Biblical vs Secular Definitions of English Words

[Van]

After all of that, I still have no answer to what was a simple question on DRAW in John 6:44:

Can men resist the DRAW of God the Father to the Son in John 6:44?

Under my definition of DRAW as “compel”, I would answer “No.”
I still have no idea what your answer is under your definition of DRAW as “invite”. I speculated that it might be “Yes.” I speculated that I might have misunderstood your position. Now that you have explained it (quoted above), your position is as clear as mud.

The Calvinist claim has been shown unbiblical.

I have explained why your view is precluded by scripture. If your view was correct, then John 12:32 would indicate everyone to whom the gospel is preached would be compelled to accept Christ. To avoid that, you simply redefine all men (people) to mean all kinds of people, Gentiles and Jews. Not how it reads.

I have no interest in disparaging your character, Sir, it is Calvinism, that is false doctrine. And that false doctrine includes the claim draw means compel at John 6:44 and John 12:32. If the Calvinist claim were true, then soils 2 and 3 (see Matthew 13) would be saved, for they heard and understood the gospel. Since they fell away, draw means attract, not compel. It is a lock Sir!!

 

[Derf B]

Hurray! I’ll take it.


Sorry, that question is above my pay grade. Ask the manufacturer.
It might have something to do with “original sin” and the heart being “desperately wicked”.
I tend to view it through a lens of:

• [Eze 36:26 NASB] 26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
• Stone = dead; flesh = alive.

• 
  Then you’re ok if God also tells them to exercise control over their hearts themselves? And He says it first, before 36:26.
  Ezekiel 18:31 (KJV)
  Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
  
• [Eph 2:4-5 NASB] 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
  
• Dead people need more than a little encouragement.

[/quote]dead people don’t sin.
Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 (KJV) 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.

And of course, this has wrapped us back around to the OP again. “Dead” in Christianese is not anything like “dead” in secular vernacular.

Strangely, yes.
It is how con-men work (their love is just one sided).

Odd comparison for a God who is love.

But the whole idea of conning someone is in their deceit—meaning they have to convince the victim first. They don’t make anyone fall in love. I guess you’re a closet Arminian after all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

So much for truth.

Your argument against DRAW being "compel" is that John 12:32 claims that "all men" are drawn and if all men are compelled then all men without exception that are compelled would be saved. So I pointed out that "all men without exception" were not drawn.

Did Jesus draw the Pre-Columbian Aztek to himself making "all men" mean literally "all men without exception"?
Which of us is denying the truth here?

 

[atpollard]

The Calvinist claim has been shown unbiblical.

Van declares himself victor without ever actually answering the simple question asked of him.

Again.

What a surprise ... NOT.

 

[atpollard]

And of course, this has wrapped us back around to the OP again. “Dead” in Christianese is not anything like “dead” in secular vernacular.

You have never seen a Zombie movie, have you?

On a serious note, I disagree. I think that spiritual death is not EXACTLY like physical death, but the two are more alike than they are different. A physically dead corpse cannot see or hear or move towards anyone in the physical world ... if you want then moved somewhere else, the physically living will need to carry the corpse themselves. A spiritually dead corpse (although still physically animated like a zombie) cannot see anything spiritual (creation does not reveal a creator), cannot hear anything spiritual (their minds are blinded to the gospel which sounds like foolishness to them) and they cannot approach God or Christ (men instinctively hide from the light out of fear of being revealed, just like Adam). Such a spiritual corpse is no more capable of coming to God that a physical corpse is capable of walking to church. Both require an external force to move them to Christ/Church. For the physical corpse, it is six living men carrying the casket. For the spiritually dead man it is no less than God the Father DRAWING to the Son ... God the Father giving the sheep to Jesus ... God the Father removing a heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh ... God the Father making them alive while they were yet dead in their sin.

I really do not see the Biblical and Secular meaning of death as all that different. I see them as far more alike.

 

[atpollard]

Odd comparison for a God who is love.

But the whole idea of conning someone is in their deceit—meaning they have to convince the victim first. They don’t make anyone fall in love. I guess you’re a closet Arminian after all.

One simple question.
When a woman falls in love with a man that lavishes attention on her and makes her feel special ... is HER LOVE real?

[Yes it was a strange example, but your question was "Is it possible to make someone fall in love?"]

 

[atpollard]

I guess you’re a closet Arminian after all.

... and that was just plain mean.

 

[Van]

Your argument against DRAW being "compel" is that John 12:32 claims that "all men" are drawn and if all men are compelled then all men without exception that are compelled would be saved. So I pointed out that "all men without exception" were not drawn.

Did Jesus draw the Pre-Columbian Aztek to himself making "all men" mean literally "all men without exception"?
Which of us is denying the truth here?

Yet another material false statement, I did not say all men without exception. Only those who hear and understand the gospel are drawn by the lovingkindness of Christ dying for them.

 

[Van]

Van declares himself victor without ever actually answering the simple question asked of him.
Again.
What a surprise ... NOT.

Ad hominem fallacy is the mainstay of Calvinism's defense.

 

[atpollard]

Yet another material false statement, I did not say all men without exception. Only those who hear and understand the gospel are drawn by the lovingkindness of Christ dying for them.

Try reading what I wrote ...

Your argument against DRAW being "compel" is that John 12:32 claims that "all men" are drawn and if all men are compelled then all men without exception that are compelled would be saved. So I pointed out that "all men without exception" were not drawn.

And here is what you previously wrote ...

I have explained why your view is precluded by scripture. If your view was correct, then John 12:32 would indicate everyone to whom the gospel is preached would be compelled to accept Christ. To avoid that, you simply redefine all men (people) to mean all kinds of people, Gentiles and Jews. Not how it reads.

So how does John 12:32 read if not "all men without exception" (since you have specifically stated that it cannot mean "all kinds of people, Gentiles and Jews").

It is YOU that are making materially false statements about ME, sir.
Even as you refuse to answer such a simple "yes" or "no" question as:
Can a man resist the DRAW of the Father to the Son in John 6:44?

 

[Van]

SNIP
So how does John 12:32 read if not "all men without exception" (since you have specifically stated that it cannot mean "all kinds of people, Gentiles and Jews").
SNIP

Once again, folks, here is what I posted:
I have explained why your view is precluded by scripture. If your view was correct, then John 12:32 would indicate everyone to whom the gospel is preached would be compelled to accept Christ. To avoid that, you simply redefine all men (people) to mean all kinds of people, Gentiles and Jews. Not how it reads.

I have no interest in disparaging your character, Sir, it is Calvinism, that is false doctrine. And that false doctrine includes the claim draw means compel at John 6:44 and John 12:32. If the Calvinist claim were true, then soils 2 and 3 would be saved, for they heard and understood the gospel. Since they fell away, draw means attract, not compel. It is a lock Sir!!

Did anyone see "all men without exception?" This poster simply makes up nonsense and posts as if the record is not there for all to see.

 

[atpollard]

Did anyone see "all men without exception?"

And does anyone see "to whom the gospel is preached" ..."And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32 NASB]

If not, then ...

This poster simply makes up nonsense and posts as if the [BIBLE] is not there for all to [read].

 

[atpollard]

John 6:44

• “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

• Speaks about God the Father drawing men to the Son.

John 12:32

• “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

• Speaks about God the Son drawing men to Himself.

As I understand salvation, each Person of the Godhead has a different role in our salvation, so just as "the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, there is no reason why the drawing of the Father must be identical to the drawing of the Son.

 

[Van]

And does anyone see "to whom the gospel is preached" ..."And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32 NASB]

If not, then ...

On and on folks, on and on. If you are saved, you were drawn. And how were you drawn unless you heard and understood the gospel which as its centerpiece, has Christ high and lifted up, dying for you. The attraction of the gospel is the love Christ demonstrated toward us by dying for us. These "cords of love" drew us, for we love Him because He first loved us.

And can you imagine a Calvinist asking the question, does anyone see the imaginary tractor beam of irresistible grace in John 12:32? Neither can I.

 

[atpollard]

On and on folks, on and on.
[snip]

... another hate filled non-response regurgitating OPINIONS on what God really means instead of what the verses actually say.
Scripture says "draw", Particular Baptists say "Draw means draw", Van says "can you imagine ...".

 

[Derf B]

One simple question.
When a woman falls in love with a man that lavishes attention on her and makes her feel special ... is HER LOVE real?

[Yes it was a strange example, but your question was "Is it possible to make someone fall in love?"]

When you say "makes her feel special", you're using the "entice" version of "draw". In other words, he's NOT making her feel special, he's merely doing things that he believes she will respond to positively. She decides to feel special based on how much she likes the things he's doing, which is actually an indication that she now thinks he's special, or "she feels special toward him".

Your example here is no different in effect than your other one, though it sounds nicer as a picture of God.

I'm not disagreeing with your new picture, by the way, anymore than I did with the old. In an extreme example, here's God doing as you say ("making her feel special")::
[Eze 16:5 KJV] None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.
[Eze 16:6 KJV] And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live.
[Eze 16:10 KJV] I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.
[Eze 16:11 KJV] I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.
[Eze 16:12 KJV] And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

And here was the response:
[Eze 16:21 KJV] That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through [the fire] for them?
[Eze 16:22 KJV] And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, [and] wast polluted in thy blood.
[Eze 16:32 KJV] [But as] a wife that committeth adultery, [which] taketh strangers instead of her husband!

Was even God able to make Israel fall in love with Him, after He did so much for her??

 

[Derf B]

John 6:44

• “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

• Speaks about God the Father drawing men to the Son.

John 12:32

• “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

• Speaks about God the Son drawing men to Himself.

As I understand salvation, each Person of the Godhead has a different role in our salvation, so just as "the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, there is no reason why the drawing of the Father must be identical to the drawing of the Son.

Therefore you are saying the drawing of the Son is ineffectual??

 

[atpollard]

Therefore you are saying the drawing of the Son is ineffectual??

Nope.
Is the "Glory" of the Son ineffectual compared to the "Glory" of the Father?
Is the "Love" of the Father ineffectual compared to the "Love" of the Son?

Of course not.
Yet neither is the Love and Glory of the Son IDENTICAL to the Love and Glory of the Father.
So why is it that the DRAW of the Son and the DRAW of the Father must be identical?
Why can they not be different but equal.

Why is it impossible that the Father compels the chosen sheep to His Son, and the Son accepts those that the Father has given and entices them to follow?
What makes such a thing impossible?

 

[Van]

... another hate filled non-response regurgitating OPINIONS on what God really means instead of what the verses actually say.
Scripture says "draw", Particular Baptists say "Draw means draw", Van says "can you imagine ...".

On and on folks, ad hominem after ad hominem.
If you are saved, you were drawn. And how were you drawn unless you heard and understood the gospel which as its centerpiece, has Christ high and lifted up, dying for you. The attraction of the gospel is the love Christ demonstrated toward us by dying for us. These "cords of love" drew us, for we love Him because He first loved us.

And can you imagine a Calvinist asking the question, does anyone see the imaginary tractor beam of irresistible grace in John 12:32? Neither can I.

 

[Derf B]

Yet neither is the Love and Glory of the Son IDENTICAL to the Love and Glory of the Father.

Seems like it's the same glory:
[Jhn 17:5 KJV] 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Love can't be the same, as the object is different. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. But the extent of the love should be identical, if we're talking infinite love. Neither does it make sense that the Father would love something the Son did not, or vice versa, except each other. [Jhn 15:9 KJV] 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you...

So why is it that the DRAW of the Son and the DRAW of the Father must be identical?
Why can they not be different but equal.

Might be ok.