" Drawing "

[Bismarck]

I made this point in a Bible study awhile back, that the word translated "draw" was the same word used for drawing the sword, drawing in the fishing net, etc. Sounds pretty "irresistable". I was told that in those verses (sword, net) that the word means "will come", but in the case of PEOPLE being drawn, it means "may come". It sounded like a very subjective explanation to me, but I know very little about Greek, so I'm certainly in no position to say for sure.

Wow, you just gave me an idea! How can I possibly be wrong here??

Please sit back and watch for a moment — the key word is draw:

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, 'Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?'
John 18:10-11​

Jesus "thwarted" or "resisted" Simon Kepha (Peter)'s drawing of the sword. Drawing is resistable.

And he [Jesus] said unto them, 'Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find'. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, 'It is the Lord'. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt [his] fisher's coat [unto him], (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, 'Bring of the fish which ye have now caught'. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.
John 21:6-11​

We see from the sequence of events here that (1) at first they could not draw the net (v.6); (2) after recognizing Jesus Christ (v.7) and by his bidding (v.10) they could now draw the net.

Again, "drawing" is a resistable verb...

which resistance is overcome by your recognizing Jesus Christ [in your heart / life] and by his authority and your obedience to his words.

 

[Bismarck]

And faith is given to us by God. Belief/faith is an exercise of the will, don't you agree? We are not born again by our will or any act of the flesh. I don't need to give the biblical reference.... you know it well.

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.
Romans 4:3 (Gen 15:6 LXX)​

(1) Belief is an act of your will

(2) Being born again — since, by your Belief, righteousness is counted towards you — is an act of YHWH-God's will


You believe, and accept God into your life... and then God's Holy and Cleansing Spirit comes into your life (proceeding forth from God the Father).

You opened the door... YHWH-God came in.

You didn't make God come in, you didn't do what God did once inside... but you did open the door.

 

[Bismarck]

Exactly by denying what nature so clearly shows:
Rom 1:18-32
They even KNOW the glory, Godhead, and Judgment of God to come.
That is some pretty thorough truth, agreed?

Is this related?

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
James 2:19​

 

[Bismarck]

"What shall WE do that WE might work the works of God?" John 6:28

Here's the issue, npetrely -- you say NOTHING and Christ says BELIEVE.

"This is the work of God, that YOU believe on him whom he hath sent." Please do not make scripture say what it clearly doesn't say. It leads to errant theology and, in this case, errant sotierology as well.

skypair

In a sense, "works Righteousness"?

 

[Bismarck]

You, sir, have a perverse view of salvation. It is Calvinist "to the core" and that is why it is perverse.

We MUST believe. We MUST believe to the extent that we REPENT and RECEIVE faith -- else you "believe in vain!"

God's "monergistic work" then is to REGENERATE us of which the realization of gives us FAITH -- faith is based on "evidence" and "substance," Heb 11:1, and the indwelling Spirit IS that "evidence" and "substance."

Let me ask you, "When you were saved, did you receive something you didn't believe?" Be careful --- you can only receive what you believe, sir. There's no receiving in ignorance. That would be like saying the heathen are saved and don't know it.

skypair

You repent...

God regenerates..?

 

[Bismarck]

BW : One has to compare Scripture with Scripture . In the 6th chapter of John drawing is in view . Verses 37,44, and 65 deal with it specifically .

Make sure your KJV lenses don't get in the way of your favorite interpretations . The equivalent of "men" isn't in the original of John 12:32 . He will draw all to Himself . All of whom ? Of all those he has given me ( Jesus said ) according to John 6:39 .

All are not drawn to Christ , only some . One can't come unless they are drawn . Those are the ones that the Father has given Jesus . They are drawn to a final conclusion which Romans 8:29-31 speaks about .

You just started with the words "I will draw all to me"...

and ended with the words "Jesus draws some unto him"...

?!

That must be a rather profound twisting of Scripture & logic.

Were those suffering in Hell long before Jesus was born drawn to Him ? Of course not . John 12:32 does not mean everyone who has and shall live on earth . It is referring to His elect ones . Those and those only are the ones who shall be drawn .

If all are drawn then all are saved . Now that's not true because you do not believe in Universalism , do you ?

But what about "for many are called, but few are chosen."

In 2 Corinthians 5:19 it says ( in my NLTse ) For God was in Christ , reconciling the world to himself , no longer counting people's sins against them ...

Yet has everyone had their sins counted ( or imputed ) to Christ , instead of toward themselves ? Of course not . Christ died for some people . Those people are known by various names in the Bible . Some designations are the elect , the sheep , the Church , the Body , the Bride , and on and on and on . He came specifically to save them . He did not come to save those whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life .

And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile
1 Peter 1:17

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:12​

Your deeds are what you do (active voice). Your doings / deeds => your judgement / doom, acceptance/rejection.

YHWH-God does not make you do wrong, lest you say YHWH-God is the author of sin and evil.

 

[Rippon]

My , my . BW is in a venomous mood . Apparently he's not used to the shorthand of "the originals" . I have taken it for granted that most of us know I am referring primarily to the Greek language manuscripts of nearly 2,000 years ago when referencing something in the N.T. Do I really have to spell out the obvious ? -- Well , ok , for the benefit of those with tender sensitivities --- We do not have the original autographs . I never claimed that we did . But certain folks need some elaboration .

Getting back to the theme of the OP . Yes , John 12:32 emphasizes that Jesus was saying in essence : "I will draw all of mine to Myself ." Who are they ? They are the ones the Father has given Him . ( see John 6:37 , 39, 65 ) . The "all" of John 12:32 does not , and can't mean each and every person who has , is , and shall live . One needs to compare 12:32 with 6:44 ,65 .

 

[Bismarck]

My , my . BW is in a venomous mood . Apparently he's not used to the shorthand of "the originals" . I have taken it for granted that most of us know I am referring primarily to the Greek language manuscripts of nearly 2,000 years ago when referencing something in the N.T. Do I really have to spell out the obvious ? -- Well , ok , for the benefit of those with tender sensitivities --- We do not have the original autographs . I never claimed that we did . But certain folks need some elaboration .

Getting back to the theme of the OP . Yes , John 12:32 emphasizes that Jesus was saying in essence : "I will draw all of mine to Myself ." Who are they ? They are the ones the Father has given Him . ( see John 6:37 , 39, 65 ) . The "all" of John 12:32 does not , and can't mean each and every person who has , is , and shall live . One needs to compare 12:32 with 6:44 ,65 .

This is not sound "hermeneutics" (I think that's the word, "interpretation of Scripture").

"All" is pas (G3956). The best way to interpret what pas means in John 12:32 is to compare it, not to John 6:44,65 where pas does not even appear (!!), but rather to all the 1243 verses in the Greek NT where pas does appear.

Here is the breakdown of how pas was translated by the AV committee:

AV — all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no +3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever +3739 +302 3, always +1223 3, daily +2250 2, any thing 2, no +3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26​

Upon the authority of the AV translation committee, it is quite clear that all means all.

REPEAT:

pas (G3956) does not appear in John 6:44, 65.

Have I been clear?

 

[Rippon]

Clear as mud . Just kidding . I do indeed think that John 12:32 needs to be compared with John 6:44,65 etc . In the 6th chapter it deals with the subject of drawing . All , as in "each and every person" is not in view . Only some are drawn . So , using the analogy of Scripture , 12:32 has to match up with and not contradict 6:44,65 et cetra .

The English word "all" in the Bible does not always mean every single person who has and shall live on earth . Of course Romans 3:23 is a grand exception . "All who will not be able to make it , please see me after class ." Many times in Scripture and in our lives we do not use the word in an absolute sense . "All who are weak and heavy-laden ..." All is frequently employed as a subset of a larger group .

O , the AV revisors made a number of blunders also . They were not inspired in the 2 Timothy 3:16 sense . You had said : " Upon the authority of the AV translation committee , it is quite clear that all means all ."

 

[skypair]

You repent...

God regenerates..?

Yes.

skypair

 

[skypair]

pas (G3956) does not appear in John 6:44, 65.

Have I been clear?

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is. :laugh:

Actually, you are perfectly clear --- the "mole" has come to "spy out our grace" has been discovered and shamed.

skypair

 

[Rippon]

So "pas" does not appear in John 6:44 and 65 . ( I never claimed otherwise ) . Therefore , some , not all ( as in each and every ) are drawn to Jesus by the Father . What's the problem ?

 

[Bro. Williams]

My , my . BW is in a venomous mood . Apparently he's not used to the shorthand of "the originals" . I have taken it for granted that most of us know I am referring primarily to the Greek language manuscripts of nearly 2,000 years ago when referencing something in the N.T. Do I really have to spell out the obvious ? -- Well , ok , for the benefit of those with tender sensitivities --- We do not have the original autographs . I never claimed that we did . But certain folks need some elaboration .

Getting back to the theme of the OP . Yes , John 12:32 emphasizes that Jesus was saying in essence : "I will draw all of mine to Myself ." Who are they ? They are the ones the Father has given Him . ( see John 6:37 , 39, 65 ) . The "all" of John 12:32 does not , and can't mean each and every person who has , is , and shall live . One needs to compare 12:32 with 6:44 ,65 .

Some of us strive to mean what we say and say what we mean. Others claim that knowling calling something what it is not, is the norm, expected and acceptable. Can you trust man who says one thing when he purposely admits he means another thing? Around these here parts we call that deception.

 

[Rippon]

Can't you type in standard English BW ? Only you have had a problem when I spoke of "the original(s)" .

 

[Bro. Williams]

You criticize my typing skills while ignoring your own lying, tsk tsk.

btw, I work third, had six hours of sleep, typed it the first thing in the morning for me, and am missing 5 keys on my keyboard at the moment due to 1 schnauzer and 1 lab - I also admit my issues with typing to fast and not proofreding before posting and the above named reasons included as well for my issues in grammar. But then again, what does it matter? This is informal, grammar is one thing, intentional deciet is another.

Also, if only one person has a problem with a brother sinning, then is the problem with the one pointing out the fault, or with all the others ignoring it?

 

[Bro. Williams]

Can't you type in standard English BW ?.

Without using the cotraction, that would read, "Can not you type in standard English BW?" Would that be correct standard English?

Maybe it is... I don't know.

 

[Rippon]

"Cannot you type" is indeed standard English . ( Cannot is one word , not two ) . I thought you were a KJO-guy . That construction is very common in your 1789 . But I prefer to use "cotractions" as you put it .

 

[Bro. Williams]

Like I said, I didn't know on that one. It sure looked funny and sounded off. You must understand, I accept everything in the KJV and question everything else, including your typing as well as my own.

I am aware of "cannot", but in modern English even that is used sparingly. I believe sparingly in mistake, as an English major and I spoke about last year.

 

[Bro. Williams]

BTW, looking into the usage, I assume I could classify it as similar to Dan 2:27

 

[Rippon]

BW : " I believe sparingly in mistake , as an English major and I spoke about last year ." Huh ?!

Here's what you said on 7/20 of this year regarding how meticulous you are with your English usage as you were chastising someone . : " Please , take no offense . I am anal on [ sic] these things by habit..."

Now , let's get back to the subject at-hand . Don't take any unwarranted name-calling detours this time BW . Can I "draw" you back to the topic ? ( Pun intended )