Scott,
Since you took the liberty to use the lexicology from the *Arminian Magazine/ 2001, I will do as you did:
Taken from The Alpha and Omega website of James White, his *open letter* to Dave Hunt's attempt at the Greek Helkuo'..........
White speaking:
There is, of course, just one problem. The text defies your disjunction. First, we note that Jesus is charged to raise up to eternal life all of those who are given to Him (6:37-39). Being raised up on the last day is the same as receiving eternal life. They are used in parallel in this passage. But, those who are given to the Son are raised up, and those who are drawn are raised up. If the results are the same, obviously, the group is the same. But there is more. In John 6:44, the key passage regarding “drawing,” we read: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is a single sentence. In Greek we have, helkuse auton, kagw anastesw auton en te eschate hemera. The direct object of the action of the Father’s drawing is the first auton, “him.” A grand total of two words separate the first “him” from the second appearance of the same term, “and I will raise him up on the last day.” Now, you are telling us that this is a different “him,” a different group of people. That in fact there are many, many who are drawn who will not be raised up. You are telling us that the Father draws millions to Christ, but they do not experience the last phrase of this single sentence. And upon what basis? You don’t tell us. “Surely” you can do so! What is the basis, Mr. Hunt?
Dave, the only possible reason why you could not see why I join such scholars as Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware and R.C. Sproul and Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield and so many others is that you do not want to see it. You have been blinded by your traditions. It is not that the text is unclear. Your thinking is what is unclear here, not the text, and I do not say that with any malice toward you at all. Let’s look at the text again and see how your argumentation is flawed.
First, you are making a positive assertion, but you refuse to state it that way, hoping that by stating it negatively, you will not be forced to substantiate your claim. You are saying that Jesus is teaching that there are those who are drawn who are not raised up. You are saying the second “him” in verse 44 refers to a different person than the first. Now, you offer us no substantiation of your claim, anywhere, but you expect us to accept your claim, seemingly without any basis other than your own authority. I do not argue as you do, Dave. When I say those who are drawn are the same ones who are raised up, I provide exegetical basis. Here’s a summary:
1) There is no reason to insert a disjunction between the direct object of helkuse and the direct object of anastesw. In fact, when we consider the syntax of the passage, we note that while helkuse is found in a subjunctive clause, the main tense comes from oudeis dunatai elthein, “no one is able to come.” Note that the verb in the last clause is a future, “and I will raise him up.” The progression naturally flows into the last clause without interruption. That is, there is nothing indicated in the verbal structure to make kai disjunctive in any way (something you would need to find to be able to substantiate your assertion). The natural reading is to see auton in both clauses as synonymous in extent and meaning.
2) Those who come to Christ are those who were given to the Son by the Father (John 6:37). Again, verbally, the giving precedes the coming. This is why your entire explanation of the text is impossible: you turn it on its head, insert the foreign concept of foreknowledge (and using it in an unbiblical fashion), and make the result of being given the grounds of being given! We come to Christ as a result of the Father having given us to the Son. You say we come to Christ, the Father foresees this (how the free actions of autonomous creatures can be foreseen in this fashion you do not explain, nor, do I believe, can anyone really explain it outside of positing God’s sovereign decree in light of Ephesians 1:11), and on the basis of our foreseen faith, gives us to the Son. This completely reverses the order of Jesus’ own words. Those who come are those who are given; those who are given are raised up by Christ (6:38-39). Those who are drawn are raised up by Christ.
3) John 6:44 explains how it is that all those who are given by the Father to the Son will, without fail, come to him. It does not make the giving and the drawing the same action, as you errantly assume, but it does make it certain that all those who are given are, at the time decreed by God, drawn by the Father to the Son.
4) Besides all these issues, there is another reason I have not yet presented for rejecting your disjunction. John 6:45 states,
"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”
This verse is not discussing something different, but expressing the same truths in different words. The Lord did not all of a sudden insert some foreign idea here, but is now using hearing and teaching as another way of speaking of the divine work of God whereby He draws His elect unto the Son. Who is Jesus referring to? All who are given by the Father to the Son, of course, and all who are drawn by the Father to the Son. The ability to hear (or the lack of ability to do so) is a common theme in John’s gospel. Note the same theme in John 8:43, 47:
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
If we take your view, Dave, we would have to read those words differently, would we not? “Why do you choose to not understand what I am saying? It is because you choose not to hear My word. He who has chosen to be of God hears the words of God, just as the one who has not; for this reason you do not hear them, because you have not chosen to be of God.” That’s how you would have to rephrase such passages, is it not? Jesus spoke of an inability to hear (“cannot hear”) in John 8:43 just as He spoke of an inability to come in John 6:44. See the connection, Dave? John 6:45 says that those who hear and learn from the Father do what? Come. What do those who are given by the Father to the Son do? Come. John 6:45 parallels hearing and learning with drawing. If being given, hearing, and learning, all result in one coming to Christ, and yet hearing and learning is parallel to being drawn, then the only possible logical result is what? That all those who are drawn come to Christ and are raised up on the last day. So, graphically:
6:37 Action: Given by Father Result: All come to Christ
6:39 Action: Given by Father Result: None lost, all raised up
6:44 Action: Drawn by the Father Result: Come to Christ, raised up
6:45 Action: Hear from and Taught by Father: Result: Come to Christ
There is a strong, clear, irrefutable line that flows from 6:37 through 6:45, Dave. You may try to deny its existence. You may tell your readers it is not there. You may vociferously claim it contradicts other Scriptures (it only contradicts your misunderstandings of other Scriptures). Indeed, you wrote on page 336, “Moreover, to ‘draw’ someone in the ordinary sense of that word doesn’t mean they will necessarily come all the way, nor is there anything in either the Greek or the context to suggest, much less demand, that conclusion.” We have now seen that this statement is completely untrue. But the fact is, the teaching is there. It is consistent throughout the passage. It is consistent with every grammatical, lexical, and syntactical analysis available. And it tells us that God the Father gives the elect to the Son, who infallibly and perfectly saves each and every one; it says that the Father draws those same undeserving sinners in His grace to the Son, and the Son infallibly raises them up on the last day. These exegetical considerations are the death knell of your entire 20th chapter, Dave, a chapter in which you accuse myself and others of eisegesis and misinterpretation.
I should note, Dave, that the rest of your attempted response to John 6 is dependent upon this very point, and since your explanation here has failed, the rest of it, of course, is left without a foundation. I believe you have a responsibility to your readers, since you have published on this topic, to speak the truth to them. If you cannot provide a solid, reasoned, truthful response to the information I have presented to you here, you should withdraw your assertions. Indeed, you wrote on page 335,
The burden of proof is upon the Calvinist to show where the Bible clearly states his doctrine; yet even in this passage which White calls “the clearest exposition of Calvinism,” the theory is not plainly stated but must be read into it or it could not be found there at all.
Yet, as I have now shown, the Bible does clearly state the doctrine, and your every attempt to cast doubt upon the clarity of the revelation has failed upon the first examination of the text in a properly exegetical fashion. You allege we are reading into the text, yet, when we let the text speak for itself, it teaches these truths with great clarity. You are reading these truths out of the text so as to substantiate your tradition. Yes, I know you allege I am doing the same thing, but, as any formal debate between us would show, one of us can provide an exegetically consistent foundation for his position, one cannot.
Excerpt taken from J. Whites *open* letter to Dave Hunt.
http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html
[ November 18, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]
