The drawing of God.

[The Biblicist]

First, I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Second, those who hold to your position on these verses are guilty of the informal fallacy called the black and white fallacy. In other words reformed people often argue that if A is true and B is true then C must also be true when there are in fact more options.

Again John 6:44 says two things clearly:

1. The object of that passage is the pronoun "him" meaning anyone who comes.
2. The context of the passage is therefore "him who comes".
3. The context is not "everyone who is drawn".
4. "him who comes" is raised up.
5. "Everyone who is drawn" is not in view in this passage.

nice bit of mental gymnastics and pure eisgesis.

The "him" that is drawn is the "him" that Christ raises up. The nearest antecedent for the pronoun "him" in the second clause is the "him" in the first clause. The nearest antedent for the "him" in the first clause is the "man" in the first clause who cannot come to Christ EXCEPT the Father draws "him" or that man that cannot come.

Second, the explanation by Christ in the first clause is a quotation from Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 both of which are speaking of "all" in the covenant the new covenant which demands "all" will be taught by God "from the least....to the greatest" within that covenant - and not one fails to come and not one fails to be saved in "all" who are in that covenant.

Third, the second phrase in verse 44 "and I will raise him up at the last day" is first introduced in verse 39 which demands that "of all" given are the same as "all" drawn.

Fourth, there are those never drawn by the Father in verses 64-65 proving that not "all" men without exception are drawn by the Fathert.

Fifth, Christ intentionally changes the wording in verse 65 from the wording in verse 44 substituting "except it is given by the Father" to define draw as the ability to come to the Son by faith. Those in verse 64 are said to have never believed from the beginning and yet professed faith but the Son says of them that "it was not given" (ability to come to Christ by faith) to them.

To take one verse six chapters later and pit it against this more fuller explanation in chapter 6 demonstrates one does not understand either chapter as the "all" in Chapter 12 in context is inclusive of the Gentiles seeking to come to Christ and thus denies that drawing is restriction to the Jewish race alone.

if we exclude the uses of the Greek term translated draw in John 6:44 and John 13:32 as debatable and decide its meaning just on the other four uses of the term found in the gospels and Acts alone, then the following facts are indisputable. (1) the subject is ALWAYS PASSIVE in the action and (2) what is being drawn always comes simultaneous with being drawn - in other words something cannot be drawn without coming at the very same time - it is always effectual in producing coming. The only place where coming is not simultaneous with drawing is in the context where the source of drawing power is insufficient (man) but that cannot be said of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is really no excuse for the arguments that draw in John 6:44 is either universal or is conditional as the context repudiates both ideas. It is not universal as John 6:64-65 clearly demonstrates. Verse 65 is the explanation given for why those disciples in verse 64 never believed.

The phrase "I will raise him up at the last day" is first introduced by Christ in John 6:39 proving that he is still referring to the very same "all" in John 6:39 proving that he does not draw all men without exception just all men without distinction (Jn. 12:31). Those in John 6:64 were never drawn by the Father, thus so much for universal drawing without exception.

The usage of "draw" in the New Testament always conveys two unvariable facts (1) the object of drawing is always PASSIVE and (2) drawing is always effectual in coming because coming is a simultaneous action with drawing. The only case where that is questionable is due to the lack of power in men which cannot be attributed to God's drawing power.

 

[Reformed]

There is really no excuse for the arguments that draw in John 6:44 is either universal or is conditional as the context repudiates both ideas. It is not universal as John 6:64-65 clearly demonstrates. Verse 65 is the explanation given for why those disciples in verse 64 never believed.

The phrase "I will raise him up at the last day" is first introduced by Christ in John 6:39 proving that he is still referring to the very same "all" in John 6:39 proving that he does not draw all men without exception just all men without distinction (Jn. 12:31). Those in John 6:64 were never drawn by the Father, thus so much for universal drawing without exception.

The usage of "draw" in the New Testament always conveys two unvariable facts (1) the object of drawing is always PASSIVE and (2) drawing is always effectual in coming because coming is a simultaneous action with drawing. The only case where that is questionable is due to the lack of power in men which cannot be attributed to God's drawing power.

I forgot how exhausting it is to take that much time to explain a passage in that much detail during a work week. You explained this before to the good Rev with nary a mention.

 

[Bro. James]

How are the head hunters of Borneo drawn?

Also the ones who are drawn by a false gospel(which is much of Christendom)?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

How are the head hunters of Borneo drawn?

Also the ones who are drawn by a false gospel(which is much of Christendom)?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

You continue to communicate in a strange manner.

Bottom line: All the ones that the Father draws to Himself will be given to the Son.

 

[Iconoclast]

There is really no excuse for the arguments that draw in John 6:44 is either universal or is conditional as the context repudiates both ideas. It is not universal as John 6:64-65 clearly demonstrates. Verse 65 is the explanation given for why those disciples in verse 64 never believed.

The phrase "I will raise him up at the last day" is first introduced by Christ in John 6:39 proving that he is still referring to the very same "all" in John 6:39 proving that he does not draw all men without exception just all men without distinction (Jn. 12:31). Those in John 6:64 were never drawn by the Father, thus so much for universal drawing without exception.

The usage of "draw" in the New Testament always conveys two unvariable facts (1) the object of drawing is always PASSIVE and (2) drawing is always effectual in coming because coming is a simultaneous action with drawing. The only case where that is questionable is due to the lack of power in men which cannot be attributed to God's drawing power.

Some who have an agenda speak against Jn6:37-44...in vain.
I do not think it is possible to write it any clearer.

 

[Iconoclast]

I forgot how exhausting it is to take that much time to explain a passage in that much detail during a work week. You explained this before to the good Rev with nary a mention.

Yes...You and B answer him, and then he goes into a shell when an explanation is asked from him.

 

[Bro. James]

You continue to communicate in a strange manner.

Bottom line: All the ones that the Father draws to Himself will be given to the Son.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the bizarre rhetorical questions. I am having prescription medicine withdrawal.

I have difficulty explaining the fact that billions of souls have populated this planet in the last 6,000 years, never having heard the True Gospel. There are over 7 billion souls presently on planet Earth. Multitudes of this group have never heard The Gospel or have heard a false gospel.

How do we explain this in terms of the God's drawing lost souls?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Iconoclast]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the bizarre rhetorical questions. I am having prescription medicine withdrawal.

I have difficulty explaining the fact that billions of souls have populated this planet in the last 6,000 years, never having heard the True Gospel. There are over 7 billion souls presently on planet Earth. Multitudes of this group have never heard The Gospel or have heard a false gospel.

How do we explain this in terms of the God's drawing lost souls?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

That is why missionaries....go there,that is why they learn these languages. ..if they do not these people perish.

 

[utilyan]

Uti, I present that verse to show you that God's word is consistent from beginning to end. You simply refuse to accept your own perverse nature.

Should I treat you like a filthy rag menno? Its a pretty simple question.

 

[utilyan]

How many would you like? Not in exactly those words, but actually in stronger ones. Try Romans 1:28-31; Romans 2:21-24; Ephesians 2:3; Philippians 3:2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; Titus 1:15-16, and of course Titus 3:3 where he includes himself in the condemnation.

Martin, Jesus Christ commands that I should love you as He loves me.

John 13

34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

So the Love Jesus has for you, that's a filthy rag? Is this how all men will know I am his disciple by saying you are a filthy rag? Treat you the way I want to be treated thats a filthy rag? You want me to treat you like a filthy rag?

 

[MennoSota]

Should I treat you like a filthy rag menno? Its a pretty simple question.

What does the Bible say? Does God clean filthy rags?
Uti, you bounce around, avoiding your sin and your need to have your sins forgiven. Has God cleansed you or are you still filthy?
If, God has made us clean, we are found in Christ, we are not condemned. If God has not made us clean, we are condemned as sinners (filthy rags).
The Bible tells us to love our neighbor as ourself. Only God can make us clean.
Has God cleansed you, utilyan, or are you still filthy?

 

[Bro. James]

The filthy rags describes righteousness we have of ourselves. It is only the imputed righteousness of Jesus which is accepted by God. If we think our good works can save us or keep us saved we in effect reject what God has already done for us in Jesus and The Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 2:8-10 sums it up:

"For by grace are you saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them."

There is no place for the self or exalting others. We live in a world of narcissistic respecters of persons, in pursuit of filthy lucre, striving to be first on a religious treadmill to oblivion. Secular humanism is alive and well on planet earth.

The totality of the depravity of mankind is obvious--but not through rose colored glasses.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Revmitchell]

nice bit of mental gymnastics and pure eisgesis.

And it is statement like these why people think reformed folks are arrogant and no one wants to discuss with them

 

[The Biblicist]

And it is statement like these why people think reformed folks are arrogant and no one wants to discuss with them

No, that is simply stating the pure facts. Your response above is typical for those who can't respond to the evidences so their only refuge is to make it a personal attack in order to distract the readers from the evidences presented that you can't answer.

The whole immediate context refutes your responses. The context from the beginning of the chapter is about people who come to Christ all for the wrong reasons:

1. There are those who come to him because of miracles - v. 2

2. There are those who come to him because of they see him as power to overthrow Rome - vv. 14-15

3. There are those who come to him because of food - v. 26
.
These are all the wrong causes for coming to Christ. Jesus is defining the true causes for coming to him in John 6:29-71 none of which are found in man's ability as "no man can come to me" for the right cause apart from God's work and he defines God's work to be:

1. Giving saving faith/coming to Christ by faith - v. 29

2. Giving some before the world began to come to Christ - vv. 37-40

3. Drawing them to Christ by effectual internal revelation - vv. 44-45

4. Giving the ability to believe - vv. 64-65

A. He did not give those in verse 36 to Christ as they did not come and "of all" he gives to Christ not one fails to come

B. He did not draw those in verse 64 to Christ as they never believed in him from the beginning because all the Father draws saving faith is "given unto them of the Father" - v. 65

C. The flesh profiteths nothing when it comes to believing in Christ but it is the effectual work of the Spirit through the Word of God - v. 63


So NONE but those "given" to Christ by the Father will come to him in saving faith - NONE!

So ALL those "given" to Christ by the Father will come so that "of all" given NONE FAIL TO COME

Why is that so? Because ALL the Father gives he draws and that is why NONE FAIL TO COME.

NONE of those whom the Father has not given to Christ will come to him by faith (v. 26). Why is that? Because "no man can come except the Father draw" them.

NONE of those whom the Father does not draw will come - vv. 64-65

Why is that so? Because coming to Christ by faith must be "given to him of the Father" or else they cannot come - v. 65

Finally, verse 45a and the "all" who are taught of God are NEW COVENANT ELECT as Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 are describing God's covenant people and "all" of them shall be internally taught by God and "all" of them "from the least to the greatest" will know God through saving faith (Heb. 8:10-14). No man can claim to be taught of God without HAVING heard and HAVING learned of the Father or else they were NEVER taught by God. You can't be taught without having HEARD and you can't be taught without having LEARNED as teaching involves learning and "ALL" thus taught do come to Christ by faith - v. 45b.

 

[HankD]

... The Father does not send to the Son only those He knows will believe. He sends to the Son those He has chosen...

This in a nutshell is the difference between C/A - IMO of course.

Yet on and on and on it goes...

Of course then comes the ad hominems from each side.

Usually its harmless.

Sometimes its informative and/or entertaining.



Again IMO.

HankD

 

[Reformed]

This in a nutshell is the difference between C/A - IMO of course.

Yet on and on and on it goes...

Of course then comes the ad hominems from each side.

Usually its harmless.

Sometimes its informative and/or entertaining.



Again IMO.

HankD

And that's why I typically bow out of a thread once it reaches that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, Jesus Christ commands that I should love you as He loves me.

John 13

34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

So the Love Jesus has for you, that's a filthy rag? Is this how all men will know I am his disciple by saying you are a filthy rag? Treat you the way I want to be treated thats a filthy rag? You want me to treat you like a filthy rag?

Ut, if someone throws you a stick, you are absolutely guaranteed to get the wrong end of it.
The Lord Jesus absolutely commands that you should love me as He loves me..
Does He love me because I'm such a great chap and He's lucky to have me on His side? No! He loves me although I was, in Menno's words, a filthy rag and am even now no better than a redeemed filthy rag. He has loved me with an everlasting love, and He loves me still, though I fail Him regularly. Christ didn't die for nice people, He died for miserable sinners like you and me! He died for people who were as described in the verses I quoted. 'For when we were still without strength.........' When our sins were as black as coal, as black as night; when there was nothing we could do to save ourselves, when we were under the righteous condemnation of God, 'in due time Christ died for the ungodly' (Romans 5:6. How many times do I have to repeat that verse before you get it?). 'This Man receives sinners!' (Luke 15:2). "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matthew 9:13).

If you think you're a good person, you have nothing to do with Jesus Christ

Frankly, I'm sick to death with correcting your ghastly theology and your wicked misrepresentations of what others write. From time to time I stick you on ignore to give myself some peace from your nonsense. I'd as soon stick pins in my eyes as write this stuff which I know you're not going to read except to see how you can distort it. Why do I do it? Because Christ bids me to love you as He has loved me. I am commanded to have pity on your foolishness and ignorance and pride because I know that I was once as foolish and ignorant and proud as you and it is only the grace of God that has saved me (Titus 3:3). And I am commanded to pray for you, which I will do as soon as I finish this post.

Now, stop your nonsense, realise that you are indeed no better than a 'filthy rag,' and go to Christ as a filthy rag and plead no goodness in yourself, no redeeming feature, no good deeds you may have performed, nothing, saved the blood of Christ shed upon the cross for sinners and filthy rags, and ask Him to save you, and He will (John 6:37b).

 

[Revmitchell]

No, that is simply stating the pure facts. Your response above is typical for those who can't respond to the evidences so their only refuge is to make it a personal attack in order to distract the readers from the evidences presented that you can't answer.

Uh no your statement was a personal attack. I have no delusion that anyone would be distracted. Your statement was arrogant and rude and more importantly is is unnecessary. It seems we get the fringe of reformed folks on this board because those I know and talk with regularly in person never talk that way nor do they condone it.

 

[The Biblicist]

"nice bit of mental gymnastics and pure eisgesis."

There is nothing personal in these words. They are descriptive of a wrong method of interpetation (eisgesis) and descriptive of an attempt to get around the evidence presented (mental gynastics). If that offends you then be offended. You did not deal with the evidence or arguments placed before you, you simply rearranged the words to say the same thing which was no response at all but simply presenting the same eisgetical mistakes.