Over the years I have often surprised people by asserting that there is one passage of Scripture that is so clear, so perspicuous, that I have never seen a meaningful, coherent, contextually-based interpretation of it that does not teach with clarity the glorious freedom of God in the salvation of His elect people.  That passage is John 6:35-45. 

This passage formed the basis of a recent discussion with Roman Catholic proponent Scott Windsor on our webcast, the Dividing Line.  Mr. Windsor’s unique “interpretation” of the passage did not fare well in cross-examination.  In his attempt to rehabilitate himself, Mr. Windsor contacted Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International.  Mr. Sungenis and I have debated many times in the past, not just in person in formal settings (Boston College, Long Island, Clearwater, Florida), but on line as well.  Many of those interactions were rather acrimonious.  Over the past few years, however, we have sought to disagree, not so much agreeably, as respectfully.  It is not an easy task, of course, but both sides have made good faith efforts.  It should be noted that I believe Mr. Sungenis has made many elementary errors in his response: elementary in regards to the Greek language, elementary in regards to the reading of the text, and elementary in regards to Reformed theology, which he presumes to critique.  Since post-moderns confuse refutation of error with “hate-speech,” let me say up-front: I believe Mr. Sungenis wrong on all these issues.  In fact, I believe him ignorant of a number of the areas he is attempting to address.  It is not hateful, unkind, or unloving to say these things if documentation and reasoned thinking is provided to substantiate the conclusion.  If factual support is provided, the assertions are simply truthful, and truth is not hateful.  However, if the accusations are made but no reasonable argumentation is provided to substantiate the assertions, a case can then be made that one is engaging in false argumentation and personal attack.

Scott Windsor posted some of Mr. Sungenis’ comments on his website, and made sure to let me know about it, repeatedly.  I finally took the time to take a look at the web page which documented all my “errors,” and found Mr. Sungenis’ comments intriguing enough to warrant a response.  I firmly believe that the more people struggle against the truths of this passage, the more clearly the truth is vindicated, and as this debate continues, I believe that will become more and more evident. 

My original response is found here.  Mr. Sungenis then responded on his own website, and on Mr. Windsor’s.  I offer my rejoinder here in the hope that believers will be edified, and the soul-thrilling truth of God’s all sufficient work of salvation will be ever more clearly understood in the hearts of minds of His people.

Refocusing the Discussion

One of the most troubling aspects of many back-and-forth discussions is the fact that they can often grow to such proportions that the reader is lost in a myriad of details that may, or may not, actually be relevant to the topic at hand.  So I am going to make an effort to refocus the discussion while responding as fully as possible to Mr. Sungenis’ attempted response.  To help, allow me to make some general observations and comments up front, and then provide the substantiation for these conclusions in the following material.

Observation #1:  Sola ecclesia lives.  Mr. Sungenis simply does not provide textually based exegesis.  Those who are familiar with the rules of meaningful exegetical study of the text can see, by examining Mr. Sungenis’ efforts, that his interpretations do not flow from the text, but are made up of assertions joined with a general, “the word X does not have to mean this or that.”  The over-riding concern is always the teaching of Rome, which is derived from Mr. Sungenis’ own interpretation and understanding of the writings of the Church.  This then becomes the lens through which the text is seen, even if this results, as it does here, in the utter reversal of the meaning of the text.  This is one of the main reasons why, though almost everything Mr. Sungenis says in his response is fully addressed in The Potter’s Freedom, I am taking the time to respond separately: it is an object lesson well worth learning.

Observation #2:  Mr. Sungenis’ handling of the koine Greek language in this article does not present an in-depth, scholarly understanding of syntax.  For example, aside from the fact that his original assertion regarding the use of mh in interrogatives has been refuted, his handling of such things as participles is a telling sign of a less-than-full understanding of the language.  I have commented to Mr. Sungenis in the past that he needs to engage in a study of syntax that goes beyond mere grammar.  Syntax involves the relationship of words and phrases.  The mere noting of a word being in the present tense, for example, without recognizing it is also in a participial phrase, shows a fundamental weakness of understanding of syntactical categories and functions.  These are issues that are introduced, and mastered, in later study of the language, and would not be covered with sufficient depth in a brief Master’s program.  I was personally very blessed to have begun my study of Greek before seminary, in college, where I minored in the subject.  As I teach Greek in seminary now, I am often distressed at the tremendous speed with which we must cover the material.  I know all too well the pressures upon the seminary student and the difficulty in mastering not only the grammar, but then the syntax, of koine Greek.  The result of all of this is the simple fact that Mr. Sungenis makes a number of rudimentary errors in his handling of the Greek language in context.  These errors are noted below.  I also note, briefly, that in light of Scott Windsor’s taking Mr. Sungenis’ words over the words of three published and established Greek grammars, this information is relevant.

Observation #3:  Mr. Sungenis does not understand Reformed theology.  The number of misrepresentations of Reformed thinking in this article (and in his published works) is striking.  But, there is a possible explanation. Mr. Sungenis himself admitted, in his personal testimony in Surprised by Truth, p. 111,

Not being totally convinced that the militant Calvinistic theology espoused at Westminster was correct, I continued to find myself in theological debates with professors and fellow students.

In light of this, it is somewhat understandable how one who graduated from Westminster Seminary could still use such phrases as “God forces men to believe” and the like, caricatures which, while common in anti-Reformed polemics, have likewise been refuted so many times it is amazing.

                        Finally, Mr. Sungenis decided to spend a good deal of time focusing upon Augustine in his response.  I believe the citation I offered was clear and compelling, and I still do.  I simply remind the reader that Augustine changed his views over time on this issue, becoming ever more forceful in his annunciation of the divine decree of the salvation of the elect. Anyone who reads his later works well knows the force of his statements.  It is quite easy to quote Augustine against Augustine by ignoring the development of his thought through the Pelagian controversy.  The fact that he identified saving faith as a gift of God given only to the elect is truly without question.  But I shall not clutter this reply with further discussions of Augustine’s changing theology over time: the issue is the divine teaching of Christ in the synagogue at Capernaum, to which I now turn.

First Issue: mh Does Indicate a Negative Response

                        In the web cast discussion with Mr. Windsor the matter of whether Jesus’ asking the disciples, “You do not want to go away also, do you” (John 6:67, NASB) came up.  Mr. Windsor attempted to read free will into these words, assuming that Jesus was “giving them a choice” and that this implied the existence of free will.  In response I pointed out that the form of the question in Greek uses the particle mh, and that this indicates an assumed negative answer, just as the NASB translates it.  Mr. Windsor contacted Mr. Sungenis, who commented that the wording did not fit a “rhetorical question.”  Now, I have no idea what that means, and I do not know if Mr. Sungenis was responding to Mr. Windsor’s errant communication to him of what I said, or if Mr. Sungenis just missed the point (I nowhere indicated the question was rhetorical, but that it expected a negative answer, which, obviously, is not the same thing).  Mr. Windsor simply failed to provide any meaningful basis for reading “free will” into John 6:67, and seemingly citing Mr. Sungenis’ comment was enough to provide him with another “error” on my part.  So I wrote to Mr. Sungenis and asked him to explain what I had said that was in error regarding the fact that John 6:67 is a question using mh that expects a negative answer.  When he replied, on March 4, 2001, he attempted to assert that mh does not have to indicate a negative answer, and provided examples.  I refuted each example, and noted the most glaring one in my previous response.  His specific assertion had been:

1) MH before the main verb does not always expect a negative answer. For example, in John 7:31, MH before POIEESEI expects an affirmative answer, not a negative one. In other words, the implied answer to the question of whether the Christ will do more signs than Jesus is affirmative.

I pointed out that, in fact, the only meaningful way of understanding the passage is to understand that the crowd is saying just the opposite: that the expected answer is a negative.  I even cited A.T. Robertson’s comments that specifically note the use of mh, indicating a negative answer.  While it is hardly central to the issue at hand, it does speak to Mr. Sungenis knowledge of basic Greek grammar and to his general approach to exegesis and interpretation.  The simple fact of the matter is that I said nothing wrong in the cited comments.  No meaningful scholarship would argue I did.  The issue is interpretation of the meaning of John 6:67, and the attempt on Mr. Windsor’s part to turn the question into a positive support of “free will.”  In light of this background, note his response:

For clarification, it is certainly possible that the use of MH in John 7:31 expects a negative answer. Nevertheless, a few things need to be said. Since Dr. White appeals to the statement "many of the multitude believed in Him" in John 7:31, he is inferring that the belief of these people was so strong that they would be able to determine whether Jesus was the Messiah, and thus answer the question of John 7:31 negatively. I don't think that assessment is provable, since we do not know that kind of belief the people had. For all we know their belief could be like the people of John 8:31, who are finally told by Jesus in verse 44 that their father is the devil. This chapter is in close proximity to John 7:31, the verse in question, and thus would have great impact on determining the type of belief present among them.

Comment:  This is mere misdirection; Mr. Sungenis said X in his e-mail (quoted above); now he is saying non-X.  He seems to be admitting he was in error, but without actually saying it.  In either case, the issue is not, as I pointed out, whether these were true believers or not.  Personally, I don’t believe they were.  The point is that they said they believed, and they were arguing in the light of that profession.  It simply makes no sense whatsoever to read the text as Mr. Sungenis originally suggested, for you would then have the following: “Then many in the crowd believed in Him and they were saying, “Surely the Christ will do more signs than this man when he comes!”  That makes no sense at all!  We here have Mr. Sungenis ignoring the context and attempting to over-turn a simple rule of grammar.  Granted, he may well have simply provided a brief response without seriously considering the text.  But in any case, he has here been shown to be in complete error on the issue.  Instead of dealing with this, Mr. Sungenis continues on with a different topic:

Furthermore, we know that the crowd is not sure of Jesus' identity, since in John 7:27 they make a declarative statement, "However we know where this man [Jesus] is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no one knows where He is from." Obviously, the people are not certain who Jesus is, which is apparent by their doubt about the origins of the Christ. Thus, when a few verses later the question of John 7:31 is asked ("When Christ comes, will he not do more signs than which this man [Jesus] did"), the uncertainty described in John 7:27, along with the uncertainty suggested in John 8:31-44 regarding the kind of belief the crowd possessed, although still plausible, a negative answer to the question of John 7:31 is not at all certain. Indeed, if a negative response were the only one expected, then we would expect to find such a negative answer somewhere in the context (which is usually the case when questions are introduced by the Greek MH), but we do not find any here, thus the matter remains indefinite.

Speaking of proximity, I think I will also add Dr. White's own assessment of the "belief" of the people in John 6, which is stated just one chapter earlier than the people of John 7:31. In a later paragraph of this document, Dr. White writes the following of John 6's people: "The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience. He knew they did not possess real faith. 'But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe' (v. 36)."

As kindly as it can be put, that is obfuscation.  I made no error regarding mh; its meaning is clear in the passage, despite all the attempts to say otherwise.  Let the reader decide. 

The Potter’s Freedom

At this point I provided the exegetical section of my book, The Potter’s Freedom, regarding John 6:35-45.  I will simply point out that at times Mr. Sungenis seems to forget that I did not write this section following my discussion with Mr. Windsor, so he faults me for not addressing things as if I were writing it in response to his own comments. 

Right at the start, however, we encounter a fascinating discussion by Mr. Sungenis regarding the fact that I have written an entire work refuting the Arminianism of Dr. Norman Geisler.  Note his words:

Since Dr. White has brought up the name of Norman Geisler, I think it is worth mentioning here that Norman Geisler is one of the most respected and well-known theologian/philosphers in the Evangelical world. He appears on the same radio programs that Dr. White appears (The Bible Answer Man; Janet Parcell's America, etc), but on these programs he teaches an almost totally opposite view of John 6 and Predestination than Dr. White. It is ironic that two men, with two entirely different views on Salvation, can appear on the same program with the same hosts, and yet both be touted as faithful interpreters of the Bible.

There is, of course, one major flaw in Mr. Sungenis’ reasoning: it assumes Norman Geisler offered a “faithful interpretation” of the passage at hand.  As anyone knows who read Chosen But Free or my response, The Potter’s Freedom, Dr. Geisler did not offer any kind of exegetical interpretation of the passage.  It was one of the more amazing elements of the discussion offered in Chosen But Free.  Hence, it is not a matter of “dueling interpretations” regarding this passage, and even when it is, is the suggestion being made that since there is disagreement, that the text is therefore unclear?  Those who have read The Potter’s Freedom realize that the exegetical argument is, in fact, the most compelling argument put forward by the Reformed side.  Sungenis goes on to make a very telling statement:

It may also be worth mentioning that Norman Geisler's view of Predestination and the interpretation of the pertinent passages in John 6 are much closer to the Catholic view than Dr. White's. Catholicism would applaud Norman Geisler for his balanced view of Predestination and Free Will, whereas Dr. White ascribes to the traditional Calvinist view, which believes that God predestined men to Hell without regard to Free Will. I would suggest that, if anyone is interested in a refutation of the Calvinist view of Predestination, consult Chapter 7 of the book "Not By Faith Alone."  

As Mr. Sungenis’ attempted “refutation” of predestination partakes of the same common category and context errors as this reply, I believe the reader will be helped by what follows here.  But it is quite interesting to note the fact that Mr. Sungenis is quite right.  In fact, I spent an entire chapter in The Potter’s Freedom documenting what Mr. Sungenis here notes.  Arminianism is, in fact, very much in harmony with Rome on matters of the nature of the will, God’s sovereignty, and the nature of grace.  I even provided quotations from the Catholic Catechism that closely parallel, down to the choice of words, the assertions of Norman Geisler.  This is surely nothing new to anyone who is Reformed and is aware of the historical and theological realities. 

                        At this point Mr. Sungenis begins to provide a point-by-point response to my exegesis in The Potter’s Freedom.  The reader is strongly urged to consider one main issue: who presents a contextually-based presentation, and who uses a “scatter-gun” approach?  Whose conclusions flow from the text, and whose come from pre-existing commitments to external authorities?  We believe the answer to that question is clear.

The Context: Unbelief

I wrote in The Potter’s Freedom (hereafter TPF):

The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience. He knew they did not possess real faith. "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" (v. 36). They had seen Him with their eyes, but unless physical sight is joined with spiritual enlightenment, it profits nothing. Often the importance of this statement is overlooked. Verse 36 is a turning point in the chapter. Jesus now explains their unbelief. How is it that these men could stand before the very Son of God, the Word made flesh, and not believe? Anyone who does not take seriously the deadness of man in sin should contemplate this scene. The very Creator in human form stands before men who are schooled in the Scriptures and points to their unbelief. He then explains the why, and yet so few today will listen and believe.

Mr. Sungenis replied:

Robert Sungenis: I need to interject here that, by an appeal to the "deadness of man in sin," Dr. White is priming his audience to one of Calvinism's major premises - - the total depravity of man.

To which I reply:  The phrase “dead in sin” is completely biblical (Eph. 2:1-4, Col. 2:13), and in point of fact, in the context of my book, I had already established the biblical testimony to the deadness of man in sin and total depravity (TPF chapter 4, see especially pp. 100f) through a discussion of such passages as Romans 8:7-8, John 12:39-40, 1 Cor. 2:14, John 8:34-48, etc.  I was “priming” no one, but making reference to those who deny man’s deadness in sin.

This doctrine teaches that, after Adam sinned, man lost his free will.

Actually, it teaches that after Adam sinned, he and his followers have a corrupt nature which results in the enslavement of the will to a sinful nature.  The will, of course, remains fully intact: it is simply enslaved to a corrupt and fallen nature, resulting in the clear biblical teaching on the inabilities of the natural man outside of Christ, outside of regeneration.

St. Augustine taught, and the Catholic Church has followed his teaching, that man was NOT totally depraved after the Fall. St. Augustine taught that, although estranged from God and marred in his nature, Adam retained a residual grace and thus an ability to respond to God's call.

I refer the reader to the preceding references.

This is why passages such as 2 Peter 3:9; Romans 2:4-16 and Acts 17:24-31 can say what they do about post-Adamic man's continuing responsibility to answer the call of God.

Mr. Sungenis seems to believe that the general call of repentance and faith implies a capacity that either remains after the fall, or, is graciously given to all.  No such capacity is even hinted at in the first two passages, and the third refers to the very same universal call Reformed people fully believe in and practice.

As opposed to Dr. White's theology, not only does God issue the call to repentance, He expects man to respond by using the grace God has given him. If man does not respond, it means he has resisted the grace of God. St. Augustine used such passages as Zech 1:3; James 4:8; Luke 11:19; Jeremiah 3:22; 29:13 to prove this point, as did the Council of Trent.

As opposed to Rome’s theology, and Mr. Sungenis’ interpretation thereof, grace cannot be demanded; it is free, utterly free, and is given on the basis of God’s choice and will, nothing more.  Repentance, too, is a gift, given by God to His elect people, along with faith, both as part of the work of regeneration. 

                        Mr. Sungenis’ entire view of salvation, and Scripture, is anthropocentric (centered upon man).  The Bible’s own view is theocentric (centered upon God).  Man’s religions are invariably anthropocentric, always including at their very heart various rites and rituals (in Roman Catholicism, sacraments) designed to control God and His power, removing from Him His sovereign freedom and placing the ultimate power of salvation squarely in the hands of man.  This is where biblical Christianity differs from the religions of men, including Roman Catholicism and all forms of “Protestantism” that likewise refuse to allow God to be free and man to be the fallen creature.

Mr. Sungenis continues:

The above facts are important, since it seems by everything Dr. White has written that he attributes the obstinance (sic) and unbelief of the Jews in John 6 to the fact that God has predestined them to unbelief and eternal damnation.

Correction: all men, outside of God’s gracious act of regeneration, are enemies of God, opposed to Him and to His purposes, rebels with a self-centered cause, one might say.  The focus of the passage is not reprobation: the focus of the passage is upon the gracious predestination of Christ’s elect, which explains their positive faith.  Unbelief is natural to the fallen man: faith is unnatural, and requires a supernatural explanation, which is what this passage provides. 

However, if one looks at the context of the Gospel of John, indeed, the context of the whole Scripture in regards to the Jew's obstinacy, it is due to their continued resistence (sic) to God's grace and call. Passages such as Ezek. 18:21-32; 33:11; Matt 23:37, etc., show that God continually pleads with Israel to repent.

No one questions God’s call to repentance: the claim this means that man is not what this passage says he is (unable to come to Christ outside of supernatural enablement which is not given to all, but to those given to the Father by the Son only) is what is in dispute.  See TPF pp. 136-139 on Matthew 23:37.

Unfortunately, it is theologies such as Calvinism which teach that God issues such pleadings but without giving all men the power to respond to those very pleadings.

I.e., God is free to give grace as He sees fit, not as man demands of Him.  The freedom of God in dealing with the guilty and vile sinner (Calvinism) vs. the enslavement of God to the alleged powers of the creature who will decide if he/she will allow God to accomplish His purposes in salvation (man’s religions).

In fact, Calvinism teaches that God pleads with the non-predestined man only because God will eventually use his non-repentance as the evidence for his damnation in the future.

Actually, the basis of condemnation is the same for all: sin.  The fact that man in his sin refuses to acknowledge his Creator is, of course, evidence of God’s justice in condemning him, but it is not the basis of that condemnation.

In other words, Calvinism makes God a liar. God pretends to plead with the majority of mankind, but He doesn't really mean it; in fact, His pleadings are really condemnations in disguise.

Such rhetoric from a graduate of Westminster who admits he never believed what he was studying there anyway is fascinating, to say the least.  But in reality, this kind of accusation is meant solely to inflame emotions, not actually communicate anything.  It would be easy to respond with, “Catholicism makes God a liar because God says He accomplishes all His will, yet Rome says otherwise,” but is it not far better to simply demonstrate the errors of Rome and allow the reader to decide such things?  I surely think so. 

                        Calvinism says that God’s call to repentance goes forth for two reasons: it is used in grace as an instrument in His hands in the effectual salvation of God’s people, and for those who are righteously judged for their sin and rebellion (which would include all, outside of grace), the call demonstrates the truth of Paul’s words, “they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).  The assumption that causes Mr. Sungenis to use terms like “liar” is that he can somehow see God’s purposes in that general call in each person’s life, which obviously he cannot.

John 6:37: Initial Exegesis

I wrote in TPF:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." These are the first words to come from the Lord in explanation of man's unbelief. We dare not engage in hopscotch across this text and ignore the very order of teaching He provides. The first assertion is one of complete divine sovereignty. Every word speaks volumes.

"All that the Father gives Me." The Father gives someone to Christ. The elect are viewed as a single whole, [footnote: The neuter form pa'n is used when the entire group is in view; when each individual person comes into view with reference to their response of faith the masculine participle ejrcovmeno" is used, showing the personal element of faith.] given by the Father to the Son. [footnote: Two tenses are used by the Lord in this passage: here the present tense is used, "all the Father gives (divdwsin) Me…." In verse 39, however, the perfect tense is used, "all that He has given (devdwken) Me…." ] The Father has the right to give a people to the Son. He is the sovereign King, and this is a divine transaction.

All that are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son. Not some, not most, but all.
All those given by the Father to the Son will come to the Son. It is vital to see the truth that is communicated by this phrase: the giving by the Father to the Son precedes and determines the coming of the person to Christ. The action of giving by the Father comes before the action of coming to Christ by the individual.

To which Mr. Sungenis replied:

Robert Sungenis: Funny as it may seem, there is little with which I disagree here. However, as you read on, it is the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute predestination, which Dr. White tries to assign to these verses that creates the exegetical problem.  

But in reality, it is just this section that Mr. Sungenis must disagree with if he is to be at all consistent.  The heart of the passage is here laid out: the existence of an elect people; the giving by the Father to the Son resulting in the coming of the elect to Christ; the use of the masculine participle showing the personal faith that results from the work of grace in the heart; the initial discussion of the present and perfect tense uses of “give”; and the perfection of the work of God in that all who are given come to Christ.  The words are plain, as is the meaning.  I continued in TPF:

And since all of those so given infallibly come, we have here both unconditional election as well as irresistible grace, and that in the space of nine words! It becomes an obvious exercise in eisegesis to say, "Well, what the Lord really means is that all that the Father has seen will believe in Christ will come to Christ." That is a meaningless statement. Since the action of coming is dependent upon the action of giving, we can see that it is simply not exegetically possible to say that we cannot determine the relationship between the two actions. God's giving results in man's coming. Salvation is of the Lord.

To which Mr. Sungenis replies:

I would agree with Dr. White that we cannot say that "we cannot determine the relationship between the two actions," but whether Dr. White's "determination" is the correct one is something that he can't prove.

There is no question, truly, concerning the relationship of the giving of the Father and the coming of the elect.  Of course, all of man’s religions, that refuse to give to God the authority to freely bestow His grace as He sees fit, must find some way to reverse this order, for if it is the giving of the Father that determines the coming of any human, then salvation is theocentric, all to His glory, and is not under the control of man.  As to being able to prove that the giving precedes the coming, that is not even disputable.  No argument can be presented that can overthrow the simple grammar of the verse: those given, come.  Period.

Although we can agree that those whom the Father gives will come to Jesus, there is simply nothing in the passage that says their coming was based on an "unconditional election," nor that, once they come to Jesus, they will remain there "irresistibly" without any chance of falling away.

As we will see, Mr. Sungenis bases the identity of those given upon their “free will” act of coming; this reverses the text, and makes the giving of the Father conditional upon human action (standard Arminianism makes the same mistake).  Hence, the “condition” he adds is human action (faith), which this passage says is actually the result of the election, not the means.  Therefore, unless he wishes to suggest some other “condition,” the election is, in fact, unconditional and free.  Secondly, it seems Mr. Sungenis is confused regarding the term “irresistible grace.”  The phrase refers to God’s gracious act of regenerating a dead sinner and granting new life.  It is not a term referring to the truth that Christ does not lose any of those given to Him.  That truth is plainly and without question referred to in 6:38-39.

Those two thoughts are put there by Dr. White, but they are not in the text. If read carefully, the text says only that those who come to Jesus were given to Him by the Father.

Correction: it says much more.  It says ALL who are given to the Son by the Father will come to the Father, and every one who comes is never cast out.  The priority of the Father’s giving to the coming of the one given introduces election and sovereignty; the “all” introduces election and irresistible grace; the promise of the Son never to cast out any who come to Him introduces the security of the elect in Christ, which is then expanded upon in 6:38-39 where the reason for His never casting anyone out is fully explained in light of the Father’s will.  So, nothing has been inserted into the text at all.

There should be no argument here, since the alternative is to say that the people themselves, without the Father's power, brought themselves to Jesus. Catholic theology has never taught such a thing.

Note that by not dealing with the appearance of “all” in the text, Mr. Sungenis is able to avoid the actual force of Jesus’ words.  Surely it is a different thing to say “Some general folks the Father gives the Son will come to the Son” than “ALL that the Father gives Me will come to Me.”  The one involves the necessity of the effectiveness of the drawing of the Father to the Son, the other does not.  One leaves room for synergism (as in Roman Catholicism), the other does not. 

Also, the passage says that, once they come, Jesus will not cast them out. It doesn't say that the people cannot take themselves out of Jesus. Dr. White is simply reading into the verse what his theology has dictated to him.  

In reality, of course, the reader can see this is untrue.  Verses 38-39 will explain that the one who is given by the Father to the Son is the same one the Son will raise up on the last day in perfect harmony with the Father’s will for Him.  To posit the idea that the object of the combined love of the Father, Son, and Spirit can be lost by the exercise of man’s almighty will is to say that the Son can fail to do the will of the Father, the very thing the text precludes.  The only way to read these words and not see the perfection of Christ’s work and the resulting security of the believer is to reject the theocentricity of the text, and adopt, a-priori, a man-centered standard that then allows you to ignore those elements of the text that indicate otherwise.

I had written in TPF:

But note as well that it is to the Son that they come. They do not come to a religious system. They are coming to Christ. This is a personal relationship, personal faith, and, given that the ones who come are described throughout the passage by the present tense participle, it is not just a coming that happens once. This is an on-going faith, an on-going looking to Christ as the source of spiritual life. The men to whom the Lord was speaking had "come" to Him for a season: they would soon walk away and follow Him no more. The true believer is coming to Christ, always. This is the nature of saving faith.

Sungenis responded:

Again, Dr. White is reading more into the verse than what is there. I don't desire to make a big issue of the Greek present tense participle, but I should add that Dr. White's interpretation of it is conveniently applied to his Calvinistic theology, which teaches that once a person starts on the road to faith he will never lose his faith and he will inevitably reach heaven.

Mr. Sungenis has completely missed the point.  Yes, saving faith is on-going, as I said: but the reason for the security of the believer is not based upon the actions of the believer, but upon the faithfulness of Christ the Savior.  I am not, in the above cited words, addressing what Mr. Sungenis assumes.  I am, however, pointing out something that is well known to students of John’s gospel: he regularly describes saving faith through the use of present tense participles and verbs (especially the use of the present tense substantival participle “the one believing,” oJ pisteuvwn), while describing surface-level, fleeting faith through the use of the aorist.  My application in the above words is direct and simple: saving faith is not a one-time, surface level thing, but is an on-going faith that keeps looking, keeps believing, keeps trusting.  Again, the only way such words can make sense is within the context of a theocentric reading of the text: they are meaningless within the context of Rome’s man-centeredness.

That application is not provable from the text. The present participle is merely telling us that the one who comes to Jesus will not be stopped from coming. In other words, if one attempts to come to Jesus, Jesus will not pull the rug out from under him and say, "Sorry, I changed my mind, I don't really want you to come after all," like the Greek and Roman gods used to do. Jesus is faithful. The question is whether we will be faithful to Him. That is why 2 Timothy 2:12 says: "If we deny Him, He will also deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."  

There is one problem in the above paragraph: coming and believing are parallel phrases in John chapter six and elsewhere.  “The one coming” is “the one believing.”  Is Mr. Sungenis consistent in his assertion?  Would he say that in verse 40 the only meaning to the substantival participle “the one believing” is that it is “merely telling us that the one who believes in Jesus will not be stopped from believing”?  Such is obviously not the meaning of the text at all. I wrote in TPF:

"And the one who comes to Me I will never cast out." The true believer, the one "coming" to the Son, has this promise of the Lord: using the strongest form of denial possible, [footnote: Here the aorist subjunctive of strong denial, ouj mh; ejkbavlw e[xw, "I will never cast out." The idea is the emphatic denial of the possibility of a future event.]

Mr. Sungenis replied:

So far so good. There is definitely a strong denial here. I have already said above that Jesus is faithful. He will not pull the rug out from anyone. But watch what Dr. White makes of this "strong denial."  

The reader should note again the difference between viewing salvation as the work of God, where it is Christ who actually saves His people (Matthew 1:21) and viewing it as the cooperative effort of man and God where Christ makes salvation possible but does not actually save.  There is simply no basis in a synergistic, man-centered religion for a belief in the security of the believer, since there is no foundation capable of sustaining the doctrine.  In other words, without a Savior capable of saving, you can’t have security!  At this point I had then concluded, “Jesus affirms the eternal security of the believer.”  Sungenis responds:

Again, Dr. White has read into the verse a precept from his Calvinistic theology. The verse doesn't mention anything about whether the believer will be eternally secure from losing his salvation (which is what Dr. White means by "eternal security"). It only says that Jesus will not cast him out if he comes to Jesus. The verse teaches that Jesus is faithful, not that the believer need never worry that he could make himself fall from Jesus. I can't impress this upon the reader enough. Dr. White's interpretation is a classic example of reading a passage with one's own colored glasses.

Let’s remember a few things.  First, it is very easy to dismiss what someone else says as merely their own projection of their pre-existing beliefs onto the text.  It takes a positive demonstration of the assertion to make it meaningful.  Second, if salvation is a solely divine work then the accusation of eisegesis made here collapses.  John 6:37a speaks of the Father’s giving of a people to the Son---it does not mention man’s “free will” as determining that divine act.  In other words, the action of giving is fully divine.  Then immediately after this statement of the Lord we find the direct assertion of the Father’s will for the Son in saving all those who are so given, and again the actions are entirely divine, not human.  So, given that this phrase sits between two clearly theocentric assertions concerning salvation, who, in fact, is separating it from its context and reading into it a meaning that is not there in the original text?  You see, to deny the ability of Christ to save perfectly any and all who are entrusted to Him by the Father is to make a positive assertion: and upon what basis does Mr. Sungenis ground his claim that Christ is unable to save outside of human cooperation?  Surely nothing in this text.  He must go elsewhere to attempt to make that claim. 

So when Mr. Sungenis says I’m reading the text with “colored glasses,” this is about the only positive evidence offered for the insertion, on his part, of a completely foreign concept into the text at hand: the idea that Jesus can attempt to save a person, and fail at it due to that person’s choice.  And is this not just the over-riding assumption of free-will that I identified in my previous article?  Of course it is.  Hence, Mr. Sungenis is engaging in circular argumentation, assuming the conclusion of his argument before he has in fact proven his argument.  That assumption, I believe, comes from his highest authority (Rome), not from the text of Scripture.  So, the “colored glasses” are firmly planted not on my exegetical eyes, but upon his, placed there by the authority of the Pope in Rome.  This is borne out by what comes next.  I had written, “Jesus is the one who gives life and raises His own up at the last day. He promises that there is no possibility whatsoever that any one who is coming to Him in true faith could ever find Him unwilling to save.”  Sungenis replies,

No problem here, for this is precisely what I am contending. Jesus, because He is faithful, will never be unwilling to save those who come to Him. But I hasten to add that this present statement by Dr. White is not the same as his previous statement concerning "eternal security."

I truly hope the reader can see the issue: for Robert Sungenis and the Roman Church, Jesus is more than willing to save, but is incapable of doing so outside of the cooperation of those He is trying to save.  So Christ’s willingness does not, in Rome’s system, translate into the accomplished fact of salvation.  The text, however, says just the opposite: Christ’s willingness results in the perfection of the work because Christ is a perfect Savior who is able to save!

I continued in TPF:

But this tremendous promise is the second half of a sentence. It is based upon the truth that was first proclaimed. This promise is to those who are given by the Father to the Son and to no one else. Of course, we will see in verse 44 that no one but those who are so given will be coming to Christ in faith anyway: but there are surely those who, like many in that audience in Capernaum, are willing to follow for a while, willing to believe for a season. This promise is not theirs.

Sungenis responds:

Dr. White implies that he has made an important statement above, but there is nothing of real significance here.

The only way I can translate this statement is, “It is not significant to note that the promise of Christ not to cast out any who come to Him is based upon the divine sovereignty of the Father in entrusting His people to the Son, and that despite the fact that Jesus then spent the next two verses explaining that very relationship, so that He obviously felt that it was most important to do so.”

Of course, those who are not given to Jesus by the Father do not have the promise that Jesus will not cast them out. The reason they don't have that promise is because they have never come to Jesus. According to the verse's premise, you can't have the promise that Jesus will not cast you out unless you come to Jesus. In logic, the condition of the category must be fulfilled in order for the category to enact its stipulations. In effect, Dr. White is making an issue of a non-issue.

Please note that Mr. Sungenis forgot that the only ones who come to the Son are those given to Him by the Father, hence the connection I described above.  I continued and brought out the theocentricity of the passage in these words:

The promise to the elect, however, could not be more precious. Since Christ is able to save perfectly (He is not dependent upon man's will, man's cooperation), His promise means the elect cannot ever be lost.

To which Sungenis replied:

Again, Dr. White keeps adding things to the passage that the passage does not address. Where does the passage mention, let alone deny, "man's will, man's cooperation"??

One is hard pressed to respond to such a question.  When the passage presents the Father’s divine gift to the Son and preceding and determining the very identity of every single one who, as a result of being given, come to the Son, and then goes on to reveal the Father’s will for the Son to save every single one of those given by the Father to the Son, the issue is not “where does the passage deny” synergism, the issue is, how in the world could anyone read synergism into the passage as Mr. Sungenis does at every turn?

Where does the passage conclude that those who come can never be lost??

It does so by stating that 1) all who are given come, and 2) the Son raises up all those who are given to Him in perfection (i.e., He loses none).  This is simple contextual reading.

Those thoughts are simply not there. Granted, "Christ is able to save perfectly," because He is God and does everything perfectly. Would we want a savior who is imperfect? Of course not. But how does Dr. White get from Christ's perfection to the conclusion that Christ does not anticipate "man's will, man's cooperation." 

Does not anticipate?  Is this stated in the context of accusing me of eisegetical insertions into the text?  If Christ saves perfectly, Mr. Sungenis, are you seriously suggesting that He only saves perfectly those who enable Him to do so?  The text ostensibly under consideration says that Christ saves perfectly those that the Father gives Him, and that those who come to Him are, in fact, those that are given by the Father (remember, this whole section is about why those who see Jesus do not believe while the Apostles, as we will see by the end of the discourse, do).

I had written in TPF:

Since He will not cast out, and there is no power greater than His own, the one who comes to Christ will find Him an all-sufficient and perfect Savior. This is the only basis of "eternal security" or the perseverance of the saints: they look to a perfect Savior who is able to save. It is Christ's ability to save that means the redeemed cannot be lost. If it were, in fact, a synergistic relationship, there could never be any ground for absolute confidence and security.

Sungenis replies:

Without restating the obvious, you can again see how Dr. White has confused Christ's perfection and all-sufficiency with "eternal security."

The contrast of theocentric and anthropocentric systems is now clear: if Christ is a perfect Savior then He is able to accomplish salvation in the Scriptural view.  But in Rome’s view, Christ has a lesser task: making salvation possible but not actually accomplishing it.  Hence, from Rome’s view, Christ can be a perfect Savior by making men savable, while as we will see in this text of Scripture, the reality is that Christ is a perfect Savior because He actually saves those who are given to Him.

Moreover, we can easily turn the tables here and say that, in being perfect, Christ has an obligation to reject those who, once having come to Him, become faithless and remain so. If He didn't reject them, then he wouldn't be true to Himself, as 2 Timothy 2:12-13 tells us so clearly.

Note that in Mr. Sungenis’ view, faith is not the work of Christ either: that is, faith that truly brings a person to Christ can in essence “go bad” (the truth is many come not to Christ but to religion on the basis of a non-saving “faith” in something other than the Savior), resulting in the above scenario.  However, are we not told that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2)?  The divine nature of saving faith is here denied by Mr. Sungenis.  The person who has been drawn by the Father to the Son (John 6:44-45) hears and learns from God and does not deny Christ, hence 2 Timothy 2:12-13 is not making reference to such a person.  Keep these statements by Mr. Sungenis in mind as we come to the discussion of 6:38-39 and the will of the Father for the Son.  I had addressed this tremendous passage in TPF in these words:

Many stop at verse 37 and miss the tremendous revelation we are privileged to receive in the following verses. Why will Christ never cast out those who come to Him? Verse 38 begins with a connective that indicates a continuation of the thought: verses 38 and 39 explain verse 37. Christ keeps all those who come to Him for He is fulfilling the will of the Father. "I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." The divine Messiah always does the will of the Father. The preceding chapter in John's Gospel had made this very clear. There is perfect harmony between the work of the Father and the Son.
And what is the will of the Father for the Son? In simple terms, it is the Father's will that the Son save perfectly. "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." It is vital to remember that this continues the explanation of why He does not cast out the one coming to Him. We must see this for some might be tempted to say that the Father has entrusted all things into the hands of the Son, and that this passage is saying nothing more than the Son will act properly in regards to what the Father has given Him. But the context is clear: v. 37 speaks of the Father "giving" the elect to the Son, and v. 39 continues the same thought. Those who are given infallibly come to the Son in v. 37, and it is these same ones, the elect, [footnote: Jesus uses the neuter pa'n again to refer to the elect as an entire group, though the fact that this group is made up of individuals is seen in their being raised to life and in their individually coming to Him.] who are raised up at the last day.

Sungenis replies:

Notice how Dr. White inserts the word "elect" into John 6:37, but the verse does not mention the word elect. It only says, "ALL that the Father gives to me..." The neuter of pa'n does not mean anything crucial here, since most pa'ns in Greek are neuter, unless a masculine or feminine referent is in view.

Two obvious replies: 1) the term “elect” is thoroughly biblical (Romans 8:33, 11:7, 2 Timothy 2:10).  Of course it is not used in John 6:37-39, but one must seriously ask Mr. Sungenis who, then, is being referred to if, in fact, the people given by the Father to the Son in John 6:37-39 are not the same body in view in Romans 8:33 or 2 Timothy 2:10?  Did Paul endure “all things” so that someone other than those given by the Father to the Son would obtain salvation in Christ Jesus?  Of course not.  So the term is not being “inserted.”  The term is used in Scripture of this very group, so why not use it here?  2) The Greek term pa"/pasa/pan is 3-1-3 adjective declinable in all three genders: every instance of pan is, of course neuter: pan is never masculine or feminine, for obvious reasons.  So, Mr. Sungenis is simply wrong to say “most pans in Greek are neuter.”  All uses of pan in Greek are neuter.  His statement would be as erroneous as saying “most uses of tauth" in Greek are feminine.”  No, all uses of tauth" in Greek are feminine.  That’s just basic knowledge.  Secondly, since it seems Mr. Sungenis is not familiar with the declension and forms of pa"/pasa/pan, he has missed the point, a point noted in most critical commentaries on the passage.  Pan is a neuter singular.  Yet, it is being used of the people the Father gives the Son.  Generally, one would use a masculine plural to refer to a group, or at least a masculine singular when emphasizing the “singularity” of the group (similar to using the singular word “crowd” though there is a composite unity inherent in the term: a crowd is a singular entity made up of a plurality of individuals).  Yet, as I pointed out, when speaking of the elect of God as a singular whole, Jesus uses the neuter singular.  The object of God’s elective decree is a distinct and definite people, entrusted to Christ for full salvation.  Then, when the Lord speaks of the individual who, upon being drawn and enabled of the Father, comes infallibly to Christ, the masculine singular is used (6:40).  Mr. Sungenis may not think this relevant because he is unfamiliar with the discussion of the text and the forms found therein, but it is relevant to any meaningful exegesis.

Mr. Sungenis then added:

Incidentally, with regard to inserting the word "elect," Calvinists do the same thing with 1 Timothy 2:4. The verse says, "God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." John Calvin and his followers say that the only way this verse can be understood is to read it as: "God desires all the elect to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Likewise, they will say of 1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the elect of the whole world." But neither verse is saying what the Calvinist wants it to say.

A couple of quick points: the actual interpretation offered by Reformed writers regarding 1 Timothy 2:4 is that “all men” means “all kinds of men.”  I discussed this in TPF, pp. 139-145 (and 1 John 2:2 in TPF pp. 274-277).  But just to show that Calvin’s interpretation was hardly anything new, I offer the following words from Augustine, Chapter 103 of the Enchiridion:

Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He “will have all men to be saved,” although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, “Who will have all men to be saved,” as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: “The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:” not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him. Or, it is said, “Who will have all men to be saved;” not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances, - kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, “For kings, and for all that are in authority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,” that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb.” For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “every herb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by “all men,” every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth,” as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.

It surely seems Augustine held to the view that “all men” in this passage is contextually defined as all kinds of men long before Calvin did.  If viewing the passage in this way indicates a Protestant predisposition, does it follow that Augustine was a Protestant?  Be that as it may, I continued in TPF by stating, “Resurrection is the work of Christ, and in this passage, is paralleled with the giving of eternal life (see v. 40). Christ gives eternal life to all those who are given to Him and who, as a result, come to Him.”  Mr. Sungenis replies:

I can't help but notice that Dr. White has skipped over the details of verse 40.

Please note: Anyone who reads the chapter in TPF knows that I did no such thing: what Mr. Sungenis is responding to here is my discussion of 6:38-39.  The last time I checked,