Who Is Drawn by the Father?

It can be done, MB, and it's been drawn out many times.
But it seems that you aren't accepting what others have submitted, which is your right to do.

For example, Christ doing the drawing that results in a person coming to Him in belief, is precisely what is at the heart of any discussion of how John 12:32 is used by those who do not believe in "Unconditional Election".
From my perspective, they see the "all" in John 12:32, and immediately conclude that Christ draws all men "potentially".
Why some men believe and others do not, is attributed to man's will, or choice.

The "missing link" that I see never getting provided, is the verse or passage that states this as a declaration, leaving the person who teaches this to "fill in the blank" and submit that man's will must be the deciding factor.

So, I'll try to be brief, and draw it all out again:


1) If Christ draws all men to Him for the purposes of belief in Him and His sacrifice, then we have a contradiction between John 6:44, and John 12:32.

If God the Father's "drawing" results, not only in everyone who comes to Christ not only coming to Him in belief, but Christ actually raising up each and every one that is drawn, "on the last day", then Christ is lying when He tells the Jews in John 6, that in order for a person to come to Him, the Father must do the "drawing".

2) If Christ draws anyone "savingly", or even "potentially" in John 12:32, then He is not doing the will of the Father by giving eternal life to only those that He has given to Him ( John 17:2 ). Are you following?


Jesus cannot lie because He is God...therefore, He cannot do anything outside of the Father's will, because He tells us that His will is to do the Father's will ( John 4:34 ).
His Father's will is to give a certain people to the Son ( John 6:37-40, John 17:2 ), "drawing them" and they then come to Jesus because of that ( John 6:65 )

2) Christ's actual purpose in John 12:32 in doing the "drawing" that He did, was to show by what death He should die...to be placed on the cross in full view of everyone.
It was also to do this very thing:

" For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).

The preaching of that very occasion would be used, as a vital part of the Gospel, to bring His sheep ( those out of every tongue, tribe and nation, see Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 ) into the knowledge of what He did for them...
To take away their sins ( Matthew 1:21 ).
He gave His life for His sheep ( John 10:11 )., and in so doing, drew "all" unto Him by being lifted up on that cross.
That one event, and the preaching of the very words of it, is what God the Father uses, by the Holy Spirit, to bring His children to repentance ( 2 Peter 3:9 ).


So, by process of elimination, God the Father cannot be doing the same "drawing" that Christ did, or that automatically makes Jesus a liar when He states that God the Father is doing the drawing in John 6:44.
Looking closer as to the reason why the "drawing" that Christ is doing draws "all", that is what I see Scripture stating.


If you're not satisfied with the answer, and are willing to overlook the contradiction introduced by proposing that both the Father and the Son "draw" in the same manner in John 6:44 and John 12:32, then that is, of course, your prerogative.


I wish you well.

 

All of those whom God ordained that would be saved by the death of Christ as atonement for their sins shall be drawn!
Jesus died in the stead and paid the sin debt of the Elect, and not for all sinners...

 

Dave none of what you placed on the board disproves Christ meant what He said. When He said He would draw all men. You can ttrash what He said or believe it;s up to you. For me I stand on His word not some make believe doctrine of men.
MB

 

Mark,
If you are determined to classify me as an "Augustinian", even though I've never read his works, then you are fully within your right to do so.
But, since I don't even own a copy of the "City of God", nor John Calvin's "Institutes", nor have I ever studied theology at a bible college that teaches "Reformed Theology", I don't see how attributing my understanding of Scripture to a man even applies, at least with respect to myself.

I cannot speak for others, of course.
But one thing I would like for you to consider:

If you're going to take exception to people classifying you as an "Arminian", even though you don't get your understanding from either John Wesley's teachings or directly from Jacob Hermanszoon's ( "Arminuis" ) teachings, then may I suggest that you respond in kind?

I don't call you an "Arminian", because you seem to want to identify with the term, "Traditionalist".
So, I don't.
Why?
Because you seem to be offended by it, and I have no wish to cause you any offense.

If you want to call me a "Calvinist", then I'm not unwilling to be labeled by that, but that is not what I am.
I am a biblical Christian who believes each and every word of God, and simply understands them all differently, when put together, than you do.
I associate things in His word that you apparently do not, and I think that this is what may be leading to us not agreeing with one another.

When it comes down to it, "Traditionalism", which is what I sat under for over 25 years from the point of my coming to Christ, is characterized by me as man-centered, and always will be:
Because when everything is "run through the wash" under that set of teachings, I came to understand, objectively, that the salvation of a person is ultimately dependent upon the weakest link...man's decision to either accept Christ, or reject Him.
My personal observation that "Traditionalism" is not quite as man-centered as full on "Wesleyanism", does in no way diminish my belief that there are elements of it that I find still does not lead to God getting all the credit for a person coming to His Son.

As I see it, you seem to think that because God is responsible for salvation in the general sense, then man having any part to play in deciding who is saved and who is not, is somehow not important.
I don't see it that way.
In the details, I see God getting all the credit for every aspect of it, start to finish, and His control and influence over every detail of how and why someone comes to Him and His Son.

Having no wish to offend, but still being desirous to stand for what I see as the truth, I will then make this statement, which I have done in the past:

Anything that gives man some sort of avenue to God's favor, and then, in practice relies on even the slightest thing that a man can do to determine that favor, will always be considered by me, to be works and in violation of Romans 11:5-6.

If you are offended by my being honest in stating this, I cannot help that.
How I treat you while presenting it?
That I can help.



Best regards to you, sir, and as always,
I wish you God's blessing upon your personal life.

 

That is how you see the term "all men" with you it's never about the truth it's about what you want truth to be.
MB

 

Show me in scripture where it says even one time that Christ died only for the elect.
MB

 

The Greek does say "all". Again you don't have any Idea of what you are talking about
Try again
MB

 

It doesn't appear so.Besides I am just being honest.

 

Jesus died for all sinners, but NOT in the sense that the Father had Him pay the sin debt obligation of all sinners, that was just for sake of the elect!

 

I guess that depends on point of view, Dave...
As I see it, one person's truth can be another person's falsehood.

I've done a fair bit of thinking on this, and as near as I can determine, "tradition" is based on what a group of people get together and decide to practice or believe.
I could list example after example after example...
From how to speak their own language, to accepted variations of it, to how to mow the lawn and take out the trash.
Anything that is generally acceptable by a group, i.e."the way we've always done/believed things" had a start, somewhere.

So, in thinking about what actually constitutes, or makes up the body of "tradition", and then travels so far as to become represented with terms like, "orthodoxy", it occurred to me that what really defines them is not necessarily whether certain teachings are based on truth, but whether or not the majority of a group of people consider it to be "the truth".

Carrying this over to the body of doctrines among those who profess Christ, I see this type of thing happening everywhere.
What was once traditional, in that what a large number of people who made up "the group" adhered to, has changed ( in some ways radically, depending on the group ) in the space of the last 200 years or so.


For example:
Baptists, by and large, have gone from "Calvinistic", to adopting large portions of "Wesleyanism", or "Evangelical Arminianism" as found here:

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

Except for "eternal security", there is almost nothing left of what started out among most Baptists 300-400 years ago, as being represented among the majority today.
What is known as "Traditionalism" was barely heard of even among the American Baptists of 250 years ago, from my research, and has only grown exponentially since then.


So, to state it simply, whatever the group, as a whole decides, becomes "tradition".
We're not the first to battle back and forth about these doctrines, but we may very well be the last.

Then again, if He is that close to coming again, then...being the last can be very encouraging.

 

A good source for the information on General and particular Baptists can be found here:

https://www.amazon.com/Extent-Atone...s=gateway&sprefix=the+extent+,aps,145&sr=8-1&

In part two it covers "The Extent of The Atonement in Baptist Tradition" which goes into great detail about when both came on the scene which has not been represented correctly in this thread so far.

 

In response to the OP, here is what 17th century English Particular Baptists thought of drawing. To them, drawing and calling were virtually identical. Those who are called (drawn) are effectually called. What is meant by the word effectual? It simply means to produce the desired result. The framers of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith wrote (including scriptural proofs):

10.1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

10.2 This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

These men were careful to make the distinction between effectual calling and the calling of obligation that we see in Acts 17:30 when Paul said on Mars Hill, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent". Here is what they had to say about the distinction:

10.4 Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

Those not appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48) may hear the outward calling of the Word, but they cannot experience the internal calling of the Spirit because it is not granted them by the Father.

 

Differing points of view being well-represented here on this forum, objections to my post that this quote is part of, I find to be expected.
Here is something I found while scrounging around on the Internet recently, and that, to me, backs up what I have stated, at least partially, in my quote:

" Nettles, in his paper, "The Particular Baptist Defense of Beginning Anew," argued that the modern-day Baptist pilgrimage may be properly traced to 1638 in England through the records of the "Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey (JLJ) Church," which tells of a Particular (or Calvinistic) minister named John Spilsbury, who recovered the practice of believer's baptism by immersion. Spilsbury argued that believer's baptism by immersion was a biblical practice and was one of the elements that constituted a true church even though the practice had not been in place in unbroken succession since the time of the apostles. The Bible gave Christians all the warrant they needed for recovery of the practice, Spilsbury asserted.

Spilsbury, Nettles said, defined a true church according to four elements: Faithful preaching of the Word; a clear confession of faith; voluntary participation together by covenant built upon the truths of Scripture as crystallized in the confession of faith; and a body composed of those who have been converted by the Spirit and properly baptized. These elements have formed a fundamental part of Baptist identity since, he said.

Nettles showed that John Smyth and fellow General (Arminian) Baptist Thomas Helwys helped to begin a movement toward the establishment of Baptist doctrine in the early 1600s, but that Baptist identity as it is known today came closer to full flower in Spilsbury. Thus, Baptist beginnings find their clearest expression in the Particular Baptists of England in the early-mid 17th century.

"Spilsbury's cogent arguments for a gathered, disciplined congregation of believers baptized by immersion as constituting the New Testament church gave expression to and built on insights that had emerged within separatism, advanced in the life of John Smyth and the suffering congregation of Thomas Helwys, and matured in Particular Baptists," Nettles said."

Source: Anabaptist kinship or English dissent? Papers at ETS examine Baptist origins - (BP)


I guess it all depends on what one reads, in the end.

I could also be a bit off in my timing in the above, as well.

But, since I mostly spend time reading God's word at the expense of other books, then there very well be a large number of them written from both sides of the "who-did-what".
There is definitely the possibility that I may not be as well-informed as others here on the BB.

 

scripture please? No scripture supporting your view means it isn't so.
MB

 

All means all . This is what you have failed time and again on. You have nothing to prove any differently. You make claims with nothing to back up what you claim.
MB