Featured John 6:44

Yes, the one who was drawn. The "him" (singular).

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

Yep, shows that the salvation is not by group, title, status, or any other merit.

Rather, God deals with the individual, drawing the individual, and the individual will be raised. A personal hope, a personal thankfulness, and a personal testimony of each individual.

 

I actually pretty much agree with that; it is very close to a restatement in the plural, but the "will come" should be "can come." What is not clear is that those who are drawn must come, only that they can come. Also not clear is the Father leaving some out forever. There may still be more hearing and learning from the Father that must first occur, before they can come, or do come. Also, is there anything demanding that the drawing be instantaneous, rather than a process?

 

"Will raise," yes, but "can come."

Didn't I read recently someone quoting RC Sproul saying theology must be done on a razor's edge? I agree such is true, if you insist on an interpretation.

The OP passage does not equate or conflate being drawn and coming as one and the same, nor that both must occur. A passage explicitly stating that all those drawn are forced to come would be helpful for those holding that position. This is not such a passage. It only indicates that the drawing precedes the coming. It does not say that the coming is sure, only enabled. What is sure is that one who is drawn by the Father and comes to Jesus will be raised.

Besides, Jesus said he would draw all men to himself (John 12:32, see below), which might then lead to the conclusion that all will be saved. Or you could claim that "all" does not mean "all" there, but that might prove inconsistent. Or you could claim that the Son drawing is not the same as the Father drawing, but then questions may arise regarding unity of the Godhead--obviously unacceptable. Or you could try to argue that the "if" in John 12:32 has not been fulfilled, but that cannot be true.

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32)

 

Charles Spurgeon, "Gathering to the Center":

 

Revmitchell,

Is that the time you commented on it?

No wrong once again.....The context says;
All the Father gives to me, shall come....it says nothing about anyone randomly coming on their own.

What is simple and obvious is you ignoring the electing love of the Father...

This is a wicked and intentional falsehood as you try and undermine scripture one again.

You falsely wrest the context and verses...

 

I brought up more than one issue regarding insisting on a Calvinistic interpretation of the OP verse. My last question in my first post (see above, and below) I see as an important aspect to deal with, and relates directly to the sentence preceding it, but perhaps my point is not quite clear?

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So you're saying that all that are drawn, shall be given to the Father, and all of those shall come.

 

I would consider the order you presented a slight bit out of alignment.

It is:
1) The Father draws - no one comes that is not drawn by the Father.
2) The Father who also sent Christ draws - significant in identification that the same Father that draws also sent the Son.
3) The Son will raise all the individuals that the Father draws.

Christ stated elsewhere that, because of obedience to the Father’s will in being crucified, He also has the general ability and will “draw all men,” however, I don’t recall that Christ ever expressed the statement of His draw as that promised resurrection statement of the Father’s drawing. But I could be wrong.

 

Actually, as was pointed out, the context is not the “come to me” but that “no man can come to me.”

This is significant because, as later posts revealed, RevM was basing the human condition and the effort by humans as the basis for also being included in self ability to the coming, and not totally that of the draw of the Father.

It was shown (by multiple folks) that he was adding something to the Scripture rendering that was not expressed in the purity of that Scripture.

When, if he had stayed with this original post and acknowledged the limits the Scripture expressed, he could have found agreement, he soon departed from the basic truth presented in John 6:44.

 

So, does no one want to address the question regarding drawing being a process related to hearing and learning? I said: "There may still be more hearing and learning from the Father that must first occur, before they can come, or do come. Also, is there anything demanding that the drawing be instantaneous, rather than a process?"
RT&

 

This is the passage I quoted and briefly commented on in relation to this discussion (see below). Your statement could be read to imply a disunity between the Son and the Father, that is, the Son draws all, but the Father, for whatever reason, then limits the draw. I don’t think that’s the Calvinist understanding I’ve seen, but I’m just pointing out a possible issue. --RT&

 

Yes, given the hearing and learning from the Father that must first occur, before they can come, or do come, I do not see how the drawing could rightly be considered anything but a process whether one is Calvinist or not. But I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, e.g., a Calvinist's.

 

I agree.

However, I consider that we would disagree on how effective or the end results of the draw.

 

I agree but in Romans 10 the point is made that the "Gospel" is not limited to the preacher - but that nature itself is spreading that Gospel invitation in very subtle tones - but spreading it all the same.