. So let's remember something. John chapter six is where Jesus explains the unbelief of the

Jews. John chapter six is about the centrality of Jesus to the spiritual life of believers.

John chapter six is where we're introduced to the reality that it is by union with Christ, by looking to him and believing in him that you have eternal life.

None of that's relevant to us. That was only the disciples. It's only the disciples.

So all those promises, looking, believing, all that has nothing to do with us.

We'll have to find that someplace else, I guess. But that was only about the disciples.

Over the years, we have. I don't know how many years it's been now.

I think it was around 2001 that we did our first Radio Free Geneva someplace where we were.

I was responding to Adrian Rogers, as I recall, was extremely popular.

So it might be 20 years or so now. But for a long, long time, we have been examining many different types of attempts to get around all sorts of passages,

Ephesians one, Romans nine, whatever, but especially John chapter six.

It has been our assertion for decades now that you simply cannot start at the beginning of the chapter and walk verse by verse utilizing standard historical grammatical exegesis based in the original language.

You cannot walk from beginning to end and come up with some type of synergistic understanding of what's taking place.

The ways that mankind's mind have come up with to try to get around the compellingly clear testimony of this passage of scripture are myriad.

We've had hyper -dispensationalist attempts and just about everything has been thrown at John chapter six.

It almost always requires you to run immediately to someplace else.

You cannot walk through John chapter six. You have to take some kind of overriding exegetical assertion from someplace else and then use that as the lens, the hammer to cram the words of John chapter six into whatever synergistic system it is that you're promoting, whether it's a simplistic synergistic system or a complicated synergistic system or whatever.

And so it's never been all that difficult to point out where the errors are, where the inconsistency and incoherence of the exegesis is.

And the reason we've challenged Leighton Flowers to exegete John chapter six, because we don't believe he can do it.

He couldn't do Romans nine. He can't do John six. He can't do Ephesians one because these texts don't say what he says they say.

And he has to bring in all sorts of external concepts. He can't simply walk through the text and have it say what he says it says.

That's why. So here is an attempt to turn that on its head.

In fact, here's a quote. The Washington Post recently popularized the phrase, democracy dies in darkness.

Well, Calvinism dies in context. Now I love that because it's upside down.

It's the exact opposite. Obviously, we've demonstrated that for years. I would debate Eric Kemp on that in a second.

He knows that and there's no way he's going to do it. He would never sit down here. I'll show up at your church with nothing but this.

OK, you won't do it. We know you won't do it. None of you guys will do it because because, you know, when you're heart of hearts that you can't do the exegesis consistently, because the the rules that I will follow in exegeting

John six are the same rules I follow in exegeting John five in responding to Muslims who are using

John chapter five to deny the deity of Christ. Or when

I respond to Jehovah's Witnesses in Colossians chapter one, or when I respond to Mormons in First Corinthians chapter eight,

I'm using the same system. You are not and you know it, you know it's in your heart and you know that I'm still young enough to point that out.

I still still can get through the debate well enough to point out that that's why one of the one of the quotes in the opening of Radio Free Geneva is from the debate with Leighton Flowers, where I said,

OK, here's the exegetical method we use for the resurrection and for justification by faith and for the deity of Christ.

Are you using the same exegetical methodology for your position? And he's like, no.

So for us, that's that's the end of the conversation, you're having to use different weights and standards, different scales.

So the argument's pretty much over at that point. So anyway, so it is context that demonstrates the real problem with with Eric Kemp's argumentation.

And so we're just going to. I. It's also fascinating that reading from the article, this post is adapted from a brilliant social media discussion by Drew McLeod.

I don't know who Drew McLeod is, but when I responded on Twitter to this. Someone responded to me and said, just so you know, we kicked

Drew McLeod out of our Calvinism Facebook group about two years ago because he's an open theist. And I'm once again left chuckling at the fact that that we feel sorry for Leighton Flowers.

He wants to be an open theist so badly, but, you know, his position currently in a

Southern Baptist entity precludes that from happening for now. Who knows what the future is going to bring?

You know, maybe he could make the argument that whoever wrote that section of the

Baptist faith and message was plagiarizing it for somebody else and therefore he doesn't have to follow it.

So anyway, so Eric Kemp is following the arguments of someone who

I am informed is an open theist. And his argument fundamentally is

John 6 is only about the disciples. It's not about us. Well, and here's the fundamental argument is the disciples are differentiated from the rest of us in Jesus' high priestly prayer in John chapter 17, even though we're all together, those that are to be unified with the

Father and the Son by God's sovereign action. So it doesn't really fit, doesn't make any difference.

But anyway, I mean, good luck trying to make John 17 a synergistic text.

Doesn't work. But clearly in John chapter 17, the initial discussion about Jesus keeping his disciples is about the disciples.

And then it says, and I pray for those who will believe because of their word that they might be one in us and so on and so forth.

And so once again, as we have shown so many times in the past, what somebody's got to do is they've got to leave

John 6, go somewhere else, get an interpretation, and then read that backwards in time back into John chapter 6 to try to in some way remove this from having the obvious relevance that it has.

We've seen this before. This is the John 12 thing, too. You go to John 12, 32, you take that, you interpret it, you misinterpret it, but you interpret it, and then you read it backwards into John 6, 37 through 44 or so.

And all of a sudden, the drawing is of all men, every single human being, so on, so forth.

And you allegedly get rid of the element of divine election in John chapter 6.

But when you have to take someone's work, such as the

Gospel of John, and say that earlier chapters are actually incoherent without you having to read the rest of the book, because we're not talking about a murder mystery here,

OK? The Gospel of John is not meant to be a murder mystery where the author is specifically misleading you by the information he exposes you to early on so he can get you with the catch at the end.

That's not what Gospels are meant to be. Instead, we have people telling us, you've got to go later, we're going to get an interpretation back here and we're going to read it back into John chapter 6, and that's going to help us keep this from being what we don't want it to be.

And that is what it says, that God the Father gives a specific people to Jesus Christ and he saves them perfectly.

We don't believe that God can do that. We don't believe he ever would do that. And so we're going to find some way to get around the text of scripture that says that.

So what happens when you try to do this is what we want to look at today on Radio Free Geneva.

First, we want to look at the article. Is John 6 about Gentile Christians 2 ,000 years after Jesus walked the earth?

No, actually, it is about the elect of God from beginning to end. When Jesus says, it is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day, verse 39, are those that are given by the

Father Jesus, you and me? No, it is all the elect of all time. Because those are the ones that are given eternal life.

So if you're going to have eternal life, this is how you get it. Unless you're going to show us another way of getting eternal life, which you would have to demonstrate if that's what you're saying is that there's multiple ways of getting eternal life, that the apostles are going to have eternal life on a level other than you and I.

So there's different churches, I guess. There's the church of the apostles and then the rest of us who don't have the same thing.

How do we get eternal life if we get eternal life differently than the apostles do? So there's multiple ways of getting eternal life now.

I don't think there is really almost nothing that synergists will not do to avoid biblical teaching on this subject because they are so completely committed to the concept of the autonomous free will of man.

No autonomous free will of God, but autonomous free will of man. That's the big thing. So if that even means that there's multiple ways of salvation, they'll do it.

I mean, the dispensationalists, the extreme dispensationalists do that too. So, you know,

I suppose they'd be willing to do that. And if again, this is coming primarily from an open theist, there really isn't any limit to how far you'll be willing to go with the text of scripture.

Of course, John 639 is in that context of what, as we'll see,

Jesus is explaining the unbelief of whom? Not the apostles, but of the men who've come across the lake seeking after him.

Um, so there is a context that is completely ignored. It's just, it's not even there in Kemp's article.

It's just, this is eisegesis on steroids, but again, provisionism, synergism, it produces that and it produces it regularly.

And we can just be thankful when other folks don't do it, uh, when they are restrained from doing so.

Anyways. So, uh, the context of the entire gospel of John says, no, actually it's not the entire gospel of John.

It is, I'm going to read something back from John 17. I'm going to look at some of these other passages and that makes it the entire gospel of John.

So then we have Calvinism dies in context. To the claim that John 639 is about you and me, Drew McLeod answered, but why though?

The context makes clear that it isn't. What context is Drew talking about? Let's look at John 17, 12 first.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Immediately we realize this is coming from 11 chapters down the road.

Um, and so that's not the context of John 6. Uh, this is just,

I mean, this is, this is failure at exegesis 101. It is, it is, if you want to try to say this type of stuff, then you need to start at the beginning and derive this limited meaning from John 6 and then move forward with it.

What they're going to do is they're going to go, Jesus is high priestly prayer in John 17, come up with a limitation there, which is a valid limitation, at least in the applications being used in John 17, which is not the same context as John chapter six.

I mean, this attempt by Kemp and McLeod fails miserably at every level.

It really does. I mean, um, we we've got a, we don't have a passing grade, uh, in, in basic exegesis here, uh, for any of these guys.

But it would have to start, see, if you actually start in John 6, then you get this much clearer, believing, unbelieving people given to Christ, people not given to Christ, false disciples who walk away at the end of John chapter six.

Um, and it is only the disciples and the devil, um, the son of perdition at the end of John chapter six.

So you could say, well, see, uh, there you go. Uh, so everything in the gospel is, is just about the disciples.

So evidently, um, all the promises of having eternal life from John chapter three onward have, if, if, if you were led to Christ with those you relied to, how else can you get around it?

How else can you get around it? You can make an argument that, well, it doesn't say specifically that people 2000 years later, okay, well, if you want to go that direction, then the church for 2000 years has completely missed what your brilliant insights have now provided to us.

Um, the problem is you've now completely and totally changed the nature of the gospel. Um, congratulations on that, but let's look at it.

Let's take it apart, uh, point by point. And so once again, we will have the opportunity of seeing and recognizing, um, the consistency of this text and it's a, it's a beautiful consistency to see it.

It really is. Uh, we did not turn down the air in here. Yes. There we go. We will, uh, do so now it's what?

Oh, uh, yeah. Oh, okay. You said you have to listen.

I'm sorry. I put the earphone in. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Radio free Geneva now with even more choice meets.

Yes, indeed. Well, thank you, Tim, for listening in today while sitting at your computer, obviously, and not listening very closely to what

I'm saying. Uh, but, um, playing with the graphics programs. There you go. All right.

Okay. So we jump out of John six as always to John 17 while I was with them. I kept them in your name, which you have given me.

I've guarded them. And not one of them has been lost except son of perdition. The scripture might be fulfilled. See the same language from John six 39.

He has given me equals you have given me. Okay. Once again, Mr. Kemp is an extremely poor exegete.

Just he's an is a G not an exegete. Extremely poor exegete. These are two different contexts.

There is no context in John chapter 17 of Jesus addressing unbelievers.

Okay. Let's, let's try to, let's, let's. Help brother Kemp out here so he can, uh, deliver himself from this rather embarrassing, uh, article that he has, has posted.

Let's remind ourselves of what John chapter six is about. Remember longest chapter in the gospel of John starts the feeding of 5 ,000.

Jesus leaves, disciples leave. And there are men who the next day come looking for Jesus.

He's not there. They row across the lake, uh, to Capernaum. And there they find

Jesus in the synagogue. And so in verse 26, we read,

Jesus answered them and said, truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs because you ate of the loaves and were filled, do not work for the food with which perishes, but for the food, which endures to eternal life, which the son of man will give to you for on him, the father,

God has set his seal. Now, let me just ask, um, who's Jesus speaking to?

He is speaking to men who have come looking for Jesus and Jesus knows what their actual motivations are.

And he is saying to them, uh, do not work for the food, which perishes, but the food which endures to eternal life.

Is this the context of John chapter 17? No, it is not. John chapter 17 is Jesus' high priestly prayer.

It is the great prayer offered right before the high priest makes that final offering of himself and recorded only for us in the gospel of John.

So is there a completely different context here? Yes. One is explaining the unbelief of these men and the reality that when the exclusivity of Jesus as the sole source of spiritual life is presented, these men, they will walk away.

Why? Because they are not believers. Is that the context of John chapter 17?

No, it is not. Mr. Kemp did not even attempt to either read

John, the gospel of John in an orderly fashion or to make the proper connection between the contexts.

Failure number one, which leads to all the rest of the failures in the argument. Therefore they said to him, what shall we do so we may work the works of God?

Jesus answered and said to them, this the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent. And so instead of allowing men to be looking at some kind of system that they are to be working out,

Jesus points to himself, he has been sent by the And the work of God is that you believe in him whom he has sent.

So there's even an element of acceptance of Jesus' uniqueness as the sent one of the father.

So they said to him, what then do you do for a sign that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?

Our fathers ate the man, the wilderness as is written, he gave them bread out of heaven to eat. Jesus then said to them, truly, truly,

I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread of heaven. It is my father who gives you the true bread out of heaven for the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, gives life to the world.

And they said to him, Lord, always give us this bread. And so obviously they are interpreting this within the light of the feeding of the 5 ,000, which they had just seen.

It was a great miracle, but it's a miracle with a background. Jesus' answer again, speaking to them is

I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger. Now let me just stop.

Are we to believe that when Jesus says this, he is only talking about the disciples?

Is that Jesus' position? Has that been the position of anyone down through history?

That when Jesus changes from direct address to them, to a substantival participle, ha -er kamanos, the one coming to me, the one coming to me will not hunger.

Is this true only of disciples? Is this true only of Jewish unbelievers in the first century?

Or is this a message recorded by the

Holy Spirit of God in the gospel of John to be used by the Spirit of God to draw so many of God's elect unto himself and has been used in that way.

If John 6 is not about you, then you will hunger and you will thirst because Jesus says the one coming to me will never hunger, the one believing me will never thirst, but that's only about disciples.

It's only about the 11. These words are only about 11 people in the history of the world.

It's only 11 people. It's not about you. Hmm. Um, I'd like to say that what

Jesus is saying is that he is the bread of life for all people and that the one coming to him will not hunger is everyone who believes in Jesus and he who believes in me will never thirst is everyone who believes in Jesus will find him to be the full and perfect source of all spiritual nourishment, food and drink.

And that it's not just the disciples that are in mind. It's not just the disciples that are being addressed. In fact, these words aren't addressed to the disciples.

They are addressed to people that Jesus is going to say in the next breath.

But I said to you, you have seen me, Kai u Pistuete, you are unbelievers.

You are not believing. You are not believing. These people who had rode across a lake, you're not believers.

Why are you not believers? Because all the father gives me will come to me. And the one ton air common on cross ma, the one coming to me,

I will never cast out. Do you truly love your synergism so much that you're willing to tell the world that promise has nothing to do with you?

Evidently that there were only 11 spots that were so special as to receive those beautiful words.

Just think of how many millions of people have lived their lives in utter deception.

And we just now found out on the internet. We just now found out on the internet that this tremendous promise that the one who comes to me,

I will certainly not cast out. No, it's the 11 that come to me. I will certainly not cast out, but that's it.

It's like, I mean, we thought the 144 ,000, I remember we had a, we had a kingdom hall of Jehovah's witnesses, uh, right behind my house in a rental house.

We lived in when I was a kid in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. And, uh, it was right across the street.

And so I remember asking my dad, what's with these folks? Cause they weren't really all that nice.

They sort of, they were a little put offish and stuff and didn't like me riding my bike past on the road and stuff like that.

And, uh, so he explained to me about the 144 ,000.

Now 144 ,000 sounds like a, like a lot of people, but it's actually not.

Um, that's, that's a pretty limited, limited number of folks. Well, that's, that's a big number in comparison to 11.

And yet evidently there are people willing to sacrifice this kind of promise that Christians have claimed as their own.

So that you don't have to accept the first part of the sentence. Cause see this, the second part of the sentence is great.

The one coming to me, I will never cast out. Is there, is there a promise anywhere else in scripture for the second class

Christians? Cause this, this sounds like the, the disciples, the apostles get a real first class salvation system that the rest of us don't get.

So is there any place else? Well, does

Paul get it on this? That is a good question. I, I suppose they could say that he takes

Judas's place. Maybe. I think, yeah,

Matthias. Yeah. Sorry. He's, he's toast. Yeah. Um, so anyway, uh, so the one who comes to me,

I will certainly not cast out is preceded by all that the father gives me will come to me.

So that all we are told now is only 11 people.

It's only 11 people. And those 11 people, they will certainly not cast out.

He will, he will certainly not cast out. So check this out for, I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

So Jesus and the father, perfect, uh, perfect harmony. John chapter five.

Once again, that, that theme was in the, in the priest proceeding, uh, chapter, which is how you do ex

Jesus. You don't jump to something later on and read it back in, try to Jerry rig stuff.

But I've come out of heaven, not do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me.

So this is why Jesus came from heaven to save 11 people. I didn't write it.

I don't know why people didn't think it through before they published it. I don't know why a latent flowers didn't go. Oh, do you really, do you really want to say this?

Do we really, do we really want to say that Jesus came down out of heaven to save 11 people?

Well, but he, he, he came to do that, but that, but wait a minute, this is the will of him who sent me that of all that he has given me,

I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. And he's saying this to people who are going to walk away to false disciples, different context of John 17.

This is the will of him who sent me that of all that he has given me, I lose nothing, but raised up on the last day of all that he's given me.

That's a different context than Judas, who is the son of perdition. So these folks want to ignore the fact that there is clearly a giving of the 12 to Jesus with the reality that one of them is the son of perdition.

I wonder if they actually believe that Judas could have done something differently, an open theist will almost always say he could have, an open theist will almost always say he could have.

Um, and I'm sure in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of anti -Calvinist videos that Leighton Flowers has produced over the past few years, that he has to have discussed this at some point,

I'd be interested in knowing, will he come out and say, yes,

Judas could have done other than what Judas did. Uh, there, there is no sovereign decree that he had to be the son of perdition.

I'd be interested in knowing if he actually believes that, because we've seen that with other people where they come to that conclusion.

But rather than the glorious truth that the will of him who sent me, the will of the father for the son is not that he be a perfect savior of the entire elect people of God, but that he save 11 people.

And that's who's going to be raised up on the last day. So whatever you do, if John six is not about all of the elect, including the elect who are alive today and who will be alive tomorrow and the next year and so on and so forth, if it is only about the 11, then the 11 have a way of salvation, totally different than anybody else's because there'll be raised up on the last day in distinction from everybody else because Jesus came to save them in a very special way, unlike anybody else, just the 11.

Now, of course, this makes a mockery of the fact that Jesus is clearly teaching that they are going to be sent out into the world and the gospel is going to go to the

Gentiles. It is absurd, but we're just going with the absurdity.

I mean, when you try to rid scripture of its teaching of the absolute sovereignty of God, you will put yourself in a position of teaching this kind of absurdity.

And it's embarrassing, but if you're going to put it out there, um, someone's going to take the time to go, um, no, that doesn't, that's not what it says.

And there you go. So there's the key text in their perspective.

So that of all that is given me because the disciples are given to Jesus 11 chapters down the road.

Yeah. 11 chapters down the road. Uh, do the math real quick. Um, because that's coming, you read it back into this and you limit it rather than here is the general statement in contrast to the unbelief of false disciples that will have a greater fulfillment.

And so all of these promises, Jesus being the bread of life, eating his flesh, drinking his blood,

I guess only the disciples do that. Only the disciples, only the disciples are taught of God.

Uh, well, that's not what that's about. Careful there. Um, I'm glad all y 'all here in the background.

Murmur, murmur, murmur, the peanuts teacher thing. Cause sometimes it's like, no, I'm getting distracted from other, other things.

We, uh, I'm doing something, uh, really quick. I'm doing something for the runner

Academy tomorrow. I'm doing a Q and a thing. And then I guess right afterwards, we'll sort of be loosey goosey as to when we do the program tomorrow.

We'll, we'll fit it in somehow. Uh, but we got a lot of stuff to cover tomorrow and I'm getting stuff from folks about certain slanderous videos that have been posted about me and stuff like that.

Uh, no, yes. Once again, by certain people who've just completely lost connection with reality.

Uh, yeah, I'm aware of all that stuff. Well, I mean, I haven't watched that one to be honest with you. Cause I just, I just feel so sorry for that particular person, but we will get to all that stuff.

So don't, don't worry about that. We got to stay focused on this and there's lots of stuff to, to be, uh, talking about, um, tomorrow, uh, much, much to get to anyway.

Um, so for this is the will of my father that everyone who beholds the sun, now stop everyone who beholds the sun, uh, pass hot, they are own tan.

Who's that about? If this isn't about us, then everyone of the 11 who beholds the sun, right?

Because there's, there's a tuta. This is connected to what came before. Now in the real world, what

Jesus is saying is I've come down of heaven to save those, the father gives me.

And the result of that is that those are given to me, will look to me.

And so that's the will of my father. And when who beholds the sun believes in him, we'll have eternal life.

There's only one way of eternal life. Jesus raises you up to that. The elect looked at Jesus, they find in him, they're all in all their spiritual food, their spiritual drinks.

There's beautiful consistency in the text, which is, which is sacrificed and just thrown on the altar of the autonomous will of man by synergists.

But, and I, myself will raise him up on the last day. Who has the promise that Jesus will raise him up on the last day?

I get the feeling that the synergists are going to want to go, Oh man, can we really let that one go?

We've used that one forever. And they have, they've used that one forever out of its context.

Remember that's what Norm Geisler did. He jumped to this and then tried to read it backwards in the preceding sentences and stuff like that, rather than seeing where it functions in the flow of thought, in the flow of the argument.

But if you're going to say that this is not about the elect of God down through time, then you're pretty well stuck going, well, okay, yeah, the, the will of the father in verse 39, and that's the specific verse they focused on.

He says, that's not about us. So it can't be in verse 40 either. You have the same will of the father.

Is this a different will of the father for a different group of people? I don't know. I myself raised him up on the last day.

Therefore, the Jews were grumbling about him because he said, I am the bread of life, cannot heaven. We know about this, verse 44.

No one can come to me. No disciple, no apostle can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.

That's, that's the new meaning in the Kempian eisegesis of John 6, 44.

Uh, no disciple, no apostle can come to me unless the father.

So why is he saying this to the unbelievers? Stop grumbling. No apostle can come to me.

Well, there aren't the apostles. Can you see, can you see the absurdity that this boils down to?

Guys, stop grumbling about all this stuff I've said to you, because these are the only people that I'm going to raise up on the last day anyways.

And of course they're sitting there going, what on earth is going on? They have no earthly idea.

Well, that's good. They are so confused by the end of the day, I don't know which ends up. But no apostle can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I'll raise him on the last day as it is written in the prophets and they shall all, 11 of them, be taught of God.

Everyone of the 11 who has heard and learned from the father comes to me. I mean, are you seeing the absurdity yet?

I hope, I hope it's pretty clear by now, the, the absurdity of this, uh, because the citation from the old

Testament, they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me.

Pass all 11, all 11.

No, no, all, all, all doesn't mean all. No. Yeah, of course not. Everyone who has learned, heard and learned.

Now, obviously back in the real world, this is talking about how God draws his people unto himself.

There is a revelation of who the son is by the father. That's why no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up in the last day.

So those who are given by the father are drawn by the father to the son. It's Trinitarian salvation, perfect harmony. It's glorious.

It's beautiful until you just simply go, I will not believe it. But I will pretend to still believe in scripture.

And so I'm going to come up with something else. And it ends up turning it into this mishmash, but let's keep going with it.

Let's, let's run with it because, um, it's on the Soteriology 101 website. Um, so everyone of the apostles who has heard and learned from the father comes to me, not that anyone of the apostles has seen the father, except the one who is from God, he has seen the father.

Truly, truly. I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. Now folks, we, we, do we all recognize that Christians from the beginning have looked at verse 47 and considered that to be a universal truth that we are just now discovering was only about the apostles.

Wow. Huh. Truly, truly. I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. Now, unless you're going to say, well, no, no, no, no, no.

That is about anybody. You just simply have to look at John six.

And whenever it says something about sovereignty, whenever it says something about God doing something, it's only about 11 people, but when it's some other thing that we can go ahead and make sort of really broad and it's all up to mankind, then we're good with that.

Okay. Then just simply sit there and go, we are into eisegesis. We don't actually care about what the original text said, because it is so painfully obvious.

That Jesus is pressing one particular point because by the end of the chapter, he's going to repeat it over and over again.

Everybody's going to walk away. Truly, truly.

I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life.

Your father's still talking to the same group. He didn't change it. Oh, how can that be? Your father's ate the manna in the wilderness and they died.

This is the bread, which comes down of heaven so that one may eat of it and not die. One of the apostles may eat of it and not die, if that's what this is about, because this is the whole context of the gospel of John or what we're told by brother

Kemp, right? I am the living bread that came down out of heaven. If anyone, eon tis phage ek tutu tu artu.

If anyone eats of this bread of the 12 apostles, actually of the 11, he will live forever.

And the bread also, which I give for the life of the world is my flesh. The life that I, well, it says world, but it's, it, um, here, let me, let me check.

Uh, there, there's gotta be the, um, verse 51.

Ah, there's no textual variant on Cosmo. I thought maybe there'd be a textual variant there where it says the apostles or something else.

Yeah. So, so if any one of the apostles eats this bread, he will live forever. And the bread also, which I give,

I will give for the life of the apostles is my flesh. Then the

Jews began to argue with one another saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat since we are not of his apostles? That's what they'd have to say.

Which, yeah, okay. I know, but Hey, I'm not the one that came up with this stuff. I'm just pointing out somebody should have said to brother

Kemp, whoa, dude. Um, do you have a proofreader?

Do you have someone that could talk to you about your, your theological, the ramifications of what you're saying? Uh, because wow, um, this is really bad.

Uh, so Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.

How is, so how do only the 11 engage in this?

Or if you're going to say no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's just those other passages. Okay. Where does the text show us that there is a distinction in the audience?

Because the key here is drinking his flesh, eating his, uh, drinking his blood, eating his flesh is coming to him and believing from verse versus 35 and following that's the exegetical certainty.

So if you, if you're going to try to sneak any kind of wider application in here, after having said that the whole context of the gospel of John is that this is only about the 11, then you've got to come up with a defense of that.

You've got to, you've got to establish that. There was nothing in that little article that even pretended to understand that you'd have to do that.

He eats my flesh, drinks my blood at his turn of life. I'll raise him up on the last day. There's, I will raise him up on the last day.

Who does he raise up in the last day? Those that given him by the father, those who've come to him, those who seek in him, their spiritual drink and their spiritual food, which we've been told according to Mr.

Kemp, verse 39 is just the apostles. So this is only about the apostles, right?

For my flesh is true food, food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides with me and I in him.

The whole message of first John, which is written right toward the end of the time when some of the, most of the apostles are gone is about abiding in Jesus.

So do the apostles abide in Jesus in a way that by the spirit of God, the rest of us don't as the living father sent me and I live because the father, so he who eats me, he also will live because of me.

Now, the message is clear. Union with Christ is the only way of eternal life.

And that's true for everyone who believes in the son, disciples and all those who've come after them.

That's obviously the message of the text, but that also comes with all the other theology that went along with it.

This is the bread which came out of heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died, he who eats this bread will live forever. These things he said in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

Therefore, many of his disciples, when they heard this said, this is a difficult statement, who can listen to it?

But Jesus, conscious that his disciples groaned at this, said to them, does this cause you to stumble?

Now this is disciples, not the 12, not the 11. These aren't the apostles. What then if you see the son of man ascending to where he was before?

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were, who did not believe and who it was that would betray him.

So much for all of open theism. How would Jesus know this?

Well, we won't get into that right now, but yeah, there's another one of those sovereignty things right there. And then verse 65, and he was saying, that is an imperfect form.

Jesus was repeatedly saying, for this reason,

I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the father, that's what.

Mr. Kemp and the others don't like because the disciples walk away, but Jesus said it over and over and over again.

And it was true then it's true today. It was true in Capernaum. It's true in Phoenix.

It's true in Philadelphia. It's true everywhere. So we've walked through John six.

We've seen the absurdity of the limitation. So we go back to the article.

Um, notice it says, see the same language, John six zero nine. He has given me equals. You have given me. John 17 is part of the biblical context of John six is use of those given.

And there is only one reason to ignore it. If you have an a priori concern that you are protecting some theological baggage, you need to come along.

Or in real exegesis, you're reading John six in order. And you realize that John six needs to be interpreted before you get to John chapter 17.

And no matter what you do with John chapter 17, reading that backwards into John six and making it the interpretive lens is backwards.

It is an error, simple, basic, simplistic, amateurish error.

Common. Yeah. Still an error regarding I've guarded them.

This could mean some spiritual sense in which Jesus is guarding our salvation. Though I could think of several problems with that idea.

Really? You mean like Jesus came down to heaven through the will of the father and the will of his father. Did he lose none of them?

Also, Jesus says, and not one of them has been lost, which could, could refer to us. But then the clincher is except the son of destruction, the scripture might be fulfilled.

Jesus talking about the original of apostles in John 17. He was in John 17.

He was no question about it, but you're in John 17, not John six. Jesus guarded them.

None of them were lost except the one destined to be lost. So you do believe that there is a predestination of that one to his, his role.

Then we look at John. Let's get, let's even get farther away from John chapter six. We can let's look at John 18, eight through nine.

If you seek these, let these men go of those whom you gave me, I've lost, not lost one.

So lost is not in some abstract spiritual sense of salvation, but lost to the sword or prison before they could fulfill their mission.

That's so you ready? That's the losing Jesus is talking about in John six 39.

It's not even spiritual. It's not even salvation. Jesus has come down out of heaven to make sure that the apostles make it through his ministry.

And the apostle John is telling you in John 18, that Jesus protected the apostles from Roman violence judgment to fulfill what

Jesus said back in John six. It's right there. What mission? The mission Jesus just talked about in the high priestly prayer to preach the gospel.

So that's, so Jesus comes down to heaven, not to do the father's will and the salvation of elect people.

No, no, it's way too grand. That's way too big. Come on incarnation for something like that.

No, no, he's got to protect them from the Romans. Uh, you know what other passage is not about you, the first part of the high priestly prayer, which is often used as an example of Calvinistic election.

Well, actually again, if meaningful exegetical commentaries were to be consulted, every reformed commentary

I have ever read, I have ever read has clearly recognized the transition from the specific discussion of the apostles to those who will believe because of their word.

How does God know that anyone's going to believe because of their word? Well, because God knows all things and because God has works all things according to counsel as well.

Every single one of them, I've never, I have never read a reformed commentary that did not make that distinction.

Not once pure red herring, pure red herring, not, uh, not one of that.

Then he quotes from John 17, which again, it's not even an issue. None of that is about you or me. How do I know?

Remember Calvinism dies in context as we have just demonstrated. It's Mr. Kemp's tortured reasoning that dies in context.

So all you have to do is keep reading. And the very next sentence is like, we've never read it or translated it.

I do not ask for these only, but also those who will believe in me through their word. Believe in me, believe in me.

That's in John six, isn't it? All who believe in me will have eternal life, but you just said that's only about the apostles.

Oh, maybe when you read John's gospel backwards, you end up saying really silly things.

Yeah. You, you end up saying really silly things. That's us. We believe in the, their word, the word of the apostles.

We believe in the word of the given ones among whose number we are not worthy to be counted.

There you go. There it is. There's two ways of salvation. You've got, you've got them.

They've, they are more saved. They have a different way of salvation, evidently. So we cannot both be those given and the ones who believe in the word of those given.

Well, it's not. Wow. If you think that that, that word is somehow because of their givenness, rather than it being the very inspired word of God, you've got, you've got more problems than we thought.

I'll let Drew give us a recap of how those given are described in John. So he just goes back to a screenshot from Drew McLeod and he gives us,

I'm looking to see how Jesus consistently uses the words, give, given, gave in regards to people, you're the one saying that John 6, 39 is a unique usage as compared with all the rest.

Well, it is. Contextually, he's talking to unbelievers.

He is talking to people who think that they're disciples. He's explaining why they're going to walk away.

Is that the context of anything else in the gospel of John? And you're the one saying

Calvinism dies in context when you can't even determine that context? Wow.

Guys, this is embarrassing. It's really embarrassing. A brief, a brief survey of every time those given is mentioned in John's gospel without concern about context, evidently.

The first mention is in John 6, 37. Everyone the father gives me will come to me, followed by eight others, depending on which version you're reading.

John 6, 39, I should lose none of those he has given me. My father who has given the sheep to me, it's the sheep is inserted there.

And then John 17, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 24, and 18, two completely different contexts.

He says, is this not a clear differentiation between us future believers and those given to Jesus? And the answer is no, it's not when you read it in context, evidentially it's provisionism that dies in context.

Then you have, this is why James White wants to debate John 6 only if he can limit his opponent to John 6. If his opponent is allowed to go outside of John 6 and take the whole context of scriptures, the

Calvinist argument that John 6 is about us is a special pleading made in the face of every other time those given are spoken of in John.

Wow. You really want to defend that, huh? That would be, that would, that would be like the

Steve Tassi debate. I think that would be, that would be pretty ugly. You don't want to do that. You do not want to do that.

Oh goodness. Um, anyway, then there's, uh, another screenshot that's really sort of irrelevant, but wow,

I did an hour. Uh, it truly amazes me just how far people will go in there.

It's just, it's, it's monomaniacal. It really is such an imbalance.

I mean, I would like to think that these guys, if they were dealing with another subject, deity of Christ, resurrection,

I'd like to think that they would go, well, wait a minute.

No, you, no, you can't do that. No, that doesn't make any sense. But when it comes to this one subject of maintaining our utter control, our final control of salvation itself, it just seems like there is no limit, absolutely no limit to where people will go.

It is truly amazing. It is, it is a sad thing to observe. So, um, is

John six about you? If you are looking to Jesus as the sole source of your spiritual nourishment, if you're eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which means you were in vital union with him, he is the sole source of your salvation, then you better believe it's about you and anyone who says otherwise is simply deluded, deluded, mark them and avoid them.

Thanks for watching the program today. I'm seeing stuff on Twitter that means I'm going to really have a lot to talk about tomorrow, but you're going to have to watch.

This would be a good reason to grab the app because I got my notification this morning, uh, and I saw someone on, on, uh,

Twitter with their Apple watch and he don't have to have an Apple watch. My Garmin told me this morning when the dividing line and even said

Radio Free Geneva was going to be on today. So download the app, set the notifications to on that way we can get the information out.

Cause like I said, I'm doing a, a Q and a for the runner Academy for the Ezra Institute tomorrow. I don't exactly know when that's going to get over with, but once it's over with, then we'll be able to know exactly when we can get started.

We might even be able to get started on a half hour type thing. I just don't know yet.

I think it goes from 12 to one our time, which would be three to four

Eastern, I think. So we might be able to go at our normal time.

We'll see. I don't know. Um, but we'll, we'll do our best, uh, to, to keep you informed, let you know.

I'll throw it up on Twitter, but, but the app is just so much more consistent and fun anyway, the download the app, get that on your phone so you can keep up with us.