The "him" of John 6:44

[The Biblicist]

Again, to get back on track. This OP deals with the grammatical and logical relationship of the singular "him" as used in John 6:44.

1. The singular antecedent of this pronoun - "man"
2. The singular pronoun "him" in the first clause.
3. The singular pronoun "him" in the second clause.

There is no plural nouns or pronouns found in this text. Hence, one cannot interpet this text on a corporate or plural basis but only upon a singular individual basis.

Therefore, "him" that is drawn must logically be the SAME one that comes to Christ as there are no other nouns or pronouns to give any other option than "him" that is drawn.

Therefore, "him" that is raised must logically be the SAME "him" drawn as there are no other antecedent nouns or pronouns provided for any other option. Not only so, Christ does not raise up to eternal life unbelievers or those who do not come to Christ.

The only possible way that this text can be interpreted to mean that MORE than the singular "him" drawn comes to Christ is to ignore the grammar and READ INTO the text a plural noun that provides the allusion that more is drawn than comes to Christ.

Therefore, grammatically and logically, the SAME "him" drawn is the SAME that comes to Christ and the SAME "him that is raised is the SAME that comes to Christ as the text provides no other grammatical or logical options but the SAME "him."

Those who oppose my exposition of this text must READ INTO this text "OF THEM" which are drawn by the Father only him that comes shall be raised to eternal life.

The text not only does not say that, but it repudiates that idea. It denies any one can come to Christ except for "him" that is drawn. It is that same "him" drawn which is then promised to be raised again as there are no other options provided by the text but the "him" drawn.

Jesus approaches this from a universal NEGATIVE "no man can" to only one possible exception "him". Therefore, there are no other alternatives offered in the text but that ONE exception "him" which can be raised to eternal life.

 

[Winman]

Those who oppose my exposition of this text must READ INTO this text "OF THEM" which are drawn by the Father only him that comes shall be raised to eternal life.

The text not only does not say that, but it repudiates that idea. It denies any one can come to Christ except for "him" that is drawn. It is that same "him" drawn which is then promised to be raised again as there are no other options provided by the text but the "him" drawn.

Jesus approaches this from a universal NEGATIVE "no man can" to only one possible exception "him". Therefore, there are no other alternatives offered in the text but that ONE exception "him" which can be raised to eternal life.

You are making the same error here as you are making in another thread.

Yes, only those drawn can come to Jesus, this is what verse 44 says. Yes, only those who come to Jesus are raised to eternal life.

Therefore only those who are drawn are raised to eternal life.

But...

Verse 44 does not say ALL that are drawn come. It also does not say only SOME of whom are drawn come. This verse is completely silent as to whether ALL or SOME of whom are drawn come.

Therefore, you must go to other scripture to determine if ALL or SOME of whom are drawn come. And there are many scriptures that show only SOME of whom are drawn come. Matthew 22 clearly shows many men who were "called" and "bidden" to the wedding of the king's son but refused to come.

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

When a king calls and bids you to come to his son's wedding, it is not an invitation, it is a COMMAND. But many of these persons refused to come. And note it says they "would not", it does not say they "could not".

So, just because you are drawn to Jesus does not mean you will come.

 

[The Biblicist]

Therefore only those who are drawn are raised to eternal life.

As I said, you must read into the text a PLURAL "those" when it uses a singular "him." You won't use a singular becuase that limits it to ONE rather than many. The antecedent is a singular noun "man" and Jesus is addressing this from a INDIVIDUAL view point.

the text says only "HIM" that is drawn comes! It does not says "those" drawn SOME come - that is your intepretation READ into the text. Look at your next attempt below:

Verse 44 does not say ALL that are drawn come. It also does not say only SOME of whom are drawn come. This verse is completely silent as to whether ALL or SOME of whom are drawn come.

Why don't you carry it through Winman??????? Your next line should have read Verse 44 says only that "HIM which is drawn comes. That limits it to just ONE "him" and not a PLURAL from which only SOME come as your interpetation demands and which must be READ INTO the text while avoiding "him" as you do in your scenario above.

Therefore, you must go to other scripture to determine if ALL or SOME of whom are drawn come.

Only because you IGNORED the singular "him" in your scenario. If your scenario would have followed it through:

Verse 44 does not say ALL that are drawn come. It also does not say only SOME of whom are drawn come. It says only "him" is drawn comes.

But you refused to include the word Jesus used because it repudiates what you READ INTO the text "OF THOSE drawn him that comes is raised u"

If you had read it right then you don't have to go outside the text to another context to see who is drawn and who comes. The only possible one that can come to Christ is the SINGULAR "him" that is drawn - period! There are no ALTERNATIVES offered by the text. It does repudiate that anyone else can come to Christ but "him" singular that was drawn! That in turn demands the only one that Christ will raise to eternal life is also "him" that is drawn. In the singular there are no other alternatives, no other options, no other possibilities.

You will not stick to the Biblical language because it totally repudiates your interpetation of the text that requires you to READ INTO the text the plural "OF THOSE" drawn "him" that comes is raised.

Your interpetation of the text, and your theological position requires a PLURAL POTENTAL in regard to drawing that can be limited in coming. Your explanations and illustrations require a PLURAL POTENTIAL "of those" in drawing that can be limited in coming. The singular "him" in drawing cannot be limited in coming as it is only the "him" singular that is drawn that is possible to come and that denies any PLURAL POTENTAL that is drawn but does not come.

 

[The Biblicist]

As I said, you must read into the text a PLURAL "those" when it uses a singular "him." You won't use a singular becuase that limits it to ONE rather than many. The antecedent is a singular noun "man" and Jesus is addressing this from a INDIVIDUAL view point.

the text says only "HIM" that is drawn comes! It does not says "those" drawn SOME come - that is your intepretation READ into the text. Look at your next attempt below:






Why don't you carry it through Winman??????? Your next line should have read Verse 44 says only that "HIM which is drawn comes. That limits it to just ONE "him" and not a PLURAL from which only SOME come as your interpetation demands and which must be READ INTO the text while avoiding "him" as you do in your scenario above.



Only because you IGNORED the singular "him" in your scenario. If your scenario would have followed it through:

Verse 44 does not say ALL that are drawn come. It also does not say only SOME of whom are drawn come. It says only "him" is drawn comes.

But you refused to include the word Jesus used because it repudiates what you READ INTO the text "OF THOSE drawn him that comes is raised u"

If you had read it right then you don't have to go outside the text to another context to see who is drawn and who comes. The only possible one that can come to Christ is the SINGULAR "him" that is drawn - period! There are no ALTERNATIVES offered by the text. It does repudiate that anyone else can come to Christ but "him" singular that was drawn! That in turn demands the only one that Christ will raise to eternal life is also "him" that is drawn. In the singular there are no other alternatives, no other options, no other possibilities.

You will not stick to the Biblical language because it totally repudiates your interpetation of the text that requires you to READ INTO the text the plural "OF THOSE" drawn "him" that comes is raised.

Your interpetation of the text, and your theological position requires a PLURAL POTENTAL in regard to drawing that can be limited in coming. Your explanations and illustrations require a PLURAL POTENTIAL "of those" in drawing that can be limited in coming. The singular "him" in drawing cannot be limited in coming as it is only the "him" singular that is drawn that is possible to come and that denies any PLURAL POTENTAL that is drawn but does not come.

The opposing interpretation REQUIRES a PLURAL POTENTIAL drawn but a REDUCED number that actually comes.

The Lord chose words that make this interpetation IMPOSSIBLE!

He chose a singular noun and singular pronons where no such REDUCTION from a PLURAL number drawn to a smaller number coming is possible.

The only possible one that can come is the singular "him" drawn as "no man" but that "him" is possible. Hence, if that "him" does not come than "no man can come."

 

[Winman]

As I said, you must read into the text a PLURAL "those" when it uses a singular "him." You won't use a singular becuase that limits it to ONE rather than many. The antecedent is a singular noun "man" and Jesus is addressing this from a INDIVIDUAL view point.

Fine, only "him" that is drawn can come to Jesus, and "him" that comes will be raised up. That does not change a thing.

Your argument brings this scripture to mind;

1 Tim 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

I would say this argument of yours qualifies as doting about questions and strifes of words.

the text says only "HIM" that is drawn comes! It does not says "those" drawn SOME come - that is your intepretation READ into the text. Look at your next attempt below:

And I would ask SO WHAT?? What difference does this make? Only him that is drawn can come, and only him that comes will be raised up to eternal life. SO WHAT?? This does not say HIM that is drawn will come. It does say only him that is drawn CAN come, but it does not say him that is drawn WILL come. That is a huge difference in meaning.

If you are going to say this verse applies to only one person, I would like to know who this one person is. Who is "him" that Jesus is speaking about here? You insist it is one person, OK, who is this one person?

You are simply trying to manipulate words to make this verse support Irresistible Grace when it does no such thing.

According to your argument, there will only be one person who comes, and only one person whom Jesus raises up at the last day.

You can't make "him" mean a single person when it suits you, and then make "him" stand for all the elect.

Why don't you carry it through Winman??????? Your next line should have read Verse 44 says only that "HIM which is drawn comes. That limits it to just ONE "him" and not a PLURAL from which only SOME come as your interpetation demands and which must be READ INTO the text while avoiding "him" as you do in your scenario above.

Your argument is silly, and no scholar would agree with you.

Only because you IGNORED the singular "him" in your scenario. If your scenario would have followed it through:

Verse 44 does not say ALL that are drawn come. It also does not say only SOME of whom are drawn come. It says only "him" is drawn comes.

But you refused to include the word Jesus used because it repudiates what you READ INTO the text "OF THOSE drawn him that comes is raised u"

If you had read it right then you don't have to go outside the text to another context to see who is drawn and who comes. The only possible one that can come to Christ is the SINGULAR "him" that is drawn - period! There are no ALTERNATIVES offered by the text. It does repudiate that anyone else can come to Christ but "him" singular that was drawn! That in turn demands the only one that Christ will raise to eternal life is also "him" that is drawn. In the singular there are no other alternatives, no other options, no other possibilities.

You will not stick to the Biblical language because it totally repudiates your interpetation of the text that requires you to READ INTO the text the plural "OF THOSE" drawn "him" that comes is raised.

Your interpetation of the text, and your theological position requires a PLURAL POTENTAL in regard to drawing that can be limited in coming. Your explanations and illustrations require a PLURAL POTENTIAL "of those" in drawing that can be limited in coming. The singular "him" in drawing cannot be limited in coming as it is only the "him" singular that is drawn that is possible to come and that denies any PLURAL POTENTAL that is drawn but does not come.

Boy, I just skipped over all that, YOU TALK TOO MUCH. You seem to believe you can force your interpretations on people by sheer will and simply talking them to death. I get tired and BORED reading your posts.

And if you think folks are reading your posts every time you quote them over and over again, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will be glad to sell you.

No, your argument is silly and illogical, and you could never get any real scholar to agree with you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Fine, only "him" that is drawn can come to Jesus, and "him" that comes will be raised up. That does not change a thing.

It changes everything as it repudiates the idea that "him" drawn did not come to Christ as there are no other options made avaible to come to Christ but the "him" drawn!

Your theory depends on increasing the number drawn over the number coming and the singular does not allow that interpretation as the text offers no other option for anyone coming to Christ but the "him" drawn. If the singular "him" drawn does not come to Christ then "no man can" come to Christ as no other singular man can be found in the text as a possible alternative choice.

This does not say HIM that is drawn will come.

The universal negative singular eliminates any other man from coming but that one exception. Therefore, "him" is the only possible singular option. If "him" does not come then "no man" comes as there are no other exceptions offered.

If you are going to say this verse applies to only one person, I would like to know who this one person is.

Salvation is not a corporate thing but an INDIVDUAL thing and Christ addresses it in the individual number - SINGULAR!

According to your argument, there will only be one person who comes, and only one person whom Jesus raises up at the last day.

Salvation is personal and individual. However, that is why Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13 immediately following this individualized act of salvation by the Father using a PLURAL demonstrating what the Father does INDIVIDUALLY is not restricted to merely one person but to "ALL" that is "TAUGHT" by him in this manner. Also notice that ALL taught equal ALL that come just as "him" drawn equals "him" raised.

This is Christ's explanation of what it means for the Father to "draw" this "him" to Christ. It is INTERNAL REVELAITION that is "heard" and "learned" by "EVERY MAN" thus taught so that "EVERY MAN" comes to Christ. Again, matching versre 44 on an indidvidual basis so that the SAME him drawn is the SAME him raised. Also consistent with verses 37-39 where the same "ALL" given are the same "ALL" that come to Christ and "OF ALL" given NONE ARE LOST. Thus verses 37-39, 44 and 45 all consistently demand that the Father's work of giving, drawing and teaching finalize in ALL comng to Christ and being raised up with none lost (vv. 39b, 44b, 45b).

 

[The Biblicist]

It changes everything as it repudiates the idea that "him" drawn did not come to Christ as there are no other options made avaible to come to Christ but the "him" drawn!

Your theory depends on increasing the number drawn over the number coming and the singular does not allow that interpretation as the text offers no other option for anyone coming to Christ but the "him" drawn. If the singular "him" drawn does not come to Christ then "no man can" come to Christ as no other singular man can be found in the text as a possible alternative choice.

The universal negative singular eliminates any other man from coming but that one exception. Therefore, "him" is the only possible singular option. If "him" does not come then "no man" comes as there are no other exceptions offered.

Salvation is not a corporate thing but an INDIVDUAL thing and Christ addresses it in the individual number - SINGULAR!

Just point us to the alternative provided in the text and we will give up our argument!
Salvation is personal and individual. However, that is why Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13 immediately following this individualized act of salvation by the Father using a PLURAL demonstrating what the Father does INDIVIDUALLY is not restricted to merely one person but to "ALL" that is "TAUGHT" by him in this manner. Also notice that ALL taught equal ALL that come just as "him" drawn equals "him" raised.

This is Christ's explanation of what it means for the Father to "draw" this "him" to Christ. It is INTERNAL REVELAITION that is "heard" and "learned" by "EVERY MAN" thus taught so that "EVERY MAN" comes to Christ. Again, matching versre 44 on an indidvidual basis so that the SAME him drawn is the SAME him raised. Also consistent with verses 37-39 where the same "ALL" given are the same "ALL" that come to Christ and "OF ALL" given NONE ARE LOST. Thus verses 37-39, 44 and 45 all consistently demand that the Father's work of giving, drawing and teaching finalize in ALL comng to Christ and being raised up with none lost (vv. 39b, 44b, 45b).

Let me put it this way. Jesus says no man can come to Christ. There is only one man given as the exception to this rule. There is only one man provided as an exception to this rule. If "him" that is drawn does not come then what other alternative is provided in this verse that will come???

Just point to the other alternative provided in this text and I will give up my argument!

 

[Winman]

It changes everything as it repudiates the idea that "him" drawn did not come to Christ as there are no other options made avaible to come to Christ but the "him" drawn!

Nonsense, the verse does not say whether the individual who is drawn comes or not, it simply says that if the person comes, they MUST have been drawn, they could not have come on their own. And if that person comes, they will be raised up on the last day.

Your theory depends on increasing the number drawn over the number coming and the singular does not allow that interpretation as the text offers no other option for anyone coming to Christ but the "him" drawn. If the singular "him" drawn does not come to Christ then "no man can" come to Christ as no other singular man can be found in the text as a possible alternative choice.

My interpretation is common sense. Let's say you get an invitation to have dinner with President Obama. You are the only person who receives this invitation. You could not possibly have dinner with President Obama unless you were invited, if you simply tried to walk into the White House and approach the President without being invited, you would be arrested on the spot, possibly shot.

Because you received this invitation, does this guarantee you will come and have dinner with the President? NO, you might refuse to come, or you might get injured in a car accident and be unable to come. The reason doesn't matter, the point is, just because you were invited to have dinner with the President does not mean you will come and have dinner with him.

Nevertheless, it is still perfectly true that you could not have dinner with him unless you were invited, and that if you come you will have dinner with him.

The universal negative singular eliminates any other man from coming but that one exception. Therefore, "him" is the only possible singular option. If "him" does not come then "no man" comes as there are no other exceptions offered.

Dude, you are the universal negative singular. You believe you can FORCE your error on others by will. Your view is error, and no matter how stubborn and obstinate you are, your view will continue to be error.

Salvation is not a corporate thing but an INDIVDUAL thing and Christ addresses it in the individual number - SINGULAR!

Doesn't make a bit of difference, verse 44 still does not answer whether the "him" that is drawn will come or not. The verse is silent on this.

Salvation is personal and individual. However, that is why Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13 immediately following this individualized act of salvation by the Father using a PLURAL demonstrating what the Father does INDIVIDUALLY is not restricted to merely one person but to "ALL" that is "TAUGHT" by him in this manner. Also notice that ALL taught equal ALL that come just as "him" drawn equals "him" raised.

This is Christ's explanation of what it means for the Father to "draw" this "him" to Christ. It is INTERNAL REVELAITION that is "heard" and "learned" by "EVERY MAN" thus taught so that "EVERY MAN" comes to Christ. Again, matching versre 44 on an indidvidual basis so that the SAME him drawn is the SAME him raised.

Isa 54:13 simply agrees with verse 45 and shows that those men who do come to Jesus were taught by the Father.

You could not believe in Jesus if you had never been taught of Jesus. This is what Paul says in Romans 10:14;

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

You weren't walking along completely ignorant of Jesus one day when the concept that Jesus is the Son of God who died for your sins and rose from the dead popped into your head. No man would conceive of this if he lived a million years.

No, if you have trusted Jesus as your Saviour, it is because you heard of Jesus, either from a preacher, or a friend or loved one who told you about Jesus, or because you picked up a Bible and read about Jesus.

No man could possibly conceive of Jesus on their own, therefore, if you came to Jesus and trusted him, it was because you were taught by the Father through the Word of God. And that is all Isa 54:13 is saying.

You are not a Biblicist, you are a fanatic Calvinist who is trying to wrest scripture to agree with the false doctrine of Calvinism.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nonsense, the verse does not say whether the individual who is drawn comes or not, it simply says that if the person comes, they MUST have been drawn, they could not have come on their own. And if that person comes, they will be raised up on the last day.

Where do you find "IF" in this text? Nowhere! Why is it necessary then for your intepretation? Because your interpetation is not supported by the text so you add "if" and plural pronouns "those" and "all."

Let me put it this way. Jesus says no man can come to Christ. There is only one man given as the exception to this rule. There is only one man provided as an exception to this rule. If "him" that is drawn does not come then what other alternative is provided in this verse that will come???

Just point to the other alternative provided in this text and I will give up my argument!

My interpretation is common sense.

Your interpretation requires replacing singular pronouns with plural pronouns. Your intepretation requires INSERTING the idea of a PLURAL NUMBER of drawn that can be reduced to a lesser number coming to Christ of which the singular repudiates. Your intepretation demands conditions added "IF" when not are found. Your intepretation is patently false!

Let's say you get an invitation to have dinner with President Obama. You are the only person who receives this invitation. You could not possibly have dinner with President Obama unless you were invited, if you simply tried to walk into the White House and approach the President without being invited, you would be arrested on the spot, possibly shot.

Because you received this invitation, does this guarantee you will come and have dinner with the President? NO, you might refuse to come, or you might get injured in a car accident and be unable to come. The reason doesn't matter, the point is, just because you were invited to have dinner with the President does not mean you will come and have dinner with him.

Another flawed illustration. First no invitation is even spoken of in this text. Second, if no one but me got the "invitation" but me and I did not come then NO MAN CAME AT ALL! And that is my point. Jesus says "no man can come" but one exception - "him"! If that one exception does not come then find some alternative "him" in this context that can? Find some alternative "him" in this context that will be raised up? You can't do it, because there are no other alternatives offered by the text that can or will but "him" drawn.

Dude, you are the universal negative singular. You believe you can FORCE your error on others by will. Your view is error, and no matter how stubborn and obstinate you are, your view will continue to be error.

Throughout this discussion you have repeatedly attacked my person, or insulted me or called me degrading names like "dude" and I have not once attached your person, insulted your person or addressed you in any degrading manner. Personal assault is the weapon of those who have no other options available. May we simply discuss this like gentleman and leave the personal insinuations and insults out of it?

Doesn't make a bit of difference, verse 44 still does not answer whether the "him" that is drawn will come or not. The verse is silent on this.

Jesus says "no man can" but this "him". Please find me some other alternative in this text other than that "him" if the does not come to Christ? You can't! So if he does not come then "no man can come" as no other man is provided as an alternative option than "him."



I

sa 54:13 simply agrees with verse 45 and shows that those men who do come to Jesus were taught by the Father.

This flawed interpretation depends upon a GREATER PLURAL NUMBER drawn than coming and the text provides no such option. If "him" does not come then "no man can come" as no other man is provided but "him" that is drawn.

You could not believe in Jesus if you had never been taught of Jesus. This is what Paul says in Romans 10:14;

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

You weren't walking along completely ignorant of Jesus when the concept that Jesus is the Son of God died for your sins and rose from the dead popped into your head. No man would conceive of this if he lived a million years.

No, if you have trusted Jesus as your Saviour, it is because you heard of Jesus, either from a preacher, or a friend or loved one who told you about Jesus, or because you picked up a Bible and read about Jesus.

Do every lost one you witness to get saved? Do they all understand what you have said? The text speaks of the Father teaching not men teaching and the teaching he does is INTERNAL and invisible not external (v. 46). That teaching is spelled out in 2 Cor. 4:6 as an INTERNAL revelation. I grant you it accompanies external preaching by men but it is the internal teaching of The father that brings them to Christ.

"Blessed art thou Simon bar Jona, for flesh and blood hath not taught you these things but my Father which is in heaven"

And that is all Isa 54:13 is saying.

Again, you are inserting what is not stated in the text. You forget that "ALL" and 'EVERY MAN" thus taught comes to Christ! Can you say that about your preaching????? NO! So why pervert this text by including the preaching of men when it is not true of any preacher???

You are not a Biblicist, you are a fanatic Calvinist who is trying to wrest scripture to agree with the false doctrine of Calvinism.

You just can't help imaking degrading insulting insinuations and making personal attacks can you?

 

[The Biblicist]

Where do you find "IF" in this text? Nowhere! Why is it necessary then for your intepretation? Because your interpetation is not supported by the text so you add "if" and plural pronouns "those" and "all."

Let me put it this way. Jesus says no man can come to Christ. There is only one man given as the exception to this rule. There is only one man provided as an exception to this rule. If "him" that is drawn does not come then what other alternative is provided in this verse that will come???

Just point to the other alternative provided in this text and I will give up my argument!


Your interpretation requires replacing singular pronouns with plural pronouns. Your intepretation requires INSERTING the idea of a PLURAL NUMBER of drawn that can be reduced to a lesser number coming to Christ of which the singular repudiates. Your intepretation demands conditions added "IF" when not are found. Your intepretation is patently false!


Another flawed illustration. First no invitation is even spoken of in this text. Second, if no one but me got the "invitation" but me and I did not come the NO MAN CAME AT ALL! And that is my point. Jesus says "no man can come" but one exception - "him"! If that one exception does not come then find some alternative "him" in this context that can? Find some alternative "him" in this context that will be raised up? You can't do it, because there are no other alternatives offered by the text that can or will but "him" drawn.



Throughout this discussion you have repeatedly attacked my person, or insulted me or called me degrading names like "dude" and I have not once attached your person, insulted your person or addressed you in any degrading manner. Personal assault is the weapon of those who have no other options available. May we simply discuss this like gentleman and leave the personal insinuations and insults out of it?


Jesus says "no man can" but this "him". Please find me some other alternative in this text other than that "him" if the does not come to Christ? You can't! So if he does not come then "no man can come" as no other man is provided as an alternative option than "him."


This flawed interpretation depends upon a GREATER PLURAL NUMBER drawn than coming and the text provides no such option. If "him" does not come then "no man can come" as no other man is provided but "him" that is drawn.


Do every lost one you witness to get saved? Do they all understand what you have said? The text speaks of the Father teaching not men teaching and the teaching he does is INTERNAL and invisible not external (v. 46). That teaching is spelled out in 2 Cor. 4:6 as an INTERNAL revelation. I grant you it accompanies external preaching by men but it is the internal teaching of The father that brings them to Christ.

"Blessed art thou Simon bar Jona, for flesh and blood hath not taught you these things but my Father which is in heaven"

Again, you are inserting what is not stated in the text. You forget that "ALL" and 'EVERY MAN" thus taught comes to Christ! Can you say that about your preaching????? NO! So why pervert this text by including the preaching of men when it is not true of any preacher???

You just can't help imaking degrading insulting insinuations and making personal attacks can you?

The Lord so worded the Father's work of giving in verses 37-39 to deny any possiblity that ALL given did not equal all coming and all saved.

The Lord so worded the Father's work of Teaching in verses 45-46 to deny any possiblity that ALL taught did not equally EVERY MAN coming to Christ thus taught.

The Lord so worded the Father's work of drawing in verse 44 to deny any possibility that the SAME him drawn is the SAME him coming to Christ and the SAME him raised up.

Readers do you see a consistency in the Father's work in the Son's careful choice of words???

 

[The Biblicist]

The Lord so worded the Father's work of giving in verses 37-39 to deny any possiblity that ALL given did not equal all coming and all saved.

The Lord so worded the Father's work of Teaching in verses 45-46 to deny any possiblity that ALL taught did not equally EVERY MAN coming to Christ thus taught.

The Lord so worded the Father's work of drawing in verse 44 to deny any possibility that the SAME him drawn is the SAME him coming to Christ and the SAME him raised up.

Readers do you see a consistency in the Father's work in the Son's careful choice of words???

The universal denial "no man can come" accompanied by only one exception "him" denies any possibility that there is anyone else that comes to Christ but "him" drawn, as all other possible options are denied, leaving only "him" to come to Christ.

What kind of "him" the DRAWN him!

 

[Winman]

The universal denial "no man can come" accompanied by only one exception "him" denies any possibility that there is anyone else that comes to Christ but "him" drawn, as all other possible options are denied, leaving only "him" to come to Christ.

What kind of "him" the DRAWN him!

Again, verse 44 is simply saying that no man can come to Jesus unless he was drawn by the Father, but this does not mean that everyone who is drawn comes. The scripture has many verses and passages that tell of persons God desires to come to him, he calls, begs, and beckons to them, but they refuse to come.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus says here that over and over again he beckoned and called for the children of Jerusalem to come to him as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings and they "would not". It does not say they "could not" come, it says they "would not" come.

For you to deny that God calls and draws men who refuse to come is rdiculous, it is shown over and over again in scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, verse 44 is simply saying that no man can come to Jesus unless he was drawn by the Father, but this does not mean that everyone who is drawn comes.

Once again, the universal negative removes the possiblity that any other man is being considered but "him". That is a singular "him" which denies any other alternative for consideration in this text that will come to Christ. Find any other alternative in this text that will come to Christ and I will cease my argument. You can't, so you just repeat and repeat a false interpretation, as your interpretation REEQUIRES a NUMERICAL PLURAL drawn that can be reduced to to a smaller number that actuall does come.

The scripture has many verses and passages that tell of persons God desires to come to him, he calls, begs, and beckons to them, but they refuse to come.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

In the context of John 6:44 drawing is defined as being "taught" by God whereby "EVERY MAN" thus taught has "heard" and "learned" and comes to Christ. In contrast the text you are quoting above teaches the character of Romans 8:7 - "ye would not". No teaching by God here.

For you to deny that God calls and draws men who refuse to come is rdiculous, it is shown over and over again in scripture.

Romans 8:7 and Acts 7:51 is the normal response of all men in response to the gospel. John 6:44-45 is the response of "all" the Father has "taught".


Again, the consistent use of the singular noun, pronouns accompanied with the universal negative that eliminates any other man except "him" drawn by God restricts the one coming to Christ to the only available "him" drawn. If that "him" drawn does not come then "no man" comes. This deliberate use of the singular and deliberate universal negative, prohibit any other interpretation but one - and that is the SAME "him" drawn is the SAME him that comes to Christ and is raised because the text offers no other alternative to "him" drawn.

 

[The Biblicist]

Once again, the universal negative removes the possiblity that any other man is being considered but "him". That is a singular "him" which denies any other alternative for consideration in this text that will come to Christ. Find any other alternative in this text that will come to Christ and I will cease my argument. You can't, so you just repeat and repeat a false interpretation, as your interpretation REEQUIRES a NUMERICAL PLURAL drawn that can be reduced to to a smaller number that actuall does come.




In the context of John 6:44 drawing is defined as being "taught" by God whereby "EVERY MAN" thus taught has "heard" and "learned" and comes to Christ. In contrast the text you are quoting above teaches the character of Romans 8:7 - "ye would not". No teaching by God here.




Romans 8:7 and Acts 7:51 is the normal response of all men in response to the gospel. John 6:44-45 is the response of "all" the Father has "taught".


Again, the consistent use of the singular noun, pronouns accompanied with the universal negative that eliminates any other man except "him" drawn by God restricts the one coming to Christ to the only available "him" drawn. If that "him" drawn does not come then "no man" comes. This deliberate use of the singular and deliberate universal negative, prohibit any other interpretation but one - and that is the SAME "him" drawn is the SAME him that comes to Christ and is raised because the text offers no other alternative to "him" drawn.

The other interpretation would require John 6:44 to read:

"None cometh to me except THOSE drawn by the Father, and him that cometh to me I will raise up at the last day."

The strict limitation of singular noun and pronouns with a universal negative deny that any man but "him" drawn comes to Christ. The grammatical singular does not offer plural options that might or might not come to Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

At the Army headquarters a General makes this statement:

"No one can join the Army unless a Army recruiter has recruited him, and the Army will train him to fight to his greatest potential."

Most understand that the recruiters certainly attempted to recruit many who refused to come, but that the General is merely addressing those who were recruited and actually joined. It is obviously presumed in the statement that the one recruited actually joined the Army and thusly will be trained. No one would jump to the unfounded conclusion that everyone who the army attempts to recruit will be trained to fight. Likewise, we KNOW that God sends his APPEAL TO BE RECONCILED to all men, thus 'bidding' or 'drawing' or 'calling' them to be reconciled, but obviously not all of those he appeals to will be saved.

 

[Winman]

Once again, the universal negative removes the possiblity that any other man is being considered but "him". That is a singular "him" which denies any other alternative for consideration in this text that will come to Christ. Find any other alternative in this text that will come to Christ and I will cease my argument. You can't, so you just repeat and repeat a false interpretation, as your interpretation REEQUIRES a NUMERICAL PLURAL drawn that can be reduced to to a smaller number that actuall does come.

In the context of John 6:44 drawing is defined as being "taught" by God whereby "EVERY MAN" thus taught has "heard" and "learned" and comes to Christ. In contrast the text you are quoting above teaches the character of Romans 8:7 - "ye would not". No teaching by God here.

I already showed you Proverbs 1 where the context is teaching, and these men turned away from God.

Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

This passage repeatedly talks about God trying to teach foolish scorners, but they would not listen and so are destroyed. But those who listen and learn (vs. 33) are saved.

Romans 8:7 and Acts 7:51 is the normal response of all men in response to the gospel. John 6:44-45 is the response of "all" the Father has "taught".


Again, the consistent use of the singular noun, pronouns accompanied with the universal negative that eliminates any other man except "him" drawn by God restricts the one coming to Christ to the only available "him" drawn. If that "him" drawn does not come then "no man" comes. This deliberate use of the singular and deliberate universal negative, prohibit any other interpretation but one - and that is the SAME "him" drawn is the SAME him that comes to Christ and is raised because the text offers no other alternative to "him" drawn.

This is my last post to you. You are not correct, you have not proved anything, and I doubt even your Calvinist buddies would agree with how you have interpreted this scripture, but who knows?

I am just making a fool out of myself talking to you.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Believe whatever you want.

 

[The Biblicist]

At the Army headquarters a General makes this statement:

"No one can join the Army unless a Army recruiter has recruited him, and the Army will train him to fight to his greatest potential."

Most understand that the recruiters certainly attempted to recruit many who refused to come, but that the General is merely addressing those who were recruited and actually joined. It is obviously presumed in the statement that the one recruited actually joined the Army and thusly will be trained. No one would jump to the unfounded conclusion that everyone who the army attempts to recruit will be trained to fight. Likewise, we KNOW that God sends his APPEAL TO BE RECONCILED to all men, thus 'bidding' or 'drawing' or 'calling' them to be reconciled, but obviously not all of those he appeals to will be saved.

The fallicy of your argument is attempting to make "join" the army parallel to "come" to me. You must first come to the recruiter or recruting station or have the recruiter come to a person before that person can join the army. So in your illustration coming is essential but not parallel with coming in verse 44. That twist and change of lanague invalidates your illustration as parallel with verse 44. To suggest that no man could come to the recruiter without joining the army would make little sense! However, that would be the proper parallel with verse 44.

Second, you are divorcing verse 44 from verses 45-46 making them speak of two different subjects and the scripture quoted is designed to reinforce the subject presented in verse 44. In verse 44 "all" taught do come to Christ.

Third, simply preaching of the gospel calls all who hear to repent and beleive but not all do. However, the teaching in verse 45 is effectual to coming to Christ by "EVERY MAN" thus taught. Hence, there are two types of teaching. One that proceeds from men which is not effectual to "ALL" who hear or learn from them whereas verse 45 teaching from God is always effectual to "EVERY MAN" thus taught by God as none fail to come to Christ.

Last, explain why verse 45 demands "all" taught do come to Christ and yet that would be inserted at the precise point in Christ's discussion that you interpret that not all drawn come to Christ? What is the parallel between the two passages then? What relationship would verse 45 where all taught all come to Christ have with a passage preceding where him drawn does not necessary come to Christ???

 

[The Biblicist]

I already showed you Proverbs 1 where the context is teaching, and these men turned away from God.

Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

This passage repeatedly talks about God trying to teach foolish scorners, but they would not listen and so are destroyed. But those who listen and learn (vs. 33) are saved.

You are proving my point and invalidating your point. The teaching in John 6:45 is ALWAYS EFFECTUAL to coming to Christ by "EVERY MAN" thus taught.

However, Proverbs chapter one is not that case is it? So Proverbs cannot be applied to interpreting John 6:44-46.

Furthermore, preachers preach every Sunday to their audiance and the audiance is being "TAUGHT" by the preacher and they "hear" and "learn" from the preacher but all taught do not come to Christ do they? Hence, that is not the kind of teaching in connection with the Gospel by the Father being addressed in John 6:45 because "EVERY MAN" taught thus by the Father do in fact come to Christ. Hence, two different kinds of teaching with two different effects.

 

[Skandelon]

The fallicy of your argument is attempting to make "join" the army parallel to "come" to me.

They are parallel in that both of them constitute a willingness on the part of the person to join/come/unite with the other. The point is not to be a perfect parallel, but to illustrate how the simplest and most common sense understanding of the text can include the presumption that the 'him' being addressed is one who has been positively affected by the effort, and not necessarily meaning to connote the idea that no one else was even given opportunity. Given the fact that God DOES indeed make an appeal to ALL MANKIND by the powerful gospel message (which is not sent until Christ is risen, mind you...long after John 6 took place), there is no reason to draw the conclusion that God only attempts to draw those who are actually positively drawn.

The example of a recruiter is merely that, an example of how the simple reading of a text doesn't have to conclude in the way you appear to make it.

 

[The Biblicist]

The fallicy of your argument is attempting to make "join" the army parallel to "come" to me. You must first come to the recruiter or recruting station or have the recruiter come to a person before that person can join the army. So in your illustration coming is essential but not parallel with coming in verse 44. That twist and change of lanague invalidates your illustration as parallel with verse 44. To suggest that no man could come to the recruiter without joining the army would make little sense! However, that would be the proper parallel with verse 44.

Second, you are divorcing verse 44 from verses 45-46 making them speak of two different subjects and the scripture quoted is designed to reinforce the subject presented in verse 44. In verse 44 "all" taught do come to Christ.

Third, simply preaching of the gospel calls all who hear to repent and beleive but not all do. However, the teaching in verse 45 is effectual to coming to Christ by "EVERY MAN" thus taught. Hence, there are two types of teaching. One that proceeds from men which is not effectual to "ALL" who hear or learn from them whereas verse 45 teaching from God is always effectual to "EVERY MAN" thus taught by God as none fail to come to Christ.

Last, explain why verse 45 demands "all" taught do come to Christ and yet that would be inserted at the precise point in Christ's discussion that you interpret that not all drawn come to Christ? What is the parallel between the two passages then? What relationship would verse 45 where all taught all come to Christ have with a passage preceding where him drawn does not necessary come to Christ???

In every illustration offered to counter my interpretation of John 6:44 thus far, the illustration considered on its on merits makes perfect sense. However, when it is tested by how it parallels with John 6:44 it is flawed.

The flaw in Winman's illustration about being the only man invited to dinner at the white house would mean if refused NONE came to dinner. That was the flaw in his illustration.

The flaw in Skandelon's illustration of the Army recruiter was much more subtle. The illustration was incomplete and impossible without either the potential recruit coming to the recruitor, recruiting station or the recruiter coming to the recruit, however, that was entirely ommited in his illustration but the very esence of verse 44 which was about drawn and coming. If he made the illustration parallel with verse 44 then it would make little sense as coming would precede joining whereas in verse 45 drawing precedes coming.

This is the problem with forsaking the wording of the scripture in the context the Holy Spirit places it and jerking it out of that context and placing in your own manufactured context. However, this is what they MUST do in order to avoid the grammatical and logical conclusions of the context of John 6:44-46.