Featured John 6.44

In a number of places.
Putting together the Scriptures, I start with John 6, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Romans 10, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 2 Thessalonians 2.

Yes.

No, because all that are drawn by the Father are the ones given to Christ.
They are the ones who will be raised up at the last day.

So, according to John 6:44, one cannot be drawn by the Father and not come to Christ, nor can they not be raised up at the last day.
They are inseparably linked.

The Scripture still applies...
In order for someone to truly come to the Son, the Father must do the drawing.

In John 12:32, it's not the same type of "drawing".
If it were, then Jesus was lying and they both can "savingly" draw someone, can't they?

They were chosen "in Christ" ( Ephesians 1:4 ).
What the Lord chooses to do is always carried out, just like prophecies are.

Also, the Father does the begetting by the word ( James 1:18 ).

So, what the Lord has begun in a person ( Philippians 1:6 ) He will continue until the day of Christ.
Even the fact that we have believed is a work of God ( John 6:29 ), Barry.

Did you miss all those things in your reading?

 

I'd have to pause here to object to your method of debate here - I am not perturbed or offended by it, but simply raising the unfairness of how this dialogue has been moving along in the very remote case that you hadn't noticed and would've liked to have been made aware of.

I've answered your every question here but you do not seem to be answering any of mine - is there any specific reason for that? On good faith, only to converse together and not to slam dunk any conclusions, I've been sharing all that I believe and the reasoning - but when I ask you for what you believe, where exactly you differ on my interpretations or how you interpret those very specific verses yourself, you simply reply with yet another question.

You've been shifting the goalposts constantly with no acknowledgement of what's already presented. You began with claiming not once in the Bible has election been mentioned in the context of salvation - Rom 9-11 was presented. Without acknowledging your first claim may need reconsidering in light of this, you simply moved on to asking where such election has been mentioned as purposed unto salvation - Rom 9:29 was presented. No thinking aloud yet, and now you ask where such election unto salvation has been mentioned as unconditional - I am going to continue to present verses only because it's profitable unto edification, but you'd do well to reciprocate too.

Oh I absolutely affirm unconditional election unto salvation before any man's birth or good or evil. I've already reasoned out why in my very first post on this thread -

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

How does the purpose of God stand according to the election of grace and not works - by proving it is based on Him who calls and not based on what the children have done, good or evil - which is what we've termed "unconditional".

This is quite straightforward according to me - I mean, I'm not even interpreting between multiple passages across Scriptures, the thought process is already laid out by Paul within the same context. But how do you see this differently - what is your exegetical interpretation? I am willing to engage on your own arguments, but make some to begin with. How do you see why Paul equates the jews whom God foreknew and didn't cast away as the remnant elect in Rom 11:2,5?

 

I take it you mean Eph 1:5 and not Rom 8:23. I'm not myself too stuck on the word 'predestined' itself - it simply means to determine something in advance. That 'something' could be anything - just so long as it's determined in advance, it can be said to be predestined. Christ's manner and timing of death, which involved so many others' participation across millennia, was determined in advance - which is why it's said to be predestined in Acts 4:28. Therefore I don't focus on just the word but God's revelation of what and why He's determining in advance.

From just Rom 9:11, God determined in advance (before the children had done good or evil) something about them - I'm comfortable terming it 'predestined'. I'm also comfortable not using 'predestined' here and simply describing what happened as-is. The similar election of grace in Rom 11:5 has God determining in advance something about the jews whom He foreknew - I don't mind one way or the other describing this as 'predestined'. It's just semantics - why should whole doctrines be dependent on vocabulary?

 

I just wrote that these terms don't exclusively point to only some doctrines - it depends on context, right?
Are you saying that in Eph 1:5 specifically, predestination is not applied unto salvation? I'd agree. Or are you taking this as your basis to generalize it as hence not being applied unto salvation across all of Scriptures? I'd disagree - that would be building doctrines around vocabulary.

In my earlier post #47, I have recounted how God has determined in advance the unconditional election of the remnant jews unto salvation - that to me still falls under 'predestined' since it was determined in advance.

Again, semantics. Most definitely in some contexts, election is not to salvation - but to take that and generalize it would be wrong. In some other contexts as shown in post #47, election is indeed unto salvation.

Disagree on this - we've just completed debating this on another thread and I believe this is again an error on semantics. Adoption is simply making us sons/children of God which we've already received as per Gal 4:5-6, Eph 1:5-6 - the redemption of the body is a distinct future event that we still wait for. The sentence structure of Rom 8:23 does not lend itself to being a definition of Adoption.

Yes, sinners become sons of God through the new birth - and this "becoming sons of God" is what's simply termed Adoption - it's not some other distinct event. When someone from your local orphanage "becomes your son", he's said to be Adopted, right?

 

Okay. Would you say that in Rom 11:5,7 that the remnant jews were elected by grace before they had done any good or evil to not be destroyed or cast away but be saved? If yes, simply reply yes - if no, simply choose which phrase(s) you disagree with -

1. the remnant jews (Rom 11:1,5)
2. elected by grace (Rom 11:5-7)
3. before they had done any good or evil (Rom 9:11)
4. to not be destroyed or cast away (Rom 9:29, 11:2)
5. but be saved (Rom 9:27)

If you differ on any of these, could you provide how you interpret them yourself, thanks!

 

I can go along with this line of reasoning. So there's a cause and effect of God's drawing -> to the people being able to come, and there's a cause and effect of the people actual coming and believing -> to them being raised up on the last day - but there is no cause and effect of people's being able to come -> to them actually coming and believing? Fine.

Could you also explain the cause and effect of God's giving the people to Christ -> to their coming and believing in Christ (Jn 6:37)?
And finally the cause and effect of God giving to the people -> to their coming and believing in Christ (Jn 6:64-65) ?

In other words, what was not given to the people by the Father in Jn 6:65, which if it had been given, they'd have believed?

 

I'm sorry Barry.
As I see it, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, I clearly see that election ( choosing ) is to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ).
It is God who chooses a person and causes them to approach Him ( Psalms 65:4 ) by His work of regeneration, or being born again.
It is to the gift ( Romans 6:23 ) of eternal life, which is to know God and His Son ( John 17:3 ), and it is to an inheritance, prepared from the foundation of the world ( Matthew 25:34 ).

Any other way makes salvation into a cooperative effort that hinges on God rewarding men with a "wage" for their act of belief.
But God does not reward us as men for our works, except with punishment for our evil works.
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

All true good works are "wrought" ( worked ) in God ( John 3:21 ).
So, even our righteous act of belief does not merit any attention from God when it comes to those in Christ having been made clean by the blood of Christ.

It is all of grace, my friend.

I wish you well, sir.

 

That whole section of scripture has that effect on people. Everyone sees in it exactly what they believe it says. Personally, I have spent too much time discovering new "already and not yet" double-truths (and even triple-truths) in scripture to still see it as as a we choose/God chose "either/or" passage. I see it as a "both". I just lean on God's Sovereignty as the "first cause" in all things.

However, where is the Calvinist vs Arminian argument fun in that?

 

That is really your response to all of the scripture references that he presented ... you just don't see what he sees?

Then what do you see in these verses:

• Mark 4:3-4
  
• 2 Corinthians 2:14
• 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

 

On the subject of the op, John 6:44. A sliding hermeneutic is generally the rule when context is not considered. I would ask anyone commenting on John 6:44 to use the same rule for interpreting all the verses in that chapter. If that were the case we would have some arguments from the following verse and it might get a little silly.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Nobody is arguing that one must see the son to have everlasting life. Yet these are words right out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. He said this is the will of the Father.

The point is, there is context to scripture and before someone steps in a public forum to speak for God about his salvation he should reconcile verses like this that presents us with an impossibility and one that will allow a consistent method of interpretation.

If salvation can only be accomplished by the "drawing" of God, why did Paul write 13 letters to gentiles, telling us all about God's salvation and not one time even use the word "draw?" I will answer that question myself. It is because salvation is by invitation to all and not by the drawing of some.

Context is our friend.

 

[John 20:27-29 NIV] 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

[Acts 2:38-39 NIV] 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

In John 6, ALL who are drawn are "raised" and Jesus "will lose none of" ... that sure sounds SAVED to me.