Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.” ~ John 12:32

[Van]

Well, and being transferred to Christ results in having eternal life - so using this view, "...he that has eternal life shall never hunger;...." is equally true as a premise. We can chain-link any number of truths from what results in what but we can't then infer equality of definitions/meanings from this. [I did not use parallel construction as an argument. John 6:37: first couplet, given to Christ = arriving in Christ; second couplet, coming into Christ = never cast out.]

"Coming to Christ" has always been understood as an abbreviated phrase of "Coming to Christ in faith for eternal life" which is the equivalent of "believing in Christ" as seen paralleled in John 6:35. Why redefine what's already clear and established? [The age of a bogus view does not add it its validity. A clearly established bogus view, which ignores the change in spiritual location, not in Christ to in Christ, should be refuted.]

I'm sorry, this still remains confusing. It would be helpful if you first listed out your interpretation of all the word meanings for us to take a better look at. From this, you seem to be equating "coming to Christ" with "arriving in Christ". What is this "arrival" referring to? Is this the final arrival into the resurrection after Judgement Day? [1) being given to Christ refers to being transferred spiritually from a location outside of Christ, in the realm of darkness, to being placed inside Christ spiritually, such that the person is in Christ and then indwelt such that Christ is in them. (2) Those given arrive in Christ. (3) Once in Christ, Christ promises to never cast back out. ]

And is "arriving in Christ" the same as "being transferred into Christ" from your last statement above - in which case we run into the same issue I'd raised in my original question, right?[No. There is no issue. If God gives a person to Christ, they are placed in Christ, thus they arrive from outside of Christ to being in Christ. ]

Two concerns with such reinterpretations -
1. When you equate "coming to Christ" with "being transferred in Christ", you're switching an action attributed to man in his coming to be an action attributed to God in His transferring. Isn't this an error in interpreting to swap what's described as man's response to being taken as God's response? [Who is the actor giving or transferring the person? The Father, so not our action, but the Father's action. What is the result of the Father's action, arriving in Christ.]

2. How do we ignore all the parallelism in John 5:38-47 in the context of "believing Christ"?
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Should this be read as equal to "And God will not transfer ye in Christ, that ye might have life."?
John 5:38: says if you do not believe in Christ, you will not be put into Christ. No problem
39: Scripture teaches Christ provides eternal life. No problem.
40: "Come to me" here refers to the person's action, and they are unwilling. No problem.
So the bogus view is to equate "come to Me" in verse 5:40 with verse 6:37. In context,5:40 refers to our action to believe the gospel, and in 6:37 God's action to accept that belief and transfer the person into Christ. No problem.
/QUOTE]

Again, my responses are bracketed in red above.

 

[Particular]

Christ said he would draw all men, not "drag" all men. Our Calvinist brethren read "draw" as "drag".
You can resist God's drawing, as God himself tells you in Hosea:
Hos 11:3 I taught Ephraim [matching John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me]. also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.
Hos 11:4 I drew them [matching John 6:44 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.] with cords of a man [the prophetic double application is the man Christ Jesus, as he said: John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.], with bands of love [John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.] : and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.
Hos 11:5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.

See that? God drew them and yet they knew not and they refused.

It's "draw", friends, not "drag". You can resist a drawing. Just ask the council which heard Stephen's preaching.

You ignore an unfortunate fact that the Greek disagrees with you.

 

[Particular]

A good break down between "to draw or to drag."
Drag Versus Draw: How Does God Bring People to Faith?

 

[Scott Downey]

You're going to have to correct our Lord Jesus Christ likewise because, right after saying John 6:44, he based it in the Old Testament and the past:
Joh 6:44 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.
Joh 6:45 IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

If the Lord of glory went back to the prophets to make his point about drawing men, can't I?

Your ignoring how the New Covenant relationship works, as I showed you. OC prophets pointed to how the new Covenant works as it is described in Hebrews 8 which is quoted out of Jeremiah an OC prophet. The OC ways have been obsoleted and have passed away and we live now in the NC ways of God established by Christ.

 

[George Antonios]

You ignore an unfortunate fact that the Greek disagrees with you.

Utterly irrelevant. My authority for definitions of scriptural terms is the scripture, God's definition, not man's.
Besides, the point was made using Hosea.

 

[George Antonios]

Your ignoring how the New Covenant relationship works, as I showed you. OC prophets pointed to how the new Covenant works as it is described in Hebrews 8 which is quoted out of Jeremiah an OC prophet. The OC ways have been obsoleted and have passed away and we live now in the NC ways of God established by Christ.

Wow. You really did correct the Lord!

 

[Van]

Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Hearing, Learning and Coming to Christ are all responses of man. [Lets consider this assertion. Come into Me is an action by God in verse 6:37, not an action by an individual. Remember the result of this action is to be located in Christ where they will not be cast out. No one saves themselves and puts themselves in Christ. Next, if we equate "learned" with "coming to believe in Christ" then we have hearing and learning as individual responses, whereas "coming to Me" refers in this context with being put spiritually into Christ.]

While the commonly accepted [bogus] interpretation is that Hearing and Learning leads to the Coming in Faith / Believing - you equate Learning with the Believing itself just so the Coming to Christ can be redefined. Why? If your only goal was to conclude "Therefore some of those drawn are given, and all given have been drawn.", can't this be done without these re-definitions? Are there other conclusions you are attempting to uphold with these? [I think you must equate "learning" with believing" otherwise the learning would be worthless. My goal is to properly understand scripture, same as everyone else. What you call "redefinitions" I call accurate interpretations.]


I'm not aware of what your doctrinal positions are - but given that you were arguing for God drawing all, I assumed you were against calvinism. But when you say God enables faith to those He wills according to His greater purposes - isn't that as calvinistic as it gets? [Absolutely, but that is not what I said. John 6:64 has God "disabling" the ability of some to believe for His purpose, such as Judas.]

I am a one point Calvinist, OSAS, and a two point Arminian (Christ died for all mankind, and our individual election for salvation is based on Faith) I believe the election of Ephesians 1:4 was corporate, God chose His Redeemer, and therefore chose corporately all those the Redeemer would redeem. However, I believe during our lifetime we are chosen by God individually based on God crediting our faith as righteousness.
Radically different view based on scripture and not the doctrines of men.

 

[Particular]

Utterly irrelevant. My authority for definitions of scriptural terms is the scripture, God's definition, not man's.
Besides, the point was made using Hosea.

Completely relevant. God used the Greek word to express what He does. You seem to believe you can ignore what God said and rewrite whatever you wish.

 

[Particular]

I am a one point Calvinist, OSAS, and a two point Arminian (Christ died for all mankind, and our individual election for salvation is based on Faith) I believe the election of Ephesians 1:4 was corporate, God chose His Redeemer, and therefore chose corporately all those the Redeemer would redeem. However, I believe during our lifetime we are chosen by God individually based on God crediting our faith as righteousness.
Radically different view based on scripture and not the doctrines of men.

You stand alone on an island built for one by your own sculpting.

 

[Scott Downey]

Wow. You really did correct the Lord!

You are hilarious.

 

[George Antonios]

Completely relevant. God used the Greek word to express what He does. You seem to believe you can ignore what God said and rewrite whatever you wish.

A) Show me one verse instructing me to refer to the Greek.
B) That's a man's definition of the Greek word. Check 7 dictionaries and see different definitions.
C) The whole argument is a moot point, again. Let's grant draw = drag. God said draw in Hosea in Hebrew but let's grant that even in the Hebrew, draw=drag. Then, according to God himself in Hosea, God can drag a man, and that man can refuse and resist. Even worse!

 

[George Antonios]

You stand alone on an island built for one by your own sculpting.

No he doesn't.

 

[Revmitchell]

You stand alone on an island built for one by your own sculpting.

I don't agree with him but no he doesnt

 

[Particular]

A) Show me one verse instructing me to refer to the Greek.
B) That's a man's definition of the Greek word. Check 7 dictionaries and see different definitions.
C) The whole argument is a moot point, again. Let's grant draw = drag. God said draw in Hosea in Hebrew but let's grant that even in the Hebrew, draw=drag. Then, according to God himself in Hosea, God can drag a man, and that man can refuse and resist. Even worse!

What language did the writers of scripture use? Hint: It wasn't English. Double Hint: It was Greek.
You are rejecting the original language.

(post edited)

 

[Iconoclast]

. They neither have scriptural proof for it …
Col 2:13 says nothing about the elect

The Colossians were not born again. It does not say they were born again,



[Edited to make use of the quote feature]

 

[37818]

I have no disagreement with you. You are the one with disagreement.
You first addressed me out of the blue and said you're not a Calvinist. I had no clue why you wrote this. I told you that I never said you were. Then you said
"Is that the point of our disagreement? We are both not Calvinist, right?" I didn't know we had a disagreement. Please show me where I said you were.
a Calvinist
MB

You never said I was anything. I was the one who splely made the point of not being a Calvinist. I am also not Arminian in my theology.

 

[37818]

The OC ways have been obsoleted and have passed away . . .

Obsoleted, but not passed away yet, Matthew 5:18, Revelation 20:11.

 

[MB]

You can not compare the inferior Old Covenant relationship with the superior New Covenant relationship in this way by quoting how something happened in Hosea as to how the relationship exists in the New Covenant. Your comparison is obsoleted and meaningless as to how this relationship works in the New Covenant.

Read Hebrews 8, from v10 on God tells us it is 100% as a guarantee that they will be His people, and He will be their God.

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The underlined above hasn't happened yet. Not all know the Lord as this suggest yet In fact the opposite is true.How do you explain this?
MB

 

[MB]

You never said I was anything. I was the one who splely made the point of not being a Calvinist. I am also not Arminian in my theology.

So why tell me this again I remembered you're not a Calvinist. Did you forget that you have already told me this. Maybe you just want to make sure I understand it
MB

 

[JonC]

Folks, we have a quote feature. If you do not know how to use it please take a moment to learn.

Look on the right side of each post. There is a “’+Quote” button. If you choose this button then the post will be added to your quotes. You can quote several, pick a bunch and remove what you don’t want, and refine the quote as needed when pasting it into your thread.

You can also use the “reply” option and simply copy the quote.

If you are using tapatalk the quote feature is at the bottom to the left of the post.

The reason this is important is twofold. First, it correctly attributes your quote to the member who wrote what you are quoting (no one likes a quote thief). Second, it allows that member to know that he or she has been quoted and they can provide feedback regarding the use of their comment.