Yes, but those who reject Jesus to save them are already under condemnation!
-
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
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
Their own condemnation. Because they don't believe in the name "GOD SAVES",
Jesus condemns no one. He's calling God and bible a liar or not?
John 3
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Is this verse TRUE OR NOT!
Show me where it says Jesus CONDEMNS ALL MEN. NONSENSE.
You need to start believing scriptures not made up philosophical trash.
Jesus will be the Judge over all sinners, and all there without Him saving them will be judged and cast into Hell by Him, correct?
prophecy70
Active Member
If God needed to send a savior to the world to save what is he saving them from? Where are they headed without a savior?
Do you need a bible written in crayon or something for you to understand, Man is Condemned from birth?
Heres the NIV so maybe you can understand it better
Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
So how does mankind not deserve hell?
No unbeliever condemns themselves for their unbelief! Unbelief is a SIN and sin violates God's Law and God is the one who condemns sinners for sin. Just drop to the last verse and you will see they are under the "wrath" of God (Jn. 3:36) and so this is God's condemnation upon them.
Jesus does not have to condemn anyone! Because they are condemned already by God (Jn. 3:17-19) and are presently (present tense) under "the wrath of God" (Jn. 3:36). Jesus did not come as a judge but as Savior but he will be their judge in the future.
Nothing wrong with the verse as it plainly states all unbeleivers are under condemnation and it is for more than mere unbelief but because they "love darkness" rather than light (Jn. 3:18-19). It is not "their own" condemnation but the condemnation of God as the last verse in this same chapter clearly demands - Jn. 3:36 This is not their own "wrath" but the wrath of God they are presently under. Paul reinforces this by calling all lost persons to be "by nature the children of WRATH" (Eph. 2:3). Paul was taught personally by Christ do you think Christ was a false teacher?????? Either he is or you are as both of you can't be right (1 Tim.4:1).
Do you believe Jesus taught Paul the doctrine of salvation or did Paul lie? Paul clearly states that all mankind both Jews and Gentiles are condemned by God's law (Rom. 3:9-20).
Ran the Man
Active Member
First of all, the Father does not draw people unto repentance or salvation. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Of you look back a few verses, Jesus is telling them to stop mumbling about how he could be from heaven. Jesus is clearly stating that nobody can go to the father, unless the Father calls him up, so how could they pretend to know if he was from above or not“NNE 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 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.
This verse is not about salvation. You do err greatly despite your great learning.
You forget to realize that the Holy Spirit is "sent" by the Father and the Son to act in their behalf and so the work of the Spirit is the work of the Father as the Spirit is "sent" by the Father to accomplish that work.
You are simply ignoring the contextual development and jumping from one text in one part of the chapter to another text in another part of the chapter. That is called proof texting and it usually leads to error and that is precisely the case in your attempt to ignore the immediate preceding context to John 6:44.
First, Jesus defines "come to" him as believing in him (Jn. 6:35) and then proceeds to define who it is that does not and does comes to him or believes in him (Jn. 6:36-40). All that the Father gives to him are the only ones who "come" to him and again coming to him is defined as believing in him (Jn. 6:40). John 6:41-46 continues this discussion about who and who does not come (believe) to him in faith. No man "can" (ability) come to him except the Father "draws" him and it is that drawn person who comes to him in faith. I have given a verse by verse and phrase by phrase exposition of this text which you either have not read or ignored. I don't think anyone, and I mean "anyone" on this forum can honestly repudiate the exegetical exposition I provided. If you think you can, then show me but don't do this proof text thing as you are simply jerking scriptures out of context and piecing them together to fit the narrative you like.
Ran the Man
Active Member
Dude, look at it this way:
Jesus couldn't stand the pharisees. To Calvinists, this whole thing is God choosing who gets saved and who goes to hell. Every event, good and bad under the sun. I'll quote my grandma on this:
"If God is doing all that what's the devil doing"?
Think about that.
Deal with the text in a contextual manner and leave your grandma out of it. Put your bias aside and just deal with the text in the context honestly. If you could do that you wouldn't be writing this kind of stuff.
Ran the Man
Active Member
Dude
Its common sense. What is Satan doing if God is turning peoples hearts away?
Ran the Man
Active Member
You guys ARE the Pharisees. Jesus answered many times from just common sense.
There are two types of posters on this forum. There are those who provide content that is worthy of consideration dealing with the thread and there are those who reduce themselves to hurling accusations and insults and stuff that is not worthy to even read. The latter type I just place on my ignore list so they don't show up on my screen. Congratulations you have made my ignore list and after this post you will no longer show up on my screen. Bye bye!
Last edited:
“N
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 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.
Some of you like to reinvent the wheel. I know your theology is dependent on arguing semantics when trying to find its Biblical footing, so I included this video for you to enjoy.
The exception clause is not called an "exception" clause for the fun of it. The exception clause defines/limits the condition which allows the man to come to Christ. This man first attempts to define the first clause as though it is not being modified by the second or exception clause. That is simply stupid! The first clause cannot be interpreted apart from the exception clause and when it is interpreted by the exception clause the result is a NEGATIVE not a positive (as this man distorts it to be). No man "can" (Gr. dunamis - able) or has the ability to come, he is without ability to come. This is a universal truth "no man" (not some men). This universal negative stands in all cases EXCEPT in cases defined by the exception clause.
Second, I don't care how he defines "draw" or how he believes I define draw! The context defines it clearly. Jesus quotes the plural "prophets" as definers of what it means to drawn by the Father and he is referring to Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34. In both cases this is an INTERNAL supernatural work of God performed in the heart that totally transforms the heart and always produces God's intent without failure. Just read Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Isaiah. 54:13.
In these texts "all" does not refer to all mankind without exception in either case by either prophet. In these texts "all" taught come to God in faith without exception - just read Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 and "all" taught believe with NONE failing or as Jeremiah says "from the least of them unto the greatest of them" no exceptions.
Get the overall context of John 6 first. There are three different classes of people who come to Christ but not in faith for salvation in 6:1-26:
1. There is the miracle seeking crowd who came to him to see miracles:
And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. - v. 2
2. There is the power seeking crowd who came to him because they wanted to usher in a secular kingdom to overthrow Rome:
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. - v. 15
3. There is the welfare crowd who came to him for food:
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. - v. 26
None of these came to Christ in faith for salvation - none! This chapter is given by John to show that coming to Christ for salvation by faith is "the work of God" (v. 29) and not of the "works" of men. He declares this by stating:
1. The Father must give a person to Christ if they are to come to him by faith - vv. 36-39
2. The Father must draw or do an internal transformation of heart in a person if they are to come to Christ for salvation by faith - vv. 44-46
These two assertions are proven by the fact by the facts:
1. That his crowd would not believe in him in spite of external miracles - v. 36
2. That they were incapable of understanding and accepting that Christ must be partaken of by faith even as you partake of food and drink - vv. 47-59
3. That a profession of faith does not mean a person is saved - vv. 60-71
4. That unbelief is proof the Father never gave them or drew them to Christ - vv. 64-65.
John 12:32 is jerked out of context and forced to contradict the clear teaching of John 6. However, in context John 12:32 is a rebuke to the Jews who restricted salvation to Jewishness when the drawing work is inclusive of all races - or "all men" without distinction of class, race or gender, in context referring to those "Greeks" who sought his disciples to come to Christ (Jn. 12:20-32).
Ran the Man
Active Member
typical baptist response.
Coming to him is defined in verses 29-36 - meaning coming to him in faith for salvation. There were those who came to him in faith for miracles, for food, for power, but he is referring to coming to him by faith for salvation - vv. 29-36. No question that verses 37-40 refers to coming to him by faith for eternal life. No question verses 47-71 refers to coming to him by faith for eternal life, or metaphorically partaking of him by faith for eternal life as one would partake of food and drink for physical life. So, where is verses 40-46 found? Smack in the middle of the context of coming to him by faith for eternal life.
No, this is the response of one who uses exegetical based exposition to interpret scripture in response to a person who lowers the conversation to personal insults or one who refuses to deal with the contextual factors in an expositional manner but jumps here and there like a JW does - pitting scripture against scripture or proof texting instead of doing the serious business of rightly dividing the word of truth by sound principles of exegesis.
Now, if you want to discuss this text based on sound principles of exegesis then I am your guy, but if you are into name calling ("pharisees") and making personal insults and jump here and there then I will leave you on "ignore" as that is the proper place for people who come on this forum and practice this kind of stuff. The choice is yours.
Ran the Man
Active Member
Yeah, I shouldn't have called you a Pharisee. Sorry.
You make your Christianity too complex. Think about it: Jesus said unless we become like children, we can't enter heaven.
If Calvinist viewpoints are true, and if God requires the amount of understanding that Calvinists claim, how can a child understand it? And does not understanding constitute a work?
You make your Christianity too complex. Think about it: Jesus said unless we become like children, we can't enter heaven.
If Calvinist viewpoints are true, and if God requires the amount of understanding that Calvinists claim, how can a child understand it? And does not understanding constitute a work?