Drawing and John 6

[jbh28]

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.

if a person didn't go to the concert, they couldn't say they drew you to the concert. you might have been drawn.(end of sentence) but you were not drawn TO the concert. When a concert says they dew a large audience and only 1 person came, would you say they were correct? Well, thousands of people wanted to come but at the last minute couldn't come for some reason. No, only the ones that came were drawn TO the concert.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

The reference to being "drawn part way" is what we are allowing for in our interpretation of the text. Like the illustration of when the seed falls on good soil but is snatched up by the birds or strangled by the weeds...one could argue they were "drawn" or the gospel itself "appealed" to them but they didn't come all the way to salvation. Something got in the way. Something kept them from being drawn all the way to Christ. Understand?

Another point that should be mentioned here is regarding why Jesus would use such a strong work like ἕλκω in this passage. Remember, He is speaking to a crowd of people who are being judicially hardened. That means they have been given eyes of stupor and ears that cannot hear. The ONLY way they could become one of the disciples (like the 12) would be if God had reserved them from that hardening and shown them the truth clearly, as he did with the 12. The point therefore Jesus is making is that the apostles had been "drawn" out of Israel, while the rest are being hardened, thus NNE could come to Christ because the gospel had not yet gone out.

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.

I agree that God must draw a person before he can come. I hope you understand that.

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 agree. And in the context of John 6 the "effectual" work of drawing the remnant of Israel had already taken place. But, to presume that God will call all those who believe in their message by the same effectual means is unfounded. Proving God effectually caused Jonah to be a missionary to Nineveh is not proof that those who believed his message where likewise effectually caused to believe.

 

[jbh28]

The reference to being "drawn part way" is what we are allowing for in our interpretation of the text. Like the illustration of when the seed falls on good soil but is snatched up by the birds or strangled by the weeds...one could argue they were "drawn" or the gospel itself "appealed" to them but they didn't come all the way to salvation. Something got in the way. Something kept them from being drawn all the way to Christ. Understand?

No problem. you are using context instead of changing the definition. I believe it means draws to Christ. No man can come TO CHRIST unless the father draws him? Draws him to where?

Another point that should be mentioned here is regarding why Jesus would use such a strong work like ἕλκω in this passage. Remember, He is speaking to a crowd of people who are being judicially hardened. That means they have been given eyes of stupor and ears that cannot hear. The ONLY way they could become one of the disciples (like the 12) would be if God had reserved them from that hardening and shown them the truth clearly, as he did with the 12. The point therefore Jesus is making is that the apostles had been "drawn" out of Israel, while the rest are being hardened, thus NNE could come to Christ because the gospel had not yet gone out.[/quote]
so is the passage non-relevant today? but then you say...

I agree that God must draw a person before he can come. I hope you understand that.

good

I agree. And in the context of John 6 the "effectual" work of drawing the remnant of Israel had already taken place. But, to presume that God will call all those who believe in their message by the same effectual means is unfounded. Proving God effectually caused Jonah to be a missionary to Nineveh is not proof that those who believed his message where likewise effectually caused to believe.

Not quite sure what you are saying here.

 

[Winman]

if a person didn't go to the concert, they couldn't say they drew you to the concert. you might have been drawn.(end of sentence) but you were not drawn TO the concert. When a concert says they dew a large audience and only 1 person came, would you say they were correct? Well, thousands of people wanted to come but at the last minute couldn't come for some reason. No, only the ones that came were drawn TO the concert.

This is getting ridiculous. You are forcing only one definition of the word drawn on the word. I would bet that most of your Calvinist friends here would say you are being extreme to say the least. Spurgeon absolutely showed that he did not believe the word drawn to mean to completion, he said all men who hear the gospel are drawn, but not all come. He said a man can resist or pull back against this drawing to the point to where Jesus gives up on the man. Do I really need to post his quotes again?

You are just being stubborn and obstinate. A person can be drawn to many things, and the attraction or pull can be quite strong. A smoker who gives up smoking is very drawn to smoke again for many months, but many people successfully resist the temptation and quit.

But you make the ridiculous argument these persons were not drawn at all. It is absurd, and very disingenuous on your part if you ask me. You know quite clearly what everybody is saying, and you know from your own personal experience that a person can be drawn, be enticed, be attracted to something but resist it. If you don't know this, you have to be one the most inexperienced persons around, my children understand this.

But you go right on being stubborn, it does not and will never make you correct.

 

[jbh28]

This is getting ridiculous. You are forcing only one definition of the word drawn on the word. I would bet that most of your Calvinist friends here would say you are being extreme to say the least. Spurgeon absolutely showed that he did not believe the word drawn to mean to completion, he said all men who hear the gospel are drawn, but not all come. He said a man can resist or pull back against this drawing to the point to where Jesus gives up on the man. Do I really need to post his quotes again?

I wonder if you have the ability to read any better than a child. I didn't say there was only one definition of the word draw now did I. I said that for something to have been drawn TO something, it means it is complete. And the dictionary(including the ones you gave) supported this. Drawing is a different term, it means it isn't complete. People may be drawn, but are they drawn TO CHRIST. At least Skandelon recognizes this. We disagree, but he is using context to say that it doesn't mean to Christ here.

You are just being stubborn and obstinate. A person can be drawn to many things, and the attraction or pull can be quite strong. A smoker who gives up smoking is very drawn to smoke again for many months, but many people successfully resist the temptation and quit.

using the wrong term doesn't make the definition change.

But you make the ridiculous argument these persons were not drawn at all.

where have I said that? I said they were not drawn to Christ.

It is absurd, and very disingenuous on your part if you ask me. You know quite clearly what everybody is saying, and you know from your own personal experience that a person can be drawn, be enticed, be attracted to something but resist it. If you don't know this, you have to be one the most inexperienced persons around, my children understand this.

Again, using an 11 year old isn't a valid argument. they don't have a full grasp of language. Maybe that is your problem, you think too much like a child. you can be attracted to something , but not drawn to something. Go back and re-read the examples YOU gave. A concert draws a crowd. Who are the ones it has drawn? Only the ones that came.

But you go right on being stubborn, it does not and will never make you correct.

Now you have just resorted to attacks on the person instead of the argument. Very telling. At least Skandelon recognizes what the term means. The difference between him and me is that of the context of the term.

It's not ridiculous. You didn't even have a good answer to what I said in the quote. What is ridiculous that you have taken this way too personally. You should step back for a while and take a breath. I do not come here to attack others for their beliefs, but to learn. Skandelon has made some very good points. I may not agree, but at least he has stuck with the subject instead of attempting to make it personal. Of that, I have high respect for him. I can respect a person and disagree with them at the same time.

 

[npetreley]

Hey Npet, it's good to have you back! Long time, no see.

You're welcome to enter the fray against the wiles of Winman. You've had the chance to renew your batteries -- I'm tired of his unwillingness to submit to God's Word.

Hiya Rippon, it's nice to see you, too. I don't remember Winman. I remember Skandelon [attack snipped]

 

[Winman]

I said that for something to have been drawn TO something, it means it is complete.

You are using a play on words and circular reasoning. You are simply saying for something to be drawn TO something, it must be drawn TO something.

I get it, everybody gets it. But that is not the definition of the word drawn, no matter how often you say it is. Spurgeon didn't insist something had to be drawn TO something to be drawn, and he was a Calvinist. He said all men who hear the gospel are drawn TO Christ, but not all that are drawn come.

You are playing with the word TO.

And the funny part is, Jesus didn't say all men would be drawn to him, he said UNTO him. So, you are arguing about a word that isn't even in John 12:32.

Strong's defines this word unto as:

1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to

And as you see, this word does not mean a person will be brought to completion 100% of the time. Definition #2 (which comes before #3), says NEAR or BY.

where have I said that? I said they were not drawn to Christ.

You have said repeatedly that if a person doesn't come, they weren't drawn. Now you are being cute (NOT) by adding the word "to" to drawn. But that is not what you said in earlier posts. For example, here is something you wrote in post #83.

Now, I challenge you again, please show one passage that says someone was drawn, but didn't come.

Uh oh, you forgot to say TO here.

All this just goes to show you will shift your position, and change definitions to make yourself appear correct, when clearly you are in error.

You know, I thought if I posted Spurgeon's sermon, that you would actually listen to him. I knew you would never take my word for it. But you are determined to hold to your doctrine no matter the cost. That is your problem not mine.

 

[jbh28]

You are using a play on words and circular reasoning. You are simply saying for something to be drawn TO something, it must be drawn TO something.

Again, more false witnessing. I said that for a person to be drawn to something it means he came to something.

I get it, everybody gets it. But that is not the definition of the word drawn, no matter how often you say it is. Spurgeon didn't insist something had to be drawn TO something to be drawn, and he was a Calvinist. He said all men who hear the gospel are drawn TO Christ, but not all that are drawn come.

I'm not arguing about Spurgeon(which totally agrees with me by the way). Also, All men are drawn doesn't equal all men are drawn to Christ.

You are playing with the word TO.

And the funny part is, Jesus didn't say all men would be drawn to him, he said UNTO him. So, you are arguing about a word that isn't even in John 12:32.

Actually he did say "to". Same word for "unto" as "to" and it is translated as to as well as "unto." We would translate it as "to" today.

Strong's defines this word unto as:

1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to

And as you see, this word does not mean a person will be brought to completion 100% of the time. Definition #2 (which comes before #3), says NEAR or BY.

Were you being serious? You don't determine a definition by the order it appears. You determine it by its context. Maybe you are on an elementary level of language. Context determines what it means. To and towards can have different meanings. And in the term draw, it does. to be drawn to something and to be drawn toward something can have different meanings. It's not play on words, it called understanding language and how language works. to be drawn toward something can mean that you were on your way, but didn't make it. But to be drawn to something, it means you came in the sense it is being used here. Like the example you gave from the dictionary about a concert drew a large audience. the large audience are the ones that came.

You have said repeatedly that if a person doesn't come, they weren't drawn.

No, no, no. please stop lying. I said that if a person is drawn TO something, it means he came TO that something. I have corrected you many times on this misrepresentation and now it must just by lying.

Now you are being cute (NOT) by adding the word "to" to drawn. But that is not what you said in earlier posts. For example, here is something you wrote in post #83.

And by context of our discussion(which was obvious) I was referring being drawn to something. This is something I have said many times, but you keep removing the word to and assuming it isn't in the sentence.

Uh oh, you forgot to say TO here.

Sorry, I though you were bight enough to understand that by the context of our discussion.

All this just goes to show you will shift your position, and change definitions to make yourself appear correct, when clearly you are in error.

you lie again. i haven't shifted my positions. And even if I did, would that be a problem? If I realized I was wrong and changed my position, how would that be a bad thing?

You know, I thought if I posted Spurgeon's sermon, that you would actually listen to him. I knew you would never take my word for it. But you are determined to hold to your doctrine no matter the cost. That is your problem not mine.

you do realize that Spurgeon agrees with me right? Also, Spurgeon isn't my final authority. Again, you can't seem to debate what I say, you like to misrepresent.

 

[Skandelon]

Hey Nick. Sure good to have you back. I missed all the personal attacks and overall immaturity. I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not a puppet for anyone and I don't know of anyone who got kicked off this board for lying to anyone. You need to get your facts straight before making accusations.

 

[Skandelon]

so is the passage non-relevant today?

It's relevant in that we need God to do something in order for us to believe the gospel. He had to send the gospel. That is the means God has chosen to draw all men to himself. In John 6 it hasn't yet been sent out and the Jews are being hardened so that they can't believe or come to Christ. ONly those individual selected by God for Christ where willing to stick around with him because they are the "remnant of Israel" reserved from the judicially hardening process.

Not quite sure what you are saying here.

You need to try and understand my perspective on this so you at least understand what you are attempting to refute. I don't care if you agree, but I would like for you to understand. Why I was a Calvinist I really didn't understand this perspective either, most Calvinists today don't.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Good/bad content thus far but I must have missed that it is so far past the 10-page limit. my fault but closing it now.

If anyone desires to take a point missed or not developed and start a new thread, go for it.