Featured Rebuttal of an Article on Jn. 6:44 by Dr. Flowers

“NNE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS THEM, AND I WILL RAISE THEMUP AT THE LAST DAY.” – JOHN 6:44
There are two basic ways to interpret this passage and it hinges on the words “draws” and “them.” Let’s look at the two renderings side by side:

Calvinists: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me *drags* them, and I will raise up *those who were dragged* at the last day.”

Traditionalists: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me *enables* them, and I will raise up *those who come* at the last day.”

The Greek sentence structure allows for the author to be referencing “them” who come, not necessarily all those drawn. For instance if the sentence translated in English were structured in this manner the intention might be more obvious:

“Only those drawn by the Father may come, and I will raise up them (those that come) at the last day.” - Dr. Leighton Flowers

The first problem I have with the beginning of this article is an improper translation of the verse. Since, Bro. Flowers offers no source for his translation I can only speculate it is some kind of paraphrase translation.

There is no plural "them..them" in the Majority Greek text nor is there any plural "those" in the Majority Greek text. The Greek text has the masculine accustive singular "autov" in both cases which is properly translated "him....him" by the KJV. The term he translates as "those" is the singular "oudeis" and literally means "no one" or "no man" since it is in the masculine gender.

The second problem I have is his statement "The Greek sentence structure allows for the author to be referrencing 'them' who come, not necessarily all those drawn."

Strictly speaking the nearest grammatical antecedent for the "him" of the second clause is the "him" in the first clause which is confined to only those drawn by the Father. The only other noun or pronoun is "oudeis" and that represents those who cannot come to Christ. Hence, the natural reading of the text and grammar defines "him" in the second clause not only to be restricted to "him" of the first clause but the very same "him" of the first clause. This is further inferred by the repeated use the very same final clause by Christ which is first used in John 6:39, then 6:40, then 6:44 and finally in 6:54. In all other cases the pronoun in that final clause is not only restricted to, but inclusive of ALL who have just been previously defined. For example, in John 6:39 the pronoun is restricted to but inclusive of "all" who are given as all given do not fail to come to Christ. In John 6:40 the pronoun in this clause refers to "all" (Gr. pas translated "everyone" but previously tranaslated "all") who believe and includes all who believe. The same is true in John 6:54. So, the very use of this clause both preceding Johnn 6:44 and after John 6:44 contradicts Bro. flowers interpretation.

Not only so, but John 6:64-65 contradicts his interpretation. His whole position demands that drawing is universal in scope including "all men" without exception from Adam to the last human born on earth. John 6:64 explicitly states that Jesus knew that some of his disciples were never true believers and the reaso he gives is that it was not "given" to them by the Father. What was not "given" is what is included in the word "draw" in verse 64. Dr. Flowers demands that what is inclusive in the word "draw" in John 6:44 is given to all men without exception.

Therefore, since coming to Christ in true faith must be "given" to them and it was not given to them by the Father then it follows that all to whom it is given do come to Christ by faith.

Finally, every other use of the verbs Helko and Helkuo in the New Testament are found in the active voice as is the texts in question. This means that the object of the verb ("him") has no part in the action of the verbs but is wholly passive with regard to that action. Second, every other use of these verbs demonstrates drawing effectually and inseparably includes coming as what is being drawn in all other cases is also coming at one and the same time.

 

The imperative mode and the indicative mode characterize all of these gospel narratives making them commands and/or declarations rather than propositions. We are commanded to repent, thus we are commanded to believe as repentance is inseparable from faith.

All Biblical invitations are addressed to only those who already realize they are lost, sinners, burdened with sin, thirsty, willing and hungry.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree agreeably.

 

"ANOTHER EXAMPLE
The confusion over John 6:44 can be clarified by applying the same interpretative principle to another similar sentence:

“No one can join the Army unless they have been recruited, and those who have been recruited will be trained.”

To use the Calvinistic interpretative method on this sentence would suggest that the Army only intended to recruit those who are eventually trained when clearly the Army attempts to recruit thousands who never actually join. The clear intention of this sentence is to presume the recruitment process lead to the joining and eventual training of those in view. Likewise, Jesus could simply be referring to those who do come as a result of God’s enabling. Given that at this time God has not completed His redemptive plan and sent the gospel to the Gentiles, it is safe to say He is not enabling all to come — yet." - Dr. Flowers

This illustration supports my view not his view. First, note his word substitutions. He substitutes "come" for "join" and substitutes "draw" for "recruited" and substitutes "trained" for "raised up." Thus, "him" which "have been recruited"(drawn) are one and the same as "him" previously "recruited"(drawn) - this is both my point and the point of the Greek grammar that it is the same "him" drawn that has been raised up proving drawing is effectual in its consequence of coming rather than only potential or possible.

Furthermore, the prophets Jesus cites proves Dr. Flowers illustration is not what Christ meant at all. He cites Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 both of which assert that "all" will be taught of God and that "all" does not refer to a universal "all" but to "all" within the framework of the New Covenant where not one of that "all" fails to come to the knowledge of God and be his people and I quote:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. - Jn. 6:44-45a

And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. - Isa. 54:13

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.

This is not an EXTERNAL drawing or teaching but an INTERNAL drawing and teaching that effectually brings them ALL to salvation - This same covenant is defined by Paul as the New Covenant in Hebrews 8 and 10:

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. - Heb. 8:10-12

 

"DRAGGED
Many Calvinists will appeal to the word helko (draw) in the original Greek, which can be understood as “to drag” as in a net of fish being dragged into the boat. But the word can also mean “to lead” or “draw” (see Thayer’s Greek Lexicon).

Even if one were to accept the rendering of the term “helko” to mean “effectually cause” as in “to drag,” the text still does not say enough to necessitate a Calvinistic reading. One could be compelled to come to Christ while he was “down from heaven,” (v. 38) as was Judas (v. 71), without necessarily being saved. Jesus told those who came to Him that they must “count the cost to be his disciple” (Lk 14:25-34) and some who came only followed Him temporarily. One must presume that “coming to Christ” is equivalent to effectual salvation in order to support a Calvinistic interpretation." - Dr. Flowers

The facts are, if we temporarily set aside the disputed texts (Jn. 6:44, 65; 12:32) every other use by New Testament writers demands that drawing and coming stand in a cause consequence relationship that are inseparable and simeltaneous with each other. In direct contrast, Dr. Flowers has no text, no example that supports his view that it merely means non-effectual leaderhip or influence - NONE!

Second, nowhere does the Bible say Judas was ever drawn by the Father but explicitly places him in the group of unbelievers that Jesus says were never drawn by the Father and I quote:

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. - Jn. 6:64-65

Finally, we don't have to assume that coming to Christ as properly defined by Christ is "effectual salvation" because Christ explicitly says it is and denies that mere profession makes it so:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Dr. Flowers confuses the biblical definition of coming to Christ with mere profession that one has come to Christ. In the context of John 6 the phrase "cometh to me" always refers to actual salvation and not mere profession as those who make a false profession of being a disciple of Christ have never been drawn (Jn. 6:64-65) by the Father and thus have never come to Christ in saving faith at all.

 

In the entire context of John 6 the words "cometh unto me" when used by Christ always refers to genuine faith in Christ. Judas is also mentioned in this context as one who claimed to be a disciple of Christ but never came to Christ in the sense Christ uses these words but is explicitly placed among the false believers (Jn. 6:64) of whom the Father never gave them ability to come to Christ i the genuine sense.

And, no, that is not what I'm trying to sell but that is the indisputable fact of this particular context. In this context came to Christ in faith for miracles (Jn. 6:2) and for power (v. 15) and for "food" (v. 26) but none came to Christ in true faith for salvation as that is not possible outside those given to the Son for that purpose, and that act of giving occurred prior to the incarnation (vv. 38-39). In this context, Judas is grouped among false believers and considered a demon from the beginning.

Judas was "given" to Christ for another purpose than salvation - "perdition" Judas was given for another purpose "apostleship" but not salvation as holder of offices does not secure personal salvation.

Not true at all! John 6 is universal in its scope "NO MAN can come to me" - Jn. 6:44

John 6;35 proves coming to Christ and believing are synonymous in this context:

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. - Jn. 6:35

The two underlined phrases are paralllel truths first literally stated then metaphorially stated.

You are confusing the baptism in the Spirit with regeneration by the Spirit. New Birth is taught 3 chapters previous to chapter 6 and Nicodemus is rebuked for failing to understand it, which could hardly be the case if it were not a present truth - and it was and it was taught throughout the Old Testament under different metaphors (circumcision of the heart - Ezek. 44:7-9).

Again, you are ignoring contextual definitions. The "work" in question was efforts in following Christ over the sea and seeking him out for mere food. He is saying if you are going to seek me out then do it for what God "GIVES" which is eternal life not what you can EARN. Do you know the difference between a gift and a wage earned?

 

Sure! But how do you define "draw"? If you interpret it as universal than the scriptures Jesus references in John 6:45 repudiates that idea and John 6:64-65 repudiates that idea. If you interpret simply as "influence" but not inseparable from coming in faith to Christ as the direct simelataneous consequence then provide any use of it outside the debated two passages that will support that view.

 

I completely understand your view. However, that is not the view of Christ and it can be shown clearly what view Christ held by the prophets he quoted to explain his view in John 6:45. He is citing Isaiah 54;13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 which describes an internal work of God that writes his law upon their hearts effectually bringing them to faith in "ALL" he draws in this manner. "ALL" drawn in this manner are called "ALL thy children" (Isa. 54:13) under the new covenant (Jer. 31:33-34/Heb. 10:8-13)

So, this drawing is the INTERNAL WORK of God ALONE as no one can operate inside of man (Jer.31:33) and it is always effectual in bringing them to faith in God (Jer. 31:34) ALL of them "from the least of them to the greatest of them".

So, Jesus is continuing to talk about "ALL" that the Father had given him in John 6:37-39 as only these become willing to believe on him (Jn. 6:40) because the Father draw them (Jn. 6:44) in the manner described by the prophets (Jn. 6:45; Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33-34) which are the New Covenant children (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:31-34 with Heb. 8:10-13) and those in John 6:36 and 6:64 were never given to the Son by the Father and never drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:65).