Cause and effect, singular versus plural - Jn. 6:44

[The Biblicist]

Jn. 6:44 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.

A. There is a strict cause and consequence development in this text.

1. Drawing is the cause of coming
2. Coming is the cause for being raised up

If a person begins at the close of the verse and reverses the cause and consequence development by saying:

"Who are those who are raised up? Only those who come to christ. Hence not all drawn are raised up but only those who come to Christ."

This statement reverses the cause and consequence development from the first to the last of the verse. Reversing it is the only way to avoid that:

1. No man can come but "him" drawn"
2. Hence "him" drawn is the only one that comes
3. Hence, "him" raised is the one that comes.

B. There is a strict repetitive use of the singular third person masculine in this verse.

1. The "him" identifies who is drawn -
2. The "him" identifies who is raised
3. The "no man" is singular not plural and so Christ is considering man on an individual basis only.

So, the only "man" that can come to Christ is "him" singular that is drawn. So who comes to Christ? "Him" and only "him" that is drawn!

So, the only man" that Christ raises up is "him"! Who is this "him" that is raised up by Christ. The text supplies no other "him" to chose but the "him" that is drawn and comes to Christ. This is common sense as Christ will not raise to life those who do not come to him.

Therefore, "him" drawn is "him" that comes which is also "him" raised.

The only way to avoid or deny this conclusion is to repudiate the first singular "him" and replace it with a plural inference by way of interpretation to suggest the allusion that there are more drawn than a singular "him" which come or are raised. Thus, such an interpretation would claim many are drawn but not all come and therefore not all are raised. However, this requires rejection and replacement of the singular "him" by way of explanation.

CONCLUJSION: There are only two possible ways to deny that "him" which is drawn is "him" which comes and is raised - him drawn equal all who come and all who are raised. One way is to ignore and overrule the cause and consequence order by starting at the end of the verse and reasoning backwards. The other is to replace and reinterpret the singular "him" to suggest that more are drawn than actually come and are raised.

 

[Winman]

You keep saying him that is drawn comes. That is not necessarily true. Some who are drawn come to Jesus and they will certainly be raised up. Those who are drawn but refuse to come will not be raised up.

You can argue every angle you can think of till you are blue in the face, John 6:44-45 does not say that every person who is drawn comes to Jesus, and there are many examples such as Proverbs 1 and Matthew 22 where men are drawn but refuse to come to God.

The rich young ruler was drawn to Christ, he ran up to him, bowed down, and even called him Master, but he did not trust Jesus and be saved.

Mar 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

Pretty difficult to deny that this young man was drawn to Christ when he came running to Jesus and kneeled down to him. This young man was drawn, but he did not come to Jesus in faith and get saved.

 

[The Biblicist]

You keep saying him that is drawn comes.

First you are giving "personal" opinions based upon personal interpretations and observations rather than dealing with the facts of the text.

Second, I am not saying that - Christ is saying that. The text demands that. The Grammary demands that. The cause and consequence relational development in the text demands that.

You can argue every angle you can think of till you are blue in the face,

That is what YOU are doing not me! I am simply presenting indisputable contextual facts that you do not address and cannot refute.

John 6:44-45 does not say that every person who is drawn comes to Jesus,

That is what YOU say! However, the text does demand that very conclusion for the grammatical and logical reasons I provided which you do not address nor can refute.

Your illustrations are OUTSIDE OF THIS CONTEXT and subject to various interpretations and thus HAVE NO BEARING on this text neither can they rewwrite the text or undo the grammar or refute the logical cause and consequence relationships.

Deal with the evidence I presented if you dare.

 

[The Biblicist]

First you are giving "personal" opinions based upon personal interpretations and observations rather than dealing with the facts of the text.

Second, I am not saying that - Christ is saying that. The text demands that. The Grammary demands that. The cause and consequence relational development in the text demands that.




That is what YOU are doing not me! I am simply presenting indisputable contextual facts that you do not address and cannot refute.


Moreover, the SAME "given" by the Father is the SAME drawn by the Father which the SAME raised by the Son which is "EVERY MAN" taught by God


That is what YOU say! However, the text does demand that very conclusion for the grammatical and logical reasons I provided which you do not address nor can refute.

Your illustrations are OUTSIDE OF THIS CONTEXT and subject to various interpretations and thus HAVE NO BEARING on this text neither can they rewwrite the text or undo the grammar or refute the logical cause and consequence relationships.

Deal with the evidence I presented if you dare.

John 6:44 demands that the SAME "him" that is drawn is the SAME "him" that comes which is the SAME "him" that is raised.

It is impossible to refute this without either (1) denying the obvious and logical cause and conseuence relationships or (2) replacing the singular nouns and pronouns with plurals to create the allusion that more are being drawn than coming and being raised.

Since both options are DISHONEST and PERVERSIONS of the text then John 6:44 indisputablly teaches that the SAME "him" drawn is the SAME "him" that comes which is the "SAME" him raised thus harmonizeing with John 6:37-39 that the SAME "all" given is the SAME "all" that comes which is the SAME "all" that cannot be lost as in EVERY case is the SAME result - they come to Christ. That being the case, then the scripture selection by Christ in verse 45 is explanatory of the KIND OF drawing in vesre 44. It is the kind where "every man" learns comes to Christ in faith.

 

[Winman]

First you are giving "personal" opinions based upon personal interpretations and observations rather than dealing with the facts of the text.

Second, I am not saying that - Christ is saying that. The text demands that. The Grammary demands that. The cause and consequence relational development in the text demands that.

I am not giving a personal opinion, I am interpreting scripture literally. Verse 44 says no man can come to Jesus unless he is drawn. This does not mean every person that is drawn will come to Jesus. Why can't you understand this?

If I go fishing, every fish I catch was drawn into my boat. Is every fish I hook and draw pulled into my boat? Not always, sometimes a fish will fight and resist and jump off the hook. That fish was drawn, but he did not come into my boat. Likewise, some men are drawn to Jesus, but they fight and resist and get away just like a fish. This is not complicated, any little child could understand this, you simply refuse to admit this interpretation.

The scriptures tell us men resist the Holy Ghost, that is what Stephen said. You cannot resist what is not putting an influence or draw upon you. A fish that is not hooked on your line cannot be said to be resisting your drawing, only when he is hooked and you attempt to draw him in can he resist.

That is what YOU are doing not me! I am simply presenting indisputable contextual facts that you do not address and cannot refute.

I just disputed your so called facts! You seem to believe you are infallible when you are presenting a false argument anybody (except you) can easily see is error.

The scriptures NEVER say all who are drawn will come to Jesus. You can't show it. The scriptures do show men are drawn but resist and do not come, such as the children of Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 and those Jews who Stephen preached to in Acts chapter 7.

That is what YOU say! However, the text does demand that very conclusion for the grammatical and logical reasons I provided which you do not address nor can refute.

I have refuted it, it is easy, and many others have also refuted your argument, but you don't get it.

Your illustrations are OUTSIDE OF THIS CONTEXT and subject to various interpretations and thus HAVE NO BEARING on this text neither can they rewwrite the text or undo the grammar or refute the logical cause and consequence relationships.

Deal with the evidence I presented if you dare.

You have not presented evidence to support your view. Many have told you this repeatedly, but you will not listen.

 

[clark thompson]

Salvation is in Christ's hands.

 

[The Biblicist]

If I go fishing, every fish I catch was drawn into my boat. Is every fish I hook and draw pulled into my boat? Not always, sometimes a fish will fight and resist and jump off the hook.

Your illustration is flawed as is your interpretation. Either fish is drawn INTO your boat or it is not - make up your mind. If it is then every fish drawn INTO your boat is IN your boat. Can't you see the obvious contradiction in your illustration above??????

The scriptures tell us men resist the Holy Ghost, that is what Stephen said. You cannot resist what is not putting an influence or draw upon you. A fish that is not hooked on your line cannot be said to be resisting your drawing, only when he is hooked and you attempt to draw him in can he resist.

Your problem is CONTEXT! The context of John 6:44 is that Christ has been talking about those the Father gives the Son (Jn. 6:37-40) or the elect. Whereas, the context of Acts 7 and Proverbs chapter one are a MIXTURE of non-elect and elect at best and unbeleivers at worst.

The scriptures NEVER say all who are drawn will come to Jesus. You can't show it.

I never said all the "scriptures" say all who are drawn will come to Christ. I merely said that John 6:44 does say that and you have not yet been able to deal any with evidence I provided to prove otherwise.

Your problem is that you fail to realize that OTHER THINGS draw people to Christ other than the Father, but the Father's drawing NEVER FAILS and this text proves that.

Some are drawn to Christ by emotions, by greed, by desire for reformation, by pressure from evangelists, by mom and dad, by friends.

ALL lost people resist the Holy Spirit by nature (Rom. 8:7; Acts 7:51) but none resist the Father when he draws because he works INSIDE THEM so they hear and learn and come.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jn. 6:44 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.

A. There is a strict cause and consequence development in this text.

1. Drawing is the cause of coming
2. Coming is the cause for being raised up

If a person begins at the close of the verse and reverses the cause and consequence development by saying:

"Who are those who are raised up? Only those who come to christ. Hence not all drawn are raised up but only those who come to Christ."

This statement reverses the cause and consequence development from the first to the last of the verse. Reversing it is the only way to avoid that:

1. No man can come but "him" drawn"
2. Hence "him" drawn is the only one that comes
3. Hence, "him" raised is the one that comes.

B. There is a strict repetitive use of the singular third person masculine in this verse.

1. The "him" identifies who is drawn -
2. The "him" identifies who is raised
3. The "no man" is singular not plural and so Christ is considering man on an individual basis only.

So, the only "man" that can come to Christ is "him" singular that is drawn. So who comes to Christ? "Him" and only "him" that is drawn!

So, the only man" that Christ raises up is "him"! Who is this "him" that is raised up by Christ. The text supplies no other "him" to chose but the "him" that is drawn and comes to Christ. This is common sense as Christ will not raise to life those who do not come to him.

Therefore, "him" drawn is "him" that comes which is also "him" raised.

The only way to avoid or deny this conclusion is to repudiate the first singular "him" and replace it with a plural inference by way of interpretation to suggest the allusion that there are more drawn than a singular "him" which come or are raised. Thus, such an interpretation would claim many are drawn but not all come and therefore not all are raised. However, this requires rejection and replacement of the singular "him" by way of explanation.

CONCLUJSION: There are only two possible ways to deny that "him" which is drawn is "him" which comes and is raised - him drawn equal all who come and all who are raised. One way is to ignore and overrule the cause and consequence order by starting at the end of the verse and reasoning backwards. The other is to replace and reinterpret the singular "him" to suggest that more are drawn than actually come and are raised.

The universal negative "no man can come" demands total spiritual inability as spelled out in Romans 8:7-8 for all who are "in the flesh." Inability to come to Christ involves all the spiritual defects Paul defines as a CONDITION of the "carnal" mindset. A STATE of war against God ("enmity with God"). A STATE of active resistance against the will of God ("is not subject to the Law of God" - state of being verb). Complete irreversable inability ("neither indeed can be"). Universal STATE of all who are "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8) or "NO MAN can" (Jn. 6:44).

This universal negative leaves no exceptions but God's intervention by drawing "him." Some debate whether or not this drawn "him" is the same "him" that comes to Christ and is raised in this text? The text offers none other out of the universal negative but "him" drawn. Moreover, since the nature of drawing must be equal in character to the nature of universal inability. That is, it must be of such a nature to reverse the charcteristis of total inability. Therefore, it must overrule the "carnal" mindset, overrule the active state of war against God, overrule the active resistanct to the will of God and reverse the universal inability of the fallen nature. Hence, it must be by nature an internal spiritual work of God not merely equal but greater than the spiritual character of total depravity and inability. A reversal of such a condition brings the person to God through Christ or else that condition continues as a STATE of being.

John 6:45 introduces scriptural confirmation and further ddefinition of drawing sinners to Christ. It is described under the Old Testament concept of being "taught of God" in an internal and invisible manner (v. 46). The first clause in verse 45 contains the scripture quotation while the second clause contains the interpretation of that quote and its consequence.

The primary point is that "all" are taught leaving none who are not taught concluding in "every man" coming to Christ. This demands that "him" drawn in verse 44 is in fact the same "him" that comes to Christ and is raised.

Neither Verse 44 or verse 45 are about options whether to come or not come to Christ but about How God brings people to Christ effectually through drawing/taught by the Father by internal transformation and overcoming of universal total inability and resistance.

All the illustration used by those who oppose my view to overturn my interpretation have been flawed and failed.

 

[Skandelon]

Jn. 6:44 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.

Compared to: "No one can join the Army unless a Army recruiter has recruited him, and the Army will train him to fight to his greatest potential."

A. There is a strict cause and consequence development in this text.
1. Drawing is the cause of coming
2. Coming is the cause for being raised up

Compared to:
1. Recruiting is the cause of joining (not an irresistible cause)
2. Joining is the cause for being trained.

Notice the parenthetical, because that is something you presume onto the text which is NOT stated.

This statement reverses the cause and consequence development from the first to the last of the verse. Reversing it is the only way to avoid that:

1. No man can come but "him" drawn"
2. Hence "him" drawn is the only one that comes
3. Hence, "him" raised is the one that comes.

Compared to:

1. No man can join but "him recruited."
2. Hence "him" recruited is the only one that joins.
3. Hence, "him" trained is the one that joins.

Even accepting all these things, there is no reason to suggest that the Army recruiter did not attempt to recruit others to join and be trained but they refused.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." - Matt. 23:37

Christ longed to gather them but they were not willing.

 

[The Biblicist]

Compared to: "No one can join the Army unless a Army recruiter has recruited him, and the Army will train him to fight to his greatest potential."

This illustration is not a proper parallel illustration with John 6:44 and therefore supports a theological position that is contrary to John 6:44 for the following reasons:

1. The source of inability is not parallel. In John 6:44 the inability is found INTERNAL and inherent in “him” (“no man can”) whereas the source of inability in his illustration is not found internal or inherent in the person being recruited but EXTERNAL to the person of the recruit but found in the arbritrary policy imposed upon him by the Army policy.

2. The nature of the inability is not parallel. In John 6:44 the nature of the inability is not merely internal and inherent in “him” but it is a SPIRITUAL inability that prevents him from coming to Christ– “no man can come.” Coming to Christ is a SPIRITUAL act and the words “no man can” demands a universalSPIRITUAL inability to come to Christ except by the power of God – draw him. However, in his illustration the issue of inability is not merely external to the person of the recruit but it is NON-SPIRITUAL.

3. The cause of inability is not parallel. In John 6:44 the stated cause is the very thing his illustration is designed to deny – Total Spiritual Inability. The words “no man can” is a universal negative that demands all men are without spiritual ability to come to Christ APART FROM God’s intervention to “draw” him. However, the whole illustration given by Skandelon is designed to deny this very inherent demand of John 6:44 and his parallel is external to the person of the recruit.

4. The Purpose is not parallel. The purpose of John 6:44 is not to explain contrary options due to being drawn, but to present drawing as the only means to overcome universal inherent inability to come to Christ.

5. John 6:45 reinforces drawing by the Father by scripture and explanation and 100% "taught" come to Christ. This is explanatory of what it means to draw, which is an INTERNAL and SPIRITUAL act by God within the man that results in coming to Christ. 100% taught come and that repudiates your interpretation and illustration of John 6:44

CONCLUSION: Therefore, his illustration fails to be parallel in crucial areas with John 6:44. His illustration is not parallel with the source, nature or cause of the inability to come to Christ. Indeed, his illustration is designed to deny what John 6:44 demands – universal spiritual inability.

Compared to:
1. Recruiting is the cause of joining (not an irresistible cause)
2. Joining is the cause for being trained.

Your illustration is not parallel with John 6:44 but is flawed and cannot fit. In John 6 the inherent problem is found within "him" but in your illustration the inherent problem is EXTERNAL to the recruit and found in the arbitrary imposed Army regulation. In your illustration the solution is also EXTERNAL to the recurit but found in solely EXTERNAL to the recruit within the recruiter due to army procedurals. Your illustration has no moral or spiritual or internal relativity to John 6:44 as it deals only with both a problem and power EXTERNAL to the recruit. Thus the recruits decision is totally unaffected by any internal negative or positive solution WITHIN him but wholly EXTERNAL to him. Therefore your illustration CAN fit your theory but it CANNOT fit Johhn 6:44 and the problem or solution found WITHIN "him."

Notice the parenthetical, because that is something you presume onto the text which is NOT stated.

It is implicitly stated even though not explicitly stated. The universal negative excludes all others from coming to Christ but 'him" and if it is not this "him" raised up there is no other subject provided by the text as all others are excluded. That implicitly demands "him" drawn is "him" raised which came to Christ as Christ does not raise "him" which does not come to Him.

Compared to:

1. No man can join but "him recruited."
2. Hence "him" recruited is the only one that joins
3. Hence, "him" trained is the one that joins.

Again, your illustration is flawed because it has no relationship to the nature of the problem or solution in John 6:44 which is exclusively INTERNAL in the "him." Your illustration's problem and solution is totally EXTERNAL to the recruit as it is found in the Army's procedural law which the recuriter resolves. NOTHING internal or inherent within the recruit is defective or resolved so your illustration is perfect for your theory but has no bearing no resemblance, no relationship, no provision to illustrate the inherent problem or solution found WITHIN "him."

Even accepting all these things, there is no reason to suggest that the Army recruiter did not attempt to recruit others to join and be trained but they refused.

Your illustration is mallible to fit your theory but is impossible to relate to the actual problem or solution found IN "him" in john 6:44. It is the INHERENT INTERNAL universal inability countered by the INTERNAL ABILITY provided by the Father that resolves the issue in John 6:44 but no so with your illustration and that is the issue that determines the effectual outcome not some external regulation resolved by some external recruiter.

The universal INTERNAL problem effectually repudiates anyone but "him" drawn that comes to Christ in this grammatical context none but a "him drawn is possible to be "him" raised in this context. The next verse demands this is true as 100% taught by God come to Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Your objection to the illustration is all rooted on the basis of your presumptions about the text in question...that is the fallacy called 'question begging.'

The analogy is not meant to represent YOUR perspective of this passage, but ours, thus to attack it on the basis of your presumptions about the text is question begging at its worst. From our perspective, the term draw perfectly correlates with the idea of recruiting which is why it is a good illustration of OUR VIEW. It is our PERSPECTIVE being illustrated, period. It doesn't need to be debated or refuted, just understood. Once understood you can continue to argue for your perspective and in support of your presumptions, but you can't attack my analogy as if it exists within your presumptions....well you can, but it is a debate fallacy that accomplishes nothing.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your objection to the illustration is all rooted on the basis of your presumptions about the text in question...that is the fallacy called 'question begging.'

The analogy is not meant to represent YOUR perspective of this passage, but ours, thus to attack it on the basis of your presumptions about the text is question begging at its worst. From our perspective, the term draw perfectly correlates with the idea of recruiting which is why it is a good illustration of OUR VIEW. It is our PERSPECTIVE being illustrated, period. It doesn't need to be debated or refuted, just understood. Once understood you can continue to argue for your perspective and in support of your presumptions, but you can't attack my analogy as if it exists within your presumptions....well you can, but it is a debate fallacy that accomplishes nothing.

You are begging the question. It is not a question whether your illustration fits your model or not because you would never have submitted it if it did not. The question is whether it suitable reflects Jn 6:44 - IT DOES NOT for the many reasons listed.

We are not debating whether YOUR illustration fits YOUR theory but we are debating whether YOUR illustration fits John 6:44! It does not!

 

[Skandelon]

You are begging the question.

How so? Question begging is when one presumes the very point up for debate and since I've only offered another perspective/interpretation of the text in question I can't see how I've begged the question? Can you demonstrate how I have committed this fallacy?

It is not a question whether your illustration fits your model or not because you would never have submitted it if it did not.

Exactly. And now people understand our perspective more clearly. It has been illustrated clearly.

The question is whether it suitable reflects Jn 6:44 - IT DOES NOT for the many reasons listed.

Here is where you beg the question. You presume that my illustration doesn't fit the text on the basis that your presumptions are true

(i.e. the source, cause, nature of inability are all points up for debate and thus cannot be used to debunk the illustration. You're more the welcome to argue for those points, but to dismiss the accuracy of the illustration on the basis of your presumptions is the very nature of this debate fallacy.)

We are not debating whether YOUR illustration fits YOUR theory but we are debating whether YOUR illustration fits John 6:44! It does not!

You're right, if you presumptions are true, which is the very point up for debate...aka "question begging"

Sorry, I was a debater in HS and College and can't get away from pointing out fallacies when I see them. I'm not doing it to be mean, but the only way to answer a circular fallacy is to call it what it is.

 

[Skandelon]

It can be difficult to pick out the question begging fallacy, but in its most basic form it's like saying, "You are wrong because I am right." Or in this case, "Your illustration doesn't match the text, because what I believe about the text is right." However, what you believe about the text is what is up for debate, thus the proper rebuttal would be to either (1) offer an alternative illustration that fits your interpretation, (2) make a case for your presumptions regarding man's innate inability, or (3) demonstrate why my presumptions regarding man's responsibility is inaccurate. To argue that my illustration doesn't match the text on the basis that your presumptions are true is just a game of question begging and I can't rebut a fallacy.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is where you beg the question. You presume that my illustration doesn't fit the text on the basis that your presumptions are true

Give me a break! Are you telling us that "no man CAN' due to an EXTERNAL problem? Are you telling me that "draw" is an EXTERNAL action? That is what you must demand to harmonize your illustration with John 6:44.

Do I really have to demosntrate that the universal inability demanded by the words "no man CAN" does not refer to an external barriar preventing all men from coming to Christ?????? The solution must be equal to the problem. If the is INSIDE men then the solution must be INSIDE men or there is no solution.

Your illustration is purely EXTERNAL to man as well as the PROBLEM.

If the INABILITY and DRAWING are both EXTERNAL to man's internal being then your illustration fits John 6:44 and you are right! But if the INABILITY is a SPIRITUAL and INTERNAL inability so is the solution and thus your position and illustration are wrong!

 

[The Biblicist]

It can be difficult to pick out the question begging fallacy, but in its most basic form it's like saying, "You are wrong because I am right." Or in this case, "Your illustration doesn't match the text, because what I believe about the text is right." However, what you believe about the text is what is up for debate, thus the proper rebuttal would be to either (1) offer an alternative illustration that fits your interpretation, (2) make a case for your presumptions regarding man's innate inability, or (3) demonstrate why my presumptions regarding man's responsibility is inaccurate. To argue that my illustration doesn't match the text on the basis that your presumptions are true is just a game of question begging and I can't rebut a fallacy.

Your illustration is wrong because it does not fit what WE BOTH beleive about the text and most importantly, what the text cannot possibly mean. It cannot possibly mean the universal inability expressed clearly by the words "no man can" refers to an EXTERNAL barriar outside the person of "him" such as a recruiter or army policy. Therefore, the solution expressed in the words "except the Father DRAW him" cannot possibly refer to an act of God EXTERNAL to the person of "him" like such as a recruiter.

Both the problem and solution are INTERNALIZED within "him" not EXTERNALIZED outside of His person as in your illustration. Therein is the CRUX of the verse in question.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you telling me that "draw" is an EXTERNAL action?

Yes. The gospel is the means God sends to draw/invite/appeal men to come to Christ. Now, those external means can and do have an inward effect..."faith comes by hearing.".."how can they believe in whom they have not heard."

External means (gospel, envy, signs, big fish) are often employed by God to provoke or convince or draw the internal will of man. The gospel is the POWER of God unto Salvation...the words of truth produced by the HS have power....the truth can set you free!

In John 6 Jesus said, "the very words I speak to you are spirit and life." The words are enabling and powerful, and thus when someone is being blinded/hardened from those words, as was most of Israel at that time, they are not enabled to come.

 

[Skandelon]

Your illustration is wrong because it does not fit what WE BOTH beleive about the text

Once again you prove not to know what I believe about the text thus revealing you have yet to fully vet the position which you have already deemed false. May I encourage you to objectively study the view that I and other notable scholars (AW Tozer, Hershel Hobbs, EY Mullins, CS Lewis, etc) believe before you dismiss it?

Hopefully my post above better clarifies what I do believe about the text in question...

 

[The Biblicist]

Once again you prove not to know what I believe about the text thus revealing you have yet to fully vet the position which you have already deemed false. May I encourage you to objectively study the view that I and other notable scholars (AW Tozer, Hershel Hobbs, EY Mullins, CS Lewis, etc) believe before you dismiss it?

Hopefully my post above better clarifies what I do believe about the text in question...

It is very frustrating trying to reason with you. It seems you are taking a position that "no man can" has nothing to do with any kind of INTERNAL inability but is simply a condition due only to the lack of EXTERNAL exposure to the Gospel. Hence, there is no need for Divine intervention for any man other than being exposed to the external preaching of the gospel.

Is this your position?

 

[Skandelon]

It is very frustrating trying to reason with you. It seems you are taking a position that "no man can" has nothing to do with any kind of INTERNAL inability but is simply a condition due only to the lack of EXTERNAL exposure to the Gospel.

If they have an internal inability to believe then they have a perfect excuse for not believing, and Paul says they don't have any such excuses (Rom. 1).

The internal will must be convinced or persuaded, yes, but don't you think the gospel truth is powerful enough to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent (i.e. to make an appeal to be reconciled?)

Hence, there is no need for Divine intervention for any man other than being exposed to the external preaching of the gospel.

You say that as if it is a small thing. You do believe the gospel, the very Word of God, is powerful, effective and sharper than a double edged sword and able to cut through bone, marrow and even into the soul of a man, don't you? The WORD is TRUTH and truth can set men free...bring the dead to life...convict the most wayward heart. The WORD has power, don't you believe that?