Drawing and John 6

[Skandelon]

No one can join the army unless they are recruited and then they will be trained at boot camp.

Does this statement mean that everyone who is recruited will go to boot camp? No.

A man will not believe the gospel unless he hears it and then he will be saved.

Does that mean everyone who hears the gospel will be saved? No. It's merely an example of one person who hears and is saved. To assume that all who are drawn will be saved is not supported by John 6.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No one can join the army unless they are recruited and then they will be trained at boot camp.

Does this statement mean that everyone who is recruited will go to boot camp? No.

A man will not believe the gospel unless he hears it and then he will be saved.

Does that mean everyone who hears the gospel will be saved? No. It's merely an example of one person who hears and is saved. To assume that all who are drawn will be saved is not supported by John 6.

Friend there is a difference between being recruited and being drafted. The drawing in John 6 is the draft. The sentence structure of John 6:44 demands that every single "him" that is drawn will be raised. The "him" raised has the nearest antecedant "him" that is drawn and therefore all the drawn are raised.

In John 6:45 "all" who are taught by God have "heard" and "learned" and "EVERYONE" of them come to Christ.

In contrast all who believe in Christ due to the general call of the gospel alone are false professors because they have never been "given" genuine saving faith in Christ (Jn. 6:64-65).

 

[jbh28]

No one can join the army unless they are recruited and then they will be trained at boot camp.

Does this statement mean that everyone who is recruited will go to boot camp? No.

You changed the term "draw" to "recruited." The definition of "recruited" doesn't mean that a person has gone to boot camp. draw means "to cause to come by attracting." Verse 44 says no man can come to Christ unless he is drawn to Christ. Christ is where the drawing is going to and to say a person is drawn to Christ, they came to Christ. If a person didn't come to Christ, they were not drawn to Christ. Words have meaning and draw always means that the object came. Whatever the object was drawn to, it means they came to.

A man will not believe the gospel unless he hears it and then he will be saved.

Does that mean everyone who hears the gospel will be saved? No. It's merely an example of one person who hears and is saved. To assume that all who are drawn will be saved is not supported by John 6.

Two problems. Again, you changed the term. Hearing doesn't mean being saved. Drawn to something means come to something. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.

Secondly, it is supported by John 6.
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. Both definition of the term draw"to cause to come by attracting" and the very text of John 6:44 says that all that are drawn to Christ come to Christ. anything else is to alter the definition of the term draw. It is very similar to an event that draws a big crowd. Only the ones that came were drawn to the event. You wouldn't say we drew 1000 people to the even if only 500 came. no, you only drew 500. how many people did you draw to the event? 500.

 

[Skandelon]

Of course I "changed the terms." I did so to illustrate my point, which you failed to address. Your definition "to cause to come by attracting" can be understood in more than one way. I could mean as you suggest that men are irresistibility attracted by God in such a way they would not and could not do otherwise but come to Christ, or it could mean what he explained, "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Seeing the Son, through the gospel message, (like when the snake is raised up in the wilderness) can be done by ANYONE (whosoever). That is like a "DRAWING" or invitation or an "appeal to be reconciled." There is nothing about that word that demands the interpretation of an irresistible force. In fact, Calvinists are typically the first to insist that God doesn't MAKE or FORCE people to be saved, but instead that people come willingly because they have a new heart (regeneration). So which is it? Does God irresistibly force someone to come as you seem to suggest the word "draw" must mean, or does he change their heart so they will willing come by their own will? If the latter then how does the connotation of the word "draw" as an irresistible force fit? Why draw someone who is already willing? And if not already willing why would the idea of dragging them against their will be an apt description?

Why not say, "No one can come to me unless I have regenerated them?" Or something to that effect? Why use the word "draw" to describe the act of regeneration or new birth when so many better words could have been chosen if that was the intent?

 

[jbh28]

Of course I "changed the terms." I did so to illustrate my point, which you failed to address. Your definition "to cause to come by attracting" can be understood in more than one way. I could mean as you suggest that men are irresistibility attracted by God in such a way they would not and could not do otherwise but come to Christ, or it could mean what he explained, "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

But, changing the term changed the definition. The terms you used didn't mean a completed action as does draw. to have drawn someone means they come. Yes, they come by believing on Him. They come willingly. Notice the term is transltead draw and not drag(which is a translation of that term) because the people come. No one can come to Christ unless he is drawn to Christ. Draw always means a completed action. If I say a drew some to come to the store, by definition, that means the person came. I did address you point by showing you that you changed the term. Recruited doesn't mean a person joined.

Seeing the Son, through the gospel message, (like when the snake is raised up in the wilderness) can be done by ANYONE (whosoever).

Anyone that believes will be saved, never denied that. God isn't going to be sitting there and someone believes and God rejects him.

That is like a "DRAWING" or invitation or an "appeal to be reconciled." There is nothing about that word that demands the interpretation of an irresistible force.

Did you read the definition I gave? I said to ATTRACT to cause to come. People do come willingly. Irresistible doesn't here mean that a person will want to resist but God won't let him, it means that it is so good that he wants nothing more than to come. Kinda like a chocolate lover finds a chocolate cake irresistible. Now, does the chocolate cake force the person to eat it? No, it is just so good that it draws the person to the cake. Now if the person doesn't come to the cake, they were not drawn to the cake.

In fact, Calvinists are typically the first to insist that God doesn't MAKE or FORCE people to be saved, but instead that people come willingly because they have a new heart (regeneration). So which is it? Does God irresistibly force someone to come as you seem to suggest the word "draw" must mean, or does he change their heart so they will willing come by their own will?

straw man. I haven't suggested that god forces someone to come. Did you read the definition of the term draw. And if you disagree, please supply another one. There are many definitions of the term, I chose that one because it most closely represents the passage. The dragging(forcing like you would drag a net) isn't what the passage is about.

If the latter then how does the connotation of the word "draw" as an irresistible force fit? Why draw someone who is already willing? And if not already willing why would the idea of dragging them against their will be an apt description?

As noted above, the term can be translated as drag, but I don't believe the context supports this here. You might want to consider reading what I write. What you are doing is going to your typical Calvinist definition and assuming I'm saying something that I am not.

Why not say, "No one can come to me unless I have regenerated them?" Or something to that effect? Why use the word "draw" to describe the act of regeneration or new birth when so many better words could have been chosen if that was the intent?

Because God is not forcing people to Salvation. God is drawing them and unless they are drawn to Christ, they will never come. The term is just fine. It means to attract to cause to come. It doesn't mean to drag in this context, but to cause a person to willingly come. They are willing because they have been changed by God. Kinda like an event attracts people to their building. They don't drag people. They attract people to come and those that come are the ones that they drew. The only difference is that a persons heart must be changed before they will want to come. Almost like the expression that the light bulb comes on. They finally see God and understand and want nothing more than to come to Him.

 

[The Archangel]

Of course I "changed the terms." I did so to illustrate my point, which you failed to address. Your definition "to cause to come by attracting" can be understood in more than one way. I could mean as you suggest that men are irresistibility attracted by God in such a way they would not and could not do otherwise but come to Christ, or it could mean what he explained, "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Seeing the Son, through the gospel message, (like when the snake is raised up in the wilderness) can be done by ANYONE (whosoever). That is like a "DRAWING" or invitation or an "appeal to be reconciled." There is nothing about that word that demands the interpretation of an irresistible force. In fact, Calvinists are typically the first to insist that God doesn't MAKE or FORCE people to be saved, but instead that people come willingly because they have a new heart (regeneration). So which is it? Does God irresistibly force someone to come as you seem to suggest the word "draw" must mean, or does he change their heart so they will willing come by their own will? If the latter then how does the connotation of the word "draw" as an irresistible force fit? Why draw someone who is already willing? And if not already willing why would the idea of dragging them against their will be an apt description?

Why not say, "No one can come to me unless I have regenerated them?" Or something to that effect? Why use the word "draw" to describe the act of regeneration or new birth when so many better words could have been chosen if that was the intent?

Just out of curiosity, is there a verse or verses where I can find the "whosoever" you are referring to?

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Any man that does come, is proof that his coming and obeying has been "wrought in God" (Jn. 3:21). This is precisely why Jesus began with the necessity of the new birth (Jn 3:1-9) BEFORE preaching the gospel to this Jewish THEOLOGION (Jn. 3:15-16) and concluded by denying any sinner would come to Christ without God doing a supernatural work first to them (Jn. 3:18-21).

Spurgeon got it right when he said all men who hear the gospel are drawn, but not all men who are drawn come. This shows the drawing comes from hearing the word of God, not being regenerated. John chapter 3 does not teach that a person must be born again to come to Jesus.

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 Peter 1:23 says we are born again by the word of God, so a person must hear and believe God's word to be born again. It is not enough to simply hear it.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:12 shows that to the unregenerate man who receives and believes on Jesus, to them God gives power to "become" a son of God. Verse 13 does not teach these persons were already born again as Calvinism falsely teaches or you would have a person being born again to be enabled to believe to afterward being given power by God to become a son of God.

That is ridiculous, because it is saying a person can be born again and not be a son of God (until they believe on Christ). And we have had Calvinists here confirm this false belief, some saying a man can be born again for years before believing on Jesus.

You falsely teach that being born again and being a son of God are two different things. Absurd.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

In neither of these verses does Jesus say one word to the effect that a man must be born again to come to him. He is saying a man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without being born again.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

John 5:40 proves that a man must come to Jesus to get life. You are not born again until you come (believe on) to Jesus. Jesus did not say a person cannot come to him because they do not have life, he said they do not have life because they will not come to him. This verse clearly teaches you must first come to Jesus, and that afterward you receive everlasting life (born again).

You can twist the scriptures any way you wish, but they clearly show that the unregenerate man first hears the word of God, then believes it, then receives the Holy Spirit and is born again.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter told these Jews they must first repent and trust Jesus for the remission of sins, and afterward would receive the Spirit. So, the first thing a man must do is repent, that is, turn to Jesus and come to him.

 

[Winman]

Friend there is a difference between being recruited and being drafted. The drawing in John 6 is the draft. The sentence structure of John 6:44 demands that every single "him" that is drawn will be raised. The "him" raised has the nearest antecedant "him" that is drawn and therefore all the drawn are raised.

John 6:44 does not demand that everyone who is drawn comes, that is an invention of Calvinism. It does demand that everyone who comes be drawn, and that person will be raised up at the last day, but that is an altogether different matter that you cannot discern because you see through a bias.

Every man who voluntarily joins the Army was recruited. But not all who are recruited by the Army join.

Every man who voluntarily joins the Army was recruited, and he shall wear the uniform.

Anybody would easily recognize that "he shall wear the uniform" applies to those who voluntarily joined the Army in this sentence, but does not apply to everyone who was recruited by the Army. And this is how John 6:44 reads as well. It is those who come who will be raised up, but not everyone who is drawn will be rasied up.

And being saved is not compulsory like the draft.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Notice Revelations 22:17 says that whosoever is willing "let him" take the water of life freely. "Let him" means to permit or allow, so salvation is voluntary, not compulsory.

 

[Winman]

Now if the person doesn't come to the cake, they were not drawn to the cake.

Ask any person on a diet who is trying to lose weight if they are not drawn to chocolate cake. Many will tell you that it is very difficult to resist and they were strongly drawn to it. But not every single person will yield to this strong temptation, many will not eat the cake. But to say they weren't drawn and attracted to the cake would be to deny reality itself. And this is your mindset.

Even Spurgeon said that every man who hears the gospel is drawn to a degree by it, but not all that are drawn will come to Jesus.

 

[Skandelon]

jbh, you are begging the question by assuming the very point up for debate. As Winman pointed out, one can be drawn to a cake and yet resist it. You define "draw" to fit your theology, but that is not necessarily the connotation of the original sentence...in fact that is the point up for debate and to assume it must be as you say is a fallacy call "begging the question." Understand?

I'll admit that the definition could be as you say, "effectual," but considering the fact that in the same book a few chapters later Jesus refers to drawing all men to himself, I really doubt that is the meaning.

Consider this. The whole reason that Calvinists insist there must be an effectual work is because they believe that men are born "Totally Depraved" or totally unable to willingly come to Christ from birth. But a simple survey of the book of John reveals that is NOT the reason Jesus' audience could not believe in him. Read what Jesus said about why his audience, the Jews, could not believe...

39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

Now, is that a condition from birth common to all mankind? NO. Consider what Paul said when quoting from this same passage in Isaiah:

27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28)

Notice they were NOT born calloused or unable to hear. In fact, Paul tells us exactly what they might have done had they not be hardened: "they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn." Further, he shows that this condition is unique to the Jews because the Gentiles "will listen."

Now, back the John 6. Jesus is speaking to a group of Jewish people who CANNOT come to Jesus because they are being hardened...NOT because they were born in some totally unable condition. Your very premise is flawed which is leading to incorrect conclusions.

 

[Skandelon]

Just out of curiosity, is there a verse or verses where I can find the "whosoever" you are referring to?

The Archangel

Why don't you just tell us the pat answer you have planned for my anticipated response, because we all know full well the verse in question.

 

[jbh28]

jbh, you are begging the question by assuming the very point up for debate. As Winman pointed out, one can be drawn to a cake and yet resist it. You define "draw" to fit your theology, but that is not necessarily the connotation of the original sentence...in fact that is the point up for debate and to assume it must be as you say is a fallacy call "begging the question." Understand?

no, it is just you guys changing the definition. I have given it before and you guys have yet to offer a different definition. If a person is draw TO a cake, then they came to the cake. If a person is drawn to Christ, they came to Christ. I'm not assuming anything, it is just looking at the definition of the term. Words have meaning and you can't change that if your theology doesn't fit. You never say someone is draw TO something unless they came to it. If you were drawn to an even, it means you came to the event.

I'll admit that the definition could be as you say, "effectual," but considering the fact that in the same book a few chapters later Jesus refers to drawing all men to himself, I really doubt that is the meaning.

So instead of looking at the passage in chapter 6, you abandon it and skip 6 chapters ahead of a totally different context. Of which it doesn't mean every single person will be drawn to Christ. Again, simple definition of the terms that you and winman like to change because it doesn't fit.

Consider this. The whole reason that Calvinists insist there must be an effectual work is because they believe that men are born "Totally Depraved" or totally unable to willingly come to Christ from birth. But a simple survey of the book of John reveals that is NOT the reason Jesus' audience could not believe in him. Read what Jesus said about why his audience, the Jews, could not believe...

39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

Now, is that a condition from birth common to all mankind? NO. Consider what Paul said when quoting from this same passage in Isaiah:

27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28)

Notice they were NOT born calloused or unable to hear. In fact, Paul tells us exactly what they might have done had they not be hardened: "they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn." Further, he shows that this condition is unique to the Jews because the Gentiles "will listen."

Now, back the John 6. Jesus is speaking to a group of Jewish people who CANNOT come to Jesus because they are being hardened...NOT because they were born in some totally unable condition. Your very premise is flawed which is leading to incorrect conclusions.

My point is that to be drawn to something means to come to something. That is all i have been pointing out. Let me ask you this, will a person ever want to come to Christ without God? Does the natural man ever seek after God without God?

 

[jbh28]

Ask any person on a diet who is trying to lose weight if they are not drawn to chocolate cake. Many will tell you that it is very difficult to resist and they were strongly drawn to it. But not every single person will yield to this strong temptation, many will not eat the cake. But to say they weren't drawn and attracted to the cake would be to deny reality itself. And this is your mindset.

Even Spurgeon said that every man who hears the gospel is drawn to a degree by it, but not all that are drawn will come to Jesus.

They were not drawn to it if they didn't go to it. Can you guys not read a dictionary? You keep wanting to change the definition of the term draw to fit your theology. I'm sticking with the definition of the words in the passage and interpreting them based on the words definition in their context. I'm not changing it. Being attracted doesn't equal drawn. It is how you are drawn, but unless you go, you haven't been fully drawn to.

All that are drawn TO CHRIST will come to Christ. It doesn't necessarily mean that God isn't drawING them, but to say they were drawn by definition means they came.

 

[Winman]

They were not drawn to it if they didn't go to it. Can you guys not read a dictionary? You keep wanting to change the definition of the term draw to fit your theology.

You know, sometimes you just know when a debate has reached a dead end. You have made up your mind. The dictionary does not define drawn as always meaning to completion. I even showed you the sermon of Charles Spurgeon, a famous Calvinist preacher who probably understood the scriptures much better than you, and even he said all men who hear the gospel are drawn, but not all men who are drawn come.

for Christ is lifted up and He is drawing all men to Him. But all men are not saved. No, for when drawn they do not come.

And you accuse me of redefining the word drawn to fit my theology?

Believe what you want, because that is what you will do.

 

[Skandelon]

no, it is just you guys changing the definition. I have given it before and you guys have yet to offer a different definition.

Not so, we have clearly shown you that we think of the word "draw" as being more of a wooing or inticing or inviting or appealling force rather than an irresistible one, but if you want to read it from a dictionary, here you go:

DRAW:
1. to cause to move in a particular direction by or as if by a pulling force; pull; drag (often fol. by along, away, in, out, or off).
2.to bring, take, or pull out, as from a receptacle or source: to draw water from a well.
3.to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.

You seem to support the idea of #1 while we support the idea of #3.

So instead of looking at the passage in chapter 6, you abandon it and skip 6 chapters ahead of a totally different context. Of which it doesn't mean every single person will be drawn to Christ. Again, simple definition of the terms that you and winman like to change because it doesn't fit.

We did look at the passage. Winman and I both have talked about John 6 thousands of times on this board...do a search if you don't believe me. This has nothing to do with us trying to avoid or abandon a passage. Proper Hermeneutics teaches us to allow scripture to interpret scripture and since Jesus, still speaking to this audience of Jews tells them that he will draw all men to himself after he is raised up and He goes on to explain WHY they can't believe in 12:39-41, don't you think that might help us understand the intent in chapter 6? I don't see why you would want to avoid looking at the whole of scripture instead of just one stand alone proof text.

Let me ask you this, will a person ever want to come to Christ without God? Does the natural man ever seek after God without God?

No and no.

But God seeks man. "I've come to seek and save that which is lost."

"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

So, when I preach the gospel to a lost person that is FROM GOD, who reconciled me to Himself and gave me the ministry of reconciliation. God is making his appeal (draw) through us. He "implores" (draws) you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

 

[jbh28]

You know, sometimes you just know when a debate has reached a dead end. You have made up your mind. The dictionary does not define drawn as always meaning to completion. I even showed you the sermon of Charles Spurgeon, a famous Calvinist preacher who probably understood the scriptures much better than you, and even he said all men who hear the gospel are drawn, but not all men who are drawn come.



And you accuse me of redefining the word drawn to fit my theology?

Believe what you want, because that is what you will do.

Can you give me a dictionary definition please if you are not changing the definition. What from I have found, to be drawn TO something means you came TO something. You could say a fish was drawn but not make it to your boat. The fish was drawn To a point, but not to your boat. But to say your fish was drawn TO your boat, means the fish came to your boat. Could you give any evidence of the dictionary giving a definition of not having a completed action?

 

[Winman]

Can you give me a dictionary definition please if you are not changing the definition. What from I have found, to be drawn TO something means you came TO something. You could say a fish was drawn but not make it to your boat. The fish was drawn To a point, but not to your boat. But to say your fish was drawn TO your boat, means the fish came to your boat. Could you give any evidence of the dictionary giving a definition of not having a completed action?

Well, to find out the definition of drawn, you have to look up draw in the dictionary. Drawn is the past participle of the word draw.

Draw is defined (I am only going to list those definitions that pertain to this discussion)

1.to cause to move in a particular direction by or as if by a pulling force; pull; drag (often fol. by along, away, in, out, or off).

OK, this says draw means to cause to move in a certain direction as if by a pulling force. But it does not say or even remotely imply that this pulling must be to completion.

3.to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.

This also means to bring or pull something or someone towards oneself, but again it does not say that it has to be to completion. Now, of course, if something is pulled to completion, it was drawn. But nowhere in this definition is even the faintest implication that something MUST be drawn to completion as you demand.

Webster's offers you a little support.

1 : to cause to move continuously toward or after a force applied in advance

I would disagree that draw always means continuously, though in some cases it can mean that.

2 : to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading) <drew him aside>

This can mean to completion, but it is not mandatory. For instance, I read about a battle in the Pacific where the Japanese sent a fleet of ships to draw the American fleet away from a certain position so that they could attack an American landing force. It was a diversion, as the Japanese had another fleet ready to pounce on our landing force as soon as the protecting ships were drawn away. It worked for awhile and our protective fleet chased after this diversionary Japanese fleet. But fortunately, the American fleet realized the diversion and quickly returned to confront the Japanese fleet that had come out of hiding. We were able to drive this second fleet of ships off and successfully invade the island.

So, our ships were drawn away for awhile, but pulled away and returned to protect our landing force.

3 a : to bring by inducement or allure : attract <honey draws flies>

I personally believe this is the best definition to fit John 12:32, and Spurgeon seems to agree with this also. It means to allure, or attract primarily. We have already talked about chocolate cake. A person on a diet may be strongly drawn to eat cake but resist and not eat the cake.

None of these definitions says it is mandatory that the thing drawn has to be brought to completion 100% of the time as you demand. In fact, none of these defintions says they have to be drawn to completion at all.

Edit- My 11 year old daughter read my post and says it is obvious that when a person is drawn it does not have to be to completion. She said just because she sees a cake and is tempted to eat it, doesn't mean that she has to eat it or will.

She said this was OBVIOUS, but somehow you cannot see this.

 

[jbh28]

Not so, we have clearly shown you that we think of the word "draw" as being more of a wooing or inticing or inviting or appealling force rather than an irresistible one, but if you want to read it from a dictionary, here you go:

DRAW:
1. to cause to move in a particular direction by or as if by a pulling force; pull; drag (often fol. by along, away, in, out, or off).
2.to bring, take, or pull out, as from a receptacle or source: to draw water from a well.
3.to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.

You seem to support the idea of #1 while we support the idea of #3.

How many times must I say that definition #3 is the one I believe is happening in John 6? to attract to cause to come like an even drawing a crowd. Very much like your definition here. (just different sources wording it differently. Many times over I have said the definition #1 is incorrect because it speaks of coming, and that don't equat dragging. God doesn't drag a person to him.

Do you understand that now? I think you have misinterpreted what I have been saying.

Now, since that is all settled, lets look at your chosen definition. Do you consider anybody that didn't come to the concert drawn to the concert? No, it is only the ones that came. If nobody came, the concert didn't draw anybody to the concert. If they were drawn part way, then yes, they were drawn. But not drawn TO the concert. That's the difference.

We did look at the passage. Winman and I both have talked about John 6 thousands of times on this board...do a search if you don't believe me. This has nothing to do with us trying to avoid or abandon a passage.

I believe you. I'm sure this passage has come up many times.

Proper Hermeneutics teaches us to allow scripture to interpret scripture

I would agree[/quote] and since Jesus, still speaking to this audience of Jews tells them that he will draw all men to himself after he is raised up and He goes on to explain WHY they can't believe in 12:39-41, don't you think that might help us understand the intent in chapter 6? I don't see why you would want to avoid looking at the whole of scripture instead of just one stand alone proof text.[/quote]Again, I don't think that God forces people to come to him. It speaks of eyes being blinded to the truth. God opens their eyes so they can see. When this happens, they want to come to him. "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." That is why God must draw a person before he can come.

No and no.

But God seeks man. "I've come to seek and save that which is lost."

"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

So, when I preach the gospel to a lost person that is FROM GOD, who reconciled me to Himself and gave me the ministry of reconciliation. God is making his appeal (draw) through us. He "implores" (draws) you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

The problem is with the term draw. How do you draw someone? You "implore" them, you "appeal" you "attract" you "entice." But draw to something means that the action took place. It doesn't mean force necessarily, though it could. I don't believe the context of John 6 warrants such a definition of the term. I know some believe that, but I do not.

btw, I don't based my doctrine on any belief system like "TULIP." There are some parts of Calvinism that are right, but not all. I have issues with limited atonement(atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect(whoever believes), perseverance of the saints(works are a result of true salvation, but a person can slide away and still be considered saved. I understand that Calvinist don't believe you an lose your salvation, which I agree. Some Calvinist and I would agree on the doctrine while others will not) and some irresistible grace(some Calvinist believe God forces people(drag) I do not) and some depravity(man still have the image of God in him and can make morally good decisions, though I don't think man on his own will ever want to come to Christ) and some election(don't believe in double predestination or the predestination of the damned).

That is why I don't based my doctrines on TULIP. While I would say I lean in that direction, I think some things are taken too far, at least farther than the Bible teaches.

 

[Winman]

Now, since that is all settled, lets look at your chosen definition. Do you consider anybody that didn't come to the concert drawn to the concert? No, it is only the ones that came. If nobody came, the concert didn't draw anybody to the concert. If they were drawn part way, then yes, they were drawn. But not drawn TO the concert. That's the difference.

Of course if someone comes to the concert they were drawn, but that does not mean everyone who is drawn will come. You may have been very excited to see the concert and bought tickets months ahead of time, but the night of the concert a family member had a serious illness and you chose to go to the hospital to be with them instead.

You are forcing the word drawn to always mean to 100% completion, but that is not anybody's definition but yours. It is not the dictionary's definition.

It is actually another example of your circular reasoning. You are saying everyone who was drawn and came to the concert was drawn.

 

[jbh28]

Well, to find out the definition of drawn, you have to look up draw in the dictionary. Drawn is the past participle of the word draw.

Draw is defined (I am only going to list those definitions that pertain to this discussion)

1.to cause to move in a particular direction by or as if by a pulling force; pull; drag (often fol. by along, away, in, out, or off).

OK, this says draw means to cause to move in a certain direction as if by a pulling force. But it does not say or even remotely imply that this pulling must be to completion.

It depends on context. Per your example of the fish, this would be the definition of that example. You draw a fish out of the water. I'm sure you didn't attract the fish to come(though you would have to the bait, but not beyond that point). Basically, you dragged the fish. Now, to say you drew the fish out of the water, does that mean you drew the fish to your boat? No it does not. It means exactly what was said, you drew the fish out of the water, that means the fish came out of the water. You were drawing the fish to your boat, but didn't draw the fish to your boat. Again, depends on how you use it in a sentence. It is considered complete when you say draw TO something.

Also, I would agree, not the definition of the word draw in the context of John 6.

3.to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.

This also means to bring or pull something or someone towards oneself, but again it does not say that it has to be to completion. Now, of course, if something is pulled to completion, it was drawn. But nowhere in this definition is even the faintest implication that something MUST be drawn to completion as you demand.

Glad you agree that if something is drawn it is complete. Look at your example for this. (I btw, believe this to be the definition in John 6) If nobody went to the concert, then they couldn't say they drew anybody to the concert. only the ones that came were the ones that were drawn.

Webster's offers you a little support.

1 : to cause to move continuously toward or after a force applied in advance

I would disagree that draw always means continuously, though in some case it can mean that.

2 : to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading) <drew him aside>

This can mean to completion, but it is not mandatory. For instance, I read about a battle in the Pacific where the Japanese sent a fleet of ships to draw the American fleet away from a certain position so that they could attack an American landing force. It was a diversion, as the Japanese had another fleet ready to pounce on our landing force as soon as the protecting ships were drawn away. It worked for awhile and our protective fleet chased after this diversionary Japanese fleet. But fortunately, the American fleet realized the diversion and quickly returned to confront the Japanese fleet that had come out of hiding. We were able to drive this second fleet of ships off and successfully invade the island.

So, our ships were drawn away for awhile, but pulled away and returned to protect our landing force.

What if the ships never moved, then they wouldn't have been drawn away. Notice you didn't say you drew the ships to a certain point, just away from the original point. If you had said they drew the ships to a certain point, then that means they came to that point. If they didn't, then you would say you were drawing them to a point, but they returned to their original point.

3 a : to bring by inducement or allure : attract <honey draws flies>

I personally believe this is the best definition to fit John 12:32, and Spurgeon seems to agree with this also. It means to allure, or attract primarily. We have already talked about chocolate cake. A person on a diet may be strongly drawn to eat cake but resist and not eat the cake.

None of these definitions says it is mandatory that the thing drawn has to be brought to completion 100% of the time as you demand. In fact, none of these defintions says they have to be drawn to completion at all.

Edit- My 11 year old daughter read my post and says it is obvious that when a person is drawn it does not have to be to completion. She said just because she sees a cake and is tempted to eat it, doesn't mean that she has to eat it or will.

She said this was OBVIOUS, but somehow you cannot see this.

I'm glad you based your opinions on your 11 year old as she has had a lot of education on words and their meanings. No disrespect to you or her, but that isn't a valid argument. I didn't say the term draw by it self means completion(per your definitions) but to say you were drawn to something does. btw, just because someone misuses a term like draw doesn't make it right.