Distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism

Following are Important Distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism followed by confessional, creedal, or modern statements that further illustrate their differences.

 

CALVINISM 

TOTAL DEPRAVITY 

Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel savingly, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him. His will is in bondage to sin, and he cannot choose good over evil in the spiritual realm unless he is first regenerated by the Spirit of God enabling him to come to faith. 

The French Confession, Article IX 

[The French Confession - Also called the Gallican Confession or the Confession of Rochelle, it was prepared by John Calvin (1509-1564) and his pupil Antoine de la Roche Chandieu (1534-1591). It was approved by a synod in Paris in 1559 and adopted (and revised) by the Synod of La Rochelle, held in 1571. It was the creed of the Huguenots.] 

IX. We believe that man was created pure and perfect in the image of God, and that by his own guilt he fell from the grace which he received,[1] and is thus alienated from God, the fountain of justice and of all good, so that his nature is totally corrupt. And being blinded in mind, and depraved in heart, he has lost all integrity, and there is no good in him.[2] And although he can still discern good and evil,[3] we say, notwithstanding, that the light he has becomes darkness when he seeks for God, so that he can in nowise approach him by his intelligence and reason.[4] And although he has a will that incites him to do this or that, yet it is altogether captive to sin, so that he has no other liberty to do right than that which God gives him.[5] 

(1) Gen. 1:26; Eccl. 7:10; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:2-3; (2) Gen. 6:5, 8:21; (3) Rom. 1:21; 2:18-20; (4) I Cor. 2:14; (5) John 1:4-5,7; 8:36; Rom. 8:6-7 

The Canons of Dort,  First Head of Doctrine: Divine Election and Reprobation 

[These were produced by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) as a response to Arrninianism. (Dort is in Holland.) The Five Points of Calvinism produced here were in response to five points presented by the Arminians. The Synod was an international body and so made the Canons of Dort the most international of the Reformed documents.] 

Articles of Faith: Article 15 

What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but, permitting them in His just judgment to follow their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof. 

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION 

God's election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith, and brought to glory. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality foreseen in man. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X: Of Effectual Calling 

[The Westminster Confession of Faith - This confession was produced by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, which had been created by the English Parliament in 1643 to settle various theological and ecclesiastical issues in the British Isles. It was presented to Parliament in 1646 and with scripture proofs in 1647. It was essentially an English Puritan document that didn't take hold in England but was embraced enthusiastically in Presbyterian Scotland and so later the English-speaking Presbyterian world as well. It covers the spectrum of theological topics and is similar to the Belgic Confession.] 

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,[1] by his Word and Spirit, [2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is
good, [6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.[8] 

1. Acts 13:48; Rom. 4:28, 30; 11:7; Eph. 1:5, 11; II Tim. 1:9-10; (2) II Thess. 2:13-14; James 1:18; II Cor. 3:3, 6;I Cor. 2:12;(3) II Tim. 1:9-10; I Peter 2:9; Rom 8:2; Eph. 2:1-10; (4) Acts 26:18;I Cor. 2:10, 12; Eph. 1:17-18; II Cor. 4:6;(5) Ezek. 36:26
(6) Ezek. 11:19; 36:27; Deut. 30:6; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; I Peter 1:23; (7) John 6:44-45; Acts 16:14; (8) Psa. 110:3; John 6:37; Matt. 11:28; Rev. 22:17; Rom. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:8; Phil 1:29. 

II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11] 

9. 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 9:11; (10) I Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-9; Titus 3:4-5; (11) John 6:37; Ezek. 36:27; I John 3:9; 5:1 

LIMITED ATONEMENT 

The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect only and actually secured salvation for them, guaranteeing it. His death was the substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. 

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine: The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby - Articles of Faith, Article 8 

For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.
[Mt. 20:28; Jn. 17:6, 9, 10; 10: 14-15; 15:13; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25; et.al] 

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE 

The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object. It always results in conversion. The Spirit irresistibly and invincibly draws sinners to Christ. Success is not dependent upon man's will or cooperation. 

The Canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: The Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, & the Manner Thereof - Articles of Faith, Article 11 

But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions. 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 

Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory. All that He has chosen are eternally saved. The power of God that has been present in their spiritual life from the start preserves them in the state of salvation. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XVII: Of the Perseverance of the Saints
They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]
1. Phil. 1:6; II Peter 1:10; Rom. 8:28-30; John 10:28-29; I John 3:9; 5:18;I Peter 1:5,9 

This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. [6] 

(2) Psa. 89:3-4, 28-33; II Tim. 2:18-19; Jer. 31:3; (3) Heb. 7:25; 9:12-15; 10:10, 14; 13:20-21; 17:11, 24; Rom. 8:33-39; Luke 22:32; (4) John 14:16-17; I John 2:27; 3:9
(5) Jer. 32:40; Psa. 89:34-37; see Jer. 31:31-34; (6) John 6:38-40; 10:28; II Thess. 3:3; I John 2:19 

Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein: [8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve his Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalin others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. [15] 

(7) Exod. 32:21; Jonah 1:3, 10; Psa. 51:14; Matt. 26:70, 72, 74; (8) II Sam. 12:9, 13; Gal. 2:11-14; (9) Num. 20:12; II Sam. 11:27; Isa. 64:7, 9;(10) Eph. 4:30; (11) Psa. 51:8, 10, 12; Rev. 2:4; Matt 26:75; (12) Isa. 63:17; (13) Psa. 32:3-4; 51:8; (14) Gen. 12:10-20; II Sam. 12:14; Gal. 2:13; (15) Psa. 89:31-32; I Cor. 11:32 

ARMINIANISM

FREE WILL / HUMAN ABILITY 

Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him. God does not interfere with man's freedom (his ability to choose good or evil in spiritual matters). The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated, or resist God's grace and perish. Faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. 

The Canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: The Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, & the Manner Thereof - Rejection of Errors 

Paragraph 9 [The Canon of Dordt rejects those...] 

Who teach: That grace and free will are partial causes [synergism] which together work the beginning of conversion, and that grace, in order of working, does not precede the working of the will; that is, that God does not efficiently help the will of man unto conversion until the will of man moves and determines to do this. 

For the ancient Church has long ago condemned this doctrine of the Pelagians according to the words of the apostle: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy (Rom. 9:16). Likewise: For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? (I Cor. 4:7). And: For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). 

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XV: Original Sin 

[The Belgic Confession of Faith - This Reformed confession was prepared in 1561 by Guy de Bres (c.1523-1567), who was later martyred, and others, and then slightly revised by Francis Junius (1545-1602) of Bourges. First written in French, it was soon translated into Dutch and Latin. The Synod of Dort (1618-1619) made a revision but did not change the doctrine. It covers the spectrum of theological topics.] 

Article XV: Original Sin 

We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mother's womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind. Nor is it altogether abolished or wholly eradicated even by regeneration;[1] since sin always issues forth from this woeful source, as water from a fountain; notwithstanding it is not imputed to the children of God unto condemnation, but by His grace and mercy is forgiven them. Not that they should rest securely in sin, but that a sense of this corruption should make believers often to sigh, desiring to be delivered from this body of death. 

Wherefore we reject the error of the Pelagians, who assert that sin proceeds only from imitation. 

CONDITIONAL ELECTION 

Man is he never so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject the gospel call. God's choice of certain individuals before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. Election was conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw upon which He chose them, resulted solely from man's will. The ultimate cause of salvation is not God's choice, but the sinner's. 

UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 

Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men, and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it. 

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine: The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby - Rejection of Errors 

Paragraph 1 [The canons of Dordt reject those...] 

Who teach: That God the Father has ordained His Son to the death of the cross without a certain and definite decree to save any, so that the necessity, profitableness, and worth of what Christ merited by His death might have existed, and might remain in all its parts complete, perfect, and intact, even if the merited redemption had never in fact been applied to any person. 

For this doctrine tends to the despising of the wisdom of the Father and of the merits of Jesus Christ, and is contrary to Scripture. For thus says our Savior: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And the prophet Isaiah says concerning the Savior: When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10). 

The Cross - Possibility or Salvation? 

The key question we must ask ourselves is, What exactly does the cross of Christ do for sinners? Christians have adopted two basic answers to this question. The popular answer is that the Cross creates the possibility of saving everyone, while the Biblical answer is that the Cross actually saves those who believe in Christ. The popular answer holds that those who are saved can attribute their salvation to the Cross plus their decision to apply for its benefits, while the Biblical answer holds that those who are saved can attribute their salvation to the Cross alone. (David C. Hagopian, et. al., Back to Basics: Rediscovering the Richness of the Reformed Faith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996), 44. 

RESISTIBLE GRACE 

The Spirit does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But, inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. 

The Cross - Suffering or Payment? 

Yet such a view [that Christ paid the penalty for our sins] is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us...what Christ did He did for every person; therefore what He did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the ones who repent and believe. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, s.v. "Arminianism", J. K. Grider, 80). 

BILLY GRAHAM QUOTES FROM DECISION MAGAZINE: 

"The new birth is something that God does for man when man is willing to yield to God."
"Any person who is willing to trust Jesus Christ as His personal Savior can receive the new birth now." "The Holy Spirit will do everything possible to disturb you, draw you, love you, but finally it is your personal decision... .Make it happen now." 

FALL FROM GRACE 

It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost [not all Arminians are agreed on this point]. 

Archetypal and Ectypal Theology: Why do they matter?

In theology we are aiming at the true knowledge of the true God. How can human beings do theology?

1 Corinthians 8:4, 6: 

“… we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one …, yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”

 

Our theology, along with all things, must come from God. Thus, theology comes from God’s knowledge of Himself, as all things come from God. Theology has its origin in God, who is the fount of all knowledge.

But we have to learn to distinguish that there is a difference between what God knows because of who He is, and what man may know because of who God is and how he reveals himself. 

Theologians have historically explained this distinction in terms of archetypal and ectypal theology.

Archetypal theology 

Archetypal theology is unknowable by man, because it is the divine wisdom of divine matters. William Ames wrote, “God, as he is in himself, cannot be understood by any save himself.”3 It is here that the theologian speaks about what he does not know himself but knows to be true.

Archetypal theology is perfect or typical as a specimen of something; it is the prototype for an original model. God is archetypal theology. It is how he knows himself and all things in relation to himself. God knows himself perfectly. 

Zophar’s [one of Job’s comforters] true statement implies that archetypal theology impossible for man: 

“Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than heaven—what can you do? Deeper than Sheol—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea” (Job 11:7). 

Man, according to Job, cannot know God as God knows God. This is what makes archetypal theology important. For a man to know God, he must know God as creature rather than as Creator.  

Paul again wrote, “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him” (1 Cor 2:16). Fundamentally, man cannot know divine wisdom divinely; if he did, then he would have grounds to instruct the grand architect of creation, as his equal, which cannot be. The question then arises, how can human beings do theology?

Ectypal theology 

God and man do not know theology in exactly the same way. Both are concerned with divine matters, and both aim at wisdom through the true knowledge of the true God.

Ectypal means copied, something reproduced, in contradistinction from the original model.

Ectypal theology is man’s knowledge of God, and as such, it describes a complete dissimilarity in man’s and God’s knowledge of theology. In this understanding, there is God’s theology and man’s theology, and there is no commonality between them. 

For instance, human beings have an ambiguous and inexact understanding of holiness. The holiness we experience in Christ has no likeness to the Holiness of God Himself. Yet we understand the idea of holiness through analogy, or by similarity.

Analogical language refers to understanding true derivative knowledge through divine revelation, but with some adjectival (qualitative) differences between God’s self-knowledge and our knowledge of God. 

This means that all thoughts, words, propositions, and metaphors about God fall short of his glory. Our knowledge of God is an “echo and reflection of the original,”

and no creature [can] reflect back to God with radiance to match his glory. When compared to God, any knowledge we obtain is qualitatively dim. We do not merely have less knowledge than God does, nor do we have no knowledge of God at all, but we have true knowledge of God using terms that bear some analogy to what he is in himself. Using analogical language, the theologian can describe how we know God truly and from a creaturely perspective.

[ https://theapologiaproject.com/the-only-foundation-of-true-theology-archetypal-and-ectypal-theology-with-the-use-of-analogy-part-i/ ].

Analogy in theology satisfies true knowledge and maintains a distinction between God and man and is preferred in describing how we practice knowing divine wisdom.

Francis Turretin summed up the … limitations of ectypal theology when he wrote: “For theology treats of God and his infinite perfections, not as knowing them in an infinite but in a finite manner; nor absolutely as much as they can be known in themselves, but as much as he has been pleased to reveal them.” 

Ectypal theology is finite knowledge of the infinite God limited in number and quality. [Man] can increase in knowledge of divine things, but, in drinking from that well, he will never empty it.  

Archetypal theology is the necessary foundation for true theology; Ectypal theology is necessary if man is to know true theology. 

B. B. Warfield wrote, “to even the natural mind contemplating this series of supernatural acts which culminate in the coming of Christ, a higher knowledge of God should be conveyed than what is attainable from mere nature, though it would be limited to the capacity of the natural mind to apprehend divine things,” which shows that man’s knowledge is creaturely yet still able to apprehend divine things by analogical knowledge. 

Analogical language, communicated by the Word and Spirit of God, is necessary for maintaining a proper Creator-creature distinction and relationship. God is incomprehensible yet knowable and though we can never know him exhaustively we can know him truly. 

This understanding of theology properly harmonizes God and man, the giver of knowledge and the receiver of knowledge, and it comports both with historic reformed theology and Scripture.  Therefore, true theology must incorporate archetypal and ectypal distinctions, analogical knowledge made known to man by Scripture, and maintain both the Creator creature relation and distinction.

https://theapologiaproject.com/the-only-foundation-of-true-theology-archetypal-and-ectypal-theology-with-the-use-of-analogy-part-ii/

This means that there is a necessary chasm between God and the creature … and that God must accommodate Himself to His creatures. 

…………………………………………….

It was argued by the authors of the Free Offer of the Gospel that this accommodated revelation is ectypal theology. The Free Offer position is the accommodated revelation based on God’s self-understanding, but not identical with it. It is a reflection of the archetypal theology. They suggested that the notion of the Free Offer is true, but it is accommodated to human creatures.

Why Jesus is philosophically absurd

In a sense, the conversation about Jesus and the Incarnation is amusing because we're still trying to rationalize something entirely irrational and illogical -- and as long as we're doing that we're not really admitting that Jesus is philosophically absurd, (i.e., that Jesus being fully man while being fully God, is utterly inconsistent with what common sense and experience dictate).

On this point, Kierkegaard has some very intriguing things to say.

The problem, from Kierkegaard's point of view, is that we Christians have tried to make our faith palatable to an unbelieving mind by trying to rationalize with logical categories what is truly absurd. We don’t want the unbeliever to have any despair or suffering as they wrestle with the rational absurdities of believing that Christ in His essence is all that God is in His essence. Yet ultimately, it is in fact better to let them wrestle with the absurdity -- the only place for Kierkegaard from which genuine faith can be born. 

When you think about it, the absurdity includes the truth that the God of heaven didn’t make Jesus reasonable or more palatable to the senses of the rational mind at all. And, Scripture testifies that to the unbelieving observers of that day, familiar with the OT revelation that there is only one God who is Absolutely God (alone), Jesus didn’t help make God become more believable.  Jesus just threw a wrench into the whole thing actually. This is why Scripture always references Jesus as the stumbling block -- never God the Father or God the Spirit [Isa. 8:14-15; 1 Pet. 2:8].

So Jesus being God in His essence really can't be rationalized because it’s inherently irrational; it really can't be speculated upon because it’s completely incomprehensible and unimaginable; and it really cannot be quarantined within boundaries because the essence of God is that which is boundless. By that we mean that God is completely and innately incomprehensible because in His essence He is non-corporeal, i.e., no property of matter can be ascribed to him. He has no extension in space, no weight, no mass, no bulk, no parts, no form.  

So being One in essence, and without parts, he is thought by some to be theologically 'indivisible,' (the doctrine of divine simplicity is that the being of God is identical to the attributes of God). So the problem is that Jesus, possessing the nature and essence of God, who must therefore be God, could not at the same time logically and rationally continue to be God if he had had all those things like body parts and extension in space, because possessing those physical features necessarily disqualifies Him from the God category.

Kierkegaard went on to suggest that if Jesus as God is almost probable, or probable, or extremely probable, or emphatically probable, then it is impossible (and unnecessary) to believe it, because it would then be knowable, i.e., it would then be objectively graspable. But precisely because I cannot know the God Idea objectively, it must be believed. 

So then, Jesus, the true object of our faith -- is absurd; yet, if we really want to believe in God, then Jesus is the only object that can be believed, because otherwise God is still utterly incomprehensible. So Kierkegaard said, "Fine. You want proof before you believe that Jesus is God? Then let the comedy begin!"

For Kierkegaard, the reason Jesus is an objective absurdity is because in Him, that which is the Eternal Spiritual Truth has come into being, in time, as a particular individual, Christ, and has put Himself in relationship with our existence, and has proclaimed himself as The Paradox. And this paradox, the God-man, is an absurdity to the understanding.  

Kierkegaard said the real problem with Jesus then isn’t that He’s not believable – it’s that He’s offensive to rational thinking. The options to trusting the Gospel then are not limited to faith or unbelief. Jesus is at the crossroad of logical, rational thought, where every individual must either have:faith in the objective truth of Christ as God, or must be utterly offended in the truth of Christ as God. 

Only from the possibility of rational offense can one turn to genuine faith in Christ; one never comes to faith in Christ except from the possibility of rational offense.  Instead of using the category of doubt in reference to Jesus, (i.e., one either believes or doesn't believe in Christ being God in essence), we ought in our discussion to be thinking more in terms of either being offended at the rational absurdity of Jesus being God in His essence or believing and trusting that Jesus is God in His essence. These are the only real options to believing the categorical Truth that Jesus is God in His essence. This was Kierkegaard's argument about Jesus' own comments about Himself and the warning about being offended because of Him in Mt. 11:1-6 [John 6:61].