Redefining Draw to mean God uses a Tractor Beam.

[Martin Marprelate]

Okay, no word back from brother Van, so I will ask you the same question, Martin:

If all men are drawn as a result of Christ being lifted up, should we not then address the issue with a focus on how that is relevant to being drawn?

If all men without exception are drawn to Christ, then all men without exception are saved, and we know that isn't the case. 'All men' in the Bible means all kinds and conditions of men: Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, high and low, wise and not so wise. This is shown especially in in Romans 3. Both Jews and Greeks are 'all' under sin (v.9); 'every' mouth (of both Jew and Gentile) is stopped, and Paul goes on talking about 'all' (vs. 22, 23) until he gets to v.29 when he talks about Jews and Gentiles again. 'All' is Jew and Gentile.
John 12:32. 'And I, if I am lifted up, will draw all peoples to Myself.' Like the serpent on the pole, Christ was lifted up on the cross to die, and everyone who looks upon Christ crucified with the eye of faith and repentance will be saved. The great work of the churches is to lift up Christ crucified in our witness and preaching and cry, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The problem is that naturally people will not look, will not repent and believe (John John 5:40; Romans 10:21; 1 Corinthians 2:14 etc.). But when we do our preaching faithfully, we will find that though many will turn away, nevertheless God will draw men and women to Himself (Acts 17:34).

Secondly...how does Scripture teach that God draws men?

God opens their hearts to receive the Gospel (Acts 13:48; 16:14). I'm sorry that this is a bit brief, but it's bed-time in Britain, and I have a busy weekend ahead.

God bless.

Thank you. You too.

 

[Darrell C]

If all men without exception are drawn to Christ, then all men without exception are saved, and we know that isn't the case. 'All men' in the Bible means all kinds and conditions of men: Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, high and low, wise and not so wise. This is shown especially in in Romans 3. Both Jews and Greeks are 'all' under sin (v.9); 'every' mouth (of both Jew and Gentile) is stopped, and Paul goes on talking about 'all' (vs. 22, 23) until he gets to v.29 when he talks about Jews and Gentiles again. 'All' is Jew and Gentile.
John 12:32. 'And I, if I am lifted up, will draw all peoples to Myself.' Like the serpent on the pole, Christ was lifted up on the cross to die, and everyone who looks upon Christ crucified with the eye of faith and repentance will be saved. The great work of the churches is to lift up Christ crucified in our witness and preaching and cry, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The problem is that naturally people will not look, will not repent and believe (John John 5:40; Romans 10:21; 1 Corinthians 2:14 etc.). But when we do our preaching faithfully, we will find that though many will turn away, nevertheless God will draw men and women to Himself (Acts 17:34).

I know this was brief, so will just voice what seems to be a little confusing to me in your statement, and let you correct what seems to me to be a little confusing.

Your first statement...

If all men without exception are drawn to Christ, then all men without exception are saved, and we know that isn't the case.

...seems to be to the effect that what being drawn in connection to Christ being lifted up does not mean is that it means that God will draw all peoples/men to Him, because if they are drawn, then we conclude that drawing is salvific. I just ask, isn't that what Christ states? Not that the drawing is salvific, but that He will, if He is lifted up...draw all men to Himself.

I am quite familiar with the use of "all" in Scripture, and take the view that all simply means all.

So the two questions that arise would be...

1. You are saying all here simply refers to all different kinds of people?

2. You do not consider God drawing men to have any association with the convicting ministry of the Spirit in this Age?

God opens their hearts to receive the Gospel (Acts 13:48; 16:14). I'm sorry that this is a bit brief, but it's bed-time in Britain, and I have a busy weekend ahead.

And this is where we might disagree. I understand Christ to teach that the Comforter would perform a ministry of conviction among unbelievers. I don't look at it as "God opens their hearts to receive the Gospel," but rather, God opens their understanding to the truth of the Gospel, which I view to be quite different. The former implies that a reception is likely or even guaranteed, whereas the former maintains a position that they are brought to a knowledge of the truth apart from a concluded outcome of understanding the truth. For example, the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 knew the way of righteousness, but turned away from the Holy Commandment (believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ).

This is the primary issue, in my view,. that, if understood, would end the debates we frequently see.

Anyway, have a good nights sleep, and hope your weekend isn't crazy busy. And if it is...that you;ll manage.

Thank you. You too.

God bless.

 

[Van]

Could you give a brief description of what "entering in" refers to in a context that is under Law and/or previous to the Age of Law (though I think it is specific to the Law because of those being addressed by the Lord)?

God bless.

Jesus said, according to the NASB translation, "...nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
The location they were in the process of entering is (again the NASB) "the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Van]

Martin, I will simply keep repeating the truth, the issue is that were seeking God, actually in the process of entering the kingdom of heaven, so they had sufficient spiritual ability to seek God, demonstrating total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine.

 

[SovereignGrace]

"John 6:44. [draw him] It is the same word as is used John 12:32; ‘will draw all men unto Me.’ The word does not necessarily imply force, still less irresistible force, but merely attraction of some kind, some inducement to come. Comp. ‘with loving-kindness have I drawn thee’ (Jeremiah 31:3), and Virgil’s trahit sua quemque voluptas."

God leads and some follow Him to Christ.

So Peter was attractive to the sword he drew(same Greek word from John 6:44 and John 12:32) to cut a guy's ear off? Those fish in the net that were dragged to the shore were attracted to those Disciples? That is what you are implying here.

 

[Darrell C]

Jesus said, according to the NASB translation, "...nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
The location they were in the process of entering is (again the NASB) "the kingdom of heaven."

That is not really what I am driving at, Van. The question has a focus on the fact that the "location" they are in is Pre-Pentecost. They are under Law.

Now, is that significant? In a context of men "entering in," do we view men under Law as equivalent to men in this Age when we consider those seeking to enter into the Kingdom of God? How would we define that? What Scripture would we use to support how men enter the Kingdom of God?

Another issue is how men can have the ability to seek out God.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Martin, I will simply keep repeating the truth, the issue is that were seeking God, actually in the process of entering the kingdom of heaven, so they had sufficient spiritual ability to seek God, demonstrating total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine.

In their natural ability men do not seek after God. They can only respond to the enlightening God provides to them. This is the point of the Parable of the soils, for example. The enlightening is the Word of God, and there are numerous responses.

Under Law, men had the Word of God, and had to respond to it. For those of Israel, this was not optional. So we do not impose a "natural ability" into those that were seeking to enter into the Kingdom of God (which would have been that Kingdom understood to them through the Hebrew Scriptures), because their actions were not of themselves, but a response to the Word of God, the enlightenment, they had received from God.

For those that were not under Law, they too were reliant on the ministry of God in their lives before they could respond, and thus seek to enter the Kingdom (though this is not identical to the Kingdom understood by the Jews).

Consider:


Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


God provides enough light for men to choose to obey that which has been impressed in their hearts as right. That is why we can find obscure cultures who follow the same set of laws we have been provided by the Word of God. They know murder is wrong, lying is wrong, adultery is wrong, et cetera.

Above, Paul makes the point that the Gentiles, who did not have the (Written, revealed) Law, show the work of the Law written on their hearts. Their response to that Law written on their hearts wil be judged by Christ, Who is no respecter of persons, and will judge righteously according to that response.

And just as James teaches, the doers, not the hearers...will be justified.

So to teach that men have an ability to seek after God, and thus enter into Heaven, is not correct. Except God intervene into the lives of those separated from Him, they have no inner inclination to seek to enter the Kingdom of God. That internal witness provided to man is credited to God...not man.


God bless.

 

[Van]

So Peter was attractive to the sword he drew(same Greek word from John 6:44 and John 12:32) to cut a guy's ear off? Those fish in the net that were dragged to the shore were attracted to those Disciples? That is what you are implying here.

In the verse where Peter drew his sword, was the usage metaphorical or literal? Literal so non-germane obfuscation. Ditto for dragging the net. This is all they have folks.

 

[Van]

That is not really what I am driving at, Van. The question has a focus on the fact that the "location" they are in is Pre-Pentecost. They are under Law.

Now, is that significant? In a context of men "entering in," do we view men under Law as equivalent to men in this Age when we consider those seeking to enter into the Kingdom of God? How would we define that? What Scripture would we use to support how men enter the Kingdom of God?

Another issue is how men can have the ability to seek out God.

God bless.

The process for actually entering the kingdom of heaven under the Old Covenant was different than under the New Covenant. Those that obtained approval through faith had to wait in "Abraham's bosom" until Christ died to be made them perfect by the blood of the Lamb. This seems irrelevant to the issue they were seeking God and therefore total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine.

The key truth presented in Matthew 23:13 is that those pushing total spiritual inability say "they were not really seeking God," or were "not seeking God effectively," but this dodge is stripped away by Matthew 23:13 because they were in the process of entering the kingdom of heaven. That's the issue.

 

[Van]

Natural men of flesh can respond to the milk of the gospel. This is denied by the nameless doctrine, but is taught by 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Paul speaks as to men of flesh using spiritual milk. It's a lock.

Natural men of flesh cannot understand spiritual meat, the spiritual things grasped with the aid of our indwelt Spirit.

 

[Darrell C]

The process for actually entering the kingdom of heaven under the Old Covenant was different than under the New Covenant.

I disagree with that on a number of levels.

First, we see a distinction between Kingdoms in Scripture. During Christ's Ministry He taught within the framework of the Law (which also included those preceding Eras), and was not revealing the Mystery of the Gospel. He did proclaim it, but, the understanding of that which He proclaimed was not given unto men in that day. The understanding of the Disciple of Christ, as well as those "entering the Kingdom," was like unto the understanding of Isaiah, who also proclaimed the Gospel of Christ.

For example, John the Baptist is said to be the greatest of men to arise, yet he that is least "in the Kingdom" is...greater than he. What does that mean, Van?

Secondly, men and women have always been saved by grace through faith, that is just a Basic Bible Truth. The Old Testament Saint's righteousness cannot be equated to the Righteousness of Christ. Abraham was not saved because he believed God, thus was obedient to carry out the sacrifice of his son...he was saved because God bestowed grace upon one that still did not merit grace. If we say Abraham deserved God's grace because of what he did, or didn't do, then we make, as Paul teaches, grace to no more be grace, but a payment or reward. THat destroys the concept of grace itself.

Third, the Covenant of Law is never associated with entering Heaven anywhere in Scripture.

THat is what you are trying to proof-text with this passage, and it is denied by numerous passages which make it clear that Christ opened up the way for men to come into the presence of God. THis is a concept you confirm in your next statement:

Those that obtained approval through faith had to wait in "Abraham's bosom" until Christ died to be made them perfect by the blood of the Lamb.

Agree one hundred percent, brother.

But where we might be found to disagree is that those who "obtained a good report," and were considered part of the Kingdom of God...were still under an Economy which negated the possibility of their entrance unto God. Entrance unto God was temporal, and accomplished by, in the last economy God provided before establishing the New Covenant...a man acting as mediator. That is...the Priest. We see this principle in Noah, Melchisadec, Abraham, and Job in Pre-Law economies, then the High Priest of the Law, all of which were replaced by the Nediator of the New Covenant, our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ.

It is not until Christ died that eternal Redemption was obtained, and this by Christ, through the offering of Himself. The Old Testament Saint awaited that redemption, so we again take into consideration the "Kingdom" men could enter, and how they were seeking to enter into it.

God's spiritual rule and reign in the hearts of believers begins from the very beginning, but, that does not nullify the fact that God intended that which was better for man in regards to relationship with Himself.

Secondly, we are always going to be drawn back to one in inescapable truth: natural man does not seek after God. He is totally without that ability in his natural condition.

As Paul teaches, man's only possible means for becoming aware of the Spiritual things is through revelation provided man by the Spirit.

This seems irrelevant to the issue they were seeking God and therefore total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine.

I know it seems irrelevant, but it is. It is in my view the focal point which both sides overlook.

The key truth presented in Matthew 23:13 is that those pushing total spiritual inability say "they were not really seeking God," or were "not seeking God effectively," but this dodge is stripped away by Matthew 23:13 because they were in the process of entering the kingdom of heaven. That's the issue.

The simple truth is that if men are seeking God according to God's intervention, then men cannot stop that process. In the proof-text, we would have to ascribe power to men to halt God's intervention. I think this is easily understood when we understand the differing economies, and the differing Kingdoms in view in Scripture. For the Jew, the Kingdom they were aware of is the kingdom most of us call the Millennial Kingdom. Christ's teachings work within the framework of the revelation and the level if understanding those who fell under His Ministry were accustomed to, and knew about due to the revelation provided them at that time. While we can, in retrospect, having both further revelation and enlightenment they were not privy to, understand the correlation of Christ's teaching to the overview of Redemptive HIstory, we make a mistake when we ascribe that understanding to men that had not been given this provision.

Yes, men could enter into the Kingdom of God, but no...they did not do that out of an ability that was within their nature. Their nature, nor the nature of any unregenerate individual...was and is in opposition to seeking after God. Only through God's intervention can one be enlightened to their condition and hence seek after the remedy.


God bless.

 

[Van]

Hi Darrel, please do not misrepresent my views.

The difference is under the Old Covenant the people who gained approval through faith had to wait in Abraham's bosom. You did not even address what I said.

The John the Baptist question is a good one, but is off topic here.

Nobody, especially me, said the OT saints were saved through works rather than grace.

Paul does not teach total spiritual inability, he refutes it.

Yes, men do intervene and block men from entering into the kingdom. If you want to deny Matthew 23:13, you must stand in line. This not referring to being transferred into Christ by God, it is referring to when they are developing their faith in Christ and have not finalized it. So they are in process, but their faith has not yet been credited as righteousness.

Finally, your apparent view God must enable supernaturally men of flesh in order for them to seek God. You have absolutely no support in scripture. What is taught is natural men need to be exposed to God's revelation, whether by witnessing (think Paul preaching) or by reading God's word (think reading Paul's letters). Yes both revelations were given with the inspiration of the Spirit. But that is not how you are twisting it. Enablement by irresistible grace or prevenient grace is a total fiction.

 

[Darrell C]

Finally, your apparent view God must enable supernaturally men of flesh in order for them to seek God. You have absolutely no support in scripture. What is taught is natural men need to be exposed to God's revelation, whether by witnessing (think Paul preaching) or by reading God's word (think reading Paul's letters). Yes both revelations were given with the inspiration of the Spirit. But that is not how you are twisting it. Enablement by irresistible grace or prevenient grace is a total fiction.

Its just a basic Bible Doctrine, Van.

The only difference between this...


John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


...and the ministry performed by God in Old Testament Economies, for example...


Acts 7:50-51

King James Version (KJV)


51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:


...is the content of the revelation provided to the ministry in view. The Comforter enlightens men's minds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whereas revelation under previous ministries were specific to that which God did reveal.

Did Moses understand that when he raised up the serpent in the Wilderness that this pre-figured what Christ would do? No.

Did looking at that serpent bring about Eternal Redemption? No.

But the revelation provided them in this case did bring about remission of sins and removal of penalty of sin. It was temporal, and physical, as contrasted with the spiritual and eternal nature of Remission of sin and removal of the debt of the penalty all men will receive.

When God revealed His will to man in the Wilderness, do we impose an equable quality to the Priest mediating between God and man with the Mediator of the New Covenant? No.

So again, the natural man retains a Biblical condition of utter inability. Can a man seek after God in his natural state?

Sure...we see that all the time in the Muslim, Buddhist, and secular humanist.

But we do not confuse that with "ability," we see that for what it is...yet more rejection of that which God has revealed.

The natural man has been endowed with an internal witness of the reality of God, yet his natural state dictates that he reject that witness, and seek after other gods.

And that is it for me in this thread. I'll check back with you at a future date, and perhaps the points I make might actually be discussed.





God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So the two questions that arise would be...

1. You are saying all here simply refers to all different kinds of people?

Yes. One can trawl through all the uses of 'all' and 'world' in the Bible, and they have many and various meanings. The context will determine. If you were literally to obey the command to make prayers for 'all men' (1 Timothy 2:1), I think you might get a little tired after the second billion. However, if Christ will draw all men to Himself, then all are saved because, 'The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out' (John 6:37). Since it is clear in Scripture that all men are not saved, the 'all' in John 12:32 cannot mean every single person in the world QED.

2. You do not consider God drawing men to have any association with the convicting ministry of the Spirit in this Age?

I most certainly do. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3:6). He is the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2) to quicken the dead; the Spirit of truth (John 16:13) to instruct our ignorance and the Spirit of faith (2 Corinthians 4:13) to enable us to believe savingly. 'The natural man [the one born of the flesh] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor. 2:14).

Once again, I apologize for my extreme brevity, but I am going out in just a moment.

 

[Van]

LOL Darrel.
Nobody received the gospel before the Comforter came? Utter nonsense. Even the thief on the cross believed in Jesus.

The gospel is the power of God for salvation, not the never mentioned invention of men (enabling irresistible grace or prevenient grace.)

Matthew 23:13 disproves "utter inability."

 

[Van]

Hi Martin, if draw means compel then John 12:32 teaches universalism. That is your problem not mine.

John uses "world" to refer to fallen mankind and the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

Our prayers (1 Timothy 2:1) are on behalf of all men, so we may lead lives of tranquility. Have you never studied the passage? Lord help us submit to worldly authorities, such that all mankind benefits.

Finally, you repeat the fiction that "the" things of the Spirit refers to all things rather than some things. Paul spoke as to men of flesh using spiritual milk. Thus men of flesh can receive spiritual milk. It's a lock.

 

[SovereignGrace]

In the verse where Peter drew his sword, was the usage metaphorical or literal? Literal so non-germane obfuscation.

*WOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!* This goes right past you. The word used for draw in both places was the EXACT SAME WORD. It is not obfuscation. It is very germane.

Ditto for dragging the net. This is all they have folks.

Please God don't let this man teach a bible class.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Van, again...if someone truly seeks God, will he/she die lost?

 

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE="Van,

Hi Darrel, please do not misrepresent my views.
Yes, men do intervene and block men from entering into the kingdom. If you want to deny Matthew 23:13, you must stand in line.

Oh good...another thread to include the eisegesis of MT.23 in

 

[JonC]

In a recently closed thread, JonC posted the following:

"I didn't notice ("drag" was the literal definition..."draw" vs. "drag" by an inward power...I was concentrating on the "inward power" being of God and not man...not whether it was "draw" or "drag"...but I appreciate the correction).

The verse indicates, then, that we were "drawn by an inward power"...but what is this power? Is it our own "human response"? Not according to Scripture - it is God's "drawing". God "draws us with an inward power". Does this mean that God attracts us? You could use that, but only if you are speaking of "attract" in such a way as to include an inherent "inward power".

Here you:

1. take "draw" remove it from a connection to it's literal definition ("drag"),
2. replace it with "draw" as a metaphoric definition ("draw with an inward power")
3. and then consult an English dictionary to make "draw" read "attract" ("attract with an inward power").
4. get rid of God's hand in the process ("with an inward power" being the work of the Father)
5. reduce the original "draw with an inward power" down to "attract"
6. and add "human response" to conclude that God attracts all men, who come as a human response.

And you denounce other interpretations as taking liberties with the text.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps God drawing people means exactly that? Maybe we do not have to change it to a metaphor, and then exchange part of the metaphor for another word, and then add "human response". Maybe if we pause a moment, simply looking at the "inward power" being (according to Scripture) of the Father and not a "human response" we can simply move on and know that God drew us to Himself"

One of the lexiconal meanings attributed to the Greek word translated draw in John 12:32 is draw by inward power. But is this the only meaning given? Of course not.

Here is the actual quote, "

1. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

So a Tractor Beam is no where in view. God draws us with lovingkindness. Our human response to Jesus suffering and dying on the cross (high and lifted up) is to be attracted to the One who died for us.

All these charges that I am not presenting an unbiased view are simply an effort to undercut the mainstream view.

1) Did I replace the literal meaning for the metaphoric meaning, or did JonC replace the metaphoric meaning with the literal meaning?

2) Did I edit the lexiconal meaning to exclude "lead" and "impel?"

3) Is the only place the Greek word (G1670-helko) is said to mean "attract" in the KJV Dictionary?
Here is Thayer's "I by my moral, my spiritual, influence will win over to myself the hearts of all, John 12:32."
God draws by lovingkindness, Jeremiah 31:3. Clearly our human response to God's revelation is in view, not a supernatural tractor beam.

4) Did I "get rid" of the Father's influence? No, it is the Father who does the "drawing" but by an attractive appeal rather than a tractor beam.

5) As used in John 6:44 and John 12:32, draw means attract. To claim it means a tractor beam ignores the lexicons, and redefines attract to mean tractor beam.

6) Did I "add" human response, or is that how God leads us to Christ? Read Jeremiah 31:3 again, human response to God"s lovingkindness is in view. I did not add human response, someone seems to want to delete it.

Bottom line no valid argument has been made to support that draw does not mean attract at John 6:44 and 12:32.

I just noticed this thread, and since you reference me perhaps I can shed some light (at least on my beliefs).

It is intentionally and willfully ignorant to claim that I (along with other men who hold to the understanding that God draws men to Himself) believe that God does so in a "tractor beam" fashion. It is, actually, just plain stupid as those accused of such views have denounced the claim. I am, of course, thankful that you are intelligent enough not to go there but wanted to make it clear to others if they were perhaps misled by the title of the thread. No one is claiming that God "draws" men in terms of taking them against their will. That's a straw-man argument that's been dismissed on another thread.

There is no evidence that "draw" means to "attract" if by "attract" you mean a benign activity of God awaiting a human response to arise within men. The word in question is σύρω, and it is used three times that I can think of in John. Two times it is what God does to men, and one time it is what men do (or try to do) with a net full of fish. Sometimes I think that Van would have us believe that the disciples sat in a boat blowing their fish calls trying to attract the netted fish to jump into the boat. But the fish couldn't...the disciples had to draw (σύρω) them in.

Paul's words in Romans 9 parallels this passage in John (of God drawing men). In Romans 9 God is pictured as effectually calling men form all peoples ("not from the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles"). We can play around with picking out verses and going to lexicons and changing meanings...but to save the trouble, let's just use "attract". God "attracts" men to Himself through an "inward power". Paul tells us that God "prepared beforehand" those who He has "called". Isaiah tells us that God "causes" those who He claims as His own to obey. So sure, Van, we can use "attract"...but please use it in context of Scripture and not your own theological leanings.