There are many drawn but still reject;
If God is selective then God is a respecter of men.
As has been explained to you many times, it
your position that makes God a respecter of men. Why does anybody believe? Because they were more afraid, more intellectual, more spiritual? Does God draw on the basis of foreseen faith? That would be the definition of partiality right there, because God is basing drawing on something intrinsic to others that others do not have.
The only way the election makes God a respecter of men is if God owes something to one man that He does not give to another man on the basis of something in that person. That is exactly the Arminian position. The Reformed position says that the ground of the drawing is the giving and that the ground of the giving is in God without respect to anything in man at all, even faith, even wickedness. That is not God being a respecter of men at all, because God does not give and draw on the basis of anything instrinsic in any man vs. what is in another.
I disagree God draws all men to Him;
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
What would be the purpose of drawing all men then telling them nope I didn't grant it to you.
Absolutely, but since "the world" doesn't mean what you say it means anyway, this objection is defeated. If the "world" only means "all kinds of men, not just Jews," then the passage makes perfect sense. Did God direct the spread of the gospel in Acts, Mike? If you say, yes, and you should, since the text says so, then all men aren't being drawn, because to be drawn one must hear and understand. The only way your way works is if universalism is true.
The ones who he was talking about were some of the Jews that were broken out of the tree so that we could be grafted in.
From what part of the text have you deduced this?
They were broken out of the tree for unbelief.
No, the text tells them why they did not believe. It says nothing of this. You are reading something into the text that is not there. You must remember that this discourse should be understood in the same way as the persons who first heard it, and they were in the synagogue and Capernaum, not readers of Paul.
They rejected Christ and lost there chance for Salvation because of it.
Of course it wasn't granted to them because they rejected Christ..
No, they were rejected because they were not given, drawn, etc. This text does NOT indicate they were not given, drawn, and believe because they rejected, it indicates they rejected because they were not given, drawn, come, or believe. The text goes on to say that EVERYONE who is instructed comes to Jesus. According to the text all that come believe. Since these people were listening to Jesus, they had come to Jesus, clearly. Why then do they not believe? Because they were not given spiritually, drawn internally, and because they did not have the ability to come to Jesus in a believing manner. Nothing in this text says anything about God taking their ability to believe away. It simply says that unless one is drawn one does not have the ability to believe, but that all who are drawn also believe, why, because they are the ones given and the ones that are instructed, etc. In other words, because we do not have the ability to come, we are drawn by God. John 6:44 explains the "how" of the "why" of vs. 37 - 39. We do not believe because we do not come. We do not come because we do have the ability to do so. Therefore, God must draw us. God draws, and we come, and we believe, not only that ALL those who are drawn, WILL come, and WILL believe, and WILL be raised on the last day. You ave turned this entire text backwards. What a horrible exegesis.
We have to remember that the 4 gospels were written to Jews. Paul is who brought the gospel to us.
Actually, Luke was most likely written to a Gentile audience. John's gospel was likely received at Ephesus, which was a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles. His gospel is littered with references to the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles because that church is also the same church that struggled with both the Judaizer heresy and Gnosticism.
Read the entire passage. In 6:36 he tells them that some of them do not believe. Vs. 6:37 through 45 tell them why they do not believe, not why they are not saved. You have turned the text completely around on itself. It is true they are not saved...because they do not believe. Why? Because they do not come. Why? Because they are not drawn, and they are not able to come unless drawn. Why are they not drawn? Because they are not given. Why must they be given and drawn in order to come and believe? Because they are not able to do so.
Those who are believe are given, ALL of them. They are also the ones drawn, ALL of them. They are also the ones instructed, and all of them are raised at the last day. Nothing in this text supports your position, not one line.
All election is ,is Salvation being made available.
No, the word means “picked out, chosen,” and is used of Christ (Luke 23:35), angels (1 Timothy 5:21), Christians (Matthew 24:22), the elect whom God chose (Mark 13:20); the elect who are gathered (Mark 13:27), etc.
Election is a picking out, a choosing.
What a lot of people do not understand, is that the original Greek, or Ancient Greek is not the same as modern. Strongs is a good reference book and it serves a purpose, but it is for modern Greek.
Well, I
do understand, and I know that Liddell and Scott is a classical lexicon, and it understands the word the same as Strong's. However,BDAG and Louw-Nida Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains are both koine lexicons. Now, before I come back here in a day or two, I would like to challenge you to find a koine lexicon (hint, I have named two standard ones for you) that does
not render the word the way the others do, and, if they do, explain why they do so I'm reasonably certain you will not find a koine lexicon that renders the word the way you do, because I know that Bible dictionaries written from an Arminian slant do not render the word as you.
Actually as much as this word has been argued over you'd think we were dragged to God kicking and screaming.
True, but the word for violent dragging like this is "suro," not "helkuo," anyway.
When the word "Motivated" or "Enticed" would have been a more accurate.
How do you know this?
The only way this is true is if you impose your own theology on the text. That is called an innovation. The same word is used of dragging a net (John 21:6), dragging persons into court (Acts 16:19) and drawing a sword. Therefore, you have Peter enticing or motivating his sword, entice or motivating a net of fish, Paul and Silas being motivated or enticed into court, Paul being motivated or enticed out of the city, and rich men in James 2:6 oppressing you and personally motivating or enticing you into court!
The word for "entice" is "holokleros," the word for "persuade" is "peitho" or "anapeithos." Changing words to reflect your position is called changing God's own Word. The word is "helkuo," it means to drag or draw, but not the violent type of dragging indicated by "suro," not "motivate or entice." Those are completely different words that, to my knowledge, are not in any rendering of John 6:44 at all. Deal with the text
without changing lexical definitions. As for your comments about the addition of the word in the text, I have emailed a personal friend who knows about such matters. When he gets back with me, I will let you all know.
