EPH1:1-14....what is says/ what it does not say!

You want me to make a counterargument to this sort of argument? LOL!

 

Your tag is "inTheLight" but you seem to hide in the dark as you provide nothing credible to overturn my exposition except smear tactics. At least I provide reasons based on contextual data to support what I believe or deny. I am still waiting for your to place evidence inTheLight for all to see why my exposition is wrong. I don't have to resort to ridicule and smear tactics but it appears that is your only defense. Please provide contextual based evidence that demonstrates I am wrong and I will honestly look at the evidence.

 

What I said is true. That final phrase of John 6:44b is first used by Christ in verse 39 where the pronoun used in that phrase is inclusive of ALL given which equals ALL that come so that NONE perish. There are not two groups but only one and that one group is what the pronoun in that final phrase refers to and none others.

The same is true in verse 40. Verse 40 ends with the very same clause introduced in verse 39. Again, in verse 40 there are not two different groups but just one and that is what the pronoun in that final phrase includes.

The same is true in verse 44 as the same phrase closes this verse as it did in verses 39 and 40. Again, there is no alternative groups identified as being draw in verse 44 and the pronoun in the final phrase refers to the "him" drawn.

The same is true in verse 58, again there an alternative groups in the verse, and the pronoun in the final phrase, the same phrase first found in verse 39, then verse 40 and then verse 44 includes all of the only group previously mentioned.

Moreover, the two previous uses in verse 39-40 and then applied to the drawn in verse 44 would indicate the very same people in view in verses 37-40 (all the Father gives = all come = all saved) are the very same group in verse 44b as he repeats the same phrase. Verses 37-40 tell us who believes - those given to the Son prior to the incarnation so that all without exception come to Christ and be saved. Verses 44-45 would give us the mechanism why all given come.

In verse 45 the prophetic references given by Christ to explain what he means in verse 44 proves that "ALL" taught/drawn = all ultimately saved as they are all called "thy children" of the new covenant that not one is lost (Isa. 54:13/Jer. 31:33-34).

This is further proven by the fact that Christ and the writer John deny universal drawing by the Father by pointing to some in verse 64 whom the Father never "gave" ability to come to Christ (v. 65).

If I am wrong here, it is strange that no one on this forum has been able to provide contextual based reasons why I am wrong. Are there any capable exegetes on this forum? Are you capable of providing contextual based reasons that I am wrong? I am more than ready to examine any evidence anyone may provide.

 

Not a good version is it?
MB

 

You want me to simultaneously demonstrate why "draw" does not mean "teach" and why "draw" does not mean "effectual coming". You've offered two wildly different definitions of the word draw and are challenging me to prove you wrong. That's a fool's errand and I'm not taking it up. It seems you can't even decide on what the word means. I suggest you look at a dictionary.

 

I thought the ESV was the favored translation of Calvinists because of the addition of the word "before" in Rev. 13:8. I suppose YLT is to be used for John 3:16 and ESV for Rev. 13:8.

 

The who so ever believes are those who are saved. It doesn't say what you quoted. There are warnings in scripture for taking away from it and for adding to it.
MB

 

Apparently, you didn't understand the explanation I gave. Verse 45 explains how teaching results in coming to Christ in faith and I quote:

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Remember, in verse 44 Jesus said "no man can come to me" except the Father "draw" him but in verse 45 he provides an explanation of what "draw" means which concludes with man coming to him. So verse 45 is expanatory of the exception clause in verse 44 as "no man can" in verse 44 while "everyman" thus drawn/taught does come to him in verse 45. Hence, 45 is the explanation of the exception clause and what he means by "draw" in verse 44. Draw means they are the object of God's internal teaching work that produces coming to Christ.

In the first phrase of verse 45 we have the assertion made by Christ as he quotes the prophets. In the second phrase we have the results of being taught that concludes with "cometh to Christ." Jesus cites the prophets (Isa. 54:13 and Jer.31:33-34) which explain the nature of this teaching by God to refer to "all thy children" (Isa. 54:13) meaning his new covenant children (Jer. 31:33-34 with Heb. 8:10-13) which teaching is defined as INTERNAL instruction by God in the heart (Jer. 31:33) which is EFFECTUAL in bringing "everyone" thus taught to faith (Jer. 31:34) "from the least of them unto the greatest of them." So, the nature of drawing by the Father is INTERNAL effectual instruction that results in all drawn all coming to Christ by faith.

The first line in verse 45 makes the assertion based on the prophetic sources, the second line declares the consequences of this teach which results in "every man" (Gr. pas or "all") coming.

It is not possible to "teach" anyone who has not both "heard" and "learned" as that is the nature of being taught. One has not "heard" has not been taught. One who has not "learned" has not been taught. In Jeremiah 31:33-34 they have both heard and learned (not by men but by God) and in all whom God thus taught do effectually come to God in faith.

So, you see it is not I, who claims "draw" means effectual coming to Christ in faith, but it is Christ who makes that assertion and than provides an explanation as to HOW "draw" is the INTERNAL INSTRUCTION by the Father that produces coming.

So, the contextual explanation jesus provides the reader in verse 45 and the prophets quoted proves that effectual coming to Christ ="draw" = "taught" as the internal work of God that produces coming.

Do you understand what I have said, and the basis for what I have said? If not, I will more than happy to anwer any questions or objections. I have avoided any technicalities in order to be clear but if need be I can get down to technical exegetical details to defend my exposition if need be.

 

So why not tell us the version to begin with as if it matters. It still says those who Believe will be saved

 

The who so ever's are those who believe. You should of told us which translation you were using.
For some reason I thought I lost the above post
MB

 

Some attempt to avoid my expositional conclusions to verse 45 by interpreting the last clause to read "every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned cometh unto me, but those who only hath heard but hath not learned don't come to me" as though there are two different types of people included in the clause and learning is optional.

Of course the text says no such thing, nor does it refer to two different possible types of people, one type hearing but not learning and the other type hearing and learning. Moreover, the first clause says cites the prophets as declaring that "ALL" will be taught by God and when these prophetic references are examined the "ALL" is restricted to "thy children" and in particularly the covenant children of God which "ALL" are taught by God INTERNALLY so that "ALL" from "the least of them unto the greatest of them" which are taught ALL effectual come to God in faith.

Moreover, the words "every man" represents the Greek word "pas" the very same word just translated "all" in the first clause "all" (pas) shall be taught of God. In the second clause the word "therefore" is drawing a conclusion based upon what is declared in the first clause. There are no two possible alternatives or types of people in the first clause but only one indivisible group defined as "all."

Furthermore, both verbs in the second clause (heard/learned) modify the same noun ("every man" = Gr. "all"). There are not two different nouns suggesting two different kinds of people thus two alternative groups one that hears but does not listen and another hears and listens.

Finally, "taught" in the sense of the prophets cited means they must hear and must learn or they have not been taught as the nature of the teaching makes hearing and learning effectual and I quote one of the prophets he cites to prove this:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The kind of instruction described is not by humans ("they shall teach no more every man his neighbor") but it is direct teaching by God within this "all" ("I will put my law in their INWARD parts, and write it in their hearts") and the effectual results are "they shall be my people." This is important because Arminians demand that this drawing/teaching work of the Father is EXTERNAL by nature through external instruments when Ezekiel denies that very idea when he says "they shall teach no more his neighbor...saying know the Lord." So this teaching is confined to the INTERNAL heart of man beyond the scope of men. The nature of this instruction is the transformation of their hearts into a submissive and willing heart to obey His word.

Furthermore, this internal instruction by God ("in their hearts") imparts experiential knowledge of God in a saving manner ("they shall ALL know me"). Jesus said, "This is eternal life that they might know thee the only true God..." - Jn. 17:3. This is the kind of instructive knowledge performed by God in their hearts that produces a heart knowing, thus believing in God.

So, my point is that the "all" as defined by the prophets he cites demands none of that "all" fail to come to God in saving knowledge. Hence, verse 45 gives no such alternative options either from the prophets Christ cites where the term "all" is found in both prophetic sources nor does the grammar in the second clause in verse 45 even suggest such. It is this saving knowledge imparted directly by God within the heart which is both the "substance" and "hope" of justifying faith (Heb. 11:1). This same effectual work of God unto believing in the gospel = coming to Christ in faith is described by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 and 1 Thes.1:4-5.

 

In John 6:37-39 Jesus plainly tells us who it is that are WILLING to come to Christ in faith and that is "ALL" whom the Father has given him. This act of giving preceded the incarnation as Jesus explicitly states that his reason for coming down from heaven is that he knew the Father's will in this matter prior to the incarnation because the father had prevous to the incarnation already "given" (perfect tense - v. 39) such to him. Hence, in verse 40, those WILLING do come to him and they are those given by the Father in verses 37-39. In contrast, those in verse 36 saw him and were not willing to come to him in faith and Jesus plainly tells them that is proof they are not part of those the Father gave him because ALL the father gives him do come to him (vv. 37-39). So, all who are WILLING are those whom the Father previous to their willingness, previous to the incarnation had already been given to the Son. Hence, those in verse 40 who are willing were part of the same "ALL" given to the Son before the incarnation thus before they became willing in point of time. That willingess in point of time is due to the INTERNAL EFFECTUAL drawing/teaching work by the Father (Jn. 6:44-45).

Hence, the willing are those given, those drawn by the Father. The unwilling (v. 37, 64) were never given to the Father before the incarnation (v. 37) and never drawn by the Father (v. 64-65)

 

The WHOSOEVER WILLING shall be saved not those NOT WILLING. All mankind comes into this world and exist in an UNWILLING state without ability to be WILLING and that is why Jesus says "NO MAN CAN come to me." Hence, what brings an UNWILLING person to a WILLINGNESS? Change of heart does and that is effected by the work of the Father called drawing which is defined further as an INTERNAL WORK of God that imparts willingness to their hearts (Jn. 6:45a/Ezek. 31:33-34/Heb. 8:10-13). So, who are the "whosoever will" people? They are those given to the Father before the incarnation (Jn. 6:38-39). They are those drawn by the Father which is the work of effectually changing their heart from unwillingness to willingness purely by grace (Ezek. 31:33-34; 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3; 4:6; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; etc.).

 

Ask yourself what does the term "world" (Gr. kosmos) mean to a Jewish Rabbi living at that time, not what post-Biblical scholars believe or not believe what it means. How is that term used in the New Testament? From the point of Jewish soteriology how do they understand it when it comes to salvation? Remember, they deny Gentiles can be saved without becoming Jewish. Remember, even the Jewish church at Jerusalem had this same problem (Acts 15). I think an honest contextual and cultural correct understanding of this term when used in a Jewish context either means "non-Jewish" world or "all races of mankind" but in the Jewish mind in a soteriological framework it most certainly does not mean "every man without exception from Adam to the last man born on earth."

 

Why should we do this?

When Jesus spoke the words, "whosoever believes" or the word "world" he knew full well that salvation would be offered to the Gentiles. Furthermore, the gospel of John was written when Gentiles were being added to the church.

 

Good question! Should we seek to understand what terms meant to the persons in the context that are using them OR should we simply define them anyway we want? Part of proper exegesis is to understand how a term is used in the cultural and grammatical context in which it is found. Jesus is a Jew speaking to a Jewish Rabbi. IF Jesus is going to communicate with this Jewish Rabbi he must use language they are both familar with and both understand the meaning. The Jews did not believe salvation was for non-Jews but only for Jews and that is why they required circumcision of Gentiles and even then they were regarded as second class citizens in God's kingdom.

Jesus as God knows everything but Nicodemus who is not God does not know everything and if there is going to be communication between Jesus and Nicodemus it had to be conveyed in common language with common meaning that both understood. The Jew used and understood the term "world" in soteriological discussions as a contrasting term to the word "jews" as they restricted salvation to "jews" not the "world." The term world in their soteriological understand went beyond Jewish boundaries to include all races.

That begs the question because he is writing about a period of time that occurred PRIOR to the book of Acts rather than concurrent with the book of Acts. You know that.

 

In soteriological passages written by Jews to Jewish believers the term "all men" is found in what Greek grammarians call the anathrous construct - which simply means it has no definite article (the). One proper use of the anathrous construct is to convey kind or class as in "all classes/kinds of men."

Another legitimate interpretation of the term kosmos (world) in soteriological passages written by Jews to Jewish believers is to interpret "world" to mean "all mankind without distinction of class, gender or social status" rather than "all mankind without exception from Adam to the last person born."

We believe the contextual evidence proves beyond doubt that "all men" and "world" within the context of soteriology when it is a Jew writing to believing Jews that this is precisely what is being conveyed simply because the New Testament shows clearly they limited salvation to Jews only before and after the first coming of Christ as this constituted the first major crisis between churches in Acts 15.

Another reason for this definition is that "all" in John 6:37-39, 44-45 and citations of prophets used in that same context (v. 45 - Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33-34) also limit the meaning of "all" to those actually saved under the new covenant. The same writer of the gospel of John wrote the book of Revelation and when he described the elect he used the equivilent language of all races, classes and genders:

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;; - Rev. 5:9

The same kind of classifications is consistently used by Paul to describe all who are in Christ:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Gal. 3:28

 

Let me give you some overall New Testament context for justifying the idea that Jews during that period limited salvation to Jews alone.

1. When Jesus used a term to describe how a discipline member removed out of the fellowship of the church was to be viewed and treated he described them as a "heathen" man or gentile which were to be treated as unclean by the Jews - Mt. 18:17

2. In John 4 the Samaritan woman stated that Jews have no dealings with Gentiles even to the extent of private theological discussion as Jesus was carrying on with her, and even much more so as she was woman.

3. In John 12 Greeks seeking to have such communion with Christ caused a stir among his disciples.

4. In Acts 1-9 although there is an explicit command to witness to the Gentile world (Acts 1:8) we have no attempt to do so.

5. In Acts 10, Jesus had to repeat a vision THREE TIMES to Paul and still Paul resisted until he was directly rebuked by Christ and told to go.

6. In Acts 10:28 when Peter entered the house of Cornelius his first words were that "it is unlawful" for a Jew to enter a Gentile home or have fellowship with them, but his reason for being there was the previous rebuke he received.

7. In Acts 11 there is no preaching to the Gentiles but Jews only in the cities those going out from the Jerusalem church went through on their way back to their homes in Cyprus and other places in the gentile world.

8. In Acts 15 there is a council called to deal with this very issue whether or not Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews.

So, there is overwhelming New Testament evidence that Jews did not understand salvation to extend beyond the Jews and this problem extended to Jewish believers in congregations in the Gentile world. This background suffiently provides evidence the possible rendering of "all men" to mean "all kinds/classes of men" and "world" to mean "all races, classes and genders" of mankind when it is being used in a context where a Jew is the speaker or writer and when the audiance consists of lost or saved Jews.