No I stick with the context. Once again you cannot know my motivation even if I were wrong. (which i am not)
-
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!
The drawing of God.
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
No I stick with the context. Once again you cannot know my motivation even if I were wrong. (which i am not)
If you want to talk about the great context, fine! But that is not what I have been talking about with you up to the point of your failure to respond to the specific arguments placed before you about THIS TEXT. Instead of responding to the specifics about THIS TEXT, you now want to expand and talk about the greater context and make the rediculous assumption that it repudiates the specifics I have stated WHEN YOU HAVE NOT EVEN PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE to prove it. I am not yelling, I am emphasizing. You are attempting to move the goal posts and claim victory when you have provided nothing from the overall context that contradicts a single solitary specific I have given about this text.
So your new distraction is charging me with claiming I know your motives while you can say NOTHING about the substances placed before you except making new unfounded claims you have yet to even point out much less defend????
Your "context" claim is false and it is obviously false as in your own statement you stated that it demanded eating bread which does not begin in verse 41. So either your knowledge of the context is either deficient or your motives for beginning in verse 41 are skewed by bias.
This is a false accusation we have back and forth over this adnausium at this point. It doesn't matter the greater context is as I said. You cannot divorce it from that.
I will tell you like I tell my church folks. I don't care if you are right or wrong if you have mishandled the situation by responding inappropriately I will not address the issue until it is handled the correct way. I do that here at the church and on this board.
You have provided NOTHING from greater context to refute a single point that I have made. The only thing you have provided is your accusation EMPTY of any substance.
Your claim that verse 44 is about beleiving in the father is FALSE! Claim that about some other text fine, but that is a FALSE claim concerning this text and everyone reading our debate knows it is false.
Pathetic! You have earned the right to be placed on ignore.
Are you even reading what you are posting?
You are the one coming after me leveling accusations. You engaged me. You have come at me, yelled (all caps) and pursued me. if you want to put me on ignore I think I would be better served than you.
Saving faith is the work of God (Jn. 6:29). It is not of men (Jn. 6:33, 36). That saving work by God is first defined as being given by God to come to the Son, and "of all" given none fail to come (Jn. 6:37) and that is confirmed by the promise that they will "be raised up at the last day" (v. 39). Therefore, "whosoever believes" come from among "all" who have been "given" to the Son as none others do come or "can" come to him.
They "all" do come and none fail to come because in the giving work of the Father is the drawing work of the Father which without "no man can" and no man will come to him (v. 44). He is still speaking about those whom the Father has given to the son as the same promise first introduced in verse 39 is attached to verse 44. The giving work by God declares all will come and none will be lost while the drawing work of God explains why that is so.
The Arminian position that all who are drawn do not necessarily come is false for two contextual based reasons. First,the very term translated "draw" in the scriptures is always passive voice with regard to the object and coming is the inseparable action of being drawn in every use found in scripture (if we ignore Jn. 6:44 and Jn. 12:31 as disputed cases). Second, those in verse 36 and verse 64 were never given or drawn by the Father as John 3:36 and John 6:65 make clear. Hence, the only possible human beings left to be drawn are those who do come because they have been given by the Father to come..
They "all" do come and none fail to come because in the giving work of the Father is the drawing work of the Father which without "no man can" and no man will come to him (v. 44). He is still speaking about those whom the Father has given to the son as the same promise first introduced in verse 39 is attached to verse 44. The giving work by God declares all will come and none will be lost while the drawing work of God explains why that is so.
The Arminian position that all who are drawn do not necessarily come is false for two contextual based reasons. First,the very term translated "draw" in the scriptures is always passive voice with regard to the object and coming is the inseparable action of being drawn in every use found in scripture (if we ignore Jn. 6:44 and Jn. 12:31 as disputed cases). Second, those in verse 36 and verse 64 were never given or drawn by the Father as John 3:36 and John 6:65 make clear. Hence, the only possible human beings left to be drawn are those who do come because they have been given by the Father to come..
I do hope you are not a pastor nor a teacher.
Verse 45 is given by Christ to explain the nature of being drawn in verse 44. He quotes the prophets (plural) where "all" shall be taught by God. Now the Arminian response is that "all" refers to all mankind without distinction. However, the prophets being quoted by Christ are referring to "all" in the context of the new covenant. He is almost quoting Isaiah 54:13 verbatim and the other prophet that refers to all being taught by God is Jeremiah 31:33-34. They are referring to the same covenant context which Paul defines as the "new' covenant in hebrews 8:10-12 where he directly quotes Jeremiah 31:33-34 and calls it the "new" covenant. Within this covenant context "all" are taught of God from "the least to the greatest" and he denies that the teaching under consideration is through human instrumentality. He is talking about direct revelation by God within the human heart as Paul describes as a creative act of God in 2 Cor. 4:6. Human instrumentality can only reach the outward ear but only God can teach the heart.
So there can be no honest dispute that Jeremiah 31:33-34 is speaking of "all" within the "new" covenant relationship or the elect.
So what about Isaiah 54:13?
And all your children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of your children.
This text also denies "all" is universal without distinction but rather it explicitly states "your children" and is in context speaking of the promised "new" covenant as described in Ezek. 36:25-27 or the future salvation of Israel.
So Christ's prophetic explanation of drawing denies it is applied to all men without exception (just as the immediate context denies it - vv. 64-65). It is applied only to those "given" to the Son by the Father in the "new" covenant.
Furthermore, it is the same Greek word translated "all" in the first phrase of verse 45 that is translated "everyone" in the second phrase of verse 45 where he draws a conclusion to the prophets who are speaking about "all" within the "new" covenant or the elect or all those given to the Son by the Father. All taught by God means they have both "heard" and "learned" and as result this "all" comes to Christ by faith. A person who has "heard" but has not "learned" has not been taught, but to be taught means they have both heard and learned. However, to argue conversely is to ignore the restricted framework by the prophets of the same word "all" as well as to deny the repudiation by Christ that "all" without exception have not been drawn (heard/taught) in verses 64-65.
So the verses 44-45 are airtight with regard to its limited application to only the those given to Christ by the Father with regard to (1) the Biblical usage of the term "draw" and to (2) the prophetic limits of the term "all" and to (3) the repudiation that all men without exception are drawn in verses 64-65.
So there can be no honest dispute that Jeremiah 31:33-34 is speaking of "all" within the "new" covenant relationship or the elect.
So what about Isaiah 54:13?
And all your children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of your children.
This text also denies "all" is universal without distinction but rather it explicitly states "your children" and is in context speaking of the promised "new" covenant as described in Ezek. 36:25-27 or the future salvation of Israel.
So Christ's prophetic explanation of drawing denies it is applied to all men without exception (just as the immediate context denies it - vv. 64-65). It is applied only to those "given" to the Son by the Father in the "new" covenant.
Furthermore, it is the same Greek word translated "all" in the first phrase of verse 45 that is translated "everyone" in the second phrase of verse 45 where he draws a conclusion to the prophets who are speaking about "all" within the "new" covenant or the elect or all those given to the Son by the Father. All taught by God means they have both "heard" and "learned" and as result this "all" comes to Christ by faith. A person who has "heard" but has not "learned" has not been taught, but to be taught means they have both heard and learned. However, to argue conversely is to ignore the restricted framework by the prophets of the same word "all" as well as to deny the repudiation by Christ that "all" without exception have not been drawn (heard/taught) in verses 64-65.
So the verses 44-45 are airtight with regard to its limited application to only the those given to Christ by the Father with regard to (1) the Biblical usage of the term "draw" and to (2) the prophetic limits of the term "all" and to (3) the repudiation that all men without exception are drawn in verses 64-65.
Last edited:
Indeed.
Lukasaurus
Member
"This text also denies "all" is universal without distinction but rather it explicitly states "your children"
I usually don't get involved in calvinism debates, but this is silly talk.
All your children is all your children without distinction. The all refers to your children.
So all the world would refer to all the world without distinction. All men is all mankind without distinction.
I usually don't get involved in calvinism debates, but this is silly talk.
All your children is all your children without distinction. The all refers to your children.
So all the world would refer to all the world without distinction. All men is all mankind without distinction.
The Arminian attempts to deny that giving is the contextual cause for coming to Christ in verse 37 but the grammatical facts repudiate his view. "give" is found in the present tense in verse 37 while "shall come" is future tense so the action of the present tense not only precedes the action of the future tense but it is the act of giving that is the stated cause for coming to Christ and this is proven in verses 38-39.
Jesus claims that his incarnation or coming into the world was to fulfill a specifically stated will of the Father that had been revealed unto him. That will was that none shall be lost whom he had "given" (perfect tense) which grammatically means the act of giving preceded the act of incarnation or else the statement by Christ makes no sense. So, obviously if the act of giving preceded the incarnation it had to proceed the act of coming to Christ by faith in all who had been given to Christ prior to the incarnation.
So, we know that none had been given to the Son that would not come to the Son (v. 37) and would not be saved by the Son (vv. 38-39). Since, those in verse 36 did not come to the son, they were not part "of all" that were given to the Son.Indeed, this discourse on giving by the Father to come to Christ by faith is in response to their refusal to come to him in spite of their claim they could believe on him IF he showed MORE miracles than they already witnessed. Simply put, coming to him in faith is not a capability of man, but it is the result of God's work, first in giving a people to the son to come to him and which "of all " given will come and none be lost. Therefore, those in verse 36 are not part of those in verse 40 or part of the "whosoever will believe." The "whosoever will believe" are previously defined and restricted to "of all" those given to the son (vv. 37-39). So, it is "not whosoever will" that is the cause but the consequence of having been given to the Son prior to the incarnation. Hence, it is the work of God that is the cause of "whosoever will believe" in the act of giving that precedes coming. Jesus places this beyond dispute when he says "no man can come" so no such ability resides in man. Where does it come from? It comes only from the work of God - first in giving so that they may come which is inclusive of drawing.
None come but those given - vv. 36-40 and "all" come who are given.
None come but those drawn - v. 44 and these are "all" who are taught of God under the NEW COVENANT (v. 45) , and "all" taught within that framework do come proving they have been given to Christ. So "him" drawn equals "him" raised as no other kind of person can be found in the texts - none but the covenant elect who had been chosen to be given to come to the son.
Jesus claims that his incarnation or coming into the world was to fulfill a specifically stated will of the Father that had been revealed unto him. That will was that none shall be lost whom he had "given" (perfect tense) which grammatically means the act of giving preceded the act of incarnation or else the statement by Christ makes no sense. So, obviously if the act of giving preceded the incarnation it had to proceed the act of coming to Christ by faith in all who had been given to Christ prior to the incarnation.
So, we know that none had been given to the Son that would not come to the Son (v. 37) and would not be saved by the Son (vv. 38-39). Since, those in verse 36 did not come to the son, they were not part "of all" that were given to the Son.Indeed, this discourse on giving by the Father to come to Christ by faith is in response to their refusal to come to him in spite of their claim they could believe on him IF he showed MORE miracles than they already witnessed. Simply put, coming to him in faith is not a capability of man, but it is the result of God's work, first in giving a people to the son to come to him and which "of all " given will come and none be lost. Therefore, those in verse 36 are not part of those in verse 40 or part of the "whosoever will believe." The "whosoever will believe" are previously defined and restricted to "of all" those given to the son (vv. 37-39). So, it is "not whosoever will" that is the cause but the consequence of having been given to the Son prior to the incarnation. Hence, it is the work of God that is the cause of "whosoever will believe" in the act of giving that precedes coming. Jesus places this beyond dispute when he says "no man can come" so no such ability resides in man. Where does it come from? It comes only from the work of God - first in giving so that they may come which is inclusive of drawing.
None come but those given - vv. 36-40 and "all" come who are given.
None come but those drawn - v. 44 and these are "all" who are taught of God under the NEW COVENANT (v. 45) , and "all" taught within that framework do come proving they have been given to Christ. So "him" drawn equals "him" raised as no other kind of person can be found in the texts - none but the covenant elect who had been chosen to be given to come to the son.
The overall context Summarized
John 6:1-36 is about those who came to Christ for the wrong reasons:
1. Because of miracles - v. 2
2. Because of power - v. 14-15
3. Because of food - v. 26
All these reasons are tied in with food and wrong reasons for coming to Christ. Hence, Jesus takes food and drink to illustrate the true nature of coming to Christ in faith and how it is the work of God in first giving (purpose) and then drawing (effectual internal revelation). Eating and drinking is how our bodies partake of food and so Jesus uses these acts metaphorically to describe how man partakes of Christ by faith as the result of God's work. Just as "manna" in the wilderness came from God so Christ came from God as spiritual manna. But the issue is all about partaking of that manna or metaphorically partaking of Christ by faith. The three examples (vv. 2, 14-15, 26) came to Christ but did not partake of him by faith (v. 36).
Those who partake of Christ by faith are those God first gives to come to His Son by faith - God is the "author and finisher of our faith." It must be "given of the Father" (Jn. 6:65) or the result is always unbelief (vv. 36, 64). So partaking of Christ by faith is the work of God. His giving and drawing work.
The giving work of God refers to his eternal purpose to have been chosen in Christ before the world began, before the incarnation (vv. 38-39b) and thus before they actually came to Christ in faith.
The drawing work of God refers to the internal mechanics within the heart where God work repentance and faith so that those given in the new covenant (v. 45) all come to Christ by faith.
Israel, as a nation had been given external written revelation and then the visible incaranate revelation but the natural man loves darkness more than light and so the more light exposed the the more they closed their eyes and shut their ears in rebellion to this additional light. However, lost Israel is a microcosim of the race of Adam who come into this world and as they are exposed to the light they shut their eyes and close their ears and harden their hearts. That is why "no man can come to me except the father draw him."
John 6:1-36 is about those who came to Christ for the wrong reasons:
1. Because of miracles - v. 2
2. Because of power - v. 14-15
3. Because of food - v. 26
All these reasons are tied in with food and wrong reasons for coming to Christ. Hence, Jesus takes food and drink to illustrate the true nature of coming to Christ in faith and how it is the work of God in first giving (purpose) and then drawing (effectual internal revelation). Eating and drinking is how our bodies partake of food and so Jesus uses these acts metaphorically to describe how man partakes of Christ by faith as the result of God's work. Just as "manna" in the wilderness came from God so Christ came from God as spiritual manna. But the issue is all about partaking of that manna or metaphorically partaking of Christ by faith. The three examples (vv. 2, 14-15, 26) came to Christ but did not partake of him by faith (v. 36).
Those who partake of Christ by faith are those God first gives to come to His Son by faith - God is the "author and finisher of our faith." It must be "given of the Father" (Jn. 6:65) or the result is always unbelief (vv. 36, 64). So partaking of Christ by faith is the work of God. His giving and drawing work.
The giving work of God refers to his eternal purpose to have been chosen in Christ before the world began, before the incarnation (vv. 38-39b) and thus before they actually came to Christ in faith.
The drawing work of God refers to the internal mechanics within the heart where God work repentance and faith so that those given in the new covenant (v. 45) all come to Christ by faith.
Israel, as a nation had been given external written revelation and then the visible incaranate revelation but the natural man loves darkness more than light and so the more light exposed the the more they closed their eyes and shut their ears in rebellion to this additional light. However, lost Israel is a microcosim of the race of Adam who come into this world and as they are exposed to the light they shut their eyes and close their ears and harden their hearts. That is why "no man can come to me except the father draw him."
Natural man comes into this world with all his faculties inclined to evil and therefore totally or wholly inclined to evil. However, his mind does not come into this world fully developed and therefore not closed or his conscience and therefore not hardened or seared. It is his mental interaction with light that results in hardening his conscience against the light received and closing down the mind or his natural ears and sight.
This closure or hardening can take the form of false religion as it is a form of resistance to the light. This was the case of Israel as a whole. So the additional light of the incarnate revelation in the Person and teaching of Christ resulted in such hardening as to produce intent and actions to murder him.
However, regardless of what stage of process a lost person may be in, he will harden his conscience to the truth when interacting with it and that is why "NO MAN can come to me except the Father draws him."
This closure or hardening can take the form of false religion as it is a form of resistance to the light. This was the case of Israel as a whole. So the additional light of the incarnate revelation in the Person and teaching of Christ resulted in such hardening as to produce intent and actions to murder him.
However, regardless of what stage of process a lost person may be in, he will harden his conscience to the truth when interacting with it and that is why "NO MAN can come to me except the Father draws him."
Last edited:
Biblicist,
You are taking the time (well spent IMHO) to explain a sound exegesis of the text. Thank you.
Rev is not an uneducated man. He is quite capable of understanding the argument. Because he is capable, it is my opinion that he understand systematic theology, and the stakes that are at play. He simply cannot accept the exclusivity of the effectual call because it will tip the domino's towards their ultimate conclusion. I will not accuse of him of intellectual dishonestly, but of not being prepared for where such admission will take him. It was the same place I found myself in nearly 20 years ago.
To make the claim that because the text does not state that the non-Elect cannot come to Christ, in the absence of any scriptural support to make such a claim, opens up a Pandora's Box about countless texts that can be interpreted that way. It ignores the plain normative reading of text. It is like you and me being a part of a group of 20 people. I point to you and say, "Come to my house afterwards". When I get home you and 15 others so up. When I ask the 15 others why they are at my house they corporately say, "Because you never said we could not come". Unless that was part of a practical joke, everyone in the group knew only one of them was being asked to come to my house. That is exactly how Rev's explanation of the text comes across.
You are very welcome.
However, if that were true, that the non-elect could come to Christ, then "giving" those defined as "all" to come to Christ in John 6:37-39 would be a wasted effort by God since the non-elect could come without being given. If they could come without being given then so could all men and therefore that would invalidate the need for any man to be drawn to Christ by God since all men could come anyway.
Being given refers to God's purpose while being drawn refers to God's power in making that purpose effectual so that "of all" given "nothing" is lost. If that is not so, then one must ask how "of all' that are given "nothing" is lost? What is it that guarantees nothing "of all" given will be lost? I say, it is the drawing power of God and that is precisely why the same promise that ends verse 37 ends verse 44 which proves the very same people given are the very same people drawn.
Last edited:
- Status