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

[The Biblicist]

That's all that needed to be said. You believe, as I presumed from the beginning of this rabbit trail, that God (for whatever reason) has granted the 'truth' of Calvinism (reformed theology) to some of his Children, while leaving the others to believe a false view. Have you ever considered why He would do that? Or do you dismiss such questions as paradoxes?

*sigh* I never said (reformed theology). Don't you understand there are differences between "Calvinists" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) pointers? Don't you understand that this is not limited to aspects of savlation but nearly every aspect of theology imaginable???????? The church, the ordinances, sanctification, marriage, you name it. Did not you understand that he chose 12 out of vast multitude to reveal truths to than others and then out the 12 he chose three and out three one to reveal special truth to?????? Don't you understand he has different kinds of vessels in his house suited for different things? Don't you realize that the same measure of grace and faith is not given to all????? Must you be taught the abc's all over again?

So I don't restrict this to just one truth as you imagine!

In my view they aren't opposed to each other, so of course I can grasp it. We are debating which of our views is accurate, not making accusations about how the other is too dull to grasp things simply because they disagree with it.

*sigh* Give me a break! You are pitting one against the other by the very nature of your argument. You IMAGINE that one aspect of my belief is at odds with the aspect you are trying to pit it against! Your understanding of my view is faulty and it shows in how you argue.

Proof. Quote what I said and then refute it. Blanket unfounded accusations get us no where. Quote something I said and then make a case for why it is 'warp' and what the correct system should be... then we would be having a profitable discussion.

I seriously doubt we are going to have any kind of profitable discussion with your approach. But here is your quote that I responded to:


Originally Posted by Skandelon
So, its not really my 'fault' (responsibility) whether or not I believe these particular views? After all, He has to be the one who makes me willing to accept them, so ultimately it is HIS response you are hoping for, not mine.

This whole argument denies personal responsiblity in partaking of sin in Adam. You know that is my view and yet you pervert it with this silly argument. You may not agree with my view but you know it. So all you are doing is building little straw men and burning them.

Isn't that true whether or not he spoke in parables according to your point of view? I think you KNOW the answer is yes, which is why the use of parables as a prevention of these people believing undermines your entire system.

So the answer is no! Or did you understand my response above?????? You simply built a straw man and burnt it. Hope that was fun for you, but pointless!

Isn't that true whether or not he spoke in parables according to your point of view? I think you KNOW the answer is yes, which is why the use of parables as a prevention of these people believing undermines your entire system.

Did you understand my response above? Then obviously the answer is no! You are simply building straw men and burning. Hope your having fun but it is pointless in any REAL discussion.

The WORD is light and thus has POWER to persuade and bring clarity, and thus belief, which is why God had to use parables. He was blinding, provoking and confusing them, not showing them more light. And he was doing it for a redemptive purpose, not a condemning one.

*sigh* Go tell this to physically blinded people. Tell them that when they come into a dark room and you will turn the light on and the light has power to make them see! Good luck! The Spiritual is drawn from the physical analogy!!! One must first have spiritual eyes before one can see spiritual light (truth). The light has no power to make people see. Only God Himself can make the blind see and He does that only through a CREATIVE WORD of Power. Here is the precise point you deny and don't understand. Paul preached the gospel but Satan blinded men's minds to it "lest they should see". But that is the problem - they are blinded and so don't see. Only the gospel when empowered by God as a CREATIVE COMMAND as in 2 Cor. 4:6 and James 1:18; and 1 Pet. 1;25,30 and 1 Thes. 1:4-5 makes the gospel "the power of God" to salvation and all other times it is only the voice of a man calling sinners to repent and comes "in word only" (1 Thes. 1:5a).

I took the liberty to highlight the section you seem to want to avoid. Their eyes have closed...they have GROWN CALLOUSED...BECOME HARDENED...."OTHERWISE they might see, hear, understand turn and I would heal them."

I was not trying to avoid anything. I simply gave my interpretation of the text in light of its fuller context and all gospel accounts. Do you understand the meaning of "seeing they cannot see" and "their eyes have closed"???? The first describes the UNREGENERATE STATE while the second describes development in hardening toward what they "see" in the first passage to losing it or closing their eyes to it in the second passage. In neither do they have spiritual life but in the former they at least acknowledge certain truths and claim to see them. However, as the truth of what they claim to see begins to expose them for what they are, they harden and deny even the truths they had claimed to see or Jesus says it this way:

Mt. 13:12b ...but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

How can you take away something from someone when they don't have it in the first place? They think they have it - they profess to "see" or recognize it as truth but when what they profess begins to expose them they harden against that and what they thought they had is taken away from them through the hardening process.

Oh, so what Jesus is saying here is that the truth contained in the parable is so clear, so enlightening, so obvious as to their meaning that the Jewish leaders are blinded by the light of the clarity and blatant obvious truth being proclaimed to their ears? That seems backwards to what the parables are doing here in this context, don't you think?

*sigh* I was explaining ONE facet of how God blinds men through the hardening process not ALL facets. Light disorientates and confuses the lost because it simply does not fit within their dark system of thought/theology. It is such a stark contrast that it only confuses them and stops them in their tracks in regard to their thought processes - they can't handle it. Haven't you ever seen the deer in the headlight look in the eyes of a person after you thought you explained something so clearly?

I have a neighbor named John. I have witnessed to John on many occassions and I discovered each time he believed that he must straighten out his life first before coming to Christ for salvation. I have plainly told him he can't do it and that is why he needs to trust Christ to have satisfed all of God's demands against him , he needs rebirth not reformation. Every single time he responds, "yeah, I know I have to get right first" and I respond "no, John, you can't get right first, you must repent of all your efforts and trust in Christ" to get you right and he responds "Yeah, I need to straighten out my life and get right with God." No matter how many times or how many ways I say it and yet what I say goes right over his head and I get that deer caught in the headlight look.

THERE IT IS!

Right on! IF THIS WAS NOT THEIR CONDITION. Now, stop and ask yourself, "What is their condition?"

1. They were born totally unable to see, hear, understand or turn to God for healing due to an inherited sin nature from the fall.

OR...

2. They had 'grown calloused' after rejecting the light of God's revelation for years and years...​

BOTH!!!!!! They were born spiritually blind and cannot see, yet they profess to see and therefore "seeing they do not see." Then as more exposure to the light condemns them they close their eyes to what they had claimed to "see" and reject even that.

What if #2 hadn't happened? What 'MIGHT' they be able to do.

They would have continued "seeing but cannot see"

I agree with you that they can't, and that THIS is their condition, but what if it weren't. What if they had not "GROWN CALLOUSED" like the verse says? What if they were like the Gentiles instead who haven't grown calloused, would they be able to listen to these truths and accept them?

They were without sight due to a fallen spiritually dead nature and yet because they were told from their youth over and over again what they were taught was truth they claimed to "see" when in fact they could not see the truth but only the system of religion taught to them. However, when God gave more light that condemned their system of religion or what they claimed to "see" then their depraved nature responded by rejecting even those things they had been taught which would support light - they began to reject the very things they had claimed to "see" and thus shut their eyes, hardened their hearts toward those things that they were taught that confirmed the new light exposure.

 

[Skandelon]

*sigh* I never said (reformed theology). Don't you understand there are differences between "Calvinists"

That is all beside the point...we are specifically addressing the reason you think some born again believers accept your view of divine election and why some do not, period. You answered that by agreeing with option 3 and admitting that for some reason God has not granted all of his children this 'truth' and I asked why you suppose that is...it has nothing to do with how many differing views and nuances of our views there are...

Must you be taught the abc's all over again?

This is inflammatory and personal. Please refrain from this kind of retort. It is not becoming of you or your doctrine. Thanks

So I don't restrict this to just one truth as you imagine!

I never supposed you did. I simply asked about why you suppose God has chosen to reveal these 'truths' to some of his children and not others.

*sigh* Give me a break! You are pitting one against the other by the very nature of your argument.

Indeed, I do disagree with your views (obviously). And I do believe your view of 'responsibility' is at odds with the revelation found in scripture. But this reply was about you implying that might disagreement was due to my not being smart enough to 'grasp it.' Its the same ad hominem approach as your 'abc' comment above. It is not profitable to a healthy Christlike discussion...nor is it in line with the rules of the forum. Let's just stick to the topic, okay?

You IMAGINE that one aspect of my belief is at odds with the aspect you are trying to pit it against!

It's called a debate. *I'm pitting your view against what I believe scripture teaches, just as you should be doing to my view (if you are addressing my view instead of me personally).




*

Your understanding of my view is faulty and it shows in how you argue.

Ok, then how should you handle that? *Should you make derogatory implications about my inability to grasp things and my need to learn the abc's again? OR should you quote what I said that was in error and refute it by making a substantive case? *I vote for the latter.
I'll answer the rest in a new post and we can leave this personal stuff behind...

 

[Skandelon]

This whole argument denies personal responsiblity in partaking of sin in Adam.

Why does accepting that all men become fallen in Adam necessarily imply that all men become unable to get back up when given the opportunity by God Himself to be reconciled from that fall?

Plus, that quote of mine was asking about MY responsibility as a born again believer in accepting the truth of correct doctrine. I'm not sure how that would be a parallel to our sin in Adam.

Did you understand my response above?

You wrote..."they could not understand the truth as intended by God."

I asked, "Isn't that true whether or not he spoke in parables according to your point of view?"

You replied, "So the answer is no! Or did you understand my response above?????? You simply built a straw man and burnt it. Hope that was fun for you, but pointless!"

How am I supposed to understand that? If men are born totally depraved (unable to respond) then regardless of the use of parables the response would have been the same. Right or wrong? You still have not addressed that question.

*sigh* Go tell this to physically blinded people. Tell them that when they come into a dark room and you will turn the light on and the light has power to make them see! Good luck!

Why that statement represent my view? You are the one who believes that men are born blind and then Jesus, for some unknown reason, turns out the light by using parables to keep them from seeing...well, actually I have no idea what you believe about parables because you have yet to show why you believe the use of parables is 'more light' when clearly it is less.

Only God Himself can make the blind see and He does that only through a CREATIVE WORD of Power.

I agree. It's called the 'gospel.' And the truth of that gospel is hidden/blinded in parables LEST THEY BELIEVE IT, something that COULD NOT happen if your dogma of Total Inability is true.

Here is the precise point you deny and don't understand. Paul preached the gospel but Satan blinded men's minds to it "lest they should see". But that is the problem - they are blinded and so don't see. Only the gospel when empowered by God as a CREATIVE COMMAND as in 2 Cor. 4:6 and James 1:18; and 1 Pet. 1;25,30 and 1 Thes. 1:4-5 makes the gospel "the power of God" to salvation and all other times it is only the voice of a man calling sinners to repent and comes "in word only" (1 Thes. 1:5a).

I understand you perspective but that doesn't explain away the passages I have presented that clearly show you otherwise. Not one of these passages suggest that God's word is powerful sometimes and not others. Or that God somehow works apart or separate from his ordained means. God enlightens men through HIS WORD. If they 'suppress the truth' by their own choosing its not because the word failed to come in power. It's not a lacking in the power of the revelation. The fault is solely on the part of the ONE SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH. He understood the truth, he saw the truth and KNEW THE TRUTH but chose to suppress it. Don't give unbelievers an excuse for their choice to suppress the truth by suggesting that it just didn't come with enough power for them to accept it....or that it wasn't made clear to them due their inborn nature. NOOOOO! They don't have that excuse! They had all they needed and they CHOSE to suppress the powerful truth of God. They KNEW GOD and CHOSE not to acknowledge him as their God. That is all on them! NOT on some insufficient, powerless, weak revelation. TRUTH is powerful. Words are powerful.

Jesus even said this in John 6, "the very WORDS that I speak to you are spirit and life."

THE VERY WORDS! Revelation brings life. Don't make excuses for unbelievers by suggesting that it doesn't for most of humanity. IT is their fault alone for their choice to suppress the truth even after the fall. I know you think their choice in Adam to fall makes them guilty ... and I agree, but they are not said to be held responsible for that choice, it says they are being held responsible for their responses to God's revelation.

Do you understand the meaning of "seeing they cannot see" and "their eyes have closed"?

Of course...But what is their condition which makes them to 'see but not see?' They can't see it because God is giving them a 'spirit of stupor eyes that cannot see.' He is 'cutting them off' from the vine which reveals these truths to them. Why? So as to show them all mercy (Rm 11:32).

This is NOT A CONDITION FROM BIRTH RESULTING FROM THE FALL, (as you presume without biblical bases) it is a unique condition of Israel who grew calloused and then was cut off by God...and even those cut off can be 'grafted back in again if they leave their unbelief.'

What I accused you of avoiding was the REASON they were 'seeing but not perceiving' and from what I read, you are still avoiding my argument.

The first ["seeing they cannot see"] describes the UNREGENERATE STATE

Ok, so even though the text clearly says, "this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes" you believe the reason they cannot see is because of their unregenerate natural fallen condition? And even though he says what they might do otherwise, you believe they could never have done it regardless do to this inborn condition? And even though he contrasts their condition with that of the Gentiles 'who will listen' you still believe the reason is a universal condition of the fall for even the Gentiles? Is that right?

Mt. 13:12b ...but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Again, the Jew had the light of revelation, but now it is being taken away...that is 'less light' not more, as you have argued.

How can you take away something from someone when they don't have it in the first place?

The Jews have had the light of revelation and now it is being taken away. They are being cut off from it. I'm not sure what you think this means.

I was explaining ONE facet of how God blinds men through the hardening process not ALL facets.

But you said it in regard to this text and I asked you what parables accomplished if your doctrine of Total Inability was true.

Light disorientates and confuses the lost because it simply does not fit within their dark system of thought/theology.

Again you make it sound like its the lights fault for their suppressing of truth. They saw it clearly, they understood it and they knew the consequences of their disobedience and for all those reasons Paul concludes people remain without any excuse. Your dogma gives them the best excuse in the world.

Sir, why didn't you believe the light when it was so clearly shown to you?

Excuse, "I was born in a condition by which light confuses me and I am not able to really comprehend it because God didn't love me like those special people over there."

"Yeah, I need to straighten out my life and get right with God." No matter how many times or how many ways I say it and yet what I say goes right over his head and I get that deer caught in the headlight look.

So, is that the truths fault for not being clear enough? Is it because the light just isn't clear enough for his natural condition? OR is he choosing to suppress the truth even though he could submit to it?

I asked:

1. They were born totally unable to see, hear, understand or turn to God for healing due to an inherited sin nature from the fall.

OR...

2. They had 'grown calloused' after rejecting the light of God's revelation for years and years...

And you say, "BOTH!!!!!!"

1. Can you provide clear biblical teaching to support this claim, because the passages I have presented tell us what those who have not grown calloused might do?

2. When you provide the proof text for your BOTH theory you will will need to make sure they are not in reference to the condition of 1 and not the other...they will need to specifically teach BOTH, or at least the one you are attempting to prove is biblically based.

3. Can you explain how someone born totally unable to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing grows more unable to see, hear or understand, and why does Paul suggest that the Gentiles will listen in contrast to Israel who has 'grown calloused?'

They were without sight due to a fallen spiritually dead nature and yet because they were told from their youth over and over again what they were taught was truth they claimed to "see" when in fact they could not see the truth but only the system of religion taught to them. However, when God gave more light that condemned their system of religion or what they claimed to "see" then their depraved nature responded by rejecting even those things they had been taught which would support light - they began to reject the very things they had claimed to "see" and thus shut their eyes, hardened their hearts toward those things that they were taught that confirmed the new light exposure.

I understand.
You think people who were born totally and completely blind grew even blinder....and what Paul stated about what they might do if they hadn't grown calloused was just a hypothetical that really included their inborn condition...but that still doesn't tell us why he would turn to the Gentiles with the conclusion "they will listen" if he actually believes they are in the exact same predicament.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is all beside the point...we are specifically addressing the reason you think some born again believers accept your view of divine election and why some do not, period. You answered that by agreeing with option 3 and admitting that for some reason God has not granted all of his children this 'truth' and I asked why you suppose that is...it has nothing to do with how many differing views and nuances of our views there are...

It is a GENERAL principle that cannot be limited to one aspect of truth.

This is inflammatory and personal. Please refrain from this kind of retort. It is not becoming of you or your doctrine. Thanks

Friend, this is not my first rodeo! I know exactly who I am dealing with and you are not looking for truth at all and it is obvious. You are looking to simply win a debate and look good doing it - Period! I have dealt with your type thousands of times in my ministry. Truth is not your concern and it is obvious to me.

Indeed, I do disagree with your views (obviously). And I do believe your view of 'responsibility' is at odds with the revelation found in scripture. But this reply was about you implying that might disagreement was due to my not being smart enough to 'grasp it.' Its the same ad hominem approach as your 'abc' comment above. It is not profitable to a healthy Christlike discussion...nor is it in line with the rules of the forum. Let's just stick to the topic, okay?

This discussion is like many I had in Seminary when people debated just to debate, no objectivity, only one thing in view is twist and turn it to win the debate. It is really a exercise of futility to enter into debate with that kind of person and you are that kind and it is obvious.

It's called a debate. *I'm pitting your view against what I believe scripture teaches, just as you should be doing to my view (if you are addressing my view instead of me personally).

No, you are not. YOu are not pitting my view against what scriptures are teaching. What you are doing is attempting to pit my view against my view to prove what you believe the scriptures are teaching BUT the ringer is that you refuse to properly present my view in this three ring circus kind of act.

*Ok, then how should you handle that? *Should you make derogatory implications about my inability to grasp things and my need to learn the abc's again? OR should you quote what I said that was in error and refute it by making a substantive case? *I vote for the latter.
I'll answer the rest in a new post and we can leave this personal stuff behind...

Don't put words in my mouth especially when I tell you I don't believe what you are claiming I believe - that is a good place to start!

 

[The Biblicist]

Why does accepting that all men become fallen in Adam necessarily imply that all men become unable to get back up when given the opportunity by God Himself to be reconciled from that fall?

Look at the way you are posing this question! You present my position WITHOUT MY EXPLANATION but then complete the sentence assuming your view is true so my position cannot be true. It is like asking a man when did he stop beating his wife as your question assume the conclusion without any consideration of how do I really explain my position. I am pronounced dead before I even get to the examination room.

Plus, that quote of mine was asking about MY responsibility as a born again believer in accepting the truth of correct doctrine. I'm not sure how that would be a parallel to our sin in Adam.

If you are not sure then why don't you ask instead of assume your own conclusions???????

You wrote..."they could not understand the truth as intended by God."

I asked, "Isn't that true whether or not he spoke in parables according to your point of view?"

You replied, "So the answer is no! Or did you understand my response above?????? You simply built a straw man and burnt it. Hope that was fun for you, but pointless!"

How am I supposed to understand that?

I explained it completely. Spiritually dead RELIGIOUS men don't believe they are spiritually dead but spiritually alive and they come from that perpsective. Hence, "seeing they do not see." The fallen nature has no spiritual eyes to see but that does not stop it from assuming it does. Jesus approaches spiritually dead religious men from that perspective as they boast they are "seeing" but in reality they "see not." What they claim to see is a system of doctrine they have been taught they call truth. Indeed, there is truth content found within the Phariseeical and Sadduceeical systems of "truth."

Christ confronted the TRUTH SYSTEM of the day and took the actual truths within their system which they professed to see and showed them how it corresponded God's system truth which if they accepted would force them to repudiate their SYSTEM OF TRUTH and exchange it for God's SYSTEM (which harmonizes). Instead of turning against Judiasm as the truth system of the day and embrace the truth system preached by Christ they hardened their hearts and closed their eyes and rejected those truth aspects in their own system rather than change systems entirely.

1. "seeing they see not" refers to their SYSTEM OF TRUTH embraced as Jews which contained elements of truth. Yet it is this SYSTEM of Judiasm they boasted as those above all other mankind to be truth and able to "see" the truth.

2. "they have closed their eyes" refers to Christ taking the elements of truth in their system that harmonizes with God's system of truth and contrasting those elements of truth with THEIR SYSTEM while showing the harmonization with Christ's SYSTEM of truth forcing them to choose between the two contradictive systems. It is at that point they "shut their eyes" and "harden their hearts" against the very elements of truth they had claimed to "see" (as part of their system) rather than follow them to the logical conclusion which would call for a complete repudiation of the JUDIASTIC SYSTEM of soteriology. When they closed their eyes and hardened their heart against those very truths they had claimed to "see" then what they thought they had was taken from their boast of seeing. They boasted they could "see" when in fact they could not see as they hardend their hearts and closed their eyes to the truths they once claimed to see because those truths would require complete repudiation of their whole system.

Therefore, this hardening merely manifested that they were really spiritually blind all along and exposed their boast of "seeing" as false.

If men are born totally depraved (unable to respond) then regardless of the use of parables the response would have been the same. Right or wrong? You still have not addressed that question.

I have addressed but you simply rejected my explanation. Let me say it this way. RELIGIOUS lost persons do not believe they are lost persons. That is not their perspective. Jesus did not resort to parables to hide the truth until they had rejected his clear preaching of the gospel and clear teachings as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount and earlier ministry. In the Sermon on the mount he showed the contrast of THEIR SYSTEM with God's SYSTEM OF TRUTH and make it clear and plain without any parables. From Matthew 5 right up to Matthew 12 Jesus taught plainly and clearly showing the contrasts. However, Matthew 12 reveals their reaction - they sought to kill him. Therefore, in Matthew 13 he changed his strategies and taught by parables intentionally hiding the truth from them and from even His disciples as they had to be taken apart privately and taught the meaning.

Hence, his audiances came before his clear contrasts boasting to be the children of Abraham and claiming to SEE from their perspective or SYSTEM OF TRUTH. Jesus contrasted their system with God's system and forced them to choose between what they claimed as the basis for "seeing" to be inconsisten with even the truths found in their system forcing them to either reject their system and come and follow Christ or repudiate the very truths in their system they claimed to "see" by rejecting the system of truth taught by Christ. Hence they went from "seeing" to "closing their eyes" in regard to the very truths in their inconsistent system. The problem was they could NEVER REALLY SEE in the first place and when more truth exposed their inconsistences they then responded by CLOSING THEIR EYES and HARDENING their hearts against the very truths that had claimed to "see."

Do you at least understand my position? Have I explained it sufficiently so you get it from my perspective??

 

[Skandelon]

Spiritually dead RELIGIOUS men don't believe they are spiritually dead but spiritually alive and they come from that perpsective. Hence, "seeing they do not see." The fallen nature has no spiritual eyes to see but that does not stop it from assuming it does. Jesus approaches spiritually dead religious men from that perspective as they boast they are "seeing" but in reality they "see not." What they claim to see is a system of doctrine they have been taught they call truth. Indeed, there is truth content found within the Phariseeical and Sadduceeical systems of "truth."

I agree with all this...this is not our point of contention. The Jews believe lies but they think they are truth, so they see without really seeing. We agree here.

Christ confronted the TRUTH SYSTEM of the day and took the actual truths within their system which they professed to see and showed them how it corresponded God's system truth which if they accepted would force them to repudiate their SYSTEM OF TRUTH and exchange it for God's SYSTEM (which harmonizes). Instead of turning against Judiasm as the truth system of the day and embrace the truth system preached by Christ they hardened their hearts and closed their eyes and rejected those truth aspects in their own system rather than change systems entirely.

Got it, and they wouldn't have done that whether Christ used parables or not? Remember that was my original question.... I was thinking that in your system the hearers would have the same unbelieving reaction to parables as they would toward clear teaching. Why wouldn't they since regeneration would have been required for them to actually turn and be healed?

Therefore, this hardening merely manifested that they were really spiritually blind all along and exposed their boast of "seeing" as false.

So, the hardening only exposed that they actually believed lies even though they claimed to believe truth?

But, Christ said that he used parables 'lest they believe and turn and I would heal them.' Clearly the parables are being employed to prevent faith and their healing.

Jesus did not resort to parables to hide the truth until they had rejected his clear preaching of the gospel and clear teachings as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount and earlier ministry. In the Sermon on the mount he showed the contrast of THEIR SYSTEM with God's SYSTEM OF TRUTH and make it clear and plain without any parables. From Matthew 5 right up to Matthew 12 Jesus taught plainly and clearly showing the contrasts. However, Matthew 12 reveals their reaction - they sought to kill him. Therefore, in Matthew 13 he changed his strategies and taught by parables intentionally hiding the truth from them

Ok, so in your view Jesus taught the clear truth and that just made them want to kill him, so he switched to parables to prevent being killed too soon? Is that correct?

What about the part that says, "lest they believe and turn to God for healing?" It clearly indicates that had he not used parables they might have believed and been healed. What about that part?

 

[The Biblicist]

I Ok, so in your view Jesus taught the clear truth and that just made them want to kill him, so he switched to parables to prevent being killed too soon? Is that correct?

He taught the clear contrast between the two systems using what truths the other system provided to force them to a decision to either repudiate the truth in their own system with that system and choose his system or repudiate the truth in their own system but still cling to the system, as well as repudiate Christ. They chose the latter with vengeance.

Thus their claim to "see" was exposed as false. They NEVER could "see" because they were spiritually dead and just didn't know it. That is the condition they came into this world with a fallen nature followed by a religous coating. They claimed to "see" but "could not see."

This interaction with Jesus not merely exposed their real condition but this interaction with Christ resulted in their rejection of the truths contained in their false system as they had to reject it or reject Christ. Thus they "closed their eyes" and "hardened" their hearts against the very truths contained within their false system. The depraved nature will embrace truths as long as those truths are placed in it own perverted context. Hence, the hardening, closing of the eyes was in regard to those truths as Christ put them in the proper context. Hence, the truth they had accepted in the context of their false system was now being rejected in its proper context, thus closing their eyes and hardening their heart against the very things they had claimed to "see." So your view of both is wrong! Hardening is merely the reaction of the fallen nature to truths placed in the proper context it formerly accepted in a perverted context.

What about the part that says, "lest they believe and turn to God for healing?" It clearly indicates that had he not used parables they might have believed and been healed. What about that part?

He is not describing a POSSIBLE POTENTIAL as you interpret his words, but describing why there is no potential for their salvation. They were not only spiritually dead but their fallen nature's reaction to the truth they once claimed to see removes all potentional for their salvation as they merely hardened and closed their eyes to the truths they once embraced. More light only stirs up the fallen nature to greater rejection (hardening). More light exposed their hypocrisy as it produced greater hardening toward it by their fallen condition. If that was not their condition, but it is, they would have repented and been saved, but this reaction demonstrates who they really are.

So you are wrong about your definition of hardening as hardening is simply the response of the spiritual dead but in this case hypocritical nature to more light.

The fallen nature will accept light, as long as it can place that light in a perverted context. Light can be found in Judiaism, in Mormonism, in Catholocism but never in its proper context. The lost relgious man accepts that light in its own perverted framework or system or context of thinking. Jesus took that light and placed it in its proper context so that it contradicted the context in which the lost state placed it and brought the lost condition directly face to face with God, causing hardening and rejection (Rom. 8:7). The lost nature will always reject the truth when placed in its proper context (Rom. 8:7) simply because it cannot understand the system of truth, since that is not the system operating in their mindset. Since, the framework or system of truth is necessary to really understand truth, see how it fits, the lost nature cannot understand truth (1 Cor. 2:14) because understanding requires the proper system or framework that truth is consistent with.

 

[Skandelon]

He taught the clear contrast between the two systems using what truths the other system provided to force them to a decision to either repudiate the truth in their own system with that system and choose his system or repudiate the truth in their own system but still cling to the system, as well as repudiate Christ. They chose the latter with vengeance.

Thus their claim to "see" was exposed as false. They NEVER could "see" because they were spiritually dead and just didn't know it. That is the condition they came into this world with a fallen nature followed by a religous coating. They claimed to "see" but "could not see."

This interaction with Jesus not merely exposed their real condition but this interaction with Christ resulted in their rejection of the truths contained in their false system as they had to reject it or reject Christ. Thus they "closed their eyes" and "hardened" their hearts against the very truths contained within their false system. The depraved nature will embrace truths as long as those truths are placed in it own perverted context. Hence, the hardening, closing of the eyes was in regard to those truths as Christ put them in the proper context. Hence, the truth they had accepted in the context of their false system was now being rejected in its proper context, thus closing their eyes and hardening their heart against the very things they had claimed to "see." So your view of both is wrong!

I was reading along in agreement and then this last sentence slaps me... None of what you are writing here is even a point of contention. We all know the Jews thought their truth was truth. We all know they saw things wrong but thought they knew it all. We all agree with this part. What you're not dealing with is my specific questions about the statements regarding what they 'might' have done if the parables weren't used to blind them from truth...

You seem to want to blame their inborn condition for there inability to see, hear, understand and turn, but the scripture directly relates that inability to their 'becoming' or 'growing' calloused/hardened, not their natures.

I know you believe their natures were the cause of their hardening...I get that. You don't have to say it again. I'm just saying that is not what this text actually says. It clearly indicates that their inability is due directly to what they have BECOME, not what they were born as...and it even goes so far as to (1) tell us specifically what the hardened ones might have done otherwise..."they might see, hear, understand and turn for healing....and (2) contrasts that condition with the Gentiles 'who will listen (Acts 28:28).

Those points, IMO, have not been sufficiently rebutted. You appear to be so convinced that your view is the correct one that you are not even willing to consider the alternative. I may come across the same to you but I assure you that I vehemently defended the other side of this debate for over a decade of my life. I have objectively looked at this from both sides and sometimes that objectivity can't be seen in a written forum like this...

They were not only spiritually dead but their fallen nature's reaction to the truth they once claimed to see removes all potentional for their salvation as they merely hardened and closed their eyes to the truths they once embraced.

Whoa, but don't you remember that many of these who crucified Christ came to faith later (Acts 2). How can it be that this is a statement indicating certain condemnation?

As Romans 11 explains, the hardening of Israel can have a redemptive result as when the Gentiles come to faith and are changed they may provoke the calloused Jews to envy and make them reconsider their views and be saved (Rm 11:14). Even the hardened, calloused Jews might be grafted back in and saved (14-23).

More light only stirs up the fallen nature to greater rejection (hardening). More light exposed their hypocrisy as it produced greater hardening toward it by their fallen condition.

You say that, but where the biblical support. I've provided mine:

Parables are not more light, but less
Jesus tells his followers to keep things secret for a time, less light
God give them a 'spirit of stupor, eyes that cannot see,' less light
Jesus provokes them with hard saying without qualification (eat my flesh, etc), less light
God is 'cutting them off' from divine revelation, less light
The apostles are told to dust off their feet and move to the the Gentiles who will listen, less light.

Your turn...

The lost nature will always reject the truth when placed in its proper context (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Those verses never make that claim. Romans 8 merely states that men can't keep the law and you interpret that to mean that men can't trust in Christ who fulfilled the law for them. And 1 Cor. 2 is talking about the 'deep things of God' vs 10, which even the 'brethren' of Corinth were not able to receive because it was considered 'meat' instead of 'milk' and they, as carnal believers, weren't able to get it. That is the context of that passage. It has nothing to do with men's ability to 'comprehend' the clearly revealed truth of the gospel appeal which HAS BEEN 'spiritually discerned' by men (like Paul) who were spiritually inspired to write it out in human language. Why do you think Paul is writing the carnal believers in Corinth? He is inspired by the Spirit to DISCERN these deep truths of God for them...to help them better understand. That is what he does by sending them this letter. God works through human means and sometimes we try to make it all mystical, as if God is working independent from Paul's spiritually inspired teaching in this very passage. The gospel even being on this earth is a work of spiritual discernment. That is why we consider our scripture breathed by God!

 

[The Biblicist]

It clearly indicates that their inability is due directly to what they have BECOME, not what they were born as...and it even goes so far as to (1) tell us specifically what the hardened ones might have done otherwise..."they might see, hear, understand and turn for healing....and (2) contrasts that condition with the Gentiles 'who will listen (Acts 28:28).

Let me simply:

1. "see...hear...understand" EQUALS their claim
2. "seeing not...hearing not....not perceving" is Christ denial of their claim
3. "closing eyes...hardening" is proof of Christ's denial - Hence, hardening, shutting eyes to the very things they once regarded as truths seen prevents them from coming to Christ at any time IN THIS CONDITION.
4. If this condition and its proof did not exist, they would hear, see, understand and turn and be saved. The potential is based upon the truth of their denial that such blindness exists but such hardness proves it exists and thus denies that potential.

Whoa, but don't you remember that many of these who crucified Christ came to faith later (Acts 2). How can it be that this is a statement indicating certain condemnation?

First, there is no possible way you can demonstrate that individuals in this crowd were later saved as no text in scripture says that.

Second, the impossibility of salvation is in regard to THIS CONDITION not to Gods power to overule this condition by new birth.

As Romans 11 explains, the hardening of Israel can have a redemptive result as when the Gentiles come to faith and are changed they may provoke the calloused Jews to envy and make them reconsider their views and be saved (Rm 11:14).

1. Redemptive only in regard to the primary shift from Israel to Gentile nations as the primary sphere of redemptive work.

2. The caloused condition can never respond to the gospel not not "at any time" as Jesus says clearly. The only solution is NEW BIRTH or change of nature or the act of salvation by God not a partnership between the old nature and God.

3. New creation is God's response to this caloused response of the spiritually blind and deaf fallen nature.

Even the hardened, calloused Jews might be grafted back in and saved (14-23).

That condition NEVER "at any time" will respond to the gospel. God must give a NEW HEART and a NEW SPIRIT that responds to God (Ezek. 36:26-27; Col. 3:10; Eph. 2:10; 4:24; 2 Cor. 4:6; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; James 1:18; etc.).

You say that, but where the biblical support. I've provided mine:

Rom. 8:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

The law reveals the knowledge of sin and as man attempts to obey the law whether written on paper or on concience stirs up the indwelling law of sin to react and expose itself for what it is. As I stated no religious Jew professes he is blind, deaf and dead spiritually but claim they can "see, hear, understand" and thus ALIVE to God. Every lost man begins with NO CONSCIOUSENSS OF SPIRITUAL DEATH until they are confronted by the Law of God that defines sin instructing the conscience in sin and thus stirs the depraved nature into rebellion and thus exposes the sin nature and brings the man consciously under the condemnation of the law = death at work.

Parables are not more light, but less
Jesus tells his followers to keep things secret for a time, less light
God give them a 'spirit of stupor, eyes that cannot see,' less light
Jesus provokes them with hard saying without qualification (eat my flesh, etc), less light
God is 'cutting them off' from divine revelation, less light
The apostles are told to dust off their feet and move to the the Gentiles who will listen, less light.

He speaks in parables because direct exposure created the atmosphere of intent to kill him (Mt. 12 before Mt. 13) which intent is their response to the very truths they claimed to see thus the intent to kill is the manifestation of hardeness and closure against the truth. Yes, parable remove truth from them due to their hardening against truth plainly revealed.

Your turn...

Those verses never make that claim.

Please follow my logic closely now! Have you ever entered into the middle of complex movie and you can understand the words and see the actions but there is no general framework to understand what you are seeing or hearing becuase you don't have the overal framework to make sense of what you are seeing and hearing? Ok!

1 Cor. 2:14 refers to the natural man and his response to spiriutal things because Romans 8:7 describes the "carnal" SPIRITUAL FRAMEWORK which is antagonistic to God and His revealed will. Thus he has not SPIRITUAL FRAMEWORK to connect God's truths with becuase God's truth requires a BORN AGAIN SPIRITURAL FRAMEWORK to connect with. In addition, the perverted religious SYSTEM FRAMEWORK makes it impossible to make sense of God's truth because God's truth requires a TRUTH FRAMEWORK provided by God's Word to connect truth with. The lost man does not have either the SPIRITUAL or RELIGIOUS framework of truth and therefore all the truths they may embrace is intepreted and connected with their DEPRAVED SPIRITUAL and PERVERTED RELIGOUS framework. They can understand the words and interpret the contextual line of thinking but they cannot connect it with any other framework than what they have. If that SPIRITUAL and RELIGIOUS framework is perverted, then they will connect and reinterpret that truth to be consistent with their frameworks and thus pervert it. When you confront them with the same truths but in God's FRAMEWORK of truth (spiritual, Biblical) they cannot understand it, or relate to it, but think it is foolish becuase they have no proper framework to connect with it.

 

[Skandelon]

Let me simply:

1. "see...hear...understand" EQUALS their claim
2. "seeing not...hearing not....not perceving" is Christ denial of their claim
3. "closing eyes...hardening" is proof of Christ's denial - Hence, hardening, shutting eyes to the very things they once regarded as truths seen prevents them from coming to Christ at any time IN THIS CONDITION.
4. If this condition and its proof did not exist, they would hear, see, understand and turn and be saved. The potential is based upon the truth of their denial that such blindness exists but such hardness proves it exists and thus denies that potential.

I'm sorry, but I read through this no less than four times and I'm simply not following you. I have no idea how that answers the 'otherwise they might see, hear, understand and believe' claim, or Paul's contrasting of the Jewish condition with the Gentiles condition.

First, there is no possible way you can demonstrate that individuals in this crowd were later saved as no text in scripture says that.

Are you suggesting that the other Jews who all yell "Crucify Him" weren't in the same condition as these in his audience? If not, what would be the difference or distinction? I'm confused.

Second, the impossibility of salvation is in regard to THIS CONDITION not to Gods power to overule this condition by new birth.

I agree, but given that the ONLY actual condition in this text is the condition by which they 'grew calloused' over time after much rebellion, I don't see how that helps your case regarding the inborn condition of total inability. I guess if you presume inability onto this text if you want, but forgive me if I choose not to.

1. Redemptive only in regard to the primary shift from Israel to Gentile nations as the primary sphere of redemptive work.

So, you don't believe an individual Jew who grew calloused, was judicially hardened (cut off) by God, might be provoked to envy and saved?

2. The caloused condition can never respond to the gospel not not "at any time" as Jesus says clearly. The only solution is NEW BIRTH or change of nature or the act of salvation by God not a partnership between the old nature and God.

I agree that the calloused heart must be provoked or greatly influenced in order to change as Rom. 11:14 and others indicate. New life comes through faith, not the other way around. (John 20:31)

3. New creation is God's response to this caloused response of the spiritually blind and deaf fallen nature.

Paul says that he desires them to be provoked by envy so as to be saved and that they might be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief. Do you believe that is possible for an individual Jew or not?

He speaks in parables because direct exposure created the atmosphere of intent to kill him

But HE SAID it was to prevent them from believing the truth and being healed. He said nothing about his intent being for his own safety. You are presuming that and neglecting the actual words that Jesus said were his reasons.

Listen brother, I think its clear that we are both pretty set in our view on this matter and I think we've beat this horse to death, so I'm going to move on. Thanks for the lively discussion! :wavey:

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm sorry, but I read through this no less than four times and I'm simply not following you. I have no idea how that answers the 'otherwise they might see, hear, understand and believe' claim, or Paul's contrasting of the Jewish condition with the Gentiles condition.

What they claimed to "see" is what they ultimately closed their eyes and hardened their heart against! They ended up rejecting what they claimed to see as truth simply because that truth was lifted out of their perverted context by Christ and put into the context of truth. While it was in their framework they professed to "see" it but when it was put in its proper framework they rejected it thus closed their PROFESSED eyes to it. This reaction to the same truth but in its proper context PROVED they could see what they professed to see - proved they were spiritually dead, blind, deaf and without discernment.

Are you suggesting that the other Jews who all yell "Crucify Him" weren't in the same condition as these in his audience? If not, what would be the difference or distinction? I'm confused.

First, all jews were not lost as there were saved people among them. Second, hardening is not an obstactle to new birth. Third, you don't know if the same Jews in this crowd were the very same Jews in the crowd that yelled crucify him. That was your original assertion. Your original assertion was not about the same kind of condition in both crowds but the same crowd in both instances. There is no way you can prove that.

I agree, but given that the ONLY actual condition in this text is the condition by which they 'grew calloused' over time after much rebellion, I don't see how that helps your case regarding the inborn condition of total inability. I guess if you presume inability onto this text if you want, but forgive me if I choose not to.

You are making an assertion that you have yet to prove. My position is the caloused condition that grew between Matthew 3 and Matthew 13 merely provided the real evidence they could never truly "see" in the first place but were spirtuallly blind, deaf and dead all along. They professed to "see" and closed the professed eyes which they claim could see to the truth that had once professed while it was in their perverted context.

I agree that the calloused heart must be provoked or greatly influenced in order to change as Rom. 11:14 and others indicate. New life comes through faith, not the other way around. (John 20:31)

Your formerm Calvinism never taught you to distinguish between "spiritual" and "judicial" life? It never taught you the difference between the relationship with God by new birth - child - and the relationship with God by law - son???? They never taught you that SPIRITUAL life came be new birth but JUDICIAL life came by justification by faith? You did understand that it was judicial condemenation to eternal death and that judicial verdict reversed would obtain eternal life judicially???? Both are eternal life but one has to do with your PERSON (new birth) and the other has to do with your POSITION (justification)????

But HE SAID it was to prevent them from believing the truth and being healed. He said nothing about his intent being for his own safety. You are presuming that and neglecting the actual words that Jesus said were his reasons.

It is not a presumption as the record is clear that He taught plainly and direct between Matthew 3 and Matthew 12 and it concluded with them seeking to kill him in Matthew 12. In Matthew 13 it is clear he changed to parables. He changed to parables so those claiming to see (those who hardened their hearts against him between chapters 3-12) would not be able to understand the very same teachings they rejected but put in parabolic form. If they had not rejected them (shut their eyes, hardened their heart) they could have been saved but the hardening was proof their hardening heart was a blind, dead and dead heart to God's truth in the very first place and thus they could not see from the very beginning as the unregenerate response to light is hardening, rejecting, resisting, rebelling against it.

 

[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.

Back on track!

 

[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 only way to avoid the conclusions that I set forth above is to change the context. That is what skandelon did with his non-Biblical illustration about the army recruit. He changed the words, changed the context and fabricated a context completely different than the Biblical words and context.

On the other hand, both skandelon and Van must completely misconstrue verse 45 to avoid my position as well. The fact is that the first clause in verse 45 is a scripture quotation while the second clause is Christ's interpretation of the first clause. But more importantly the whole verse is his explanation of what it means to be drawn by the Father.

"ALL" are thus taught by God and "EVERY MAN" thus taught comes to Christ thus all the Father draws comes to Christ.

Skandelon's attempt to use the text concerning hardening and closing of ones eyes can be exposed simply be pointing out that hardening is a changing PROCESS not equal to all the lost but being spiritual dead is a CONDITION equal in all the lost. The former is progressive and the present tense demonstrates that whereas the latter is a condition.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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?)


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?

Great points! I might also add that Jesus plainly says that they were not willing or refused to come to him that they might have life (John 5:40). Now to me one of the most blasphemous things is to assert that Jesus actually pretended that men should follow him who actually couldn't due to their foreordained reprobation. This makes Jesus a deluder. Now if Jesus called them to believe through miracles (= the Father drawing them) but they refused to believe, then their condemnation is just, and the father would not give such unrepentant sinners to Jesus, because this would be unjust. Also, commanding those to work for the food of eternal life (John 6:27), who he knew were pre-damned and without a choice in the matter, is above all things a cruel and blasphemous thing to ascribe to Jesus to have done. It is like commanding a two-year old to sprout wings and fly to heaven, and then dismembering his body parts and burning them with fire because he failed to comply with the order. This is Calvinism in all its hideous mass of vometry.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Going Back to the O.P:
The O.P. suggests a logical deduction which is presumed to be inescapable...but, frankly...it is flawed in numerous ways which I feel must be rejoindered. Specifically, it is predicated upon confusing contingency with necessity and confusing contingency with causality. In my experience, many even quite knowledgeable Calvinists conflate the differences between contingency and necessity and this O.P. is a perfect example. (I have read the works of those Calvinsts who do not, and they would NEVER argue as this O.P. does.) Firstly:

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

The first logical error is in red.
"Drawing" is not a "cause" as the O.P. suggests. It is a requirement....but, it "causes" nothing. the "cause" is not mentioned. So far, we have no idea what "causes" the coming....or if there even IS a "cause". This is logically invalid. "Coming" is contingent upon being "drawn"...but being "drawn" does not necessarily infer coming.

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!

Wrong...it is him who "comes"...not who is "drawn"....no one who is not "drawn" WILL COME...but, according to the text the necessary condition for being "raised" is those who "come"....not those who are "drawn".
This is the actual transfer of necessity in the passage.
1.) Only those who are "drawn" can "come"
2.) Only those who "come" are "raised"
3.) Therefore only those who "come" are "raised" and...they WILL be "raised" and necessarily so.

However....Even though it is necessarily inferred that those who "come" will be raised...and also it is deduced that those who "come" MUST be "drawn"...nothing in the passage says that those who are "drawn" NECESSARILY "come". That MAY be true...but, not according to this passage.

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.

CORRECT!!!:thumbsup: The only one who is "raised" is the one who
1.) Is "drawn"
AND
2.) Who "comes"

Being "Raised" necessitates BOTH!!! but, why?
1.) Because "coming" necessarily infers being "raised".
2.) And "coming" is contingent upon being "drawn"
Thus...no one who "comes" has failed to satisfy the condition of being "drawn"

But, your argument is that he who is "drawn" is "raised"...That is, however, NOT what the Scripture says. If it meant to say that it would have.

It is true that everyone who has been raised was in fact "drawn", and it is also true that everyone who "comes" has been "drawn". It is also true that everyone who "comes" will necessarily be raised...But, it simply does not follow that EVERYONE who is "drawn" "comes"...

"Drawing" is a NECESSARY condition for "being raised"
but it is not a SUFFICIENT condition for "being raised"

"Coming" is a SUFFICIENT condition for "being raised"
AND
"Drawing" is a NECESSARY condition for "coming"

BUUUUUT...

You want to make "drawing" a SUFFICIENT condition for "being raised" and that is not logically valid.
Only the "coming" is.

Thus, such an interpretation would claim many are drawn but not all come and therefore not all are raised.

That's the long and short of it.

However, this requires rejection and replacement of the singular "him" by way of explanation.

That's grammatical nonsense....No one has to replace or "reject" anything....what other linguistic device is available to say as much OTHER THAN building upon the immediate object supplied by the word "him"....
There is no other way to say it.

The other is to replace and reinterpret the singular "him" to suggest that more are drawn than actually come and are raised.

You are right that more are drawn than actually come and are therefore raised, yes....But what is the weird grammatical beef with the singular 3rd-person pronominal use of the word "him"? How else would you say that very thing??? You think the repetition of the word "him" proves something...it doesn't.

What should it say? "Any given individual who satisfies any and all of these conditions and no others?"
Granted...Professional P.H.D. Philosophers talk that way only when dealing with either each other or the logically illiterate...but, for common usage....we usually simply describe the conditions, and then shorten it to simply say "him". That's what's being done here. That's all.

It "proves" what you want it to prove about as much as it ALSO proves that no women will be saved since it doesn't say "he or she"....Your obsession with 3rd person pronouns proves nothing.

This O.P. fails to properly distinguish the principle of "Transfer of Necessity".