Redefining Draw to mean God uses a Tractor Beam.

[SovereignGrace]

I just noticed this thread, and since you reference me perhaps I can shed some light (at least on my beliefs).

It is intentionally and willfully ignorant to claim that I (along with other men who hold to the understanding that God draws men to Himself) believe that God does so in a "tractor beam" fashion. It is, actually, just plain stupid as those accused of such views have denounced the claim. I am, of course, thankful that you are intelligent enough not to go there but wanted to make it clear to others if they were perhaps misled by the title of the thread. No one is claiming that God "draws" men in terms of taking them against their will. That's a straw-man argument that's been dismissed on another thread.

There is no evidence that "draw" means to "attract" if by "attract" you mean a benign activity of God awaiting a human response to arise within men. The word in question is σύρω, and it is used three times that I can think of in John. Two times it is what God does to men, and one time it is what men do (or try to do) with a net full of fish. Sometimes I think that Van would have us believe that the disciples sat in a boat blowing their fish calls trying to attract the netted fish to jump into the boat. But the fish couldn't...the disciples had to draw (σύρω) them in.

Paul's words in Romans 9 parallels this passage in John (of God drawing men). In Romans 9 God is pictured as effectually calling men form all peoples ("not from the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles"). We can play around with picking out verses and going to lexicons and changing meanings...but to save the trouble, let's just use "attract". God "attracts" men to Himself through an "inward power". Paul tells us that God "prepared beforehand" those who He has "called". Isaiah tells us that God "causes" those who He claims as His own to obey. So sure, Van, we can use "attract"...but please use it in context of Scripture and not your own theological leanings.

Van has it that God can do nothing until man does his part. Unregenerate men can seek God, can understand the sincere milk of the gospel, &c. He does not see men needing to be drawn to God, as they, in their limited spiritual ability, can do this for themselves. He is the epitome of Romans 9:19-21.

In his view, men are not dead, just have the sniffles. They don't need the gospel, they need...

To the teetotalers...this contains 10% alcohol by volume.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Van,

Finally, you repeat the fiction that "the" things of the Spirit refers to all things rather than some things. Paul spoke as to men of flesh using spiritual milk. Thus men of flesh can receive spiritual milk. It's a lock.

So once again...you correct the inspired apostles words with uncle Vans story time....

maybe the Apostle Paul never read MT 23:13......lol

 

[SovereignGrace]

Van...

Finally, you repeat the fiction that "the" things of the Spirit refers to all things rather than some things. Paul spoke as to men of flesh using spiritual milk. Thus men of flesh can receive spiritual milk. It's a lock.

Nekros...

 

[JonC]

I’m actually torn on a couple of Van’s points.

I can see that his view of God “attracting” all man (if indeed he is true to the term and all men are “attracted”) is as I would view a “general call”. The difference is after this call. I believe Van attributes to God the “awakening” or “quickening” but then leaves it up to men to decide. So it is still God who acts first, in Van’s view (if what I believe Van to indicate is what he believes…which is doubtful). The difference is that while I believe in a “general call”, I believe that all men fail to respond to that call. Instead I believe that God effectually calls those that He has predestined. So for me, that is the real difference - not the call to which no one responds, but the call which draws those whom were foreknown by God.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC

I just noticed this thread, and since you reference me perhaps I can shed some light (at least on my beliefs).

No need to do that JONC...Van will supply what he suggests you believe rather than what you actually hold to....Van has it covered!

It is intentionally and willfully ignorant to claim that I (along with other men who hold to the understanding that God draws men to Himself) believe that God does so in a "tractor beam" fashion. It is, actually, just plain stupid as those accused of such views have denounced the claim.

yes it is......many have noticed this also!

I am, of course, thankful that you are intelligent enough not to go there but wanted to make it clear to others if they were perhaps misled by the title of the thread. No one is claiming that God "draws" men in terms of taking them against their will. That's a straw-man argument that's been dismissed on another thread.

However Van prefers to fight the strawman

There is no evidence that "draw" means to "attract" if by "attract" you mean a benign activity of God awaiting a human response to arise within men. The word in question is σύρω, and it is used three times that I can think of in John. Two times it is what God does to men, and one time it is what men do (or try to do) with a net full of fish

.

Van rejects real study....he prefers his novel ideas

Sometimes I think that Van would have us believe that the disciples sat in a boat blowing their fish calls trying to attract the netted fish to jump into the boat. But the fish couldn't...the disciples had to draw (σύρω) them in.

It seems to be so...

Paul's words in Romans 9 parallels this passage in John (of God drawing men). In Romans 9 God is pictured as effectually calling men form all peoples ("not from the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles"). We can play around with picking out verses and going to lexicons and changing meanings...but to save the trouble, let's just use "attract". God "attracts" men to Himself through an "inward power". Paul tells us that God "prepared beforehand" those who He has "called". Isaiah tells us that God "causes" those who He claims as His own to obey. So sure, Van, we can use "attract"...but please use it in context of Scripture and not your own theological leanings.

 

[Van]

*WOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!* This goes right past you. The word used for draw in both places was the EXACT SAME WORD. It is not obfuscation. It is very germane. Please God don't let this man teach a bible class.

Once again a denial of the lexiconal metaphoric meaning. If there claim was valid, John 12:32 would teach universalism. So what do they do, they rewrite John 12:32.

 

[Van]

Van, again...if someone truly seeks God, will he/she die lost?

No where in scripture is the concept of "truly" seeking God mentioned. They ignore scripture and write their own.

Lots of people seek God via works or with less than fully committed faith. Does God credit their faith as righteousness? Not all the time according to Matthew 7:21.

 

[Van]

[QUOTE="Van,

Oh good...another thread to include the eisegesis of MT.23 in

Everytime total spiritual inability is asserted, then the rebuttal is Matthew 23:13. Why would someone think it is ok to make a mistaken assertion, but deny the appropriate rebuttal from scripture? Go figure.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm done with you Van. You are worse than anybody on here. You can not be taught anything, and not willing to learn, toodles...noodles. No need to reply to my posts, you are on ignore now.

 

[JonC]

Once again a denial of the lexiconal metaphoric meaning. If there claim was valid, John 12:32 would teach universalism. So what do they do, they rewrite John 12:32.

Yet you are in denial of a lexicon that is on my bookshelf which renders the word "to force away" to "drag as before a magistrate". Perhaps it would be best to allow Scripture to give us the words instead of pitting possible English words against other possible English words (you seem a bit over your head when it comes to relying on extra-biblical tools anyway). Paul certainly speaks of what we have been referring to as something that God does to an individual rather than God making himself up so as to attract people. My suggestion is to stay in Romans 9 for a good while and then revisit the topic. I think that you'll come back with a different perspective.

 

[Van]

I just noticed this thread, and since you reference me perhaps I can shed some light (at least on my beliefs).

It is intentionally and willfully ignorant to claim that I (along with other men who hold to the understanding that God draws men to Himself) believe that God does so in a "tractor beam" fashion. It is, actually, just plain stupid as those accused of such views have denounced the claim. I am, of course, thankful that you are intelligent enough not to go there but wanted to make it clear to others if they were perhaps misled by the title of the thread. No one is claiming that God "draws" men in terms of taking them against their will. That's a straw-man argument that's been dismissed on another thread.

There is no evidence that "draw" means to "attract" if by "attract" you mean a benign activity of God awaiting a human response to arise within men. The word in question is σύρω, and it is used three times that I can think of in John. Two times it is what God does to men, and one time it is what men do (or try to do) with a net full of fish. Sometimes I think that Van would have us believe that the disciples sat in a boat blowing their fish calls trying to attract the netted fish to jump into the boat. But the fish couldn't...the disciples had to draw (σύρω) them in.

Paul's words in Romans 9 parallels this passage in John (of God drawing men). In Romans 9 God is pictured as effectually calling men from all peoples ("not from the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles"). We can play around with picking out verses and going to lexicons and changing meanings...but to save the trouble, let's just use "attract". God "attracts" men to Himself through an "inward power". Paul tells us that God "prepared beforehand" those who He has "called". Isaiah tells us that God "causes" those who He claims as His own to obey. So sure, Van, we can use "attract"...but please use it in context of Scripture and not your own theological leanings.

The tractor beam refers to irresistible grace.

Then we have "there is no evidence" ignoring Jeremiah 31:3, Song of Solomon 1:4, John 6:44 and John 12:32. Multiply lexicons indicate the word is used metaphorically for "allurement." Saying taint so cuts no mustard.

Next we get the deliberate misrepresentation that I deny the literal meaning of the word. Obfuscation on display.

Effectual calling is found nowhere in scripture. Certainly not in Romans 9.

Inward power = allurement of charisma

Paul tells us that God "prepared beforehand" those who He has "called".

Fiction, this assertion is found nowhere in Romans 9.

Finally I am again attacked for using agenda driven interpretation. Jesus taught we should remove the log before we go after the speck.

 

[Van]

I do not deny the literal meaning, but you seem to deny the metaphoric meaning.

 

[Van]

Thanks SG, your choice took courage.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes. One can trawl through all the uses of 'all' and 'world' in the Bible, and they have many and various meanings. The context will determine.

Agreed. However, there is nothing to suggest exclusion of men.

The text seems to be based on inclusion of any man, rather:


John 12:23-26; 31-33

King James Version (KJV)


23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.


Seems to be a reference to whosoever to me.




31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.


This impacts...all men. Not just some of all peoples. Just because all men are not going to benefit from the Work of Christ does not mean anyone is excluded from that Work. In view is Christ's Work, which was accomplished for the world. In this context "all" seems to be a reference to all men.

If you were literally to obey the command to make prayers for 'all men' (1 Timothy 2:1), I think you might get a little tired after the second billion.

It can be accomplished in one statement: "Lord, I pray for all men, that there may from among them be those You speak to through me, and those You have sent to preach the Gospel."


John 17:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


We don't have to impose a salvific context in the world having the Gospel declared to them, but neither can, we in my view, present a case from Scripture that God withholds the Gospel from any man. The "drawing" has a singular reference to that which God does.

However, if Christ will draw all men to Himself, then all are saved because, 'The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out' (John 6:37). Since it is clear in Scripture that all men are not saved, the 'all' in John 12:32 cannot mean every single person in the world QED.

No reason to conclude that " if Christ will draw all men to Himself, then all are saved."

All men are given opportunity to believe, not one will charge God with withholding the truth from them.

I most certainly do. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3:6). He is the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2) to quicken the dead; the Spirit of truth (John 16:13) to instruct our ignorance and the Spirit of faith (2 Corinthians 4:13) to enable us to believe savingly. 'The natural man [the one born of the flesh] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor. 2:14).

Two things:

1. It is true that the Spirit is the One credited in this Age with enlightenment, so glad we agree on that;

2. Imposing a condition of exclusivity on "the natural man receiveth not the spiritual things of God" overlooks that only the natural man can receive the spiritual things of God in a salvific context.

What I mean, Martin, is that it is the natural man that the Spirit ministers to. That is clarified here:


John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


That is how Christ draws all men unto Himself. Note in John 14:15-18 that Christ states "I will come to you."

Note here...


Revelation 3:20

King James Version (KJV)


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, and will sup with him, and he with me.


Now, just as Christ makes it clear that He must die on the Cross before sending the Spirit that was promised (Acts 1:4-5), and after being lifted up we see how Christ draws all men unto Himself...through the Ministry of the Comforter, Whose Ministry is specific to enlightening men to the Gospel, the Way of Righteousness. This ministry was performed in the lives of the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:20-22, for example.

Once again, I apologize for my extreme brevity, but I am going out in just a moment.

No worries. Hope your schedule hasn't overwhelmed you, and you are keeping up with that which you are faced with.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

The tractor beam refers to irresistible grace.

Then we have "there is no evidence" ignoring Jeremiah 31:3, Song of Solomon 1:4, John 6:44 and John 12:32. Multiply lexicons indicate the word is used metaphorically for "allurement." Saying taint so cuts no mustard.

Next we get the deliberate misrepresentation that I deny the literal meaning of the word. Obfuscation on display.

Effectual calling is found nowhere in scripture. Certainly not in Romans 9.

Inward power = allurement of charisma

Fiction, this assertion is found nowhere in Romans 9.

Finally I am again attacked for using agenda driven interpretation. Jesus taught we should remove the log before we go after the speck.

Van, as a verb the word “draw” can mean to move something by pulling, but it can also mean to attract by exerting an attractive force. It is not a metaphor to say that God draws men by attracting within the context of the definition. It is, in fact, literal.

I am not saying that you deny the literal meaning of the word, Van. I am saying that the word literally means "to attract" but that you are downgrading the word until it is unrecognizable.

But if we take the word to mean “become attractive” rather than to actually attract, then we have gone beyond bad metaphor and have instead slaughtered the definition all together. A magnet attracts metal. “Attract” is not passive. And yes, you can substitute “attract” for “draw” in John.

But other passages (I offered Romans 9) can be used to clarify exactly how God effectually calls men (and this is what I believe that you are denying in your interpretations).

Insofar as “irresistible grace” being like a “tractor beam”, you have severely misunderstood the doctrine. The only people who consider irresistible grace to be like a tractor beam are those who reject irresistible grace, which should tell you something of their understanding of the doctrine.

From where I sit, you are trying very hard to read your theology into Scripture. John, Paul, and Jesus tells us that God draws men to Himself. You say….but you say “draw” does not mean “draw” in your lexicon. It means to attract by an inward power. But “inward power” does not mean “inward power”…it means “allurement of charisma.” My suggestion is to concentrate more on Scripture and less on looking up the meanings of individual words in Greek and distilling those words several times in English to get what you want.

 

[Darrell C]

LOL Darrel.
Nobody received the gospel before the Comforter came?

Nobody understood the Gospel, Van, big difference.

Christ preached the Gospel to the disciples here:


Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


The Lord had revealed to them that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but, that does not equate to understanding that Christ was the Lamb of God, nor how He would take away the sins...

...of the world.

Utter nonsense.

Not at all, when you remove the misunderstanding of what I said: the Gospel of Christ is the Hidden Wisdom of God, not revealed unto men prior to the coming of the Comforter:


Romans 16:25-26

King James Version (KJV)


25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Even the thief on the cross believed in Jesus.

Many believed He was the Christ, but not one understood that He came to die for the sins of the world.

Not even John the Baptist. Who declared the Lamb of God:


Matthew 11:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


Just because the Lord revealed unto men that Jesus was the Christ does not mean He brought them to an understanding of that which Christ came to do. Secondly, just because the Lord uses men to prophesy, such as Caiaphas, doesn't mean He gives them an understanding of that which they prophesy.

That is the case with all Old Testament Prophets:


1 Peter 1:11-12

King James Version (KJV)


11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.


The Gospel is presented to men through the Operation of the Spirit of God.

Now Who is "The Spirit that was sent down from Heaven," Van?

The gospel is the power of God for salvation,

Correct, but you are forgetting something: to the Jew first...then the Greek (Gentile).

Now was the Covenant of the Law to the Greek?

The Covenant of Law was not the preaching of the Gospel by the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven.

This is just a basic New Testament Doctrine which makes the Cal/Arm dispute...moot.

But most Cal/Arm believers would rather maintain the dispute, similar to a dog chewing on a bone. I don't mind trying to take the bone away, and don't mind getting bit from time to time.

not the never mentioned invention of men (enabling irresistible grace or prevenient grace.)

When your understanding incorporates the basic truth that the Gospel was a Mystery, not revealed in past ages, you will better be able to understand your beef with Calvinism is a non-issue, and you will cease to spend all your time trying to prove something Scripture clearly denies: that man has the ability to seek after God, drawing upon that which is innate.

Man is utterly without ability to turn to God, or...to enter the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 23:13 disproves "utter inability."

And that is why I tried to make the Age this statement is made in focal, because men simply weren't entering into the Kingdom of God in the manner they do now...you know this. But you won't give it the consideration it deserves.

Men did not go to Heaven. Men were not made members of the Church, the Body of Christ. Men did not have the Spirit that would only come...

...after Christ was glorified.

Men did in fact trust in the Promised Messiah, but men were not privy to the Gospel. It was a Mystery, and it was revealed to both Jew and Greek, Van.

Unless you want to say only Jews were saved in the Old Testament.


Colossians 1:24-26

King James Version (KJV)


24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:


As I said, perhaps the day comes where we can discuss this.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

There is a danger when people start extracting Greek words, translating them, exploring alternate English meanings, and then fit them into their theories. Word studies can be a good thing, but they are not the ultimate thing. We have to keep the words in the verses, the verses in the passages, and the passages in context with the whole.

In John 6 we see that the people do not understand “heavenly things,” that is, spiritual truths (3:10-12). Rather than this being a barrier to God’s purposes or plans, Jesus sees this Jewish opposition as a confirmation of God’s work in election and predestination: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”(v. 44), so that believing the one whom he has sent is “the work of God” (v. 29). In what follows, Jesus is explicitely claiming to be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s eschatological vision of a time when “they will be taught by God” (v. 45; Is 54:13).

In John 12:32, the words contemporary to the audience convey a meaning that the Gentiles may “see” Jesus, but not yet. Jesus must first be lifted up (looking forward to the crucifixion, as explained in the passage). “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” – “all men” does not mean literally all people, as if John were claiming universalism, but “Jews and Gentiles” (as explained in Romans 9).

"And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, "I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,' AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED."AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,' THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD." (Romans 9:23-26)

 

[Darrell C]

There is a danger when people start extracting Greek words, translating them, exploring alternate English meanings, and then fit them into their theories. Word studies can be a good thing, but they are not the ultimate thing. We have to keep the words in the verses, the verses in the passages, and the passages in context with the whole

This is true, however, I have not seen anything yet that undermines Van's position in regards to "all men" being drawn by Christ.

Perhaps we might broaden the context of the discussion through the passages you refer to in the following statements:

In John 6 we see that the people do not understand “heavenly things,” that is, spiritual truths (3:10-12). Rather than this being a barrier to God’s purposes or plans, Jesus sees this Jewish opposition as a confirmation of God’s work in election and predestination: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”(v. 44), so that believing the one whom he has sent is “the work of God” (v. 29). In what follows, Jesus is explicitely claiming to be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s eschatological vision of a time when “they will be taught by God” (v. 45; Is 54:13).

I'm trying very hard to resist the temptation to address each statement individually, lol.

In short, and in order...

Who exactly is it that does not understand Heavenly things? Is it all men, or some men? How do we impose election and predestination into the present context? Truly we do not divorce these from an overview, however, if we try to create a situation where only those Christ addresses are incapable (the implication that the disciples can and do understand Heavenly things), then we impose something that is refuted elsewhere, that is...no man understood the Heavenly things concerning Christ, because they were not being revealed in that Age (The Age of Law).

Secondly, it is true that the work of God is believing on the name of Christ, in John 6 the focal point is the death of Christ specifically. The primary issue is that He, Christ, came from Heaven to die. His flesh is the True Bread which gives life to the world, and except one eat of that Bread (which is specific to the Incarnation)...they have no life.

Third, the Life that is in view is Eternal Life: it is contrasted with the provision for physical life in the Wilderness.

Lastly, when is it that "men will be taught by God," is it not when...the New Covenant is established?


John 6:45

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Isaiah 54:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.



Jeremiah 31:31-34

King James Version (KJV)


31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 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.



Hebrews 8:8-11

King James Version (KJV)


8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


All of that to ask one question: are the conditions the Prophecy speak about being fulfilled at the time Christ is teaching these men (and you can include all disciples in view in John 6).

Who among men had learned of Christ in this day? Can we say even those disciples, who knew that the Lord had the Words of Life, could be said to understand what Life the True Bread bestows, or how?

If so, I would like to know why not one of them believed the Lord had arisen the Third Day.

In John 12:32, the words contemporary to the audience convey a meaning that the Gentiles may “see” Jesus, but not yet. Jesus must first be lifted up (looking forward to the crucifixion, as explained in the passage). “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” – “all men” does not mean literally all people, as if John were claiming universalism, but “Jews and Gentiles” (as explained in Romans 9).

Again, I have to point out that the thought that Christ is drawing demands a conclusion of salvation is not something I see we can impose into the text. And when we balance the Work of Christ and see that Christ is looking forward to that time when He will draw all men unto Himself (that is without controversy) and that Christ is God, and that when He sent the Comforter He was coming Himself...we see what that drawing refers to.

The only way to present a charge of Universal Salvation is to first impose a demanded salvific context to the drawing.

The "universal" element is in "all men" only. In other words, Christ will, after He dies on the Cross...draw all men to Himself. That is what He said, after all.

And I would just point out that we can no more make "all men" exclusive than we can say that only those who were Hebrew were affected by the fiery serpents in the Wilderness.

"And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, "I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,' AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED."AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,' THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD." (Romans 9:23-26)

Again, we understand that the grace of God was bestowed upon both Jew and Gentile even under Law. The distinction is the Covenant Relationship that was specific to Israel.

Gentile Inclusion does not mean Gentiles could not be saved under Law, and this forces our attention on what this passage means in a New Covenant context.

Can we take the position that only those born into Israel could become the sons of God?

Or do we see in Scripture that no-one became the sons of God under previous economies?

Think about that before answering. Does the above say Israel produced those who received Christ and were thus sons of God, and "in that place" this became available to Gentiles?


God bless.

 

[JonC]

This is true, however, I have not seen anything yet that undermines Van's position in regards to "all men" being drawn by Christ..

There are legitimate arguments against the Calvinistic understanding of God’s “drawing” being that God works in the wills of certain men so that will come to Christ. I think that those arguments are wrong, but they are not less legitimate. My primary issue with Van is that I believe he rejects the Calvinistic understanding on false pretense while solidifying his own position as absolute on shaky (and sometimes unbiblical) ground.

You have not, I hope, seen anything yet from me that undermines the position that there is a sense whereby all men are “called” to Christ. And in John 12 I could easily see the interpretation of Christ “drawing” all men to Himself (not metaphorically, but using a literal meaning of “draw”) as all things are in subjection to Christ (and “he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”(Jn 3:18)). This would be what I call a “general call”, that “the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man: (1:9), yet this Light was unreceived (1:10), “that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light (3:19)”.

So yes, there is a sense whereby Christ “draws” all men. But Paul tells us that there is also a sense whereby God has “prepared beforehand for glory” (Rm 9:23) men whom “He also called, not from among the Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles” (9:24).

I do not have an issue at all with Van’s interpretation of “draw” in John 12 (although I believe him wrong, it is not a point that I would choose to argue). The issue is with the larger doctrine that he is trying to reject. He is doing so by striving against windmills when there is in truth legitimate arguments he could choose. John 6 and 12 are not the foundational supports of irresistible grace that Van would make them out to be.

The only way to present a charge of Universal Salvation is to first impose a demanded salvific context to the drawing.

I agree. And Van does not demand a salvific context to the drawing in either John 6 or 12. He does not claim a universal salvation (and I apologize if it appeared that I thought he did). And on the other hand, we do claim the “drawing” to be unto salvation. But the error on Van’s part is that he is denouncing as proof texts for that doctrine passages that are in fact taken as supportive but not foundational.

In short, we can argue John 12 and John 6 in terms of an “effectual call” all day long and never truly touch the doctrine itself because it is not founded on those two passages. I do interpret the “drawing” and “all men” of John in light of Paul’s teaching of God’s “call” to the “elect” who were “prepared beforehand for glory” “not only from among the Jews but also the Gentiles.”

 

[Darrell C]

There are legitimate arguments against the Calvinistic understanding of God’s “drawing” being that God works in the wills of certain men so that will come to Christ. I think that those arguments are wrong, but they are not less legitimate. My primary issue with Van is that I believe he rejects the Calvinistic understanding on false pretense while solidifying his own position as absolute on shaky (and sometimes unbiblical) ground.

You have not, I hope, seen anything yet from me that undermines the position that there is a sense whereby all men are “called” to Christ. And in John 12 I could easily see the interpretation of Christ “drawing” all men to Himself (not metaphorically, but using a literal meaning of “draw”) as all things are in subjection to Christ (and “he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”(Jn 3:18)). This would be what I call a “general call”, that “the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man: (1:9), yet this Light was unreceived (1:10), “that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light (3:19)”.

So yes, there is a sense whereby Christ “draws” all men. But Paul tells us that there is also a sense whereby God has “prepared beforehand for glory” (Rm 9:23) men whom “He also called, not from among the Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles” (9:24).

I do not have an issue at all with Van’s interpretation of “draw” in John 12 (although I believe him wrong, it is not a point that I would choose to argue). The issue is with the larger doctrine that he is trying to reject. He is doing so by striving against windmills when there is in truth legitimate arguments he could choose. John 6 and 12 are not the foundational supports of irresistible grace that Van would make them out to be.



I agree. And Van does not demand a salvific context to the drawing in either John 6 or 12. He does not claim a universal salvation (and I apologize if it appeared that I thought he did). And on the other hand, we do claim the “drawing” to be unto salvation. But the error on Van’s part is that he is denouncing as proof texts for that doctrine passages that are in fact taken as supportive but not foundational.

In short, we can argue John 12 and John 6 in terms of an “effectual call” all day long and never truly touch the doctrine itself because it is not founded on those two passages. I do interpret the “drawing” and “all men” of John in light of Paul’s teaching of God’s “call” to the “elect” who were “prepared beforehand for glory” “not only from among the Jews but also the Gentiles.”

So basically we go right back to context of individual passages, and how they fit into the larger context of the Whole Counsel.

If we try to impose predestination, election, and foreknowledge into every passage we have, we are going to end up with a demanded system of theology which, I think, is easily dismantled (and I am not saying Calvinism is easily dismantled, I am speaking of individual systems of theology which we all have, because even when we embrace a System we tend to impose our own "special touches" to it, lol).

Let's take the dragnet, for example. There is an example of a drawing in which we could argue "all fish" are drawn, or, the assumption is imposed into it that there were not still other fish in the sea. But would we not be overlooking the larger context of Christ's and the New Testament's teachings, meaning, will not all men be judged? So our former position would, on the basis of the reasoning supplied, seem not only plausible, but irrefutable.

Now let's introduce the element of the Gospel, to which we could argue "not every man has heard the Gospel," and then debate if these are the "other fish in the sea," lol.

Now...does any of that pertain to the drawing that is in view in the focal passage being looked at?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

When you, or someone else answers, then we can look at the reasoning and compare it with Scripture, and see what position stands closer to the teachings of Christ and the Word of God (and this is just given as an example).

Basically, the truths concerning those who are going to be saved stand separate from the issue at hand. It is a given that God foreordained the salvation of the Elect. That does not result in a concrete determination that Christ is not saying He will draw all men unto Himself by and through His death, in my view. As I said before, I just don't see that Van's position has been shown as unreasonable, nor has a dogmatic assertion been presented that presents a differing view is stronger. I too see this as Christ making a simple statement that if He is lifted up, He will draw all men (without exclusion) to Himself. Involved to the "all men" in view are numerous issues that have to be calculated as relevant. One such issue is that all judgment is given unto Christ, He is the One all men will stand before. To what extent this impacts our understanding of the focal passage is, probably, very debatable.

But if we didn't have something to debate...what else would we do?





God bless.