Thanks for the link to rebutting James White and Calvinists like myself (and James White) and our reading of John 6. It was a stimulating read.

However, I’d like to provide a response very briefly.

First. You assume a libertarian view of free will to create the fallacy of the “head-members principle.” You allow for the possibility of the deterministic reading, but the argument presented doesn’t allow for it. The libertarian view of human volition must be proved first, but due to the philosophical nature of that debate it will be difficult to prove this to a Calvinist who will demand biblical support (and I don’t believe the Bible explicitly teaches on the nature of human willing).

Furthermore, you don’t allow John to speak in his own terms first. Before coming to grips with a full understanding of John 6 in its own context, you immediately jump to Matthew’s teaching on the Kingdom with no warrant from John to do so. I have no problem lining up John’s gospel with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But there must be points of comparison found in the text and you do not identify any. If we were discussing John 3 where Jesus does talk about the “kingdom of God” explicitly, then yes I could see leaving John for the synoptics. However, that must be after we have had a full discussion of John 3. Leaving beforehand drowns out the distinctive voices of John and the other gospel writers and the story of Jesus they wish to tell. Instead of a harmony of many texts we have a monotonous tone that has no harmony. John is not being allowed to speak and to tell his own story in his own context. As such, your understanding the terms “come,” “drawn,” and “give” are all definitely not John’s because you have defined them outside of the author’s own usage of the terms–which is a clear violation of exegesis.

Thus I feel you have actually done damage to the Reformed hermeneutic of Scripture Interpreting Scripture. Scripture must be used to interpret scripture. But clear passages must be used to interpret unclear passages. Also, the texts used to interpret must not be arbitrarily used to interpret other texts. Their contexts must point the reader to the texts, otherwise you are forcing a passage to speak on a theme or topic it really isn’t.

In finally I feel that common sense does not follow the academic reading you have put forward. When reading John 6 all the way through, beginning to end, unless one runs through the hoops you have proposed the reader will not come to those conclusions. Walking straight through the chapter lends the reader to a decidedly Reformed understanding of the passage. Your reading sounds smart because it takes a lot of thinking to come those conclusions. But sometimes “smart” does not help open the mind to the passage. I have learned this the hard way.

I appreciated your passion as I read your post but ultimately, it left me more convinced of the Reformed reading simply because its hermeneutical approach sees John 6 for what it is, part of a narrative that is to be read from beginning to end. Your reading requires the reader to jump around before reading. Now if you were trying to place John in the larger story of creation and restoration, the metanarrative of the entire Bible, that would be different. But that isn’t what you argued for.

It was good to read and thank you very much for your imput. It was very polite and tried to deal with the issues.

http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/10/rebuttal-of-reformed-usage-of-john-637_20.html

I’d have to disagree. I have no doubt that Craig is an accomplished academic. But if they were to debate on say John 6:35-45 as an exegetical debate, Craig would have a lot of difficulty putting together a consistent reading of the text that did not wonder from Roman Catholic theology to Protestant theology. That in turn would illustrate the inconsistent, dare I say incoherent, worldview in which Craig operates. That is not a good sign for Craig. Plus I don’t think your giving White enough credit as a debater. He has been debating for well over 15+ years with a wide variety of opponents including Bart Ehrman and Dominic Crossan. I really think it would be a fun debate and have no doubt that Craig would probably be able to win if the debate was philosophical in substance.