John 6 Does Not Require Calvinism: A Response to Donald’s Exegesis
This marks my second debate at Coram Deo. My name is Michael, (call me MG) and I blog at The Well of Questions. As a non-Reformed Christian (Eastern Orthodox) I disagree with many of the tenets of Augustinian/Calvinist theology. John 6 is commonly appealed to as a text that demonstrates (whether by implication or through explicit teaching) the truth of such Calvinist doctrines as effectual calling and perseverance of the saints. Though I have a great deal of respect for Calvinism, I do not think that the arguments made (that I’m aware of) for Reformed theology from John 6 should actually lead us to favor Calvinism as a theological system over non-Calvinism. Instead I believe that John 6 can be given a plausible read which does not affirm Calvinism.
In this post I shall be giving a response to the exegesis of John 6 offered by Donald. My contentions will be as follows:
1. It is possible to give a non-Calvinist interpretation of the portions of John 6 that are usually used in support of Calvinism.
2.This non-Calvinist interpretation is about equally as plausible as a Calvinist interpretation.
I will only be dealing with issues related to election, grace, perserverance, and such; sacramental theology is another (though related) subject which I won’t address, but which I would be willing to discuss in some other context (seeing as how I disagree with some of what Donald has to say about it).
Please note: my argument is not that I have a superior interpretation to Donald’s. My argument is that we have no reason to prefer a specifically Calvinist interpretation of John 6 over and against a non-Calvinist interpretation. This is because I think (for the purpose of this debate) both ways of reading the text are possible. The passages used to support Calvinism can be given a non-Calvinist read without doing violence to the text.
I agree with many of Donald’s statements about how grace and salvation should be seen in John 6. Because of this, I will only be addressing
1. Points of disagreement, and my reasons for disagreeing.
2. Points of agreement with Donald’s statements that are of special import—whether because they require clarification, they have certain implications, or something else.
Thus I will not be giving an exhaustive exegesis; nor will I mention everything that I could say in response to Donald. My post will be a series of numbered points. They address some of Donald’s statements and ideas in the order that those statements and ideas appeared in his post. Now, to begin:
1. I agree with Donald about the fact that this passage is not primarily a doctrinal statement, but a narrative. Of course there are doctrinal implications and assumptions; but I definitely agree that this passage is narrative and not some sort of systemmatic exposition of the technical workings of grace and such.
2. Though Jesus is clearly saying that faith is a divine activity/work (gift/grace) in verse 29, I don’t see why this implies faith alone saves. (at least according to some definitions of faith alone, of which there are several) After all, he doesn’t say “This is the ONLY work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
3. Donald points to Jesus’ statement “All that the Father gives me will come to me” as teaching predestination. Though I think the language of giving/coming sounds more like God’s implementation of the plan of salvation (as opposed to his pretemporal decree about how the plan will be implemented) and hence should be seen as a text arguing for effectual calling, this is unimportant (and I could easily be wrong…). Donald also appeals to the statement “and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” saying that this argues for perserverance of the saints.
But what does “All that the Father gives me will come to me” imply? If we take “all that” to be talking about “all persons” (which is debateable) then this statement definitely implies that Christians are given to Jesus on the basis of God the Father’s activity, and that when God the Father gives them, they do in fact come. There are several unanswered questions at this point, though: what is the ground for the Father’s act of giving a person to Jesus? Is it the unconditional elective decree of God that results in effectual calling? Perhaps. But perhaps there are conditions internal to human beings upon which the Father’s giving is based (in some sense). In order to prefer the Calvinist interpretation, we need to be given an argument for why it is God’s unconditional will (operating according to conditions entirely internal to God) that is the sole grounding for why some are given in this text. Otherwise it could be the case that a freely-chosen act of faith (which is a response to divine grace, enabled by God’s activity) is one of the conditions upon which the giving of the Father is based. Indeed, this seems to mesh rather well with Jesus’ previous statement in verse 35 that “Whoever comes…and whoever believes” is saved. The statement in 35 could be interpreted as implying God’s gracious provision of a universal opportunity for belief and salvation. (though this meaning is not required)
Regarding “and whoever comes to me I will never cast out”, this could be taken to imply perserverance of the saints. But is this reading required? I don’t believe so. Donald’s read of the text seems to assume that the only possible way that a person could lose salvation is if they are “cast out” (in whatever sense Jesus means that here). But there other possible ways a person could lose salvation besides being “cast out”. Perhaps they could leave of their own accord by their own choice (whether sin or unbelief). I take the point of Jesus’ statements that He will never “cast out” to be that Jesus won’t exclude Christians on the basis of his own unfaithfulness as Savior. Jesus wouldn’t be excluding them due to a lack of his own faithfulness (and in that sense wouldn’t be casting them out) but rather they would be excluded on a basis internal to themselves, namely their sin or unbelief. Hence I don’t think the Calvinist reading is necessary.
4. Donald asks an interesting question: Where’s Jesus’ libertarian free choice operative if He came down from heaven not to do his will, but the will of the Father? Now, I won’t claim we have to read this as implying libertarianism. But I think its obvious where the libertarian agency could be: in the personal choice of Jesus to align his human will with the divine will. Saying “I’m doing what you want, not what I want” in no way implies a denial of libertarian freedom; rather it implies an act of self-denial, an abrogation of autonomy. Libertarian freedom is not the same thing as autonomy. Autonomy is a (primarily) modern concept about the place of the individual in the heirarchy of responsibilities and values: the individual is supreme, operates without the control of others, and is unrestrained and without obligation. Libertarian freedom is a philosophical model of how personal agency works: it says that an agent A has freewill in a situation S if two conditions are met:
i. The unmoved mover condition: A is the source of his or her own intentional action in a way such that prior causes do not fully explain his or her choice.
ii. The principle of alternative possibilities: A could have refrained from acting in the manner he or she chose to in S, given all the conditions and influences that were actually in place.
Libertarianism can deny personal autonomy. After all, nothing in libertarianism entails the supremacy of the individual, their independence from the control of others, or their lack of restraint and obligation. Libertarians might disagree with compatiblists (those who think freewill and determinism are compatible) over what it means to be controlled, what kinds of control destroy freewill, and other things; but libertarianism is compatible with a denial of autonomy. Indeed, libertarian Christians should not believe in autonomy. It is unfortunate that some non-Calvinists believe in autonomy and equate it with free will; autonomy is a profoundly anti-Christian concept.
5. Donald mentions the statement “And this 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. For this is the will of my Father; that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
He recognizes the possibility that there is a universal offer of salvation in the statement. In response to this, he says two things. First, the focus is on God, not us; so earning salvation can’t be in view here. Second, because Jesus just got through saying “All that the Father gives me will come to me”, which implies a Calvinist understanding of grace, this statement can’t be in conflict with the previous one; hence it must be compatible with Calvinism.
Donald’s first point is something that I definitely agree with. Clearly salvation is a God-centered thing, and we don’t earn salvation of our own accord. This does not mean, however, that human response is not one of the conditions upon which salvation is. After all, human responses need not be meritorious. They could easily be non-meritorious as well. (if this requires further clarification I would be glad to supply it)
Second, because I don’t see any reason to think that Jesus’ statement “All that the Father gives me will come to me” would imply a Calvinist understanding of grace and calling (as opposed to a non-Calvinist one), I don’t think it gives us grounds for reading the aparently “universal” statement in a qualified manner.
That being said, I honestly don’t think we must read this statement in a non-Calvinist manner necessarily. After all, the Calvinist could always say “when Jesus says ‘everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life’ the ‘everyone’ spoken of there does not have to imply that any human being can just choose freely to look on the Son; instead it could be that only those God has chosen can (and will) look on the Son”. Of course I disagree with this reading, and see the “looking” as a volitional response enabled by prevenient grace to a universally-accessible offer of saving grace; but it is a possible way of looking at the text.
6. Donald says that Jesus’ statement “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” is the logical equivalent of Jesus’ earlier statement “All that the Father gives me will come to me”.
However, I’m not so sure it is the logical equivalent. Perhaps the Father’s “drawing” and “giving” aren’t the same thing. If this is the case, then even if the “giving” of the Father is limited in scope (only certain people) and effectual (in some sense) the drawing of the Father could be universal and non-effectual—in other words, prevenient grace.
If these statements do mean the same thing, though, this doesn’t require a belief in effectual calling. After all, as with the former statement “All that the Father gives me will come to me”, this statement could involve a condition: the volitional response of a person, enabled by prevenient grace, to the offer of saving grace. This condition (which I see implicit in verses such as 35 and 40) makes it so that before the Father draws a person, that person must consent to be drawn (a decision that is made possible by prevenient grace). So long as this reading remains possible, we don’t have to infer Calvinism from the statement “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”.
7. Donald’s next point is a response to a potential argument for prevenient grace based on the statement in verse 45 “they will all be taught by God”. He says that because “everyone who has heard and learned (that is, ‘been taught’) from the Father comes” to Jesus, that therefore the scope of the teaching cannot be universal. And of course he correctly predicts that I do not interpret this verse the same way that he does.
Now of course it is isn’t crucial for a non-Calvinist interpretation that this be a statement about prevenient grace. After all, it could be another statement about the giving that follows as a result of the response to prevenient grace. In that case, no understanding of effectual calling is required for this verse. Hence if it weren’t about prevenient grace it would still be compatible with a denial of effectual calling.
But Donald makes a crucial assumption in his argument that I think can be contested: he assumes that “hearing” and “learning” are the same as “being taught”, as implied in his parenthetical/bracketed note. But why think this is so? Why not see hearing and learning as something which is a volitional action done on the part of a person in response to the divine activity of teaching—an action that can be refrained from, and which does not follow irresistibly from God’s teaching? So long as this remains a possibility, we can see the divine teaching as universal, and the listening/learning as a volitional response which is enabled by the teaching.
And as a technical, minor, quasi-anal point of correction, Jesus does not say “whoever comes to me I will never cast out” a second time after he talks about being taught by God. This phrase is only used once, in verse 37 (I’m not sure if Donald’s statement about the immediately following passage is meant to imply this or not; but if it is I’m giving him a heads up as to a minor non-crucial error).
8. Though I do believe that Calvinism is in some sense more individualistic than some other views of salvation, I don’t think I offered that accusation frequently in the Romans 9 debate. I may have said that once while I was giving my actual exegesis; but what I actually kept asserting during the debate is that “there is no reason to read Romans 9 as teaching about the unconditioanl election of individuals to eternal salvation”. This isn’t an accusation about whether or not Calvinists are individualistic (an evaluation of the Calvinist system of theology); rather it is a statement about the content of Romans 9.
I agree that there is talk of individual salvation here. I also agree when Donald says Jesus has repeatedly returned to the theme that divine revelation leads to salvation.
9. However, I don’t see grounds for going all the way and agreeing with everything Donald says when he talks about verses 63-65. Donald makes the following statement:
“God does not only partly reveal Himself to his people and expect them to come the rest of the way. As we see here, Jesus wastes precious little time trying to convince the crowds that He’s right, since, as He continually says, the knowledge of the Spirit has not been revealed to them. In other words, if God doesn’t give it to you, you won’t get it…aka. Predestination. I know that some would say that we’re talking knowledge and revelation here and not salvation, but Christ has intricately entwined those gifts in this passage. If you know, you believe (part of why John often says ‘know and believe’ tobether…as we’ll see shortly), and if you believe, you know; therefore when Christ here refers to one sense, the other can be inferred.”
There is one thing that Donald says which I would like to clarify and qualify; and there is another idea he propounds that I reject (and I will explain why):
a. Concerning the statement that there’s no partial revelation where God expects people to come the rest of the way: I think Donald might be trying to describe the idea of prevenient grace. However, as any good synergist in the tradition of John Cassian would say, God’s grace is cooperative with man’s will at every step of the process of regeneration when man’s will is active. God never ceases from working in us; and when our activities are good in the salvation process, it is always in cooperation with God’s own activity. Our good actions are divinely-preceded, divinely-enabled, and divinely-oriented. Speaking in terms of God expecting humans to “come the rest of the way” can give the idea of synergism an unnecessarily bad flavor because the phrasing seems to imply that there’s some step in the process where unaided human agency just requires” a little tiny boost”. In reality human persons are desperately wicked and cannot draw near to God unless He draws them and comes to them continually. Perhaps Donald didn’t intend to imply that prevenient grace involves “a little tiny boost”; but in case there was some misunderstanding I hope this clarifies to some extent.
b. Donald says that though some would say that Christ’s words are about knowledge and revelation, this is closely tied to salvation. I assume that by this he means that the divine action of giving the knowledge of the Spirit is an instance of efficacious grace and necessarily results in saving faith. This may be correct. In fact it is even compatible with non-Calvinism. After all, some forms of synergist theology holds that though salvation is preceded by the consent of the human will, there are certain steps in the process of salvation in which occur without the consent of man’s libertarian freewill; grace can be “extrinsically efficacious”.
That being said, I find Donald’s statement questionable. After all, it seems like the knowledge of the Spirit has been offered to a group of people that includes unbelievers. For it seems that the “you” is continual from the sentence in verse 63 “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” to the next sentence in verse 64, “But among you there are some who do not believe.” I’m not sure it is necessary that we interpret these sentences in this manner it is referring to the same group; but I find this to be more plausible than saying the pronoun suddenly changes its referents from one sentence to the next. If this is the case, then “you” in both sentences is referring to a group that encompasses both the saved and the unsaved.
Now, if we take Jesus’ speaking the words of spirit and life to the group to involve offering knowledge of the spirit (which seems plausible to me) then this implies that God’s offer is not effectual (in and of itself). After all, some people responded in faith and others didn’t. If they all received the same grace (words of spirit and life) but did not give the same response, then it seems plausible to say the difference between the saved and lost in this situation was due to conditions internal to them (such as, perhaps, libertarian freedom).
10. The last section of Donald’s exegesis I will mention is this:
“As Paul said, our only boast can be in Christ, and Him crucified. Jesus knows this all too well, and He firmly redirects the Disciples’ focus back on to God and His work, reminding them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” And so, Christ reminds His disciples that it is God (or His Son) who does the choosing, for His own sovereign purpose…and the allusion in this passage is that one was chosen knowing that he would betray.”
I agree whole-heartedly about our only boast being in Christ, the fact that Jesus puts our focus back on God in the passage in question, and that God does the choosing for His own sovereign purpose. However, because I think the election of the apostles is analogous to the election of kings and prophets in the OT (selection for an historical task), and is not an election to salvation, I believe this election operates differently.
Conclusion:
Thus far, I am in agreement with much of what Donald says. When it comes to specific verses that appear to imply perseverance of the saints or effectual calling, however, I must depart. I do not see any reasons to favor his interpretations over an interpretation that denies effectual calling and perseverance of the saints. So I end with the standard questions for Donald:
I. Are there any problems with my proposed exegesis of the specific passages? If so, do these problems make my exegesis less plausible than that of your (Donald’s) standard Calvinist exegesis?
II. Are there any features of your (Donald’s) exegesis of the passages we disagree on that make it textually or theologically superior to mine?
–MG
