• 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!

Rebuttal of an Article on Jn. 6:44 by Dr. Flowers

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John 6:38-39.

Does this passage actually say the saved had been given in Christ before He came to earth? Nope.

It says the will of the Father is not to lose any who God has given to Him. Thus any time God gives a person to Christ, it is the Father's will that Christ not lose them. Thus the passage provides no support for God giving a person to Christ before Christ came to earth. In fact, no one was given (transferred into Christ) until Christ suffered and died on the cross.
 

Danthemailman

Active Member
Hi Dan,

I agree, the Bible says whoever believes will not perish, thus if we die in unbelief, we perish.

I do not think the rest of your view reflects what the Bible says. First, of course we would not believe in Christ, if Christ had not been born, lived, taught, died, and arose from the tomb. The Holy Spirit inspired the authors that told us about in, both in the Old Testament, and in the New. Next, the Bible says all who behold Jesus, high and lifted up (suffering and dying on the cross for us) will be drawn (attracted to Him).
Then the bible says God alone either credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, or He doesn't. After He credits our faith as righteousness, He gives us to Christ by transferring us spiritually into Christ. The transfer is our "coming to Me" in John 6:44.

In John 6:65, "granted" means "allowed." Judas was not chosen to believe, but to be the betrayer, thus it was not allowed that he would actually believe in Jesus.
I once heard someone say that the only thing involved in coming to saving faith in Christ is paper, ink and human intelligence. I don’t agree with that and I see “drawing” and “enabling” on God’s part going beyond simply “allowing” although I also do not see it as forced, fatalistic determination either.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hi Dan,
We do not come to saving faith, we come to faith, as worthless as it may be, but God either credits our faith as righteousness, or He doesn't as illustrated by the second and third soils of Matthew 13. Thus we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works.
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Although it is our responsibility to choose to believe and we will be held accountable for unbelief (John 3:18), saving belief/faith in Christ is never exclusively a matter of human decision. Unless the Father draws us in and enables us (John 6:44,65) we would NEVER come to believe in Christ unto salvation all by ourselves. The approach of the soul to Christ is initiated by the Father, but He doesn't force us to choose Christ, we must choose Him. The impulse to believing in Christ unto salvation/placing faith in Christ for salvation comes from God.

Does my impulse to eat pizza come from pizza-god?


Proof that you were drawn by God to Jesus, You were born.

I guarantee the folks who are not born or exist will not come to Jesus as God has designed.


Folks who don't think through God's capacity tend to make God dumb and attribute dumbed down human solutions of omnipotence that lack any real common sense.
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And I'm trying to point out Scriptures that just are as relevant as others are.

To me, your apparent desire for a clear-cut answer to the question should be based on all of God's word, not parts of it.
His word doesn't stop at stating that he commands all men to repent...it also tells us more about man's hard heart, and why we won't repent.
Parts of God's word do not give us the complete picture; all of it does.

For example:

Acts of the Apostles 13:48 is just as much the word of God as John 3:16 is.
Romans 8:29-30 is just as much the word of God as Revelation 3:20 is.

Take all of it together, and try not to ignore or condition any of it in favor of any of the rest of it.:)



" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." ( John 6:37 )

All that the Father gives to Christ shall come to Him...

ALL.

If God the Father gives all men to Christ, then they ALL will come to Him.;)
"I'm trying to point out Scriptures that just are as relevant as others are."

I don't see one single hair of GOD commanding all not to sin, expressing his WANT and DESIRE in conflict with any other scripture at all.

So we are back to square one. Does GOD want all to sin or not> you are already back peddling.

"To me, your apparent desire for a clear-cut answer to the question "

The command of God clear cut for me.

Thank you for admitting my entire point.

I'm not clueless about what God wants and desires in the command of God.

I don't twiddle my thumbs and think gee he told us all not to sin.......nah.... he probably really does want someone to sin.

I don't attribute God to deception where he lies about what he wants who is dependent on petty legalism to eliminate people he doesn't like To look like he is just

That is a joke. I think believing God to be a coward is a sin folks should cease.
 

Danthemailman

Active Member
Hi Dan,
We do not come to saving faith, we come to faith, as worthless as it may be, but God either credits our faith as righteousness, or He doesn't as illustrated by the second and third soils of Matthew 13. Thus we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works.
If faith falls short of trusting in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation, then we don’t have saving faith. Shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit and withers away does not represent saving faith. Amen that we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To repeat, we never have "saving faith." We have faith that God credits as righteousness. No credit by God no salvation. Period. We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by grace and saving faith.
 
Last edited:

Danthemailman

Active Member
To repeat, we never have "saving faith." We have faith that God credits as righteousness. No credit by God no salvation. Period. We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by grace and saving faith.
Yes, faith that God credits as righteousness/saved by grace through faith/faith that saves, which is all I’m saying.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why did you put in "faith that saves?" Say my faith is like a sows ear, not of any value or merit on its own. But God if He chooses, turns my "sows ear" faith into "silk purse" faith. Thus we are saved through faith. When scripture says "Your faith has saved you" it means our faith, although a worthless filthy rag, has be "credited" as righteousness. Ask yourself, how would a fallen person, whose every work of righteousness is a filthy rag to God, manufacture righteous faith? My answer, it is an impossibility. We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by grace and saving faith.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why did you put in "faith that saves?" Say my faith is like a sows ear, not of any value or merit on its own. But God if He chooses, turns my "sows ear" faith into "silk purse" faith. Thus we are saved through faith. When scripture says "Your faith has saved you" it means our faith, although a worthless filthy rag, has be "credited" as righteousness. Ask yourself, how would a fallen person, whose every work of righteousness is a filthy rag to God, manufacture righteous faith? My answer, it is an impossibility. We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by grace and saving faith.
Our faith itself comes from God, we literally do nothing to save ourselves!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hi Y1, unless you support your assertions with specific references to scripture, your posts are your dubious opinions. Why does scripture refer to "your faith," "his faith" and never to God given faith? Why would God credit our faith as righteousness, if it was God's instilled faith? No answers, no scripture, just opinions.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, faith that God credits as righteousness/saved by grace through faith/faith that saves, which is all I’m saying.

The REASON faith is credited for righteousness is that the faith in view has for its proper object the person and work of Christ as declared in the gospel. The gospel had been preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8). The value of faith is determined by its object, if it has no object it is not faith. The truth of the gospel is the "substance" as well as the "hope" of true Biblical justifying faith (Heb. 11:1).

Faith in and of itself provides nothing to justify anyone. Only if that faith has for its sole object the provision of God in the Person and work of Jesus Christ does it have justifying value.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Although it is our responsibility to choose to believe and we will be held accountable for unbelief (John 3:18), saving belief/faith in Christ is never exclusively a matter of human decision. Unless the Father draws us in and enables us (John 6:44,65) we would NEVER come to believe in Christ unto salvation all by ourselves. The approach of the soul to Christ is initiated by the Father, but He doesn't force us to choose Christ, we must choose Him. The impulse to believing in Christ unto salvation/placing faith in Christ for salvation comes from God.

The key here is understanding how the unwilling become willing. God changes the moral nature of the heart by writing his law upon it, which is a metaphorical expresssion to say he changes the enmity of the heart against God and His law unto love for God and his law. Look at Jer. 31:33-34 as this is one of the prophetic sources Jesus cites in John 6:45 to explain what "draw" means.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is precisely the language used by Paul in 2 Cor. 3:3 of the New Covenant and is quoted by Paul in Hebrews 8 & 10 where he explicitly states it is the new covenant.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The key here is understanding how the unwilling become willing. God changes the moral nature of the heart by writing his law upon it, which is a metaphorical expresssion to say he changes the enmity of the heart against God and His law unto love for God and his law. Look at Jer. 31:33-34 as this is one of the prophetic sources Jesus cites in John 6:45 to explain what "draw" means.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is precisely the language used by Paul in 2 Cor. 3:3 of the New Covenant and is quoted by Paul in Hebrews 8 & 10 where he explicitly states it is the new covenant.

Some may ask, why does not God do this for every single fallen human being instead of only the elect? If I may answer this question by another question, why does not God provide salvation for fallen angels? Is it because God's love is inferior and lacking? You see, your objection is equally valid for fallen angels who are moral rational creatures as much as we are.

The limitations fall squarely within God's eternal purpose for redemption and his just grounds for condemning all of fallen man and angels. Hence, justice cannot be employed as an argument for why God does not save some fallen men and all of fallen angels because sins justly deserve eternal judgement. The proper question is why would God save any sinner at all. That answer falls squarely into the meaning of "grace" and grace is undeserved and thus cannot be demanded by any arguments based on justice. Let me illustrate what I mean:

Suppose a house is on fire, and all the beings in that house started that fire, fanned its flame and rejoice in freely choosing to remain in the house resisting all attempts to open up exit avenues. Suppose God sent a fireman into the house and every being in that house turned on that fireman and killed him. Would it be just to allow all of them to continue not only in their free choice to stay in that house and fan the flames and love doing it while resisting and killing everyone that entered the house to save them? I think your answer would have to be yes. Now, suppose in spite of all that hatred and resistance, God determined he was going to save some of them despite their free choice to remain in the burning house by simply changing the moral inclination of their hearts to love him instead of hating him? At the time kept the house from being consumed until he removed those persons, thus being a blessing to those who remain whether they perceived it or not as a blessing. Does justice require he do that for all or is that an act of mercy and pure grace? We are saved by mercy and pure grace in spite of ourselves.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Our faith itself comes from God, we literally do nothing to save ourselves!
It is called "our faith" not because it originates with us but is given to us. It is called "saving faith" because it has the proper object that obtains justification (righteousenss/remission) and that is the Person and work of Jesus Christ in our place. So, it obtains a foreign or alien righteousness through imputation which does not originate in us or through us but originates in the Person and works of Christ.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
“NO ONE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS THEM, AND I WILL RAISE THEMUP AT THE LAST DAY.” – JOHN 6:44
There are two basic ways to interpret this passage and it hinges on the words “draws” and “them.” Let’s look at the two renderings side by side:

Calvinists: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me *drags* them, and I will raise up *those who were dragged* at the last day.”

Traditionalists: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me *enables* them, and I will raise up *those who come* at the last day.”

The Greek sentence structure allows for the author to be referencing “them” who come, not necessarily all those drawn. For instance if the sentence translated in English were structured in this manner the intention might be more obvious:

“Only those drawn by the Father may come, and I will raise up them (those that come) at the last day.” - Dr. Leighton Flowers

The first problem I have with the beginning of this article is an improper translation of the verse. Since, Bro. Flowers offers no source for his translation I can only speculate it is some kind of paraphrase translation.

There is no plural "them..them" in the Majority Greek text nor is there any plural "those" in the Majority Greek text. The Greek text has the masculine accustive singular "autov" in both cases which is properly translated "him....him" by the KJV. The term he translates as "those" is the singular "oudeis" and literally means "no one" or "no man" since it is in the masculine gender.

The second problem I have is his statement "The Greek sentence structure allows for the author to be referrencing 'them' who come, not necessarily all those drawn."

Strictly speaking the nearest grammatical antecedent for the "him" of the second clause is the "him" in the first clause which is confined to only those drawn by the Father. The only other noun or pronoun is "oudeis" and that represents those who cannot come to Christ. Hence, the natural reading of the text and grammar defines "him" in the second clause not only to be restricted to "him" of the first clause but the very same "him" of the first clause. This is further inferred by the repeated use the very same final clause by Christ which is first used in John 6:39, then 6:40, then 6:44 and finally in 6:54. In all other cases the pronoun in that final clause is not only restricted to, but inclusive of ALL who have just been previously defined. For example, in John 6:39 the pronoun is restricted to but inclusive of "all" who are given as all given do not fail to come to Christ. In John 6:40 the pronoun in this clause refers to "all" (Gr. pas translated "everyone" but previously tranaslated "all") who believe and includes all who believe. The same is true in John 6:54. So, the very use of this clause both preceding Johnn 6:44 and after John 6:44 contradicts Bro. flowers interpretation.

Not only so, but John 6:64-65 contradicts his interpretation. His whole position demands that drawing is universal in scope including "all men" without exception from Adam to the last human born on earth. John 6:64 explicitly states that Jesus knew that some of his disciples were never true believers and the reaso[sic] he gives is that it was not "given" to them by the Father. What was not "given" is what is included in the word "draw" in verse 64. Dr. Flowers demands that what is inclusive in the word "draw" in John 6:44 is given to all men without exception.

Therefore, since coming to Christ in true faith must be "given" to them and it was not given to them by the Father then it follows that all to whom it is given do come to Christ by faith.

Finally, every other use of the verbs Helko and Helkuo in the New Testament are found in the active voice as is the texts in question. This means that the object of the verb ("him") has no part in the action of the verbs but is wholly passive with regard to that action. Second, every other use of these verbs demonstrates drawing effectually and inseparably includes coming as what is being drawn in all other cases is also coming at one and the same time.

Two things, first the translation he used was the NIV. Not hard to figure out, but if one is looking to be petty then we end up with your comment on it.

Second, you failed to properly cite this article. You could very well have included a link as easy as you could have looked up which translation he used but did not. In intentionally refusing to include the link to his article you make arguments against a small portion of the article using passages he, in fact addresses as well, later on in his article. I find your handling of Dr. Flowers article and position devious and unfair. Since I was able to point out the translation he used for you let me also properly cite his article for you.

Dr. Flowers article

This way everyone can see his whole argument and not just what you cherry picked.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Two things, first the translation he used was the NIV. Not hard to figure out, but if one is looking to be petty then we end up with your comment on it.

My comment was only that he did not indicate the translation and that translation does not reflect the Majority text which has no plural pronouns.

Second, you failed to properly cite this article. You could very well have included a link as easy as you could have looked up which translation he used but did not. In intentionally refusing to include the link to his article you make arguments against a small portion of the article using passages he, in fact addresses as well, later on in his article. I find your handling of Dr. Flowers article and position devious and unfair. Since I was able to point out the translation he used for you let me also properly cite his article for you.

Dr. Flowers article

This way everyone can see his whole argument and not just what you cherry picked.

The article had been sent to me without citation.

I cited the foundation of his article that dealt directly with John 6:44-45. If the foundation is rotten so will be everything built upon it. You have cited the article.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Two things, first the translation he used was the NIV. Not hard to figure out, but if one is looking to be petty then we end up with your comment on it.

Second, you failed to properly cite this article. You could very well have included a link as easy as you could have looked up which translation he used but did not. In intentionally refusing to include the link to his article you make arguments against a small portion of the article using passages he, in fact addresses as well, later on in his article. I find your handling of Dr. Flowers article and position devious and unfair. Since I was able to point out the translation he used for you let me also properly cite his article for you.

Dr. Flowers article

This way everyone can see his whole argument and not just what you cherry picked.

Thanks RM, discussion of the actual position enlightens, discussion of manufactured flaws not so much.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My comment was only that he did not indicate the translation and that translation does not reflect the Majority text which has no plural pronouns.

No your comment was snarky as it characterized it in a way that was far more than matter of fact.



The article had been sent to me without citation.

I cited the foundation of his article that dealt directly with John 6:44-45. If the foundation is rotten so will be everything built upon it. You have cited the article.

Nope, a portion of it was sent to you without proper citation apparently. I suggest next time you ask for it and make sure you have the whole story. In this case you did not and now you look foolish. I am actually surprised to see this from you.
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some may ask, why does not God do this for every single fallen human being instead of only the elect? If I may answer this question by another question, why does not God provide salvation for fallen angels? Is it because God's love is inferior and lacking? You see, your objection is equally valid for fallen angels who are moral rational creatures as much as we are.

The limitations fall squarely within God's eternal purpose for redemption and his just grounds for condemning all of fallen man and angels. Hence, justice cannot be employed as an argument for why God does not save some fallen men and all of fallen angels because sins justly deserve eternal judgement. The proper question is why would God save any sinner at all. That answer falls squarely into the meaning of "grace" and grace is undeserved and thus cannot be demanded by any arguments based on justice. Let me illustrate what I mean:

Suppose a house is on fire, and all the beings in that house started that fire, fanned its flame and rejoice in freely choosing to remain in the house resisting all attempts to open up exit avenues. Suppose God sent a fireman into the house and every being in that house turned on that fireman and killed him. Would it be just to allow all of them to continue not only in their free choice to stay in that house and fan the flames and love doing it while resisting and killing everyone that entered the house to save them? I think your answer would have to be yes. Now, suppose in spite of all that hatred and resistance, God determined he was going to save some of them despite their free choice to remain in the burning house by simply changing the moral inclination of their hearts to love him instead of hating him? At the time kept the house from being consumed until he removed those persons, thus being a blessing to those who remain whether they perceived it or not as a blessing. Does justice require he do that for all or is that an act of mercy and pure grace? We are saved by mercy and pure grace in spite of ourselves.

"The proper question is why would God save any sinner at all. "

That is a proper insult.

Calvinist always shocked and surprised with God to be half a monster rather than the complete one they expect.

It shows a lack of faith and a skewed view of expecting God to be no better than the worst of us.

A retributive sense of justice is not a restorative sense of Justice. A God who has zero forgiveness and demands payment and suffering one way or another.

Forgot to mention the part of your story where God pours out his wrath on Jesus. God drags his only son into the fire pours gasoline on him to satisfy his sadist sense of justice.
 
Top