Giving by the Father - Jn. 6:37-65

[evangelist-7]

“All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me” (John 6:37)

“This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me
I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” (John 6:39)

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44)

“It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’
Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (John 6:45)

“And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me
unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (John 6:65)

“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all;
and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.” (John 10:29)

“as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life
to as many as You have given Him.” (John 17:2)

“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me,
for they are Yours.” (John 17:9)

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am,
that they may behold My glory which You have given Me” (John 17:24)

“Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” (Matthew 15:13)

IMO, none of these guarantee eternal life to anyone.

The toughest verse is #2, but is God's will always accomplished?
Think back through the OT, and currently in the NT.

Was it God's will that His chosen people and His BACs rebelled against Him,
continued to sin, and be disobedient, etc.?
Were all of His commands followed, etc.?
Was it God's will to strew His chosen people all over the desert floor?
(I can actually make the case that it was!)
Was it God's will that His BACs fall from grace, fall away period?
Was it God's will that His BACs who were "in Me" were fruitless?

But in the end, sorry ... Man's free will is King!
.

 

[The Biblicist]

“All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me” (John 6:37)

“This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me
I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” (John 6:39)

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44)

“It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’
Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (John 6:45)

“And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me
unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (John 6:65)

“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all;
and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.” (John 10:29)

“as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life
to as many as You have given Him.” (John 17:2)

“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me,
for they are Yours.” (John 17:9)

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am,
that they may behold My glory which You have given Me” (John 17:24)

“Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” (Matthew 15:13)

IMO, none of these guarantee eternal life to anyone.

The toughest verse is #2, but is God's will always accomplished?
Think back through the OT, and currently in the NT.

This thread is not dealing with the subject of eternal security. Please don't attempt to derail it. If you have comments that are consistent with the OP you are more than welcome to post them.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Issue

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.


64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

1. The issue is that Christ repetivily states "no man can" which is a universal assertion of total inability to come to Christ.

2. The only exception to this universal inability is the exception clause "except the Father...draw him" and verse 64 explcitly states and provides example that "THERE ARE SOME" the Father never draws and thus they never come to Christ in saving faith as verse 65 clearly states concerning those "SOME."


Therefore, this proves that "ALL" in verse 45 does not include "SOME".

Therefore, this proves that "THERE ARE SOME" never taught by God as "taught" equals "draw" in verse 44-45,65.

Therefore, this proves the "all" in John 12:32 does not exceed the "ALL" in John 6:45 who are "taught" (drawn) by the Father but refers to "ALL" of those given to the Son by the Father to come to him (Jn. 6:37-39).

Therefore, this proves that the profession of "SOME" of His "DISCIPLES" is not due to having been drawn by the Father, not due to having been "taught" by the Father and so this work of the Father is not PHYSICAL hearing or mere INTELLECTUAL learning but is only the work God can do WITHIN a person to bring them to Christ in faith.

This internal work by the Father is described as a CREATIVE work of God in 2 Cor. 4:6 whereby INNER revelation and understanding are imparted that reverse the unregenerate condition described in Ephesians 4:18.

 

[Winman]

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.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

1. The issue is that Christ repetivily states "no man can" which is a universal assertion of total inability to come to Christ.

Well, Jesus said no man can come to him unless the Father draws him. So yes, this shows an inability. But verse 45 explains what this inability is, it is a lack of knowledge. Only those who have been taught by the Father, only those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Jesus. Therefore, this inability is due to a lack of knowledge, not because men lack the ability to believe.

2. The only exception to this universal inability is the exception clause "except the Father...draw him" and verse 64 explcitly states and provides example that "THERE ARE SOME" the Father never draws and thus they never come to Christ in saving faith as verse 65 clearly states concerning those "SOME."

Yes, a person MUST be drawn to come. This does not mean that all drawn come.

Look, if you go fishing, every fish you catch was drawn, you hooked that fish and pulled it into your boat. Does that mean every fish you hooked and drew to your boat was caught? NO, fishermen lose fish all the time. Some fish struggle and fight and jump off the line. Every fisherman knows this.

You can insist ten thousand times that all drawn will come, and you will be wrong ten thousand times. In the parable of the wedding feast, many were called and bid, they were drawn, but they refused to come.

Therefore, this proves that "ALL" in verse 45 does not include "SOME".

The "every man" in verse 45 are those who listened to the word of God and learned. These are the ones who will come to Jesus. Those who did not listen and learn will not come to Jesus.

Therefore, this proves that "THERE ARE SOME" never taught by God as "taught" equals "draw" in verse 44-45,65.

God attempted to teach them, but they refused to hear and learn.

Do you think teachers in our schools only attempt to teach SOME of their students? NO, they try to teach every single student. Some students listen and learn, while others goof and and never learn. It is the same with the word of God, some men listen and learn. These men will come to Christ. Other men refuse to listen and learn, these men will not come to Christ. But all were drawn, God attempted to teach every man, just as a good teacher attempts to teach every student in his or her class.

Now, why do I have to explain this to you? Children know this.

Therefore, this proves the "all" in John 12:32 does not exceed the "ALL" in John 6:45 who are "taught" (drawn) by the Father but refers to "ALL" of those given to the Son by the Father to come to him (Jn. 6:37-39).

No, the "all" in John 12:32 means every single person everywhere. Just as a good teacher tries to teach every single student they have.

Therefore, this proves that the profession of "SOME" of His "DISCIPLES" is not due to having been drawn by the Father, not due to having been "taught" by the Father and so this work of the Father is not PHYSICAL hearing or mere INTELLECTUAL learning but is only the work God can do WITHIN a person to bring them to Christ in faith.

This internal work by the Father is described as a CREATIVE work of God in 2 Cor. 4:6 whereby INNER revelation and understanding are imparted that reverse the unregenerate condition described in Ephesians 4:18.

Boy, you are STUBBORN. Every person is drawn. God attempts to teach every person. But only those who take heed what they hear and listen to God learn. These persons who choose to listen and learn from God will come to Jesus.

Those foolish men who refuse to listen to God will not learn, and will not come to Jesus.

I'll tell you one person who is refusing to listen and learn right now, YOU.

 

[Skandelon]

Unlike many on this forum, I generally read the whole post before I comment. My first words were in response to the whole post including your conclusion.

Oh, enough said. I understand. I honestly couldn't figure out what you were disregarding about that quote. Now I know what you were meaning. Thanks for clarifying.

I followed by giving you specific reasons which you entirely omitted.

One thing at a time brother. No need to jump to conclusions. I will gladly address each point in time. I simply needed to know what about those things your rejected because those points were foundational to my argument. Now that I know you didn't reject those things, it helps.

Nice political tactic and showy but your position is just plain hogwash

This type of language and approach reflects poorly upon you personally and upon our whole forum and I would politely request that we refrain from taking this path. Thanks

 

[Van]

Calvinism relies of simply repeating Calvinist dogma over and over and over.

When the Father "gives someone" to Christ" He spiritually places the person in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit.

When a person comes to Christ, in this context, the person is transferred into Christ by God. In one case this is expressed using a word that means arrive in, but in other cases, the word means to travel toward.

Lets look at a few assertions of Calvinist dogma and the actual passage:

1. John 6:35 completely repudiates your view of coming to Christ is physical "travel to" IN THIS CONTEXT as this verse clearly defines "come" to mean "believe" or come to Christ in faith.

Note believing in Christ as determined by God is a prerequisite for God giving a person to Christ, thus those believing (as discerned by God) will never thirst and those that come to (are placed in)Christ will never be hungry.

37 - All that the Father gives to Me (places spiritually in Me) will come to (arrive in) Me, and the one who comes (travels) to Me, I will certainly not cast out. Obviously entry into Christ rather than professing faith is in view because the person "placed in Christ" will not be cast out. The Calvinist view is simply an attempted rewrite.

44 - No one can come (travel) to Me, unless the Father who sent Me, draws him, and I will raise him up (the one who God transferred into Me) on the last day. So the sequence is a person must be drawn, then based of crediting their faith or not, the Father must transfer the person into Christ, and then Christ will raise him or her up on the last day.

4. John 6:45 completely repudiates your view that drawing refers to EXTERNAL means by men but is explicitly stated to the be work of the Father which occurs INTERNALLY ...."

Note the utterly false claim my view is that drawing is done by men. LOL

45 - From verse 45, we see that of those drawn, only those who have both heard and learned (as determined by God and indicated by Him crediting that faith as righteousness) are then those who come (travel) to Me, indicating God placing them in Christ, the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

64 - As indicated in many passages, Jesus knew the hidden thoughts and motives and attitudes of those He interacted with. Thus of those professing belief and following Him, no doubt saying "Lord, Lord." He knew which of them believed wholeheartedly and which did not go "all in" for Jesus. Therefore He knew who did not believe, and who (Judas) would betray Him.

John 6:65 completely repudiates your view of "heard" and "learned" as these are results of the Father's work not the results of men and thus these are INTERNAL acts obtained by God's work not the work of men.

Note the redefinition of learned to say instilled. LOL

65 - Now in verse 65, John wraps it all up in a bow, no one can come (travel) to me unless it has been granted him from the Father. God can harden hearts and preclude wholehearted faith, and God can recognize less than wholehearted faith and not credit it as righteousness, and in either case, God does not transfer the person into Christ.

This is obvious and no amount of rewrite and word meaning change will alter the truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, Jesus said no man can come to him unless the Father draws him. So yes, this shows an inability. But verse 45 explains what this inability is, it is a lack of knowledge. Only those who have been taught by the Father, only those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Jesus. Therefore, this inability is due to a lack of knowledge, not because men lack the ability to believe.

Not so, as those in John 6:64-65 had not been drawn and yet had been discipled by Christ. Hence, they had PHYSICALLY heard men's voices but had not "heard" the Father, they had learned with the intellect but had not "learned" by divine revelation from the Father (Mt. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:4)Furthermore, this is teaching by "the Father."

Again, let me remind you this drawing, teaching comes from the Father not from men and thus this "hearing" and "learning" are consequences from direct teaching by the Father and not by men. If you dispute this then you contradict Jesus words to Peter in Matthew 16:17 where Jesus said it did not come from "flesh and blood" but from "the Father." Being wrong on this point invalidates all your points!

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinism relies of simply repeating Calvinist dogma over and over and over.

When the Father "gives someone" to Christ" He spiritually places the person in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit.

When a person comes to Christ, in this context, the person is transferred into Christ by God. In one case this is expressed using a word that means arrive in, but in other cases, the word means to travel toward.

Your personal opinion above has already been thoroughly repudiated by Biblical facts so why repeat again until you deal with those facts??????

If you don't remember, then go look at Jn. 17:2 where coming to Christ and given to Christ are used in the same text and note that giving precedes and is the cause for coming to Christ and eternal life is given to those coming to Him. So obviously, they were not placed in Christ prior to coming to Christ or prior to being given etenal life.

Second take note that the unregenerated condition is a spiritually dead condition (Eph. 2:1,5) that is described as being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). Spiritual death is SEPARATION from the life of God whereas Spiritual life is the precise opposite or UNION with God - God being the source of Spiritual life.

There is no possible way that anyone can be placed in Christ by the act being given to the Son by the Father as being given PRECEDES coming to Christ which PRECEDS eternal life. There are NO SPIRITUAL DEAD people "in Christ" but that is precisely what your logic (not scripture) demands.

Lets look at a few assertions of Calvinist dogma and the actual passage:

Note believing in Christ as determined by God is a prerequisite for God giving a person to Christ

Read the pasage again! Giving is the prerequisite for coming and coming is defined in the context (v. 35) as coming to faith in Christ.

You can attempt to rewrite the scriptures to suit your philosophical opinions but no one on this forum is going to swallow that kind of nonsense.

37 - All that the Father gives to Me (places spiritually in Me) will come to (arrive in) Me, and the one who comes (travels) to Me, I will certainly not cast out. Obviously entry into Christ rather than professing faith is in view because the person "placed in Christ" will not be cast out. The Calvinist view is simply an attempted rewrite.

The text says no such thing! Giving is present tense while "shall come" is future tense showing giving precedes coming and not as you claim coming precedes giving. Your interpertation is proven false by the grammar.

44 - No one can come (travel) to Me, unless the Father who sent Me, draws him, and I will raise him up (the one who God transferred into Me) on the last day. So the sequence is a person must be drawn, then based of crediting their faith or not, the Father must transfer the person into Christ, and then Christ will raise him or her up on the last day.

Those in John 6:64 did "travel" to Christ but the Father NEVER drew/taught them and drawing is the prerequiste for coming to Christ in the sense intended by the context. Hence, again your interpetation is proven false. The word "come" IN THIS CONTEXT is defined in verse 35 to mean "come to Christ in faith." Note those in verse NEVER BELIEVED and yet did "travel" to Christ, verbally heard Christ and intellectually learned of Christ because they are called "disicples" and yet THE FATHER NEVER DREW THEM (v. 65) thus never "taught" (v. 45a) thus they never "heard" or "learned" FROM THE FATHER. This again totaly repudiates your interpertations and exposes them as complete frauds forced upon scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh, enough said. I understand. I honestly couldn't figure out what you were disregarding about that quote. Now I know what you were meaning. Thanks for clarifying.

One thing at a time brother. No need to jump to conclusions. I will gladly address each point in time. I simply needed to know what about those things your rejected because those points were foundational to my argument. Now that I know you didn't reject those things, it helps.

This type of language and approach reflects poorly upon you personally and upon our whole forum and I would politely request that we refrain from taking this path. Thanks

Ok, I can appreciate your polite "request" and will honor it.

 

[Winman]

Not so, as those in John 6:64-65 had not been drawn and yet had been discipled by Christ. Hence, they had PHYSICALLY heard men's voices but had not "heard" the Father, they had learned with the intellect but had not "learned" by divine revelation from the Father (Mt. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:4)Furthermore, this is teaching by "the Father."

Learning from the Father simply means hearing and believing God's word as shown in John chapter 1.

Jhn 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

The "Messiah" was written of by Daniel (Dan 9:25,26). They knew of the Messiah because they knew and believed the writings of Daniel.

Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

When Philip and other disciples met Jesus, they knew he was the promised Messiah or Christ, because he lined up with those descriptions shown in the scriptures written by Moses and the prophets. This is how God revealed that Jesus was the Christ to the disciples.

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Here Jesus told unbelievers if they believed the writings of Moses, then they would believe in him.

So, the scriptures do not show or say that God supernaturally zaps people with faith. God gave his word through prophets, and this was the revelation that enabled men to believe. And as I have quoted several times, Jesus warned his disciples to take heed how they hear, to those that hear more will be given, but to those who do not hear, even what was given them shall be taken away.

This shows that it was the hearer's responsibility to hear and learn, knowledge and faith is not imposed or instilled in any man unless he willingly desires to learn.

Again, let me remind you this drawing, teaching comes from the Father not from men and thus this "hearing" and "learning" are consequences from direct teaching by the Father and not by men. If you dispute this then you contradict Jesus words to Peter in Matthew 16:17 where Jesus said it did not come from "flesh and blood" but from "the Father." Being wrong on this point invalidates all your points!

No, Jesus was simply saying that the revelation that he was the Christ came from the Father, just as it did to the other disciples who believed. They knew and believed the OT scriptures, when they heard the teachings of Jesus and saw his miracles, they recognized him as the Messiah or Christ promised in the scriptures.

Again, Jesus said that if men believed Moses writings, then they would believe him.

God's power is in his word, the Holy scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, a person MUST be drawn to come. This does not mean that all drawn come.

However, "ALL" who are under consideration in verse 45 are "taught" or drawn but those in John 6:64-65 were NEVER taught/drawn to Christ. Therefore, your insistance that "all" means every human being is proven wrong in the very context of this teaching as Christ is specificallly applying verse 44 to those in verse 64 and that is precisely what his words "therefore I said unto you" means! However, your interpretation must deny that Jesus is applying verse 44 to "some" in verse 64 by means of verse 65 because your position denies there are any who are not drawn but all mankind is drawn.

Second, since the "all" in verse 45a does not refer to all mankind without exception as there are "some" who were never drawn by the Father (vv. 64-65) then it can only include "ALL" who are drawn and that is the proper application of the "all" in John 12:32 with "greeks" seeking him (v. 21).

Third, this "all" shall be taught by God without exceptions as the text provides no exception in verse 45a. Once again, this "all" according to its prophetic context refers to those under the new covenant including the Jewish elect. Thus this is "ALL" the elect as those are the ones "given" to Christ in John 6:37-39 which forms the basis of this present text. The Father that gave some to the Son in verse 37 is defining that giving as inclusive of drawing/teaching which is not by men but by the Father. This is internal ability ("heard") in contrast to "no man can" and internal revelation inseparable from faith ("learned") which is not derived from any man (Mt. 16:17).

Look, if you go fishing, every fish you catch was drawn, you hooked that fish and pulled it into your boat. Does that mean every fish you hooked and drew to your boat was caught? NO, fishermen lose fish all the time. Some fish struggle and fight and jump off the line. Every fisherman knows this.

Get your analogy correct first! You do not "catch" any fish that got away. Second, you admit it was "pulled...INTO your boat" but in your attempt to redefine "draw" you then contradict yourself and says "drew TO your boat"!

If they were drawn INTO my boat they did not get away.

Finally, neither YOU or I or any other man is the One drawing but it is the omnipotent Father. Jesus does not claim the Father WILL ATTEMPT to teach "all" but shall "teach" all and none can claim to be taught who merely "heard" but must also have "learned" as they are insepable from actual teaching.

In the parable of the wedding feast, many were called and bid, they were drawn, but they refused to come.

In the wedding feast ALL who were given a simple invitation NONE obtained a wedding garment - many were called. Only those in the second calling who were "COMPELLED" provided the wedding with people in wedding garments "few where chosen."

The "every man" in verse 45 are those who listened to the word of God and learned. These are the ones who will come to Jesus. Those who did not listen and learn will not come to Jesus.

This philosphical wisdom of men perverts the text. Those in verse 64 did listen and learn according to your interpretation of "listen" and "learn" but they were NEVER DRAWN/TAUGHT by the Father (v. 65) and so again your philosopizing is false.

God attempted to teach them, but they refused to hear and learn.

The text says no such thing! Indeed, it says the very opposite! The Father NEVER drew/taught them (v. 65) or can't you read plain english????????

No, the "all" in John 12:32 means every single person everywhere. Just as a good teacher tries to teach every single student they have.

Christ contradicts your interpretation of "all" in John 12:32 as he says there are "some" who were NEVER DRAWN by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65)! You can deny, deny, deny till your blue in the face but it does not change John 6:65 to read anything different that how Christ intended it! He intentionally applied verse 44 to those "some" in verse 64 and his words "therefore I said unto you" proves that. Hence, "ALL" in the context of drawing does not include "some" as in verse 64 as you falsely suggest it does. The "all" refers to the same "all" in John 6:45a and NONE of that all fail to be taught by THE FATHER rather than "flesh and blood" (Mt. 16:17).

 

[BobRyan]

On this on the John 6:37-65 thread we have

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Sometimes Calvinism fails the test of scripture so quickly - that it is indeed sad.

Do you not agree??

Perhaps, I should start addressing your articles and Positions by referring to it as "Adventists"???? However since you never quote SDA writers but stick with scripture then to address your scripture responses by calling it "Adventism" would not be fair would it? So why when I quote NOTHING but scripture do you choose to refer to my responses as "calvinism" since I never quote any calvinist but only use Scripture? To slur me rather than to deal wiht the scriptures I present? Would you prefer from this point on that I refer to all your responses as Adventism???

I do that because I prefer to keep the issues at "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" - and point out the flaws in the systems - rather than the practice of ad hominem and against the person who posts.

If you are claiming that only Seventh-day Adventists are Arminian then you could refer to it as "Adventism" but I don't think any one of us here actually believes that to be the case regarding the Arminian position.

Feel free to refer to my position as "Arminian" or "Arminianism".

Why is this post on the John 6:37-65 thread? Please repost on the proper thread where we are dealing with that subject rather than trying to derail this thead.

All of these posts are from this thread and you are the one that started this line of reasoning about whether to address the system of belief or the person as having the flaw.

How am I getting the blame for your own initiative on this thread???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Inspector Javert]

"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."

This negative propositional truth may be restated positively:

“All the men whom the Father draws will come to me;” [and I will infallibly glorify those men in the Resurrection].

or

"All the men who come to me were drawn by the Father;" [and I will infallibly glorify those men in the Resurrection].


The proposition of John 6:44 does not say:

“The Father draws all men. Those who come to me were drawn by the Father. Those who do not come to me were also drawn by the Father. Therefore, the difference as to why some come to me and others do not reside in the free will of man -- not in the Father's drawing."

Your fallacious conclusion is exactly opposite to that of Christ’s clear teaching.

But alas, this comes as no surprise.

No...your understanding of logic fails as you don't comprehend the distinction between "necessary" conditions and "sufficient" conditions: your first premise is actually logically WRONG. You said:

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."

This negative propositional truth may be restated positively:

“All the men whom the Father draws will come to me;” [and I will infallibly glorify those men in the Resurrection].

Technically....that's simply bad logic:....

Here's the issue:
You substituted the NECESSARY condition that a man must be "drawn" for a SUFFICIENT condition....meaning that all who are drawn will come.

The Scriptures do NOT SAY that Everyone who is drawn WILL COME....only that no one can come EXCEPT they be drawn.... do you understand the distinction?

Similarly, the Scriptures teach that all who COME are now SUFFICIENTLY conditioned such that Christ WILL "raise them" on the last day.

The "necessary" condition was the status of one who "comes"...
The "sufficient" condition is that Christ will raise-up all who DO come....
Your logic is simply false:

What it teaches is this:

1.)EVERYONE who comes MUST BE "called"....(that's a necessary condition).

2.) Everyone who COMES...WILL BE "resurrected" (that's the sufficient condition.)

Your logic is simply bad...it's wrong, and that isn't a subjective matter of opinion...your logic is falsifiable.....It's simply WRONG.

This isn't an issue of "Arminian thinking" vs. "Calvinist-thinking"...it's as true and as objective as any syllogism in logic or mathematical sums are...

YOUR LOGIC IS FALSIFIABLY WRONG...

You do not understand the difference between "necessary" conditions...and "sufficient" ones....you are provably dead wrong with your argument.

 

[Winman]

However, "ALL" who are under consideration in verse 45 are "taught" or drawn but those in John 6:64-65 were NEVER taught/drawn to Christ. Therefore, your insistance that "all" means every human being is proven wrong in the very context of this teaching as Christ is specificallly applying verse 44 to those in verse 64 and that is precisely what his words "therefore I said unto you" means! However, your interpretation must deny that Jesus is applying verse 44 to "some" in verse 64 by means of verse 65 because your position denies there are any who are not drawn but all mankind is drawn.

You seem to believe if you repeat a falsehood over and over that somehow it becomes true. Not so.

First, being drawn and being taught are not the same. A person must be drawn to come to Jesus, and a person must be taught to come to Jesus, but not everyone who is drawn comes, while everyone who learns does come.

The only person here at BB that cannot easily distinguish between the two is YOU. And I think that is because you do not DESIRE to see the difference.

Second, since the "all" in verse 45a does not refer to all mankind without exception as there are "some" who were never drawn by the Father (vv. 64-65) then it can only include "ALL" who are drawn and that is the proper application of the "all" in John 12:32 with "greeks" seeking him (v. 21).

Verse 64-65 does not say one word about these persons not being drawn, you are reading that into the text. You do this CONSTANTLY.

Third, this "all" shall be taught by God without exceptions as the text provides no exception in verse 45a. Once again, this "all" according to its prophetic context refers to those under the new covenant including the Jewish elect. Thus this is "ALL" the elect as those are the ones "given" to Christ in John 6:37-39 which forms the basis of this present text. The Father that gave some to the Son in verse 37 is defining that giving as inclusive of drawing/teaching which is not by men but by the Father. This is internal ability ("heard") in contrast to "no man can" and internal revelation inseparable from faith ("learned") which is not derived from any man (Mt. 16:17).

Dude, you just do not know when to give it up. You are not convincing anyone. I don't even believe you have convinced yourself. You are grasping at straws.

Verse 44 says a person has to be drawn to come to Jesus. Verse 45 explains how a person is drawn to Jesus, by hearing and learning from the Father. Every man who has HEARD and LEARNED from the Father comes. Therefore, every man who refuses to hear and learn does not come to Jesus. Simple.

That is all it says, you should leave it at that.

Get your analogy correct first! You do not "catch" any fish that got away. Second, you admit it was "pulled...INTO your boat" but in your attempt to redefine "draw" you then contradict yourself and says "drew TO your boat"!

Now you are just demonstrating how unbelievably stubborn and obstinate you are. Men pull and draw fish all the way to the boat, sometimes INTO the boat, but the fish fights and resists and many times gets away. You are just making a complete fool out of yourself now.

If they were drawn INTO my boat they did not get away.

Well, you are lucky, I could go to Youtube and show you a fish jumping out of a boat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me9fXM5cpME

Here, just for you, a video of a fish being pulled or DRAWN into a boat that got away.

Amazing how childish a grown man can be.

Finally, neither YOU or I or any other man is the One drawing but it is the omnipotent Father. Jesus does not claim the Father WILL ATTEMPT to teach "all" but shall "teach" all and none can claim to be taught who merely "heard" but must also have "learned" as they are insepable from actual teaching.

Jesus also told his disciples to "take heed how ye hear" which shows the hearer is responsible to hear and learn.

Unbelievable. You cannot grasp that each student in school is responsible to learn from their teacher.

In the wedding feast ALL who were given a simple invitation NONE obtained a wedding garment - many were called. Only those in the second calling who were "COMPELLED" provided the wedding with people in wedding garments "few where chosen."

What? When you are invited to a wedding the host has to buy your suit? You are getting more and more ridiculous by the moment.

This philosphical wisdom of men perverts the text. Those in verse 64 did listen and learn according to your interpretation of "listen" and "learn" but they were NEVER DRAWN/TAUGHT by the Father (v. 65) and so again your philosopizing is false.

No, they did not listen and learn, or according to Jesus they would have come to him in verse 45.

The text says no such thing! Indeed, it says the very opposite! The Father NEVER drew/taught them (v. 65) or can't you read plain english????????

It says no such thing. You are reading into scripture what is not there.

Christ contradicts your interpretation of "all" in John 12:32 as he says there are "some" who were NEVER DRAWN by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65)! You can deny, deny, deny till your blue in the face but it does not change John 6:65 to read anything different that how Christ intended it! He intentionally applied verse 44 to those "some" in verse 64 and his words "therefore I said unto you" proves that. Hence, "ALL" in the context of drawing does not include "some" as in verse 64 as you falsely suggest it does. The "all" refers to the same "all" in John 6:45a and NONE of that all fail to be taught by THE FATHER rather than "flesh and blood" (Mt. 16:17).

Jesus does not say one word about some people not being drawn in John 6:64-65, that is something you have invented in your mind.

I am not going to keep arguing with you, you have demonstrated that you are a total fanatic who must twist and wrest scripture to agree with your presuppositions.

 

[The Biblicist]

You seem to believe if you repeat a falsehood over and over that somehow it becomes true. Not so.

Apparently you believe that if you just assert something, without a shred of scriptural contextual based evidence it makes it so! I have proven my case from the context and you dare not deal with the SPECIFIC evidence I presented. Instead you choose to simply GENERALIZE and give your personal opinion which is worth nothing becuase it is based on nothing!

First, being drawn and being taught are not the same.

First, you are not recognizing that this is the work of the Father and not of men - it is the father doing this! Jesus refers to it in Matthew 16:17 as something that only the Father can do and does not originate with "flesh and blood." Likewise, verse 44 identifies something NO MAN CAN do but only the Father can do.

Second, verse 45a is the scripture quotation from Isaiah that Jesus selects to affirm his statement in verse 44 that only God can do. Hence, "draw" is synonmous with "taught" in the Isaiah quotation. Isaiah's "all" does not include any which will not be "taught" of God - NONE! The "ALL" in the Isaiah quote are ALL THAT GOD SHALL TEACH not ANY that He will TRY to teach. The Isaiah passage sets forth NO CONDITIONS as your interpretation forces upon it! The "ALL" under consideration are those who SHALL BE TAUGHT of God not MIGHT be taught as you READ INTO the text!

HERE IS WHERE YOU PERVERT God's Word! You make it work of man instead of the work of God and you make it conditional and potential by READING INTO it those inferences which ARE NOT FOUND IN THE TEXT at all. This is what God "shall" do not what He MIGHT do! "ALL" under consideration SHALL be taught rather than MAY be taught as you READ INTO the text.

Third, verse 45b is Christ's interpretation of what "TAUGHT" means in regard to "EVERY MAN" (translation of same Greek word translated "all") that God SHALL teach. it means that "ALL" that God shall teach shall have "HEARD" not MIGHT have heard and SHALL have "learned" not MIGHT have learned.


YOU HAVE TO READ INTO THE TEXT ONLY POTENTIAL AND POSSIBLE FAILURE AND CONDITIONS which are simply not there. This is not a conditional or potential statement but an UNCONDITIONAL statement of fact

You must READ INTO the text THE WHOLE BASIS OF YOUR THEORY and DENY the unconditional reality of the text to support your theories.

 

[Protestant]

Technically....that's simply bad logic:....

I find it quite wondrous that a professing Baptist who uses Catholic Apologist Peter Kreeft as his worthy signature quote is now an expert on logic.

Inspector, I strongly suggest you carefully ‘inspect’ Dr. Kreeft’s “7 Reasons to be Catholic”, as you obviously believe you and Kreeft are on the same ‘logical’ page.

Re: Necessary vs. Sufficient……The eternal will of God is both necessary and sufficient to save all whom He wills to save.

It is necessary because without it, nothing would or could exist.

It is sufficient because His will is all-wise, all-powerful and infallible in achieving His purposes.

His purpose to save specific sinners cannot fail.

To achieve that purpose He has predestined the necessary and sufficient means.

It is in His Elect that He irresistibly and graciously gives the means to actually fulfill the conditions necessary to salvation.

Christ paid not only the sin debt of the Elect, but He also purchased all the spiritual gifts necessary to salvation.

Scripture screams the spiritual truths we Calvinists preach.

Unfortunately, the spiritually deaf cannot hear no matter how loud God turns up the volume.

All whom the Father gives to Christ, WILL COME to Him, and those alone Christ will in nowise cast out.

 

[The Biblicist]

No...your understanding of logic fails as you don't comprehend the distinction between "necessary" conditions and "sufficient" conditions: your first premise is actually logically WRONG. You said:

This is not a matter of improper logic but improper interpretation which you are guilty of. You are READING INTO this text what is not there and yet attempting to deny what is there and all based on faulty hermeneutics and pure eisgesis.

1. You are reading into this text (v. 44) that God draws all men and AMONG ALL MEN DRAWN there are only some who come and they are raised. The text neither says or infers that. YOU ARE READING IT INTO THE TEXT. Indeed, the context denies that that all men without exception are drawn (vv. 64-65). Hence, the "ALL" refer to the same "all" in John 6:37-39 who are given to the Son to come to the son. Hence, "ALL" in John 12:32 refers to the same "ALL" as in John 6:45a and 37-39.


2. You are attempting to deny what the Text does say. Jesus quotes Isaiah in John 6:45a to affirm his statement of fact in verse 44. This Isaiah quotation affirms two things! (1) "draw" is synonymous with Isaiah's "taught" and both are exclusively the work of God not of men just as Jesus reminded Peter (Mt. 16:17). (2) "ALL" shall be taught/draw of God not MIGHT be taught of God meaning ALL shall "have heard and have learned" of God not MIGHT have learned and heard OR "All" might have heard but NOT LEARNED as your eisgestical inference must be read into the text.

3. Christ interprets "taught"/draw to mean they shall "have heard" and shall "have learned" as it is not possible to be "taught" by anyone without both factors. You are reading into Christ's interpetation of Isaiah what Christ does not say or infer. You are reading into his interpretation that some not "all" taught of God "heard" but did not "learn" but only those among that "ALL" which have done both come to Christ. Isaiah says "all" not SOME, shall be taught and Jesus defines "taught" to be inclusive of "heard" and "learned". He does not say they MIGHT have heard and learned OR SOME might have heard but not have learned, but he says "ALL" shall be taught of God and thus taught means to "have heard" and "have learned." He did not set them forth as conditions for coming BECAUSE THEY COMPOSE WHAT ONLY GOD CAN DO - draw = taught = heard and learned.

Finally, "ALL" not some "SHALL BE" taught, not MIGHT BE taught. Since "taught" is synomous with "draw" then "ALL SHALL BE DRAWN" and this "ALL" excludes "some" (vv. 64-65) and thus this is the "ALL" who are given by the Father to come to Chrsit as they are drawn by the Father, meaning taught by the Father, meaning they HAVE heard and they HAVE learned of the Father or else they were NEVER TAUGHT/drawn by the Father.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Biblicist
You are directly contradicting the words of Christ to the contrary!
You have to "make stuff up" to leap to that conclusion.

You have to "make stuff up" to leap to that conclusion.

I am simply stating the obvious the SAINTS do not COME to Christ without being drawn (all the lost that then come to Christ had to first be drawn)

and neither do the wicked. "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1

This is incredibly obvious and fits the text perfectly.

That you can take text and wrench it so far from what is state to make it be an exact contradiction is a testimony to the power in Calvinism to edit text.

Those coming to Christ are the EXCEPTION to the universal rule that "NO MAN CAN"!

"no man can" is a snippet incomplete thought. Try the complete sentence or at the very least a complete thought to quote. Then you will see the problem with your own statement.

The words "NO MAN CAN" is a UNIVERSAL DENIAL

Indeed neither the saved nor the lost - were ever in a condition where they could "of themselves" come to Christ without the DRAWING of God.

And of course Christ said "I will DRAW ALL" John 12:32

whereas "EXCEPT the Father...draw" is the ONLY EXCEPTION to this universal rule.

You are slicing and chopping up the statement and the result is mush.

Leave it as it is. The "no one can come UNLESS the Father DRAWS them" is the ONE thought that applies to ALL.

The saints were not at one time "lost people that came to Christ APART from the drawing of God". Even you cannot deny this.

And neither are those who choose to REMAIN in rebellion against God are not able to come to Christ unless supernaturally DARWN. Again you cannot deny this.

Thus it is the same with BOTH groups. Neither of them CAN COME to Christ on their own - apart from the supernatural drawing by God.


None of them (saint or lost person) could have come to Christ without that drawing of God. And He says He "Draws ALL unto Me" John 12:32.

John 6:64-65 declares some had NEVER BEEN drawn/taught/given by the Father. However, "ALL" who have been drawn/taught DO COME TO CHRIST (Jn. 6:45).

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Not one place in that text do we find what you claim John 6:64-65 declares so you just "quote you" when you state "some had NEVER BEEN drawn" and then you preface your own "quote of you" with "John 6:64-65 declares "

The same goes for "you quoting you" when you get to the all important ""ALL" who have been drawn/taught DO COME TO CHRIST (Jn. 6:45)" claim it is merely "you quoting you" - no such "drawn/taught" words in the actual text.

Rather the text says

"44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."

They must be DRAWN, they must choose to HEAR, and they must choose to LEARN - to then have the result that "they come to Me".



Does this sound familiar??

Christ does not split man into two groups (wicked and saints) in John 6 but rather he inlcudes ALL HUMANS in the universal negative "NO MAN can come to Me UNLESS the Father Draws Him". No one CAN come to God without that drawing - and ALL are drawn. So it includes ALL humans in every sense.

This applies to ALL the saints and ALL the wicked.

Neither gropu came to Christ WITHOUT the Drawing of God nor CAN they do it "on their own".

Thus as Jesus said "I Will DRAW ALL unto ME" John 12:32.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Re: Necessary vs. Sufficient……The eternal will of God is both necessary and sufficient to save all whom He wills to save.

It is necessary because without it, nothing would or could exist.

It is sufficient because His will is all-wise, all-powerful and infallible in achieving His purposes.

you will be pleased then with "God is not WILLING for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

For "God sent His Son ... to be the Savior of the World" 1John 4

"He came to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Inspector Javert]

I find it quite wondrous that a professing Baptist who uses Catholic Apologist Peter Kreeft as his worthy signature quote is now an expert on logic.

HUH???? Is there a difference in how logic works for Catholics and "Protestants"?? It doesn't strictly matter whether I am an atheist, Protestant, Baptist, Catholic or "Other".........the laws of logic still are objectively true no matter what my signature is.....You are obfuscating, because you have no way to answer.

Inspector, I strongly suggest you carefully ‘inspect’ Dr. Kreeft’s “7 Reasons to be Catholic”, as you obviously believe you and Kreeft are on the same ‘logical’ page

.
I know who Peter Kreeft is ..............and I didn't have to "google" him (as you no-doubt did) in order to discover the fact that he's a Catholic.
I already knew who he was Protestant, I just like his quip, so I use it as a signature.........I like G.K. Chesterton too, and he's Catholic.............ditto Savonarolla...........
I liked them LONG before you came around googling who Peter Kreeft was. :laugh:

Peter Kreeft, however, (whom I was familiar with long before you googled him) seems to understand something that you do not....namely, the difference and definition of necessary and sufficient conditions.....

You've not at all answered my post, and the reason is:
It's way beyond your ken...and you are totally out of your league in responding to it...
That's why you haven't meaningfully responded....it's because you are intellectually incapable of doing so. I'm sorry to say it...but you don't understand logic well enough and it's painfully obvious to anyone who does.

It wouldn't matter whether I was a Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, Deist, Atheist or Agnostic.......you CLEARLY don't know logic.........and you don't comprehend "necessary" conditions and "sufficient" ones. You are still wrong sir, just logically wrong. I'm sorry, but I can't make it any easier for you to accept.

Re: Necessary vs. Sufficient……The eternal will of God is both necessary and sufficient to save all whom He wills to save.

It is necessary because without it, nothing would or could exist.

How are we suddenly debating the existence of the Universe????
Are you even following this thread?

It is sufficient because His will is all-wise, all-powerful and infallible in achieving His purposes.

How is a "will"...."All wise"?....are you listening to yourself? how is a "will" either "all wise" vs. (I assume) all stupid? Are "wills" either wise or un-wise?...You are making obvious and CLEAR category mistakes (mistakes Peter Kreeft would spot instantly btw). You're just preaching platitudes and hoping the idiotic elements will follow it. Well, here's some encouragement: I'm quite sure the positively stupid people who read Baptist Board think that your "Wise" will....is probably better than the Arminians' "un-wise" will...but it'll still be a massive category error and it will never make sense whether you say it, Kreeft says it, or Paul says it.......

You make a horrid category error here: and it wouldn't matter what your beliefs were..............your category error is objectively wrong no matter what camp you belong to.

All whom the Father gives to Christ, WILL COME to Him, and those alone Christ will in nowise cast out.

TRUE !!!! actually:wavey: :thumbsup:....but it doesn't prove your point at all. You think it does, but it doesn't.

That's because you don't comprehend logic either from Catholics like Peter Kreeft or Atheists like David Hume or Protestants like Ravi Zacharias:

I don't care if you remain a Calvinist all your life...I just know your logic sux, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Believe what you want...but, you still don't know the difference between a "necessary" and a "sufficient" condition. Your posts make that clear.