Why do you think we would disagree?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John 6:44
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Why do you think we would disagree?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Interesting idea. Romans 1 says the pagans are "without excuse" and that they stand condemned by their conscience given the witness we have of God in nature.
But Romans 10 argues for the Gospel itself and salvation coming to people via nature.
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”
That is a quote of Psalms 19 -- regarding the voice of nature
Ps 19
The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
What is it you are calling nature?
No scripture doesn't bear that out. I know your position. When I asked that for some reason I thought I was quoting Ryan.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
That may be, but first consider the following.
Dear agedman,
I see that the Son draws (all) men; the Father draws as well. They are drawn through the teaching of the inspired Scriptures provided by the Father regarding the Son. Those who are finally ready, that is, those who can and will come, are given by the Father to the Son so that they come to the Son, who will raise them up at the last day.
The question is whether those being drawn are drawn entirely without their consent, that is, must all those drawn go through the entire drawing process to the point where the Father then gives them to the Son, or could it be that they can interfere with the process and never reach that point? I submit that, if employing razor’s edge theology, this passage in John cannot settle that question, nor is that its intent.
RT&
The above may have some traction IF the "teaching of the inspired Scriptures provide" the drawing.
This isn't shown valid in the Scriptures.
Second, there is not a place found (Imo) that the Scriptures state that the Father draws all and gives them to the Son.
Third, there is no "finally ready" in the sense of "those who can and will come." Again, that is not the presentation found in the Scriptures.
Here is a difficulty, for the natural unsaved heathen has no "nature" to consent. Nor can that nature be contrived into consent.
I offer the statement of the prophets concerning Israel when God says in Hebrews 10:
14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16“This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the LORD
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,”
He then says,
17“And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”
This is reflected in Ezekiel 1116“This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the LORD
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,”
He then says,
17“And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”
17“Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.”’ 18“When they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations from it. 19“And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. 21“But as for those whose hearts go after their detestable things and abominations, I will bring their conduct down on their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.
It therefore remains that God in His Sovereign purpose elects (chooses) draws and the Son raises.
There is no human capacity other then intellectual intrigue to even consider the righteousness of God as other then foolishness to be despised and disposed.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
If the drawing is a process, then how can there not be a "finally ready" at the end? In this passage, are there not those who can come and those who cannot? Are there not those who can and will (do) come? Can anyone come before they can, that is, before ready?
I agree that “they shall all be taught of God” may not indicate how many go through the entire drawing process, but aren’t all who go through the entire drawing process given by the Father so that they come to the Son?
If you hold that it doesn’t involve the teaching of the inspired Scriptures regarding the Son, what teaching do you think the “hath heard and learned of the Father” indicates?
Also, I understand you hold to a Calvinistic view of fallen human nature, but it’s invalid to impose that understanding on a passage to “prove” the passage teaches it. This is the discussion at hand, whether the passage teaches it.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance
.
This is not taught in scripture anywhere....this is a fabrication.
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3;Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )
.
This is not taught in scripture anywhere....this is a fabrication.
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3;Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )
There is a "finally ready." Such is displayed as that person cries out in confession and repentance. This is the result of the change that took place in the heart, not the catalyst to make the change.
No one comes without the direct intervention and draw of the Father. All drawn will be saved.
Those not drawn do not come, and there is no innate capacity of their nature for them to come.
John 6:44 is a statement concerning those drawn, not those not drawn.
The Father establishes the drawing, establishes the ears to hear the Gospel which hearing produces faith (belief) in that person (Romans), and that person is raised by Christ.
All who the Father draws will be raised by Christ. None that the Father does not draw are raised to eternal rest.
Not certain where you would consider that the "teaching of the inspired Scriptures" was not important or not involved.
What Ezekiel (and echoed in Hebrews) states is that God changes the heart of the person, causes the law to be implanted, and determines the outcome.
I reject the Pelagian thinking of free will that can choose that which is righteous. Such ability is not found in Scriptures. Pelagian thinking was reactionary as a result of his visit to Rome. He had grown and matured in Britain and was most devout. As he visited in Rome, he was greatly offended by the excess of ungodliness among those who were supposed to be the church leaders. As a result, he swung like a pendulum (Imo) to embracing some things that the Scriptures just do not support. Freedom to choose righteousness was part of this thinking. Pelagian taught that each person is self capable to express righteousness and choose Godliness.
The Scriptures present that a heathen may choose that which is good from all that the fallen nature might consider, or is given from which to choose.
A practical lesson can be found in the parent child relationship.
Parents understand the child does not have to be taught to sin. It is part of their fallen nature.
Parents understand the child does not like to do what is right, but must be instructed, often corrected, and disciplined into conformity. That is part of their fallen nature _ learning self control.
Parents understand the child does not desire that which brings a healthy life style, but desire that which leads to addiction, excess, and resting authority.
So, what part of even a child's human nature would one consider acceptable to express faith in God, much less the adult who is experienced and well practiced in sin?
One of the remarkable statements concerning this is that very short verse found in Hebrews 12:2. It uses the words author (founder) and the finisher(completer) of faith.
Where then is human "free will" in the aspects of Christ being the founder, the author, the originator of faith?
What of the possibility of human action in the application of the faith God gives through Christ as the author of our faith? This is the second word. The finisher, completer, the one who endured all and is now sitting at the right side of the Father. What aspect would such a savior leave in the hands of fallen humankind when He expects to present the believer without spot or wrinkle?
See, the proof of freedom of the will being bound by the nature of that will is truly a Scriptural presentation.
Does not Paul discuss how the believers must push back against the nature of the flesh and embrace the nature of the Godly?
What righteousness to express faith and confess salvation can be found in that which must be put to death on a daily basis?
Nope no true "freedom of the will" exists as Palegian would have desired, what the Wesley's could not find and had to construct the "prevenient/preceding grace" to work around, and what the Doctrines of Grace find abundantly shown as non-existent.
All drawn will not be saved but all who come will.
You specialize in Scripture inversion.
Almost,
All drawn by the Father will be saved.
Not all who “come” are, for just as many came to hear, to listen that they entrap Him in error, to get feed free food, curiosity about some miracle performed ... where not saved and eventually turned away from him, so in this day there are the wolves, the thrones, the copycats.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
This is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said in John 6:37 & 44 (see below). One cannot come to Jesus unless drawn by the Father. Your argument uses equivocation, which is not a good thing here.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
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.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Your assessment is mere assertion and as such has no merit. All of the elements mentioned are in the passage, though I mentioned more that were also in the passage but which you did not quote. From your bare assertion I'm not sure if you cannot follow the logical construction from the passage, or if you did not really bother to understand the structure of it, or if your biases prevent you, or what.This is not taught in scripture anywhere....this is a fabrication.
Are you denying that those drawn by the Father can come to Jesus? Or that they will come, or do come to Jesus? Or that the Father gives those who come to Jesus? Or that one cannot come before ready (drawn)? Or that they have heard and listened to the Father before coming? Or that those who are drawn and come will be raised?
Your Bible verses are good ones, of course, but cannot prove the teaching of the passage. You really need to deal with the passage in question to determine its teaching.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Although I admit I don’t hold to infant baptism, I nonetheless reject Pelagianism. Pelagianism is far more extreme than anything I am suggesting here; it has zero to do with the discussion at hand.
We seem to be speaking past each other and going far afield. It seems there is confusion over what a passage teaches vs harmonizing it with another. We all have biases that may affect our ability to see a passage clearly. It simply won’t do to pile on a number of other passages to “prove” that the one under examination must teach one’s understanding of the other passages.
Maybe a simple example would help. Matthew 28 says there was an angel at the tomb who told the women of the resurrection. Luke 24 says two (actually two men). Do both passages teach that there were two? No. Matthew only teaches about the one. You cannot invoke your understanding of Luke to say Matthew teaches there were two. Similarly, it would be incorrect to insist that there was only one just because Matthew only mentions the one. This does not mean there is a contradiction, only that the two passages do not point out both.
Last edited:
On the contrary what has no merit is your knack for twisting the scripture into a theological pretzel
All of the elements mentioned are in the passage,
Right...We are not to add or take away from scripture...you like to add, so I ignore that.
From your bare assertion ;
A]I'm not sure if you cannot follow the logical construction from the passage,
B] or if you did not really bother to understand the structure of it,
C]or if your biases prevent you,
D] or what.
I will choose choice D...or what, as you add and twist the word of God, i do not want to defile my thoughts with such obvious mutilations of the scripture. As you post them, they are no longer God's word, but instead your made up story...
This language as posted is not found in scripture...it is convoluted
Everyone of your statements as worded is garbage.
This is similar in design to the compromise document known as the Baptist Faith and Message...written to let goats enter in..
lol...whenever you get serious we can look again
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Dear iconoclast,
Are you not exhibiting a deeply biased double standard in your extremely judgmental wholesale rejection of my efforts to interpret the passage? Everyone who interprets “adds to,” as interpretation is explanatory by nature. You and your own colleagues naturally do the same. At least one added “will come” and several parenthetical phrases in his interpretation of 6:44, and conflated “gives” with “draw,” as did you—and those are not the most extreme examples. You even quoted manmade formulations as one of your earlier responses. The difference is you like the conclusions, indicating your confirmation bias is at the root.
You strongly want it to mean what you say it means. It sounds very much like you feel you need this passage to confirm your teaching. But it does not explicitly do so, unless you read it into it. To insist that it does because of other Scripture is invalid. If you want to interpret it your way for yourself, I cannot stop you, but you are rearranging and adding to the wording when you do so. To pretend you are not is disingenuous.
Quite frankly, your incautious wholesale rejection of my interpretation and denials regarding my questions would seem to lead to rejecting part of your own interpretation and even Scripture itself, which I know you did not intend. I know you do not agree with my interpretation, but you seem to be getting carried away with your denouncements, which is most unhelpful when trying to get to the truth.
Sincerely,
RT&