John 6.44

[Barry Johnson]

With good reason, I believe.

What is "Reformed Theology"?
The understanding of God's word generally held to by the "Protestant Reformers"?

Some say that it is, but I do not hold to much of what it embodies in the strictest sense.

Point of fact:
Down through history there have been many "Baptists" who also held to the "TULIP" that have never been influenced by men such as John Calvin.
Are they "Calvinists" even if they do not subscribe to, or have been influenced by men like him?

Here's more of the passage with which to establish context:

" And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
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.
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." ( John 6:35-45 ).

What do you see when you read this, Barry?
Please develop it line by line, and verse by verse so that I can see where we might agree or disagree with the words.

I'll post my thoughts after I get back from my nightly chores.

Are you seriously asking for an exact prooftext?
I'm sure you're capable of putting 2 premises together logically -
1. There is a remnant of Israel that is saved - Rom 9:27
2. This remnant is according to the election of grace - Rom 11:5

What do you infer logically from the above? Paul does it for us -
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
What did the elect jews obtain that the non-elect jews were blinded to?

As to your prooftext, I'd go with -
Rom 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

The purpose of God electing a remnant was to ensure All Israel is not completely destroyed and lost. Hint: not-destroyed=saved.

Which of these premises do you disagree with? When we think aloud, we can inform each other and add to persuasions - I've provided my base Scriptural references and the reasons why I connect them together and infer the way I do. What of this is fallacious and how do you interpret these very same texts?

My bad. I should have put where does it say they were arbitrarily, unconditionally, elected before the foundation of the world ,to be saved ?

 

[Barry Johnson]

OK, Barry...
I'm done doing my chores and I'll go ahead and give you my commentary ( what I see when I read and understand the words ) on this passage, verse by verse:



35) Jesus tells them that He is the "bread of life".
He that comes to Him shall never "hunger", and he that believes on Him shall never "thirst".

36) He then tells the Jews that they have seen Him, yet they do not believe.

37) He goes on to tell them that all that the Father has given to Him shall come to Him, and those that come to Him He will not cast out.
I take this to mean that He will not cast them into outer darkness ( Matthew 25:30, Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:15 ).

38) He came down from Heaven to do the will of Him that sent Him...
His Father.
See the next verse for the answer to Who sent Him.

39) He tells the Jews more...
This is the Father's will that has sent Him:

Of all that He has given to Christ, the Lord Jesus shall lose nothing, but should raise them up at the last day.
See Matthew 24:31.

40) Going on, He tells them that this is the will of Him who sent the Lord Jesus down from Heaven ( see verse 38 ):
Everyone that "sees" the Son and believes on Him may have everlasting life.
Again, He tells them that He shall raise these people up at the last day.

41) The Jews complain at Him because He said that He is the bread which came down from Heaven.

42) They say to themselves, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know? How is it that He says, "I came down from Heaven"?"

43) Jesus then answered, "Don't complain among yourselves."

44) "No man can come to me except the Father which sent me, draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

45) "It is written in the prophets ( see Isaiah 54:13, Jeremiah 31:33-34 )..."and they shall all be taught of ( from or by ) God."
Every man that has heard and has learned of ( by or from ) the Father, comes to Jesus Christ.

Would you agree that the given are also the disciples ? And that all that the Father draws CAN come but not necessarily do ? And would you agree that this is before the cross , the death , the burial , resurrection and the giving of the Holy spirit ; where we see no verses that the Father nor the HS is drawing anyone after the cross but only the Son ?

 

[Barry Johnson]

I did write this earlier, right?


I myself firmly deny unconditional predestined reprobation unto condemnation before the foundation of the world - I only affirm unconditional predestined election unto salvation. I've discussed the logical coherence elsewhere.
The point is, predestined reprobation shouldn't be a deterrent to one's accepting individual election in the Bible - because it isn't true in the case of man and can be explained as a contradiction within calvinism.

Do you affirm unconditional ,election predestination unto salvation, before the foundation of the world ? If so does John 6 say this ? or anywhere else ?

 

[Barry Johnson]

I did write this earlier, right?


I myself firmly deny unconditional predestined reprobation unto condemnation before the foundation of the world - I only affirm unconditional predestined election unto salvation. I've discussed the logical coherence elsewhere.
The point is, predestined reprobation shouldn't be a deterrent to one's accepting individual election in the Bible - because it isn't true in the case of man and can be explained as a contradiction within calvinism.

My contention there would be ' predestined ' literally has nothing to do with ' to be saved ' but rather once saved then we are predestined to the adoption ( Rom 8.23 )
John 6.44 is not about predestination either .

 

[Barry Johnson]

OK, Barry...
I'm done doing my chores and I'll go ahead and give you my commentary ( what I see when I read and understand the words ) on this passage, verse by verse:



35) Jesus tells them that He is the "bread of life".
He that comes to Him shall never "hunger", and he that believes on Him shall never "thirst".

36) He then tells the Jews that they have seen Him, yet they do not believe.

37) He goes on to tell them that all that the Father has given to Him shall come to Him, and those that come to Him He will not cast out.
I take this to mean that He will not cast them into outer darkness ( Matthew 25:30, Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:15 ).

38) He came down from Heaven to do the will of Him that sent Him...
His Father.
See the next verse for the answer to Who sent Him.

39) He tells the Jews more...
This is the Father's will that has sent Him:

Of all that He has given to Christ, the Lord Jesus shall lose nothing, but should raise them up at the last day.
See Matthew 24:31.

40) Going on, He tells them that this is the will of Him who sent the Lord Jesus down from Heaven ( see verse 38 ):
Everyone that "sees" the Son and believes on Him may have everlasting life.
Again, He tells them that He shall raise these people up at the last day.

41) The Jews complain at Him because He said that He is the bread which came down from Heaven.

42) They say to themselves, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know? How is it that He says, "I came down from Heaven"?"

43) Jesus then answered, "Don't complain among yourselves."

44) "No man can come to me except the Father which sent me, draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

45) "It is written in the prophets ( see Isaiah 54:13, Jeremiah 31:33-34 )..."and they shall all be taught of ( from or by ) God."
Every man that has heard and has learned of ( by or from ) the Father, comes to Jesus Christ.

Drawing gets a person TO Christ but Drawing does not put them IN christ .
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (KJV)
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one
body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free;
and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:27 (KJV)
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV)
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after
that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 5:30 (KJV)
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Romans 12:5 (KJV)
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

 

[Dave G]

My bad. I should have put where does it say they were arbitrarily, unconditionally, elected before the foundation of the world ,to be saved ?

In a number of places.
Putting together the Scriptures, I start with John 6, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Romans 10, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 2 Thessalonians 2.

Would you agree that the given are also the disciples ?

Yes.

And that all that the Father draws CAN come but not necessarily do ?

No, because all that are drawn by the Father are the ones given to Christ.
They are the ones who will be raised up at the last day.

So, according to John 6:44, one cannot be drawn by the Father and not come to Christ, nor can they not be raised up at the last day.
They are inseparably linked.

And would you agree that this is before the cross , the death , the burial , resurrection and the giving of the Holy spirit ; where we see no verses that the Father nor the HS is drawing anyone after the cross but only the Son ?

The Scripture still applies...
In order for someone to truly come to the Son, the Father must do the drawing.

In John 12:32, it's not the same type of "drawing".
If it were, then Jesus was lying and they both can "savingly" draw someone, can't they?

Drawing gets a person TO Christ but Drawing does not put them IN christ .

They were chosen "in Christ" ( Ephesians 1:4 ).
What the Lord chooses to do is always carried out, just like prophecies are.

Also, the Father does the begetting by the word ( James 1:18 ).

So, what the Lord has begun in a person ( Philippians 1:6 ) He will continue until the day of Christ.
Even the fact that we have believed is a work of God ( John 6:29 ), Barry.

Did you miss all those things in your reading?

 

[ivdavid]

My bad. I should have put where does it say they were arbitrarily, unconditionally, elected before the foundation of the world ,to be saved ?

I'd have to pause here to object to your method of debate here - I am not perturbed or offended by it, but simply raising the unfairness of how this dialogue has been moving along in the very remote case that you hadn't noticed and would've liked to have been made aware of.

I've answered your every question here but you do not seem to be answering any of mine - is there any specific reason for that? On good faith, only to converse together and not to slam dunk any conclusions, I've been sharing all that I believe and the reasoning - but when I ask you for what you believe, where exactly you differ on my interpretations or how you interpret those very specific verses yourself, you simply reply with yet another question.

You've been shifting the goalposts constantly with no acknowledgement of what's already presented. You began with claiming not once in the Bible has election been mentioned in the context of salvation - Rom 9-11 was presented. Without acknowledging your first claim may need reconsidering in light of this, you simply moved on to asking where such election has been mentioned as purposed unto salvation - Rom 9:29 was presented. No thinking aloud yet, and now you ask where such election unto salvation has been mentioned as unconditional - I am going to continue to present verses only because it's profitable unto edification, but you'd do well to reciprocate too.

Do you affirm unconditional ,election predestination unto salvation, before the foundation of the world ? If so does John 6 say this ? or anywhere else ?

Oh I absolutely affirm unconditional election unto salvation before any man's birth or good or evil. I've already reasoned out why in my very first post on this thread -

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
The facts - there is a remnant, It is according to election, and this election is of grace (not works v.6).

For this election to be of grace and not works, it must necessarily be independent of anything man does - which is assuredly established if such election occurred before man had done any good or evil or even was born (Rom 9:11).

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

How does the purpose of God stand according to the election of grace and not works - by proving it is based on Him who calls and not based on what the children have done, good or evil - which is what we've termed "unconditional".

This is quite straightforward according to me - I mean, I'm not even interpreting between multiple passages across Scriptures, the thought process is already laid out by Paul within the same context. But how do you see this differently - what is your exegetical interpretation? I am willing to engage on your own arguments, but make some to begin with. How do you see why Paul equates the jews whom God foreknew and didn't cast away as the remnant elect in Rom 11:2,5?

 

[Barry Johnson]

In a number of places.
Putting together the Scriptures, I start with John 6, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Romans 10, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 2 Thessalonians 2.

Yes.

No, because all that are drawn by the Father are the ones given to Christ.
They are the ones who will be raised up at the last day.

So, according to John 6:44, one cannot be drawn by the Father and not come to Christ, nor can they not be raised up at the last day.
They are inseparably linked.

The Scripture still applies...
In order for someone to truly come to the Son, the Father must do the drawing.

In John 12:32, it's not the same type of "drawing".
If it were, then Jesus was lying and they both can "savingly" draw someone, can't they?

They were chosen "in Christ" ( Ephesians 1:4 ).
What the Lord chooses to do is always carried out, just like prophecies are.

Also, the Father does the begetting by the word ( James 1:18 ).

So, what the Lord has begun in a person ( Philippians 1:6 ) He will continue until the day of Christ.
Even the fact that we have believed is a work of God ( John 6:29 ), Barry.

Did you miss all those things in your reading?

What you see

In a number of places.
Putting together the Scriptures, I start with John 6, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Romans 10, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 2 Thessalonians 2.

Yes.

No, because all that are drawn by the Father are the ones given to Christ.
They are the ones who will be raised up at the last day.

So, according to John 6:44, one cannot be drawn by the Father and not come to Christ, nor can they not be raised up at the last day.
They are inseparably linked.

The Scripture still applies...
In order for someone to truly come to the Son, the Father must do the drawing.

In John 12:32, it's not the same type of "drawing".
If it were, then Jesus was lying and they both can "savingly" draw someone, can't they?

They were chosen "in Christ" ( Ephesians 1:4 ).
What the Lord chooses to do is always carried out, just like prophecies are.

Also, the Father does the begetting by the word ( James 1:18 ).

So, what the Lord has begun in a person ( Philippians 1:6 ) He will continue until the day of Christ.
Even the fact that we have believed is a work of God ( John 6:29 ), Barry.

Did you miss all those things in your reading?

Before the cross all the ones who were given to the son were Drawn by the father and can come ( Just like Judas ) because they were drawn by the father ( as opossed to the devil or something) . Now they can come as they have been drawn by the father ( Just like the disciples, given by the Father ) but what it doesn't say is that all those that are drawn and can come now that they have been drawn to Christ all believe and get placed into christ ( like judas ) . This is all assumed . Sure ,everyone 'in Christ' WILL be raised up on the last day . This makes perfect sense when Jesus says He will DRAW ( attract ) all men . John 12.32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
And then we don't have the issue of ' universalism ' . This now lines up with all those verse youve given which you assume supports the " doctrines of grace ' . Especially Ephesians 1 .4 -5 as its only those ' in him ' who are chosen to be predestined to the Adoption which as I've said repeatedly is the redemption of the body . Rom 8.23.
Also we don't have verses saying that the father or the Holy Spirit is drawing today which is important to notice ..Jesus is said to be drawing after He be lifted up . The Holy Spirit isn't drawing anyone beyond john 16.8

 

[ivdavid]

My contention there would be ' predestined ' literally has nothing to do with ' to be saved ' but rather once saved then we are predestined to the adoption ( Rom 8.23 )
John 6.44 is not about predestination either .

I take it you mean Eph 1:5 and not Rom 8:23. I'm not myself too stuck on the word 'predestined' itself - it simply means to determine something in advance. That 'something' could be anything - just so long as it's determined in advance, it can be said to be predestined. Christ's manner and timing of death, which involved so many others' participation across millennia, was determined in advance - which is why it's said to be predestined in Acts 4:28. Therefore I don't focus on just the word but God's revelation of what and why He's determining in advance.

From just Rom 9:11, God determined in advance (before the children had done good or evil) something about them - I'm comfortable terming it 'predestined'. I'm also comfortable not using 'predestined' here and simply describing what happened as-is. The similar election of grace in Rom 11:5 has God determining in advance something about the jews whom He foreknew - I don't mind one way or the other describing this as 'predestined'. It's just semantics - why should whole doctrines be dependent on vocabulary?

 

[Barry Johnson]

I take it you mean Eph 1:5 and not Rom 8:23. I'm not myself too stuck on the word 'predestined' itself - it simply means to determine something in advance. That 'something' could be anything - just so long as it's determined in advance, it can be said to be predestined. Christ's manner and timing of death, which involved so many others' participation across millennia, was determined in advance - which is why it's said to be predestined in Acts 4:28. Therefore I don't focus on just the word but God's revelation of what and why He's determining in advance.

From just Rom 9:11, God determined in advance (before the children had done good or evil) something about them - I'm comfortable terming it 'predestined'. I'm also comfortable not using 'predestined' here and simply describing what happened as-is. The similar election of grace in Rom 11:5 has God determining in advance something about the jews whom He foreknew - I don't mind one way or the other describing this as 'predestined'. It's just semantics - why should whole doctrines be dependent on vocabulary?

I belive
Predestination is of existing saints to adoption/glorification, not sinners to conversion. (Eph. 1:5, 11; Rom. 8:23, 29-30)

Election is to service, calling and purpose, not to salvation. (Isa. 42:1; Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:28)

Adoption is the future redemption of the body, not conversion. (Rom. 8:23, 15-17; Gal. 4:1-6)

Sinners become sons of God through the new birth, not through adoption. (John 1:12-13)
I don't see anywhere God determined any sinner to be saved before the foundation of the world . I believe Pre ( choose ) destination ( ahead of time ) .
Including anything going on in Romans 9 . Nothing in Romans 9 says any one was chosen to be saved before the foundation of the world .
I agree with you that we should stop where the bible stops..For example God determining the crucifixtion is different to determining the conversation I had at the supermarket last week . Its the difference between inductive reasoning and inductive method..I believe Calvinism is mainly 'inductive reasoning '

 

[Barry Johnson]

Sure. What would you like to discuss over John 6? I do not see it as a starting point for election given that there is no reference to election there - which is why I brought up Rom 11. I personally do not even quote v.44 as much as I do v.64-65 - since it is quite informative with the connecting "therefore" which links God's giving to man's believing as cause and effect.

I'd have to pause here to object to your method of debate here - I am not perturbed or offended by it, but simply raising the unfairness of how this dialogue has been moving along in the very remote case that you hadn't noticed and would've liked to have been made aware of.

I've answered your every question here but you do not seem to be answering any of mine - is there any specific reason for that? On good faith, only to converse together and not to slam dunk any conclusions, I've been sharing all that I believe and the reasoning - but when I ask you for what you believe, where exactly you differ on my interpretations or how you interpret those very specific verses yourself, you simply reply with yet another question.

You've been shifting the goalposts constantly with no acknowledgement of what's already presented. You began with claiming not once in the Bible has election been mentioned in the context of salvation - Rom 9-11 was presented. Without acknowledging your first claim may need reconsidering in light of this, you simply moved on to asking where such election has been mentioned as purposed unto salvation - Rom 9:29 was presented. No thinking aloud yet, and now you ask where such election unto salvation has been mentioned as unconditional - I am going to continue to present verses only because it's profitable unto edification, but you'd do well to reciprocate too.


Oh I absolutely affirm unconditional election unto salvation before any man's birth or good or evil. I've already reasoned out why in my very first post on this thread -

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

How does the purpose of God stand according to the election of grace and not works - by proving it is based on Him who calls and not based on what the children have done, good or evil - which is what we've termed "unconditional".

This is quite straightforward according to me - I mean, I'm not even interpreting between multiple passages across Scriptures, the thought process is already laid out by Paul within the same context. But how do you see this differently - what is your exegetical interpretation? I am willing to engage on your own arguments, but make some to begin with. How do you see why Paul equates the jews whom God foreknew and didn't cast away as the remnant elect in Rom 11:2,5?

Would you ag

I'd have to pause here to object to your method of debate here - I am not perturbed or offended by it, but simply raising the unfairness of how this dialogue has been moving along in the very remote case that you hadn't noticed and would've liked to have been made aware of.

I've answered your every question here but you do not seem to be answering any of mine - is there any specific reason for that? On good faith, only to converse together and not to slam dunk any conclusions, I've been sharing all that I believe and the reasoning - but when I ask you for what you believe, where exactly you differ on my interpretations or how you interpret those very specific verses yourself, you simply reply with yet another question.

You've been shifting the goalposts constantly with no acknowledgement of what's already presented. You began with claiming not once in the Bible has election been mentioned in the context of salvation - Rom 9-11 was presented. Without acknowledging your first claim may need reconsidering in light of this, you simply moved on to asking where such election has been mentioned as purposed unto salvation - Rom 9:29 was presented. No thinking aloud yet, and now you ask where such election unto salvation has been mentioned as unconditional - I am going to continue to present verses only because it's profitable unto edification, but you'd do well to reciprocate too.


Oh I absolutely affirm unconditional election unto salvation before any man's birth or good or evil. I've already reasoned out why in my very first post on this thread -

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

How does the purpose of God stand according to the election of grace and not works - by proving it is based on Him who calls and not based on what the children have done, good or evil - which is what we've termed "unconditional".

This is quite straightforward according to me - I mean, I'm not even interpreting between multiple passages across Scriptures, the thought process is already laid out by Paul within the same context. But how do you see this differently - what is your exegetical interpretation? I am willing to engage on your own arguments, but make some to begin with. How do you see why Paul equates the jews whom God foreknew and didn't cast away as the remnant elect in Rom 11:2,5?

/// You began with claiming not once in the Bible has election been mentioned in the context of salvation /// if I said this then I need to clarify . I meant not once in the bible does Election mean a sinner has been Chosen TO BE saved before the Foundation of the world . As I've already said :
Predestination is of existing saints to adoption/glorification, not sinners to conversion. (Eph. 1:5, 11; Rom. 8:23, 29-30)

Election is to service, calling and purpose, not to salvation. (Isa. 42:1; Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:28)

 

[ivdavid]

I belive
Predestination is of existing saints to adoption/glorification, not sinners to conversion.

I just wrote that these terms don't exclusively point to only some doctrines - it depends on context, right?
Are you saying that in Eph 1:5 specifically, predestination is not applied unto salvation? I'd agree. Or are you taking this as your basis to generalize it as hence not being applied unto salvation across all of Scriptures? I'd disagree - that would be building doctrines around vocabulary.

In my earlier post #47, I have recounted how God has determined in advance the unconditional election of the remnant jews unto salvation - that to me still falls under 'predestined' since it was determined in advance.

Election is to service, calling and purpose, not to salvation.

Again, semantics. Most definitely in some contexts, election is not to salvation - but to take that and generalize it would be wrong. In some other contexts as shown in post #47, election is indeed unto salvation.

Adoption is the future redemption of the body, not conversion.

Disagree on this - we've just completed debating this on another thread and I believe this is again an error on semantics. Adoption is simply making us sons/children of God which we've already received as per Gal 4:5-6, Eph 1:5-6 - the redemption of the body is a distinct future event that we still wait for. The sentence structure of Rom 8:23 does not lend itself to being a definition of Adoption.

Sinners become sons of God through the new birth, not through adoption.

Yes, sinners become sons of God through the new birth - and this "becoming sons of God" is what's simply termed Adoption - it's not some other distinct event. When someone from your local orphanage "becomes your son", he's said to be Adopted, right?

 

[ivdavid]

if I said this then I need to clarify . I meant not once in the bible does Election mean a sinner has been Chosen TO BE saved before the Foundation of the world .

Okay. Would you say that in Rom 11:5,7 that the remnant jews were elected by grace before they had done any good or evil to not be destroyed or cast away but be saved? If yes, simply reply yes - if no, simply choose which phrase(s) you disagree with -

1. the remnant jews (Rom 11:1,5)
2. elected by grace (Rom 11:5-7)
3. before they had done any good or evil (Rom 9:11)
4. to not be destroyed or cast away (Rom 9:29, 11:2)
5. but be saved (Rom 9:27)

If you differ on any of these, could you provide how you interpret them yourself, thanks!

 

[ivdavid]

what it doesn't say is that all those that are drawn and can come now that they have been drawn to Christ all believe and get placed into christ

I can go along with this line of reasoning. So there's a cause and effect of God's drawing -> to the people being able to come, and there's a cause and effect of the people actual coming and believing -> to them being raised up on the last day - but there is no cause and effect of people's being able to come -> to them actually coming and believing? Fine.

Could you also explain the cause and effect of God's giving the people to Christ -> to their coming and believing in Christ (Jn 6:37)?
And finally the cause and effect of God giving to the people -> to their coming and believing in Christ (Jn 6:64-65) ?

In other words, what was not given to the people by the Father in Jn 6:65, which if it had been given, they'd have believed?

 

[Dave G]

Election is to service, calling and purpose, not to salvation. (Isa. 42:1; Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:28)

I'm sorry Barry.
As I see it, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, I clearly see that election ( choosing ) is to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ).
It is God who chooses a person and causes them to approach Him ( Psalms 65:4 ) by His work of regeneration, or being born again.
It is to the gift ( Romans 6:23 ) of eternal life, which is to know God and His Son ( John 17:3 ), and it is to an inheritance, prepared from the foundation of the world ( Matthew 25:34 ).

Any other way makes salvation into a cooperative effort that hinges on God rewarding men with a "wage" for their act of belief.
But God does not reward us as men for our works, except with punishment for our evil works.
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

All true good works are "wrought" ( worked ) in God ( John 3:21 ).
So, even our righteous act of belief does not merit any attention from God when it comes to those in Christ having been made clean by the blood of Christ.

It is all of grace, my friend.

I wish you well, sir.

 

[atpollard]

Just realized I marked "Agree" to your post's logic only to then realize you'd simply posted Scriptures as-is

That whole section of scripture has that effect on people. Everyone sees in it exactly what they believe it says. Personally, I have spent too much time discovering new "already and not yet" double-truths (and even triple-truths) in scripture to still see it as as a we choose/God chose "either/or" passage. I see it as a "both". I just lean on God's Sovereignty as the "first cause" in all things.

However, where is the Calvinist vs Arminian argument fun in that?

 

[atpollard]

What you see

That is really your response to all of the scripture references that he presented ... you just don't see what he sees?

Then what do you see in these verses:

• Mark 4:3-4
  
• 2 Corinthians 2:14
• 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

 

[JD731]

On the subject of the op, John 6:44. A sliding hermeneutic is generally the rule when context is not considered. I would ask anyone commenting on John 6:44 to use the same rule for interpreting all the verses in that chapter. If that were the case we would have some arguments from the following verse and it might get a little silly.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Nobody is arguing that one must see the son to have everlasting life. Yet these are words right out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. He said this is the will of the Father.

The point is, there is context to scripture and before someone steps in a public forum to speak for God about his salvation he should reconcile verses like this that presents us with an impossibility and one that will allow a consistent method of interpretation.

If salvation can only be accomplished by the "drawing" of God, why did Paul write 13 letters to gentiles, telling us all about God's salvation and not one time even use the word "draw?" I will answer that question myself. It is because salvation is by invitation to all and not by the drawing of some.

Context is our friend.

 

[Barry Johnson]

I'm sorry Barry.
As I see it, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, I clearly see that election ( choosing ) is to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ).
It is God who chooses a person and causes them to approach Him ( Psalms 65:4 ) by His work of regeneration, or being born again.
It is to the gift ( Romans 6:23 ) of eternal life, which is to know God and His Son ( John 17:3 ), and it is to an inheritance, prepared from the foundation of the world ( Matthew 25:34 ).

Any other way makes salvation into a cooperative effort that hinges on God rewarding men with a "wage" for their act of belief.
But God does not reward us as men for our works, except with punishment for our evil works.
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

All true good works are "wrought" ( worked ) in God ( John 3:21 ).
So, even our righteous act of belief does not merit any attention from God when it comes to those in Christ having been made clean by the blood of Christ.

It is all of grace, my friend.

I wish you well, sir.

/////
Any other way makes salvation into a cooperative effort that hinges on God rewarding men with a "wage" for their act of belief.
But God does not reward us as men for our works, except with punishment for our evil works.////// Heres your issue . if I thought believing was ' working/ earning my salavation ,wow yeah I would agree. But that is the most bizarre concept in Calvinism/ reformed theology ( its found no where else ) . " rewarding men "?? again what are you talking about ?? its only a reward or a work/ earning if the bible says it is , but it doesn't . If i believe / trust my car will get me to work . Thats not working. I don't deserve a reward for believing / trusting the pilot will fly me to my destination. They don't hand out medals at the end ." well done sir , we couldn't have done it without you believing "
Romans 4.4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Romans 3.27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of FAITH .
Nor do I believe you can lose salvation. And I don't believe I need perseverance of the saints to final salvation or need to endure to the end to find out through my works if I'm one of the frozen chosen .
Have you thought about what the bible says in 1 cor 1.18? it PLEASES God to save those that BELIEVE . Your saying " no God , I read that it pleases you to save those that believe, but I refuse to accept that, and it doesn't please me how you save people "

 

[atpollard]

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Nobody is arguing that one must see the son to have everlasting life. Yet these are words right out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. He said this is the will of the Father.

[John 20:27-29 NIV] 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

[Acts 2:38-39 NIV] 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

In John 6, ALL who are drawn are "raised" and Jesus "will lose none of" ... that sure sounds SAVED to me.