Let's Talk About The Word Draw..

[loDebar]

Let's look at Matthew 12:15. Did Jesus heal "all" people in the sense of each and every person? Or did he heal "all" in the sense of he just healed the sick? Healthy people don't need healing...he healed a limited group, which was sick people.

Mark 2:12. Was Jesus in the sight of "all" people on the sense of everyone? No, it was limited to the people around him.

Ephesians 4:14, does Paul mean that there is someone who has been carried away by every single doctrine? No he means "all -types" in a general sense. That people are carried off by all different kinds of doctrine.

1 John 4:1. Does John mean dont believe "all", every single spirit? No context and grammar show he is limiting "all" to certain kinds of spirits.

I realize that not all English translations have "all" in English. But the Greek words all have the lexical form of πας.

Πας certain doesn't not mean "all" in the sense of every single one or thing in totality in all instances. One must look at context and grammar.



Both verse here limit "all" to a type of person.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The subjects reflect who All applies .

Mark 12 suggest all who saw him. total who knew or met the former cripple.
Matt 12:15 we should understand only the sick were healed. Total # of sick, healed individually
The total spirits or doctrines should not be believed .as one

Πας means all but not as a general group(s). but individuals of the group. like the total class was invited or each member of the class was sent an invitation
It is important because of the individual relationship God wants with us, not as a group

 

[McCree79]

The subjects reflect who All applies .

Mark 12 suggest all who saw him. total who knew or met the former cripple.
Matt 12:15 we should understand only the sick were healed. Total # of sick, healed individually
The total spirits or doctrines should not be believed .as one

Πας means all but not as a general group(s). but individuals of the group. like the total class was invited or each member of the class was sent an invitation
It is important because of the individual relationship God wants with us, not as a group

Its does refer "to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any". This use, while focus on individual components, does claim the totality of a sum.

The second usage is "any entity out of a totality". This usage claims "all" of a sum out of the totality.
*requires plural, w/o article.

So if the second usage is correct Jesus "draws/drags" a group of individuals out of the totality.
If the first usage is correct Jesus draws the totality to himself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed1689]

because it is not being used as drag in the other uses

What other uses? It has in all the uses you have shown.

but maybe since there is no fishing net from God to sinners and we have Jesus on the cross, lifted uo where all can see, Sin judged I will bet it is draw

Which means.....oh wait, drag.

 

[Reformed1689]

"Draw" isnt bad. It is within the realm of acceptable translation. I don't blame them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I don't know how many times we have to say that.

 

[loDebar]

What other uses? It has in all the uses you have shown.


Which means.....oh wait, drag.

no, There has not been a direct means to pull to dragging suggests a connection to pull in a direction by. draw does not ,, especially when lifted up on the cross,

 

[loDebar]

I don't know how many times we have to say that.

It is not accurate, It does not agree with other verses

 

[Reformed1689]

no, There has not been a direct means to pull to dragging suggests a connection to pull in a direction by. draw does not ,, especially when lifted up on the cross,

You keep talking about lifted up on the cross but the whole context of John 12 totally blows your interpretation out of the water.

 

[Reformed1689]

It is not accurate, It does not agree with other verses

Except we have already exegeted the passages to show that it does.

 

[loDebar]

You keep talking about lifted up on the cross but the whole context of John 12 totally blows your interpretation out of the water.

What are you saying?

Jhn 3:14

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Jhn 8:28

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

 

[loDebar]

Except we have already exegeted the passages to show that it does.

Rev 3:19

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Rev 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, andwill sup with him, and he with me
Rev 3:21

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


Dragging the man, to them open the door? or asking to let Him in?

 

[Reformed1689]

What are you saying?

Jhn 3:14

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Jhn 8:28

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

You are fishing for cherry-picked verses. You can't win an argument that way. We were discussing John 12. The whole context is all people groups, not all people (individuals).

Not all people are drawn to Him. They simply are not. Nor does the Bible say they are.

 

[Reformed1689]

Rev 3:19

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Rev 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, andwill sup with him, and he with me
Rev 3:21

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


Dragging the man, to them open the door? or asking to let Him in?

Who has ears to hear? It is not everyone. It is those that are the chosen. They hear because their will has already been changed to accept Christ. No, it is not a simple invitation.

 

[loDebar]

Who has ears to hear? It is not everyone. It is those that are the chosen. They hear because their will has already been changed to accept Christ. No, it is not a simple invitation.

When you say God chooses one for salvation, you are also saying God chooses one that do not get salvation.
If God created me knowing I was non elect then He created me just to send me to hell. or I can blame God for sending me to hell since I had no choice.
This is not optional but is the result of predestination.

 

[McCree79]

.
If God created me knowing I was non elect then He created me just to send me to hell. or

Does God not know all things?

Does he not know the future?
Does he not declare the future?

*If he created someone knowing they would not accept him according to their own "free will", yet he created them anyway...does he not in effect send them to hell?*

"Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’" Isaiah 46:10

How could he make that statement if he doesn't even know the future?




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed1689]

When you say God chooses one for salvation, you are also saying God chooses one that do not get salvation.

He passes over them. Yes. That is correct. Ever read Romans 9?

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:19–24, ESV)

 

[JonC]

When you say God chooses one for salvation, you are also saying God chooses one that do not get salvation.
If God created me knowing I was non elect then He created me just to send me to hell. or I can blame God for sending me to hell since I had no choice.
This is not optional but is the result of predestination.

I absolutely agree. "Double predestination" is the logical conclusion of election because God still creates those who are not "chosen" for salvation. It's the "Potter and the clay" analogy - some made as vessels of wrath, others as vessels of mercy.

The actual "blame", however, still resides with the condemned. Insofar as salvation they are "passed over", their condemnation based on their own actions, but in the end they are "predestined" for condemnation because God has still created them.

 

[McCree79]

I absolutely agree. "Double predestination" is the logical conclusion of election because God still creates those who are not "chosen" for salvation.

Does God not know all things?
If he creates someone and knows they will not accept him, why does he still create them? In effect it is the same logical conclusion. Hod created them knowing they would go to hell. Open theism is the only escape from this conclusion.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

Does God not know all things?
If he creates someone and knows they will not accept him, why does he still create them? In effect it is the same logical conclusion. Hod created them knowing they would go to hell. Open theism is the only escape from this conclusion.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You must be on a phone. My phone also worships Hod.

I am not really sure what you are asking me. Does God not know all things? No. God does know all things.

If God created men who God knew were destined for Hell then this is "double predestination" because God actively created men for that purpose.

 

[McCree79]

You must be on a phone. My phone also worships Hod.

Yes, I am on a phone.

I God does know all things.

Agreed

If God created men who God knew were destined for Hell then this is "double predestination" because God actively created men for that purpose.

Apologizes. I seen your "I agree" statement and assumed you agreed with the whole argument being presented.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[The Biblicist]

It is very relevant if you believe that God has preserved His Word for hose of us who speak and read English. Do you believe the translators made a mistake when they translated helkuo as "draw"?


I think we found the problem. Context is the key for proper exegesis.

Then, you do accept the definition of "draw" that I posted from the English dictionary, right?

What if we put aside both Greek and English, and put aside the passages where we debate the meaning (Jn.6:44; 12:31) , and just look at way it is used in all other passages in the New Testament and see if there is any consistent meaning? For example, in all other texts where we find this Greek term used does what is being drawn or allured come simeltaneous as being drawn or allured or fails to come or the coming is delayed? Is what being drawn or allurred part of that action or always passive with regard to the subject doing the action and thus the object being acted upon?