An Arminian interpretation of passages in John on Christ's sheep, given to Him by the Father - please help me see how to critique it

[pgwolv]

The passages in the Gospel of John in which Christ states that only His sheep/those who the Father gives to Him believe in Him have always been, to me, some of the strongest texts in support of regeneration preceding faith and the doctrine of unconditional election. However, I was made aware of an interesting Arminian view on these passages. Please see a few select extracts, to show you the gist of the argument, and read the full essay here.

Calvinists, as noted earlier, interpret these terms “belonging” to God and being one of Christ’s “sheep” as referring to the elect (understood as an unconditionally chosen, definite group of specific individuals) prior to (and following) their regeneration, effectual calling, and coming to faith. I believe that there is an alternative interpretation, however, that makes better sense in light of the context in which Jesus made these statements: The ones to whom Jesus referred as “belonging” to God and being his “sheep” are the those among his Jewish audience who were voluntarily living in right covenant relationship with God under the terms revealed in the Old Testament, and who were thus already prepared to receive the promised Messiah when he appeared to the nation of Israel.

We have seen in the above brief survey of Old Testament passages that God’s “people” and “sheep” in Old Testament times were the Israelites, and in a yet more restrictive sense those Israelites who were faithful to the terms of God’s covenant with them. These were the repentant ones who feared God and served him; they would belong to God as his “treasured possession” (Malachi 3:17). They would be the members of God’s flock whom God would “cleanse” and “cure of backsliding” under the coming reign of the “one king” and “one shepherd,” the one called by David’s name (Ezekiel 37:22-24).

The sheep who would “listen to his voice,” “know/recognize his voice,” and therefore “follow him” (vss. 4-5, 14) were just those Israelites who were already in right covenant relationship to God and thus belonged to God as his “sheep,” “people,” and “treasured possession” in the restrictive sense discussed in Section B above. They received Jesus as the Messiah-Shepherd (i.e., they “listened,” “knew/recognized,” and “followed” him) precisely because their hearts had already been prepared through repentance and faith in God (according to the terms of the covenant as revealed in the Old Testament).

John the Baptist came for this express purpose: to swell the ranks of those within Israel who would be prepared through repentance to accept their Messiah-Shepherd at his appearing. It was in this sense that John’s baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 19:4) was intended to “make straight the way for the Lord” (John 1:23; cf. Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:2-3; Luke 3:4-5, 7:27). The ministry of John was intended to bring as many Israelites as possible back into right covenant relationship with God before Christ’s appearing. The way back into this right relationship (prior to the coming of Christ) was through repentance and faith under the terms of the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament. Only once they had repented would their hearts be restored and primed to receive the Christ whom God was about to send into their midst. The results of this preparatory function of John’s ministry are reflected in the response to Jesus’ teaching described in Luke chapter seven: “All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.” (Luke 7:29-30) John’s baptism of repentance prepared the hearts of all who accepted it to recognize the truth of Jesus’ teaching, thus enlarging the number of those who would recognize Jesus’ voice as the Messiah-Shepherd and be willing to follow him.

Because these “prepared” Jews had been and continued to be responsive to God’s resistible prevenient grace (the “drawing” and “enabling” of God; John 6:44, 65), these same ones could now all be led by God to faith in Christ, not because such a calling to faith in Christ is irresistible, but precisely because the hearts of these “prepared” Jews were already in a receptive state.

Unless one is drawn and enabled by the Father, one cannot come to Jesus (the necessary conditions), and if one belongs to God as Christ’s sheep and has listened to and learned from the Father, then one will certainly be “given” by the Father to Christ (the sufficient conditions).

In addition, Jesus’ statement in 10:16 that these Gentile sheep would also “listen to [his] voice” indicates that they, like the Jewish sheep described in the preceding sections, would surely recognize him as the Messiah-Shepherd and follow him in faith. The clear implication of all this is that there were God-fearing Gentiles who, like the faithful “prepared” Jews, had responded favorably to God’s prevenient grace and who, therefore, belonged to God and would be directed to faith in the Son.

Another example of a Gentile who would qualify as one of Christ’s “sheep,” prepared beforehand for Christ’s arrival through voluntary responsiveness to God’s prevenient grace, is Cornelius in Acts 10.

I am not yet skilled in exegesis and I would like your perspectives on this Arminian view; how can one show that the Calvinist interpretation of these passages is more Biblical?

Blessings

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello PG,

The author, Robert L. Hamilton, presupposes that there is in man the ability to respond to God and/or resist Him:

'responsive to God’s resistible prevenient grace (the “drawing” and “enabling” of God; John 6:44, 65)'​

This is standard Arminian "theology". Have you no access to Reformed books that compare and refute the Arminian error with sound teaching? The Arminians have an elaborate system, and in that they seek to "shanghai" the Scripture texts speaking of God's sovereign electing of His people to mean other than He means it.

Perhaps the best antidote – without going into lengthy, detailed refutation (my plate is quite full at present) – is the view of Paul in Romans 3:9,10,11,12:

"...we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."​

Sin is not some small, mere disfiguring of the human heart in God's sight, but the very death and removal of man from His presence. A corpse cannot grab at – or refuse / resist – a lifeline thrown to him. Man is dead to God, and God is dead to man.

"by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom 5:12)​

Except God sovereignly chose and regenerate man, he remains dead, powerless, helpless, and doomed.

The "interesting Arminian view" of Hamilton you ponder is in fact sheer poison to the soul. Ultimately, it says that you have the power to resist Christ's grace and go lost into eternity. It leads to a fear-based walk, in which, if you do not measure up through strenuous self-effort and austerity, you are rejected. It may seem "interesting", as a lure or trap is often disguised to look pleasant and agreeable, but once it closes on you firmly, you are gone.

Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." [emphasis added]

Psalm 65:4: "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts..." [emphasis added]

Ephesians 1:4,5,6: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." [emphasis added]​

Yes, surely Hamilton and his ilk will spin the clear sayings of God to mean something else, as their guiding presupposition is "man has the power to choose or resist God – we are sovereign over our salvation or damnation".

Unless you have good fire-proof gloves (which you have not at this point), when you put your hand – and heart – in the fire, you will be burned. Fortify your mind in the Truth before you go into into the works of the Pit, please. And thank you for sharing your genuine concerns openly here, for "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Prov 11:14)!

 

[pgwolv]

Hi Steve

Have you no access to Reformed books that compare and refute the Arminian error with sound teaching?

I have indeed, and have read one book that initially convinced me of the doctrines of Grace. I think I sometimes struggle with tying it all together and keeping the bigger picture, so I get bogged down in individual texts.

Perhaps the best antidote is the view of Paul in Romans 3:9,10,11,12:

Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Even among those who were righteous under the old covenant and had faith, this was not of themselves, it was given by God.

The "interesting Arminian view" of Hamilton you ponder is in fact sheer poison to the soul.

I realise the poison of Arminianism. It is not that I find Arminianism in itself interesting, I just found the way in which the author tried to fit those passages in John into the Arminian framework novel, something I had not come across. It is not convincing, because of the whole framework, but I wanted to figure out how to address this view of those passages. Romans 3 was the answer I was looking for.

Psalm 65:4: "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts..." [emphasis added]

Thank you, this is also helpful. The passages in Acts and Ephesians I absolutely agree with, but they did not in themselves exclude the possibility of his thesis.

Unless you have good fire-proof gloves (which you have not at this point)

I acknowledge this, which is why I turned here. I will go and re-read the work I originally read, but if you have suggestions to me of what helped you, I would appreciate it. I am yet to read Calvin's institutes, which I am sure will help me in my thoughts on this. I am familiar with Dort, but I need a larger framework, a better bird's eye view.

And thank you for sharing your genuine concerns openly here, for "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Prov 11:14)!

Thank you for the encouragement. This fits in nicely with the past Lord's Day evening sermon at our church, in which the visiting preacher pointed to the fact that the shield of faith in Ephesians would have brought to mind the large Roman shield, which left soldiers exposed at the back if they tried to fight alone, but was so effective when the troops fought together. I want to fight the fight of the faith with my fellow brothers.

Thank you for offering some of your valuable time!

Blessings