John 6.44

[Barry Johnson]

No this is completely wrong. We are not elected after conversion. That would make it that it would be possible that some who are converted would not be adopted. We were elect to adoption before the foundation of the world. In other words, it was already a done deal. Adoption happens simultaneously with conversion, not after.

What is the scriptural support for what you are saying ? No verses say what your saying with respect ? We only recieve the spirit of adoption upon conversion. Rom 8.15 .
we then await THE adoption which is in the future , the redemption of the body .
Romans 8.23 23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
This is what eph 1.5 is also referring to .

 

[Barry Johnson]

Good point. We all need some open-minded objectivity to receive things we hadn't thought of before, as long as it stands the test of truth. But what are those standards of truth - or are we disagreed on that itself to begin with? Just musing aloud...

My 2 cents here is that calvinism is frowned upon and rejected by many only because it makes God out to be seemingly schizophrenic in the specific doctrine of sovereign predestined reprobation/condemnation only to then later desire them to be saved? That simply isn't Biblical. But I do find sovereign predestined salvation as Biblical - however since it's always necessarily packaged as an all-or-nothing deal, some are forced to accept the error with the good and others are forced to reject the good with the error. I would desire all of us to unite over accepting the good while simultaneously rejecting the error.


Not once? I mean, you could always interpret verses differently but wouldn't you even concede that there are some valid grounds for those who believe otherwise - or do you hold all others completely irrational to imagine a whole doctrine out of something that's not once mentioned in the Bible?

I get that John 6:44 is used often by the calvinists - however i was personally convinced of individual election (and not reprobation) in my own reading of Rom 9-11.
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).

This remnant that has been elected is very much in the context of salvation as seen in Rom 9:27, 10:1, 11:11, 14 just as the remaining are mentioned in the context of non-salvation in Rom 9:3, 29, 10:21, 11:1, 7. Wouldn't you agree that simply on the surface, it's harder to interpret election completely disassociated from salvation in this context? Probably you do have a way to do so, and I'm willing to engage, but wouldn't you say these verses do present sufficient grounds to put these two together by a simple mind, unadulterated by the calvinist-arminian debate?

This is partly

Good point. We all need some open-minded objectivity to receive things we hadn't thought of before, as long as it stands the test of truth. But what are those standards of truth - or are we disagreed on that itself to begin with? Just musing aloud...

My 2 cents here is that calvinism is frowned upon and rejected by many only because it makes God out to be seemingly schizophrenic in the specific doctrine of sovereign predestined reprobation/condemnation only to then later desire them to be saved? That simply isn't Biblical. But I do find sovereign predestined salvation as Biblical - however since it's always necessarily packaged as an all-or-nothing deal, some are forced to accept the error with the good and others are forced to reject the good with the error. I would desire all of us to unite over accepting the good while simultaneously rejecting the error.


Not once? I mean, you could always interpret verses differently but wouldn't you even concede that there are some valid grounds for those who believe otherwise - or do you hold all others completely irrational to imagine a whole doctrine out of something that's not once mentioned in the Bible?

I get that John 6:44 is used often by the calvinists - however i was personally convinced of individual election (and not reprobation) in my own reading of Rom 9-11.
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).

This remnant that has been elected is very much in the context of salvation as seen in Rom 9:27, 10:1, 11:11, 14 just as the remaining are mentioned in the context of non-salvation in Rom 9:3, 29, 10:21, 11:1, 7. Wouldn't you agree that simply on the surface, it's harder to interpret election completely disassociated from salvation in this context? Probably you do have a way to do so, and I'm willing to engage, but wouldn't you say these verses do present sufficient grounds to put these two together by a simple mind, unadulterated by the calvinist-arminian debate?

Which verse says elected to be saved ? or elected for salvation ?

 

[Barry Johnson]

Good point. We all need some open-minded objectivity to receive things we hadn't thought of before, as long as it stands the test of truth. But what are those standards of truth - or are we disagreed on that itself to begin with? Just musing aloud...

My 2 cents here is that calvinism is frowned upon and rejected by many only because it makes God out to be seemingly schizophrenic in the specific doctrine of sovereign predestined reprobation/condemnation only to then later desire them to be saved? That simply isn't Biblical. But I do find sovereign predestined salvation as Biblical - however since it's always necessarily packaged as an all-or-nothing deal, some are forced to accept the error with the good and others are forced to reject the good with the error. I would desire all of us to unite over accepting the good while simultaneously rejecting the error.


Not once? I mean, you could always interpret verses differently but wouldn't you even concede that there are some valid grounds for those who believe otherwise - or do you hold all others completely irrational to imagine a whole doctrine out of something that's not once mentioned in the Bible?

I get that John 6:44 is used often by the calvinists - however i was personally convinced of individual election (and not reprobation) in my own reading of Rom 9-11.
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).

This remnant that has been elected is very much in the context of salvation as seen in Rom 9:27, 10:1, 11:11, 14 just as the remaining are mentioned in the context of non-salvation in Rom 9:3, 29, 10:21, 11:1, 7. Wouldn't you agree that simply on the surface, it's harder to interpret election completely disassociated from salvation in this context? Probably you do have a way to do so, and I'm willing to engage, but wouldn't you say these verses do present sufficient grounds to put these two together by a simple mind, unadulterated by the calvinist-arminian debate?

No I don't think its irrational and I can see if you assume certain other doctrines why some view those verses the way they do .

 

[Barry Johnson]

I guess we are in the business of persuasion (at the least, that ought to be the intent on a debate forum). So, let's set out a template of conversing that would refrain from being overly defensive while actively seeking to engage each other's arguments. We could work our way up from the facts and truths that we do agree on, while debating the roots of differences one at a time?

You first presented the claim that election is not about salvation. I presented a bunch of verses to show that they are associated at the very least within the same context. I was expecting you'd respond to my counter-argument before moving on to a different line of argument - however I do not insist it in case you believe this new line of argument of yours could spare ourselves time down the earlier one (I don't believe that's the case though).

So you say it's the jews who are the objectors in Rom 9 who're not happy about the Gentiles receiving the Gospel? But that's not precisely true, right? It's not ALL jews who object - it's only the non-elect jews (whatever you take that to be). And the objection is not primarily against Gentiles being grafted in (though it could include it) - the root complaint is that God would never reject His children (osas?) and cut off those branches in the first place (Rom 9:1-6).

In any case, you also claim that it's about Israel's election to a special purpose and that purpose is not salvation per se.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Paul quotes this verse to explain to the objector (as you say, the jew who's being cut off), that God has already spoken to this situation by prophesying in the OT that only a remnant of Israel who're elected by grace before they were born or did any good or evil are saved while the rest are accursed from the true vine of life. Do you see this differently and if so, which part specifically?
Keeping it limited to simply the jews, this still evidences the special purpose of such election was indeed unto salvation and that it was before they had done anything to qualify for it. How do you explain it differently? (I'm going along with your thought process and am not applying these texts to us today in what I've written in this post.)

I guess we are in the business of persuasion (at the least, that ought to be the intent on a debate forum). So, let's set out a template of conversing that would refrain from being overly defensive while actively seeking to engage each other's arguments. We could work our way up from the facts and truths that we do agree on, while debating the roots of differences one at a time?

You first presented the claim that election is not about salvation. I presented a bunch of verses to show that they are associated at the very least within the same context. I was expecting you'd respond to my counter-argument before moving on to a different line of argument - however I do not insist it in case you believe this new line of argument of yours could spare ourselves time down the earlier one (I don't believe that's the case though).

So you say it's the jews who are the objectors in Rom 9 who're not happy about the Gentiles receiving the Gospel? But that's not precisely true, right? It's not ALL jews who object - it's only the non-elect jews (whatever you take that to be). And the objection is not primarily against Gentiles being grafted in (though it could include it) - the root complaint is that God would never reject His children (osas?) and cut off those branches in the first place (Rom 9:1-6).

In any case, you also claim that it's about Israel's election to a special purpose and that purpose is not salvation per se.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Paul quotes this verse to explain to the objector (as you say, the jew who's being cut off), that God has already spoken to this situation by prophesying in the OT that only a remnant of Israel who're elected by grace before they were born or did any good or evil are saved while the rest are accursed from the true vine of life. Do you see this differently and if so, which part specifically?
Keeping it limited to simply the jews, this still evidences the special purpose of such election was indeed unto salvation and that it was before they had done anything to qualify for it. How do you explain it differently? (I'm going along with your thought process and am not applying these texts to us today in what I've written in this post.)

This is my fault but can we bring it back to John 6 first . I think that will clear up romans 9 also .

 

[Barry Johnson]

I guess we are in the business of persuasion (at the least, that ought to be the intent on a debate forum). So, let's set out a template of conversing that would refrain from being overly defensive while actively seeking to engage each other's arguments. We could work our way up from the facts and truths that we do agree on, while debating the roots of differences one at a time?

You first presented the claim that election is not about salvation. I presented a bunch of verses to show that they are associated at the very least within the same context. I was expecting you'd respond to my counter-argument before moving on to a different line of argument - however I do not insist it in case you believe this new line of argument of yours could spare ourselves time down the earlier one (I don't believe that's the case though).

So you say it's the jews who are the objectors in Rom 9 who're not happy about the Gentiles receiving the Gospel? But that's not precisely true, right? It's not ALL jews who object - it's only the non-elect jews (whatever you take that to be). And the objection is not primarily against Gentiles being grafted in (though it could include it) - the root complaint is that God would never reject His children (osas?) and cut off those branches in the first place (Rom 9:1-6).

In any case, you also claim that it's about Israel's election to a special purpose and that purpose is not salvation per se.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Paul quotes this verse to explain to the objector (as you say, the jew who's being cut off), that God has already spoken to this situation by prophesying in the OT that only a remnant of Israel who're elected by grace before they were born or did any good or evil are saved while the rest are accursed from the true vine of life. Do you see this differently and if so, which part specifically?
Keeping it limited to simply the jews, this still evidences the special purpose of such election was indeed unto salvation and that it was before they had done anything to qualify for it. How do you explain it differently? (I'm going along with your thought process and am not applying these texts to us today in what I've written in this post.)

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, The struggle is in the womb and not before
Back to Genesis.
22And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23¶And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
24¶And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
the struggle and a choosing is not before the foundation of the world ,its in the womb .
Election = service and or a blessing .

 

[Barry Johnson]

I guess we are in the business of persuasion (at the least, that ought to be the intent on a debate forum). So, let's set out a template of conversing that would refrain from being overly defensive while actively seeking to engage each other's arguments. We could work our way up from the facts and truths that we do agree on, while debating the roots of differences one at a time?

You first presented the claim that election is not about salvation. I presented a bunch of verses to show that they are associated at the very least within the same context. I was expecting you'd respond to my counter-argument before moving on to a different line of argument - however I do not insist it in case you believe this new line of argument of yours could spare ourselves time down the earlier one (I don't believe that's the case though).

So you say it's the jews who are the objectors in Rom 9 who're not happy about the Gentiles receiving the Gospel? But that's not precisely true, right? It's not ALL jews who object - it's only the non-elect jews (whatever you take that to be). And the objection is not primarily against Gentiles being grafted in (though it could include it) - the root complaint is that God would never reject His children (osas?) and cut off those branches in the first place (Rom 9:1-6).

In any case, you also claim that it's about Israel's election to a special purpose and that purpose is not salvation per se.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Paul quotes this verse to explain to the objector (as you say, the jew who's being cut off), that God has already spoken to this situation by prophesying in the OT that only a remnant of Israel who're elected by grace before they were born or did any good or evil are saved while the rest are accursed from the true vine of life. Do you see this differently and if so, which part specifically?
Keeping it limited to simply the jews, this still evidences the special purpose of such election was indeed unto salvation and that it was before they had done anything to qualify for it. How do you explain it differently? (I'm going along with your thought process and am not applying these texts to us today in what I've written in this post.)

Rom 9.18
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth
Rom9
27¶Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
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.
30¶What shall we say then? That the gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31But israel , which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32Wherefore? Because they were unconditionally elected to be reprobated before the foundation of the world ? no sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Rom 11.32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all

 

[Dave G]

This verse is used quite a lot in conversations with Calvernists .

With good reason, I believe.

I believe this is used out of context and does not support reformed theology , lets dicuss.

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?

If you agree or disagree please state your case .

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.

 

[atpollard]

If you agree or disagree please state your case .

I disagree.
I have never, ever met anyone that claimed to be a "Calvernist".
I think they are a myth created by people that mistakenly believe that they share in the credit for their own personal salvation because they were wise enough to choose God when the rest of humanity was "dead in its sins" and "incapable of pleasing God".

I would post scriptures, but they would just be ignored so why bother.

 

[Van]

44No 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 verse is used quite a lot in conversations with Calvinists . I believe this is used out of context and does not support reformed theology , lets discuss.
If you agree or disagree please state your case .

Here is the NASB95 version of the passage:

John 6:44
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:45
“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

Rather than saying those on the other side are wrong, and rotten to boot, lets back up and look at the verse.

1) What does no one can come to Me mean? No one can put their trust in Christ, or no one can be placed into Christ spiritually?
I think the second choice is correct. John 6:37 presents the result of "coming to Me" as being "in Christ" because Christ will not cast them out.

2) The Father who sent Me refers to God the Father. I think everyone accepts this view.

3) What does "draws him" mean? Here we have two completely different understandings of the text. The Calvinist view is "draw" means compel via irresistible grace. The non-Calvinist view (or at least the one I hold) is that "draw" is being used metaphorically and refers to being "attracted to Jesus" because Jesus died for the person being "drawn." The next divergent view is the Calvinists think everyone drawn (compelled by irresistible grace) is placed into Christ. The non-Cal view is the draw (attraction) can be accepted or rejected such that the person drawn does not put their faith, devotion and love fully in Christ.
The non-Cal view sees (in verse 45) that we must both be attracted (heard the call of the gospel) and "learned" (putting our faith and devotion fully in Christ.) Only those who "learned" come to Jesus be God putting them into Christ.

 

[ivdavid]

Which verse says elected to be saved ? or elected for salvation ?

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?

 

[atpollard]

The whole paragraph quoted to provide context:

[John 6:41-51 NASB]
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." 42 They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 "I am the bread of life. 49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

Jesus explains it himself ...

[John 6:60-65 NASB]
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard [this] said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 "[What] then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

 

[ivdavid]

This is my fault but can we bring it back to John 6 first . I think that will clear up romans 9 also .

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.

 

[ivdavid]

The whole paragraph quoted to provide context:

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

 

[Reformed1689]

What is the scriptural support for what you are saying ? No verses say what your saying with respect ? We only recieve the spirit of adoption upon conversion. Rom 8.15 .
we then await THE adoption which is in the future , the redemption of the body .
Romans 8.23 23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
This is what eph 1.5 is also referring to .

How is that even relevant to the conversation?

 

[Dave G]

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.

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.

 

[Dave G]

@Barry Johnson :

Key take-aways from these passages, as I see them:

35) Jesus is the bread of life.

36) The Jews have seen Him in the flesh, and yet still do not believe that He is who He is...
The Christ, the Son of the living God.

37) Only those given to Christ by the Father will come to Him.
No one else has that privilege.

Also, He will not cast out those who come to Him.
But...
Unless a person is given to Christ by the Father, they will not come to Him.

39) None of the ones given to Christ by the Father will be lost.
This is what some call, "eternal security".

40) Despite the Jews seeing Him in the flesh and not believing, He tells them that those who see Him and believe on Him will have everlasting life.
So, the "seeing" here is not physical, but must be something other than physical.

44) No man can come to Christ unless the Father draws them.
The person that is drawn will be raised up at the last day.

Therefore, if all men are drawn "savingly", then all men will be raised up at the last day.
This results in universal salvation if all men are drawn.

45) Here's the final qualifier that should seal shut the notion that all men, from God's point of view, have an "equal chance" at being saved:
The person who comes to Christ shall learn of Him through the Father, and they will come to Him unfailingly.

See Matthew 11:25-27 for who have the privilege of having the Son and the Father revealed to them, supernaturally.

 

[Dave G]

Summary:

To come to Christ is to believe on Him.
To believe on Him is to come to Him.
One is first given to the Son by the Father, and they then come to Him.
No man can come to Him unless they are drawn.
Only those that are drawn are raised up at the last day, made partakers of the first resurrection unto life.
Only those who "hear" are taught by God to come to Christ.

See Matthew 11:15 and many others that tells us, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear.";
As opposed to those who do not have "ears to hear" and "eyes to see".


May God bless you sir.

 

[Sai]

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

I struggle with dyslexia and every glance at your name I read invalid. Don’t know how that is a contribution to anything but it’s bothering me

 

[Sai]

Summary:

To come to Christ is to believe on Him.
To believe on Him is to come to Him.
One is first given to the Son by the Father, and they then come to Him.
No man can come to Him unless they are drawn.
Only those that are drawn are raised up at the last day, made partakers of the first resurrection unto life.
Only those who "hear" are taught by God to come to Christ.

See Matthew 11:15 and many others that tells us, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear.";
As opposed to those who do not have "ears to hear" and "eyes to see".


May God bless you sir.

Don’t worry, come see me in the kingdom. I’ll put in a good word for you with the boss.

 

[ivdavid]

Because they were unconditionally elected to be reprobated before the foundation of the world ?

I did write this earlier, right?

.... it makes God out to be seemingly schizophrenic in the specific doctrine of sovereign predestined reprobation/condemnation only to then later desire them to be saved? That simply isn't Biblical. But I do find sovereign predestined salvation as Biblical - however since it's always necessarily packaged as an all-or-nothing deal, some are forced to accept the error with the good and others are forced to reject the good with the error. I would desire all of us to unite over accepting the good while simultaneously rejecting the error.

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.