Draw = Taught = hear and learn - Jn. 6:45

[DrJamesAch]

Note the context of 2 Cor. 4:6! It is in the middle of preaching the Gospel in opposition to Satanic influence. It is God that commands the light of knowledge to shine in THE INNER DARKNESS of the lost. You accusations are against Paul not me! He said this of the lost in the context of preaching the gospel not me!

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.



More insults. Typical of those who are incapable of an expository or exegetical based response but are angry.

No Paul is not saying that this light shined out of our INNER DARKNESS. It is in context of hiding the gospel to those who ARE LOST. The darkness Paul is referring to is EXTERNAL circumstances that cause obfuscation of the gospel:

*Hidden things of dishonesty
*Walking in crafiness
*Handling the word of God deceitfully

Vs 2.

And this light is given AFTER one is saved. Nothing in your OP or subsequent rebuttals refute that John 6:45 shows that people were drawn to the Father by hearing and learning of the Father BEFORE THEY CAME TO CHRIST AND WERE SAVED.

 

[The Biblicist]

No Paul is not saying that this light shined out of our INNER DARKNESS. It is in context of hiding the gospel to those who ARE LOST. The darkness Paul is referring to is EXTERNAL circumstances that cause obfuscation of the gospel:

*Hidden things of dishonesty
*Walking in crafiness
*Handling the word of God deceitfully

Vs 2.

And this light is given AFTER one is saved. Nothing in your OP or subsequent rebuttals refute that John 6:45 shows that people were drawn to the Father by hearing and learning of the Father BEFORE THEY CAME TO CHRIST AND WERE SAVED.

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Where is Satan working? EXTERNAL to them or "IN WHOM"

Where is the blindess? External or Internal? Where is the "mind"?

 

[Winman]

Isaiah 54:13 does not support your view whatsoever;

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

This simply supports John 6:45 that those men who hear God and learn and are taught by him shall come to God. It does not say one word about being drawn.

Again, you are reading into scripture what you DESIRE it to say, not what it is really saying. This verse is not saying that the drawing of God is the same as being taught.

And the scripture I showed easily shows men are called and drawn to God but refuse to be taught.

You seem to think that you can WILL your views to be truth. You are self-deceived.

 

[The Biblicist]

Isaiah 54:13 does not support your view whatsoever;

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

This simply supports John 6:45 that those men who hear God and learn and are taught by him shall come to God. It does not say one word about being drawn.

Again, you are reading into scripture what you DESIRE it to say, not what it is really saying. This verse is not saying that the drawing of God is the same as being taught.

And the scripture I showed easily shows men are called and drawn to God but refuse to be taught.

You seem to think that you can WILL your views to be truth. You are self-deceived.

Again, you are admitting you have no idea what relationship this quotation of scripture in verse 45 has to verse 44. Again you are providing an interpretation of verse 45 that has no association to anything Jesus said in verse 44. Again, according to your interpretation Jesus quoted Isaiah for no contextual related reason to anything He just said.

 

[Winman]

Again, you are admitting you have no idea what relationship this quotation of scripture in verse 45 has to verse 44. Again you are providing an interpretation of verse 45 that has no association to anything Jesus said in verse 44. Again, according to your interpretation Jesus quoted Isaiah for no contextual related reason to anything He just said.

I understand both verses 44 and 45. Verse 44 says that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him.

Verse 45 says that those men who hear God and learn and are taught by him shall come to Jesus.

Verse 45 does not say that being taught is the same as being drawn.

Proverbs 1 shows that God calls and begs foolish and scornful men to come to him. This is drawing. Yet these men hate knowledge and refuse to be taught, so they do not come to Jesus.

You can be drawn and not come. You can be drawn and refuse to be taught.

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

These men were drawn, God sent his servants to "call them that were bidden", and they would not come. He sent his servants out again, and they told the people "come unto the marriage".

These folks were drawn. When the king tells you to come to his son's wedding, that is not an invitation, that is a COMMAND.

But they refused, they would not listen, and they certainly did not learn and were destroyed.

You can argue till your face is blue, your view is error and EASILY refuted.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand both verses 44 and 45. Verse 44 says that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him.

Verse 45 says that those men who hear God and learn and are taught by him shall come to Jesus.

So coming to Christ is utterly dependent upon being drawn AND being taught by God but you see no direct correlation between the two even though they are placed in direct correlation to each other as you would expect an assertion would be enforced by scripture according to the normal pattern of Christ elsewhere???? You reject the Scriptural insertion is further explanatory of the assertion, but you view them as distinct and separate acts of God even though both are essential to coming to Christ? So according to your interpretation Jesus jumps from one subject in verse 44 to another subject in verse 45 by quoting a verse that has no bearing on what He just said but applies to a completely different application.

Second, you take a passage in the Old Testament that deals with EXTERNAL calling by God through indirect means and claim this is explanatory of what can only be an INTERNAL and DIRECT drawing/teaching by God in John 6:44-45 and I am supposed to accept that?

Third, you turn attention to a parable NOT FOUND IN THIS CONTEXT that can equally be intepreted as a distintion between an external and internal call but insist upon your intepretation of it in support of your interpretation of John 6:44-45 thus playing the skip hop and change text and context game that has no end once you start playing that game.

In other words, we play a game of mental gynastics that arbitrarily demands Christ called upon Scripture to teach something he never asserted but to introduce something quite different?

 

[The Biblicist]

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.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jesus defines what He means by the Father drawing a person in verse 45.

To be drawn by the Father is to be "Taught" by the Father - v. 45a

It is not possible to teach anyone anything unless they both hear and learn from the teacher. Therefore, to be taught by God is to have "heard" and to have "learned" from the Father.

To have "heard" and to have "learned" from the Father is to be TAUGHT by the Father and to be TAUGHT by the Father is what it means to be DRAWN by the Father.

Who is it that comes to Christ?

1. NONE of those who have "heard" and "learned" of the Father?
2. SOME of those who have "heard" and "learned" of the Father?
3. "EVERY MAN" that has "heard" and "learned" of the Father?

Therefore, "him" that is drawn IS the "him" that is raised to life eternal because "EVERY MAN" drawn/taught/heard/learned does come to Christ.

Before we lose track of the OP and the simplicity of its meaning, I am introducing back into this discussion the OP.

The mental gymnastic required to oppose the above OP in my opinion is unreasonable and contrary to the simple truth that one must be drawn by the Father in order to come to Christ in faith as no unbeliever will be raised up in the resurrection to life (v. 44).

The fact that Drawing and Taught by the Father EQUALLY are required to come to Christ in faith gives more credibility that Jesus is quoting scripture at this point to further define what it means for the Father to draw men to Christ in faith. The fact that simply refers to both the one drawn and the one raised by the same simple pronoun "him" corresponds with "ALL" equal to "EVERY MAN" thus taught who also come to Christ.

 

[Winman]

So coming to Christ is utterly dependent upon being drawn AND being taught by God but you see no direct correlation between the two even though they are placed in direct correlation to each other as you would expect an assertion would be enforced by scripture according to the normal pattern of Christ elsewhere???? You reject the Scriptural insertion is further explanatory of the assertion, but you view them as distinct and separate acts of God even though both are essential to coming to Christ? So according to your interpretation Jesus jumps from one subject in verse 44 to another subject in verse 45 by quoting a verse that has no bearing on what He just said but applies to a completely different application.

Second, you take a passage in the Old Testament that deals with EXTERNAL calling by God through indirect means and claim this is explanatory of what can only be an INTERNAL and DIRECT drawing/teaching by God in John 6:44-45 and I am supposed to accept that?

Third, you turn attention to a parable NOT FOUND IN THIS CONTEXT that can equally be intepreted as a distintion between an external and internal call but insist upon your intepretation of it in support of your interpretation of John 6:44-45 thus playing the skip hop and change text and context game that has no end once you start playing that game.

In other words, we play a game of mental gynastics that arbitrarily demands Christ called upon Scripture to teach something he never asserted but to introduce something quite different?

I read scripture for what it says, not for what I WANT it to say like you do.

Verse 44 says no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. I agree with this and believe it 100%.

Verse 45 says that men who have heard the Father and have learned and been taught by the Father shall come to Jesus. I agree and believe this 100%.

OK, that is what these two verses say, and they do not say any more. I do not add to God's word and insert my own ideas into scripture.

However....

There is scripture that addresses your view, Proverbs 1, because it speaks of God calling foolish and scornful men and promising to teach them his words.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Here God promises if men will repent and turn to him, he will pour out his spirit unto them (faith precedes regeneration), and he will teach them his words.

So, this is directly addressing this subject of men learning and being taught of the father. Did God draw these men? YES. Did they come and learn? NO.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

This whole passage is about God calling and drawing men, but they refuse to listen and to learn from the Father. They hated knowledge and would hear none of his reproofs. Their foolishness leads to their destruction.

But note vs. 33, those men who hearken and listen to God and learn from him shall be saved, they shall dwell safely and be quiet from fear of evil.

So, this issue of being drawn by God and being taught by God is directly addressed in scripture and refutes your view. Men can be drawn but refuse to come, men can be drawn but refuse to learn and be taught.

I have answered you several times now, that is enough. You understand what I am saying, and I have provided plenty of scripture to support my view.

 

[The Biblicist]

I read scripture for what it says, not for what I WANT it to say like you do.

That is quite an accusation don't you think?

Verse 44 says no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. I agree with this and believe it 100%.

But that is NOT 100% of what the verse says. Without further description he claims the "him" that is drawn is "him that is raised and you do not believe that although that is the NATURAL interpretation as Christ does not make any different description of the "him" in the second clause from "him" in the first clause.

Verse 45 says that men who have heard the Father and have learned and been taught by the Father shall come to Jesus. I agree and believe this 100%.

No it does not say "men who" but it says "EVERY MAN" that is "taught" by God comes to Christ. The same Greek word translated "all" is translated "every man." There can be no teaching without having "heard" and "learned" and yet "EVERY MAN" thus taught does come to God WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS as that is what "EVERY MAN" means, not "SOME" men nor "men who" which leaves open the possibility that some men don't when the text says "EVERY MAN" thus taught does!

OK, that is what these two verses say, and they do not say any more. I do not add to God's word and insert my own ideas into scripture.

You in fact did change words and you did omit words as I pointed out.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

This text explicitly predicts NONE of the foolish and ungodly will come to him but God will mock them. Whereas, John 6:45 claims "EVERY MAN" so taught does come to Christ. There is simply no comparison between these but they are direct opposites and that is the difference between a purely OUTWARD call and an INWARD teaching by God. John 6:44-45 must be an INWARD teaching as it results in "every man" thus taught coming to Christ, while your passage teaches the very opposite.

So you have proven nothing but contradictions and inappropriate applications of scripture.

 

[AresMan]

I understand both verses 44 and 45. Verse 44 says that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him.

Verse 45 says that those men who hear God and learn and are taught by him shall come to Jesus.

Verse 45 does not say that being taught is the same as being drawn.

Proverbs 1 shows that God calls and begs foolish and scornful men to come to him. This is drawing. Yet these men hate knowledge and refuse to be taught, so they do not come to Jesus.

You can be drawn and not come. You can be drawn and refuse to be taught.

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

These men were drawn, God sent his servants to "call them that were bidden", and they would not come. He sent his servants out again, and they told the people "come unto the marriage".

These folks were drawn. When the king tells you to come to his son's wedding, that is not an invitation, that is a COMMAND.

But they refused, they would not listen, and they certainly did not learn and were destroyed.

You can argue till your face is blue, your view is error and EASILY refuted.

This parable is clearly about the call of the gospel to Israel after the flesh, demonstrating how God was going to institute the New Covenant.

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The "call" in the parable is not the effectual call. It is the call of the New Covenant in Christ to the constituents of the Old Covenant as a whole--national Israel.

The "chosen" is indeed the actual effectual call. The "many" that are "called" are national Israel. The "few" that are "chosen" represent the remnant of Israel that God says He "reserved to Himself" "according to the election of grace," (Romans 11:4-5)

Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

The ones out in the highways are the Gentiles that are now grafted into true Israel with the remnant reserved by God. These are all the ones elected from the foundation of the world effectually called by God.

 

[psalms109:31]

If you don't listen and learn you will not be drawn simple as that. We are saved by grace through faith but faith without deeds is a dead faith. This faith without love is useless. I have never seen no man be drawn who did not listen and learn from the Father. The Father and Jesus is one so listen and learn from Jesus and find rest for your soul. I have never seen anyone turn to Jesus without His word before him. Following a crowd and what they are doing is not being drawn by the Father. Two things that work together should never be separated from one another.

 

[Winman]

This parable is clearly about the call of the gospel to Israel after the flesh, demonstrating how God was going to institute the New Covenant.

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The "call" in the parable is not the effectual call. It is the call of the New Covenant in Christ to the constituents of the Old Covenant as a whole--national Israel.

The "chosen" is indeed the actual effectual call. The "many" that are "called" are national Israel. The "few" that are "chosen" represent the remnant of Israel that God says He "reserved to Himself" "according to the election of grace," (Romans 11:4-5)

Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

The ones out in the highways are the Gentiles that are now grafted into true Israel with the remnant reserved by God. These are all the ones elected from the foundation of the world effectually called by God.

Another perfect example of pure BUNK. There is no such thing as a general and effectual call. God is sincere and calls everyone the same, the same gospel is preached to all, but the gospel does not profit those that do not believe.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

None of this passage makes sense if Calvinism is true. The elect cannot possibly fail to answer the effectual call, and the non-elect cannot possibly answer the general call, so any warnings would be unneeded and nonsensical.

No, this passage clearly says the very same gospel is preached to all, but it does not profit those who do not believe. The reason we are warned is because men are ABLE to believe and are therefore respsonsible.

Scripture like this does not even make sense if Calvinism is true (it isn't).

 

[saturneptune]

Moderators,
This has become another nonsensical Calvin debate. Please move it to the new CA section where they can shout at each other until glorification.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is quite an accusation don't you think?



But that is NOT 100% of what the verse says. Without further description he claims the "him" that is drawn is "him that is raised and you do not believe that although that is the NATURAL interpretation as Christ does not make any different description of the "him" in the second clause from "him" in the first clause.



No it does not say "men who" but it says "EVERY MAN" that is "taught" by God comes to Christ. The same Greek word translated "all" is translated "every man." There can be no teaching without having "heard" and "learned" and yet "EVERY MAN" thus taught does come to God WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS as that is what "EVERY MAN" means, not "SOME" men nor "men who" which leaves open the possibility that some men don't when the text says "EVERY MAN" thus taught does!





You in fact did change words and you did omit words as I pointed out.



This text explicitly predicts NONE of the foolish and ungodly will come to him but God will mock them. Whereas, John 6:45 claims "EVERY MAN" so taught does come to Christ. There is simply no comparison between these but they are direct opposites and that is the difference between a purely OUTWARD call and an INWARD teaching by God. John 6:44-45 must be an INWARD teaching as it results in "every man" thus taught coming to Christ, while your passage teaches the very opposite.

So you have proven nothing but contradictions and inappropriate applications of scripture.

There is a pattern of eisgesis by those who deny the obvious teaching of this passage.

1. They deny that the "him" of the first clause in verse 44 has any correlation with the "him" of the second clause in verse 44

2. They deny that verse 45 has any correlation with the first clause of verse 44.

3. They deny any correlation between "draw" in verse 44 and "teach" in verse 45 when both are EQUALLY causal to coming to Christ.

4. They deny "coming to Christ" in verse 44 and verse 45 must include faith in Christ when it is obvious that no unbeliever can be raised to eternal life

5. They deny that "ALL" in the first clause of verse 45 has any correlation to "every man" in the second phrase of verse 45 even though they represent the same Greek term and even though the second clause is explanatory of what "taught" means in the first clause.

6. They deny that "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is COMPREHENSIVE of "every man" thus taught by God in the second clause because all thus taught come to Christ.

7. They deny that quoting of scripture by Christ in verse 45 follows the normal pattern by Christ for affirming a previous assertion.

This is the very same eisgetical tactic used by those who deny OSAS in verses 37-39. They dissect these verses so that one phrase does not correlate with another phrase. Then they JUMP out of the context to outside texts chosen to contradict the obvious flow and meaning of John 6:37-39.

I reject this clear eisgetical attempt to pit one part of a verse against another part of the verse.

1. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "him" drawn in the first clause of verse 44 is the "him" raised in the second clause of verse 45.

2. There is no exegetical grounds to reject the insertion of Isaiah 54:13 in verse 45 as explanatory of what it means to be drawn by the Father in verse 44.

3. There is no exegetical grounds to reject the comprehensive "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is the same comprehensive "every man" in the second clause of verse 45.

4. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "cometh unto me" as inclusive of faith because no man can be raised to eternal life in unbelief and the entire context demands that come to Christ means "come in faith to Christ.

5. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "taught" and "heard" and "learned" as internal invisible work of the Father that draws sinners to Christ as verse 46 demands this is an invisible work.

6. There is no exegetical grounds to repudiate that coming to Christ in faith is the work of the Father giving (vv. 37-39), drawing (v. 44) and teaching (v. 45) that is effectual to "all" given, to "him" drawn and to "every man" thus taught.

7. The responses by Winman and James depend upon dissecting and pitting one clause against another, denying "all" means "all" and reading into this passage outside texts in order to deny what the text clearly states to the contrary. The EXACT same eisgetical tactics used by those who oppose OSAS in verses 37-39. Only their theological bias forces them to apply such eisgetical tactics contrary to the NATURAL flow of the text.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is a pattern of eisgesis by those who deny the obvious teaching of this passage.

1. They deny that the "him" of the first clause in verse 44 has any correlation with the "him" of the second clause in verse 44

2. They deny that verse 45 has any correlation with the first clause of verse 44.

3. They deny any correlation between "draw" in verse 44 and "teach" in verse 45 when both are EQUALLY causal to coming to Christ.

4. They deny "coming to Christ" in verse 44 and verse 45 must include faith in Christ when it is obvious that no unbeliever can be raised to eternal life

5. They deny that "ALL" in the first clause of verse 45 has any correlation to "every man" in the second phrase of verse 45 even though they represent the same Greek term and even though the second clause is explanatory of what "taught" means in the first clause.

6. They deny that "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is COMPREHENSIVE of "every man" thus taught by God in the second clause because all thus taught come to Christ.

7. They deny that quoting of scripture by Christ in verse 45 follows the normal pattern by Christ for affirming a previous assertion.

This is the very same eisgetical tactic used by those who deny OSAS in verses 37-39. They dissect these verses so that one phrase does not correlate with another phrase. Then they JUMP out of the context to outside texts chosen to contradict the obvious flow and meaning of John 6:37-39.

I reject this clear eisgetical attempt to pit one part of a verse against another part of the verse.

1. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "him" drawn in the first clause of verse 44 is the "him" raised in the second clause of verse 45.

2. There is no exegetical grounds to reject the insertion of Isaiah 54:13 in verse 45 as explanatory of what it means to be drawn by the Father in verse 44.

3. There is no exegetical grounds to reject the comprehensive "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is the same comprehensive "every man" in the second clause of verse 45.

4. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "cometh unto me" as inclusive of faith because no man can be raised to eternal life in unbelief and the entire context demands that come to Christ means "come in faith to Christ.

5. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "taught" and "heard" and "learned" as internal invisible work of the Father that draws sinners to Christ as verse 46 demands this is an invisible work.

6. There is no exegetical grounds to repudiate that coming to Christ in faith is the work of the Father giving (vv. 37-39), drawing (v. 44) and teaching (v. 45) that is effectual to "all" given, to "him" drawn and to "every man" thus taught.

7. The responses by Winman and James depend upon dissecting and pitting one clause against another, denying "all" means "all" and reading into this passage outside texts in order to deny what the text clearly states to the contrary. The EXACT same eisgetical tactics used by those who oppose OSAS in verses 37-39. Only their theological bias forces them to apply such eisgetical tactics contrary to the NATURAL flow of the text.

In the first clause of verse 45 it does not say "SOME" shall be taught of God but "ALL" shall be taught of God. Whoever this "all" is, none fail to be taught by God. The same Greek term transalted "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is the same Greek term translated "every man" in the second clause of verse 45.
Thus "all" in the first clause EQUALS "all" in the second clause and NONE of that "all" in the second clause fails to come to Christ.

Moreover, "taught" in the first clause is further explained in the second clause to mean they have "heard" and they have "learned" of the Father. This should be obvious as it is impossible to say you have taught anyone if they have not "heard" you or "learned" from you. This further proves that "all" in the first clause equals "every man" in the second clause or else NONE of the "all" in the first clause have been taught by God.

Winman attempts to read into this text TWO different classes of people. He attempts to make the first "all" extend to all mankind without exception while the second "every man" to mean SOME of the "all" in the first clause but not equal to the "all" of the first clause. However, NONE can be "taught" by God if they have not "heard" and "Learned" from God and yet the first clause deamnds that ALL shall be taught by God. Second, if the text is read "They ALL shall be taught of God, ALL therefore that have heard and have learned come unto me." In contrast, Winman's explanation demands "all" will be taught of God without hearing and learning from God which is a contradiction because NONE can be taught without both hearing and learning, and yet "every man" that hears and learns does come to Christ. This is a total repudiation of Winman's attempt to classify "all" differently than "every man."

Moreover, the first clause is a scripture quotation while the second clause is explanatory of that scripture rather than a contrast to that scripture as Wiman's interpretation demands.

There is no exegetical basis for his distinction. The only basis for such a forced distinction is due to a theological bias period.

This is the same eisgetical tactic used in verse 44 that demands the second "him" in the second clause is not the first "him" in the first clause. There is no exegetical basis for such a distinction, only a theological bias can demand that.

 

[The Biblicist]

In the first clause of verse 45 it does not say "SOME" shall be taught of God but "ALL" shall be taught of God. Whoever this "all" is, none fail to be taught by God. The same Greek term transalted "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is the same Greek term translated "every man" in the second clause of verse 45.
Thus "all" in the first clause EQUALS "all" in the second clause and NONE of that "all" in the second clause fails to come to Christ.

Moreover, "taught" in the first clause is further explained in the second clause to mean they have "heard" and they have "learned" of the Father. This should be obvious as it is impossible to say you have taught anyone if they have not "heard" you or "learned" from you. This further proves that "all" in the first clause equals "every man" in the second clause or else NONE of the "all" in the first clause have been taught by God.

Winman attempts to read into this text TWO different classes of people. He attempts to make the first "all" extend to all mankind without exception while the second "every man" to mean SOME of the "all" in the first clause but not equal to the "all" of the first clause. However, NONE can be "taught" by God if they have not "heard" and "Learned" from God and yet the first clause deamnds that ALL shall be taught by God. Second, if the text is read "They ALL shall be taught of God, ALL therefore that have heard and have learned come unto me." In contrast, Winman's explanation demands "all" will be taught of God without hearing and learning from God which is a contradiction because NONE can be taught without both hearing and learning, and yet "every man" that hears and learns does come to Christ. This is a total repudiation of Winman's attempt to classify "all" differently than "every man."

Moreover, the first clause is a scripture quotation while the second clause is explanatory of that scripture rather than a contrast to that scripture as Wiman's interpretation demands.

There is no exegetical basis for his distinction. The only basis for such a forced distinction is due to a theological bias period.

This is the same eisgetical tactic used in verse 44 that demands the second "him" in the second clause is not the first "him" in the first clause. There is no exegetical basis for such a distinction, only a theological bias can demand that.

The same attempt by Winman and James with verse 45 to read into it two different classes of people is also applied by them to verse 44.

They demand the first "him" in the first clause of verse 44 is not the "him" of the second clause of verse 44 because if they admit that then all drawn equall all raised to eternal life just as all taught equal every man coming to Christ in verse 45.

However, this unnatural interpretation can be exposed by simply asking the question What "him" is raised to eternal ife in verse 44? If the text is allowed to answer that question then the ONLY answer the text supplies is the "him" that is drawn:

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.

The context offers no other answer. Verses 41-43 describe those who will not believe in him. The answer offered by Winman and James is theologically READ INTO the text rather than exegetically read out of the text.

Thus the "him" drawn is the only possible "him" the context offers that can be raised to life. However, Winman and James reject this not because it is contextually sound as the only contextual option but because it does not fit their theology.

This is the same reason they reject "all" in verse 45a to be "every man" in verse 45b not because it is exegetically unsound but because it does not fit their theology. Exegetically it is impossible for anyone to be taught, much less "all" to be taught by God if they never have HEARD or LEARNED from God. Exegetically it is the very same Greek term translated "all" that is translated "every man." Exegetically the first clause is a scripture quotation while the second clause is an explanation of that quotation.

Hence, there is no exegetical reason for Winman's interpretation but only a theological reason in spite of the exegetical facts of the text are contrary to his theology.

 

[The Biblicist]

The same attempt by Winman and James with verse 45 to read into it two different classes of people is also applied by them to verse 44.

They demand the first "him" in the first clause of verse 44 is not the "him" of the second clause of verse 44 because if they admit that then all drawn equall all raised to eternal life just as all taught equal every man coming to Christ in verse 45.

However, this unnatural interpretation can be exposed by simply asking the question What "him" is raised to eternal ife in verse 44? If the text is allowed to answer that question then the ONLY answer the text supplies is the "him" that is drawn:

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.

The context offers no other answer. Verses 41-43 describe those who will not believe in him. The answer offered by Winman and James is theologically READ INTO the text rather than exegetically read out of the text.

Thus the "him" drawn is the only possible "him" the context offers that can be raised to life. However, Winman and James reject this not because it is contextually sound as the only contextual option but because it does not fit their theology.

This is the same reason they reject "all" in verse 45a to be "every man" in verse 45b not because it is exegetically unsound but because it does not fit their theology. Exegetically it is impossible for anyone to be taught, much less "all" to be taught by God if they never have HEARD or LEARNED from God. Exegetically it is the very same Greek term translated "all" that is translated "every man." Exegetically the first clause is a scripture quotation while the second clause is an explanation of that quotation.

Hence, there is no exegetical reason for Winman's interpretation but only a theological reason in spite of the exegetical facts of the text are contrary to his theology.

"

Taught of God​

​

"​

Is it possible to claim you have been "taught" if you neither have "heard" the teacher or "learned" from a teacher? No!

Is it possible to claim you have taught "ALL" if SOME have never "heard" you speak or "learned" from you? No!

Therefore, for "all" to be "taught of God" demands that "EVERY MAN" must have "heard" and have "learned" of God or else "ALL" have not been taught of God.

Here is the exegetical problem for Winman and James. Jesus demands that "EVERY MAN" who has "heard" and "learned" comes to him. NONE fail to come to Him that have been "TAUGHT" of God if teaching includes hearing and learning.

This not only demonstrastes their interpretation of this text is theological based instead of exegetical based but these facts completely repudiate their theology. It demands that "ALL" equals "EVERY MAN" in verse 45 or NONE have been taught by God.

This also demonstrates that verse 45 is further explanatory of verse 44 and what it means to be drawn by the Father. Drawing by the Father must refer to INTERNAL influence by the Father that brings them to Christ in faith because Christ does not promise to raise unbeleivers to life. To be drawn by the Father is to be "taught" by the Father and teaching requires they have both "heard" and "learned" of the Father. The latter "learned" includes obedience which results in coming to the Son.

This whole context defends that faith is the work of God (v. 29) explained in God giving, drawing/teaching so that a person comes to Christ in faith. This is the effectual call clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Rom. 8:28-30; etc.).

Jesus said that the PLURAL "prophets" said this:

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. - Jer. 31:34


This passage is quoted by the writer of hebrews (Heb. 8; 10) and called the "new" covenant which not only will be applied to Israel IN THE FUTURE but is applied to the Hebrew Christians being written to as the "new" covenant (Heb. 10:15-17). It is contrasted to the "old" covenant and described as the "new" covenant fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ as our High Priest (Heb. 8-10). Hence, "ALL" in John 6:45 refers to the covenant seed of promise or all those "given" to Christ (Rom. 4:16; Jn. 17:3) or the elect.

 

[Revmitchell]

Moderators,
This has become another nonsensical Calvin debate. Please move it to the new CA section where they can shout at each other until glorification.

I wonder what you do with a thread where the author is continually quoting himself. Is there a vanity forum?

 

[The Biblicist]

I wonder what you do with a thread where the author is continually quoting himself. Is there a vanity forum?

You consistently provide NOTHING to any discussion except complaints. Notice in my posts I restrict my comments to scriptures not people, and positions not persons.

I quote my previous post because I am continuing a thought related to the previous post. Isn't that how any good teacher teaches or any good preacher preaches or any good writer writes? What is the old addage? Tell them what you are going to say, then tell them, and then tell them what you said.

Try making a contribution rather than just complaining all the time.

 

[Revmitchell]

You consistently provide NOTHING to any discussion except complaints. Notice in my posts I restrict my comments to scriptures not people, and positions not persons.

I quote my previous post because I am continuing a thought related to the previous post. Isn't that how any good teacher teaches or any good preacher preaches or any good writer writes? What is the old addage? Tell them what you are going to say, then tell them, and then tell them what you said.

Try making a contribution rather than just complaining all the time.

You contribute nothing. All you know how to do is to tell anyone who disagrees with you is that their logic is wrong. Thats it! Nothing more. Oh wait then you have the audacity to tell other people what their logic is on things they have not discussed.Your posts are consistently inflammatory. When you actually contribute to any discussion in a reasonable manner you may get a reasonable response.