The "him" of John 6:44

[Skandelon]

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The question is who is the second "him" in verse 44?

From a Greek grammar point of view:

1. The second "him" is the same case, gender and number of the first "him" in verse 44 - Masculine accusative singular

2. The nearest noun or pronoun for the second "him" is the preceding "him" of verse 44

Hence, the natural conclusion is that the SAME "him" that is drawn by God is the SAME "him" that is raised to resurrection of life.

Hence, this is an EFFECTUAL drawing as one SINGULAR "him" out of one SINGULAR "him" is drawn and raised.

But have you considered who the "HIM's" are that Jesus could be addressing? Notice that the audience are Jews, most of which are being hardened from the truth, while only a select few (12 apostles, as later specified) are being drawn.

The REASON they (his audience) was not ABLE ("enabled") to believe is clearly defined by Christ himself:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." (Jn 12:39)

Notice he is speaking specifically of Israel, not all mankind from birth as the dogma of "Total Inability" presumes. While the Jews are being 'cut off' or 'blinded' from the truth temporarily, the Gentiles will listen (Acts 28:28), proving this is not an universal inborn condition of the Fall, but a temporarily imposed condition on a rebellious nation.

 

[SovereignMercy]

But have you considered who the "HIM's" are that Jesus could be addressing? Notice that the audience are Jews, most of which are being hardened from the truth, while only a select few (12 apostles, as later specified) are being drawn.

The REASON they (his audience) was not ABLE ("enabled") to believe is clearly defined by Christ himself:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." (Jn 12:39)

Notice he is speaking specifically of Israel, not all mankind from birth as the dogma of "Total Inability" presumes. While the Jews are being 'cut off' or 'blinded' from the truth temporarily, the Gentiles will listen (Acts 28:28), proving this is not an universal inborn condition of the Fall, but a temporarily imposed condition on a rebellious nation.

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

 

[Inspector Javert]

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The question is who is the second "him" in verse 44?

The second "him"....is the man who "comes to me". Jesus has already told us that 4 verses earlier:
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
....[some content deleted for size]

Hence, the natural conclusion is that the SAME "him" that is drawn by God is the SAME "him" that is raised to resurrection of life.

The natural conclusion is that whoever sees the Son and believes will be "raised up". There is no reason to divorce v. 44 from v. 40.
The him who is "raised" has also been drawn, and MUST have been drawn...but the "drawing" is not deciding factor, it is he who "seeth and believeth".

Hence, this is an EFFECTUAL drawing as one SINGULAR "him" out of one SINGULAR "him" is drawn and raised.

That is a non-sequitor. The conclusions we can draw from this are these:
1.) All who "see" and "believe" and "come" will be "raised-up".
2.) All who "see" and "believe" and "come" must be "drawn".
3.) None who are NOT "drawn" can "come to him"
4.) Therefore, all who "come" have been "drawn".

But it is a non-sequitor to say that all who are "drawn" in fact, "come". The logic simply doesn't follow. From a formal perspective, your argument "strengthens or affirms the consequent". It would be the same as arguing:
1.) If it is raining then it is wet.
2.) It is wet
3.) Therefore, it is raining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
In your O.P. the "drawing" functions as your consequent....those who "come and believe" are your antecedent. This is formally invalid.
I would agree that all who do come MUST BE "drawn".

Moreover, verse 45 demands that "ALL" taught are of a certain lmited sphere of people and "EVERY MAN" taught does come to Christ.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

That's PART of the equation.....but you seem to have ignored thay they also must have "HEARD", and "See" as well.
Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
A word study on those who "hear" as Jesus uses the phrase throughout the gospels (and even the Apostles in the epistles) will reveal much. I must wonder why you said that those who are "taught" DO COME. That's not what it says...it says those who "have heard" AND "are taught". One must "see" him as well according to vs. 40. Jesus has used this before:
Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.
Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: What happened when Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness?
Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
If John 12:32 is to be believed than we have a problem, since Christ says that he draws "ALL MEN", and we don't want to believe in "Universalism".
Me-thinks there is more pre-supposition that you have brought into this passage than you realize.

Jesus is quoting Isaiah 54:13 which is restricted to the people of God alone:

Yes...well, to Israel anyway, no argument.

Therefore "him" in John 6:44a is the same "him" of John 6:44b all of which consist of the "ALL" of John 6:45a which equals "EVERY MAN" (same greek word translated "all") of John 6:45b which are taught and do learn and do come to Jesus and thus will be raised to life. Notice there are no exceptions but "EVERY MAN" that is subjected to God's teaching does "come to me." The "him" drawn is the "him" that is raised. "ALL" will be taught not merely some.

I'm sure you don't mean to, but here you have smuggled in to your argument those who "come to him" in order to prove that since there is a perfect correlation between those who "come" being "raised" and that since being "drawn" is a necessity for "coming" and "believing", you piggy-back "drawing".

You can't ignore the assumption of the "coming" and "believing" and "hearing" in vs. 44-45 in the first half of your argument above which I pointed out and then smuggle them in later as you did here in order to suggest that the perfect positive correlation between those who come being "raised-up" necessitates that same perfect positive correlation between those who are "drawn" actually "coming". That doesn't follow.

Your conclusions about the doctrine of an "effectual calling" being taught here are mistaken. Whether that doctrine is true or not, this passage does nothing to prove it, as you have posed your argument.

 

[The Biblicist]

But have you considered who the "HIM's" are that Jesus could be addressing? Notice that the audience are Jews, most of which are being hardened from the truth, while only a select few (12 apostles, as later specified) are being drawn.

The REASON they (his audience) was not ABLE ("enabled") to believe is clearly defined by Christ himself:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." (Jn 12:39)

I don't jump out of the immediate context unless there is not sufficient data within the immediate context to address the issue. Therefore, I am not goint to jump to chapter 12 or out of the book of John to read back into this context when there is plenty of data within the context to answers this definitively.

If you want to discuss this passage in the context of chapter twelve then another thread would be appropriate. However, as a side note, the human nature is no different in a jew than in a Gentile. The same sunlight that melts the butter hardens the clay. No difference in the sun but in the nature of the butter versus clay. Man by nature is like clay, regardless if it is Jew or a gentile. For example, Romans 3:9 includes both Jews and Gentiles explicitly and applies Romans 3:10-12 to both. Likewise, Romans 8:7-8 was written to a GENTILE church.

Your implication is that a lost Jew reacts differently than a lost gentiles to Christ and His word. Granted the Jews may be more hardened than the Gentile because of more exposure to light but the nature is the same.

 

[The Biblicist]

The second "him"....is the man who "comes to me". Jesus has already told us that 4 verses earlier:
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
....[some content deleted for size]

I couldn't agree more. However, don't isolate verse 40 from verses 36-39 where the CAUSE of coming to Christ is the Father giving such to Christ (v. 37) and "OF ALL" those given to Christ NONE fail to come and so the "him that is raised in verse 40 is first the "it" that is raised in verse 39 due to being given by the Father.

Moreover, contextually to "cometh Christ" is synonymous with "beleiveth on him" which those in verse 36 did not do but those in verse 40 did do BECAUSE of the Father's work in verses 37-39.

In other words the same "him" in verse 40 is the same "it" in verse 39 that is raised up at the last day which is the same "him" raised upon in verse 44.

The neuter "it" in verse 39 is demanded because the words "all" and "nothing" are both in the neuter case.

[The natural conclusion is that whoever sees the Son and believes will be "raised up". There is no reason to divorce v. 44 from v. 40.

True! Just as there is no reason to divorce verse 40 from verse 39 which places the cause for coming to Christ in faith is the Father giving them to Christ. Indeed, Hebrews 11:6 demands that one cannot come to God without faith and please him. Thus coming to Christ means coming in faith to Christ.

Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


This is also confirmed by John 6:35 where the metaphors of eating and drinking represnt PARTAKING of Christ by faith. Thus coming to Christ in verse 35 is metaphorically PARTAKING of Christ which is BELIEVING IN HIM.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

The him who is "raised" has also been drawn, and MUST have been drawn...but the "drawing" is not deciding factor, it is he who "seeth and believeth".

Drawing is the cause of "come to me" and to come to him means to come to him in faith. Just as beleiving in verse 40 has its cause in the Father given them to the Son as ALL the Father gives to the Son "come to me" and again this is coming to Christ in faith.

That is a non-sequitor. The conclusions we can draw from this are these:
1.) All who "see" and "believe" and "come" will be "raised-up".
2.) All who "see" and "believe" and "come" must be "drawn".
3.) None who are NOT "drawn" can "come to him"
4.) Therefore, all who "come" have been "drawn".

You logic fails simply because it does not start at the right point. Verse 40 is explained due to verses 37-39 and verse 39 is the first verse to introduce what we find as the last phrase we find in verse 40 and 44. So the Biblical starting point has to begin at least at verse 39 and in verse 39 the cause of coming to Christ is found in the Father's work as it is in verse 44.

But it is a non-sequitor to say that all who are "drawn" in fact, "come". The logic simply doesn't follow. From a formal perspective, your argument "strengthens or affirms the consequent". It would be the same as arguing:
1.) If it is raining then it is wet.
2.) It is wet
3.) Therefore, it is raining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirm..." given none fail to come to Christ in faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

I couldn't agree more. However, don't isolate verse 40 from verses 36-39 where the CAUSE of coming to Christ is the Father giving such to Christ (v. 37) and "OF ALL" those given to Christ NONE fail to come and so the "him that is raised in verse 40 is first the "it" that is raised in verse 39 due to being given by the Father.

Moreover, contextually to "cometh Christ" is synonymous with "beleiveth on him" which those in verse 36 did not do but those in verse 40 did do BECAUSE of the Father's work in verses 37-39.

In other words the same "him" in verse 40 is the same "it" in verse 39 that is raised up at the last day which is the same "him" raised upon in verse 44.

The neuter "it" in verse 39 is demanded because the words "all" and "nothing" are both in the neuter case.



True! Just as there is no reason to divorce verse 40 from verse 39 which places the cause for coming to Christ in faith is the Father giving them to Christ. Indeed, Hebrews 11:6 demands that one cannot come to God without faith and please him. Thus coming to Christ means coming in faith to Christ.

Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


This is also confirmed by John 6:35 where the metaphors of eating and drinking represnt PARTAKING of Christ by faith. Thus coming to Christ in verse 35 is metaphorically PARTAKING of Christ which is BELIEVING IN HIM.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.






Drawing is the cause of "come to me" and to come to him means to come to him in faith. Just as beleiving in verse 40 has its cause in the Father given them to the Son as ALL the Father gives to the Son "come to me" and again this is coming to Christ in faith.



You logic fails simply because it does not start at the right point. Verse 40 is explained due to verses 37-39 and verse 39 is the first verse to introduce what we find as the last phrase we find in verse 40 and 44. So the Biblical starting point has to begin at least at verse 39 and in verse 39 the cause of coming to Christ is found in the Father's work as it is in verse 44.



As I see this, your logic breaks down simply because you fail to recognize the correct starting point in verse 39 for the closing phrase used in verses 40 and 44 and in both verse 39 and 40 the cause of coming is directly attributed to the Father's work (giving, drawing). The words "no man can" is a universal negative in regard to ability. That can be easily seen by asking "who can?" ANSWER "no man can". Can do what? "can come to me" meaning coming in faith to him as any coming without faith means nothing. The universal exception to this universal negative is "him" that is drawn by the father.




Your argument can be easily refuted because Jesus did not say "All who come and believe will be drawn." You reverse the cause and effect. Likewise in verse 40 you reverse the cause and effect which is found clearly stated in verse 39 that coming is the consequence of being given not vice versa.



First, to have heard and learned is attributed by Christ in verse 45 to the Father's work of drawing:

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

To be drawn by the Father is the work of being "taught" by God that involves hearing and learning. Note that "EVERY MAN" that has been taught in this manner do come to Christ in faith.

Second, your argument is based upon starting at verse 40 instead of verse 39when the first mention and qualifications for being raised up is attributed again to the work of the Father in giving and again "OF ALL" given none fail to come to Christ in faith.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
A word study on those who "hear" as Jesus uses the phrase throughout the gospels (and even the Apostles in the epistles) will reveal much. I must wonder why you said that those who are "taught" DO COME. That's not what it says...it says those who "have heard" AND "are taught". One must "see" him as well according to vs. 40. Jesus has used this before:
Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.
Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: What happened when Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness?
Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Again, I do not jump out of the context to define a text when there is more than ample and sufficient contextual data in the immediate context to define it precisely according to this context.

For example, those in verse 36 also saw and heard Christ as they were standing right their but did not believe. However, "OF ALL" the Father gives NONE fail to come to Christ in faith (vv. 37-39). Hence, they were not "OF ALL" those given to Christ by the Father. Again coming is the consequence of being given not vice versa.

If John 12:32 is to be believed than we have a problem, since Christ says that he draws "ALL MEN", and we don't want to believe in "Universalism".
Me-thinks there is more pre-supposition that you have brought in to this passage than you realize.

The abuse of this text is a travesty and a clear violation of basic hermeneutics.

1. The word "man" is not found in the Greek text and it is italic in the KJV
2. The immediate preceding context that leads up to these words are completely ignored - Gentiles wanting to see Christ.
3. The anathrous construction of "pas" (all) commonly is used to mean "all" classes and kinds or all without distinction of race or class.
4. Trying to use this LATER statement to reinterpret the more comprehensive teaching on the same subject in John 6 instead of interpreting Jn 12:32 by the previous comprehensive explanation of John 6.

I'm sure you don't mean to, but here you have smuggled in to your argument those who "come to him" in order to prove that since there is a perfect correlation between those who "come" being "raised" and that since being "drawn" is a necessity for "coming" and "believing", you piggy-back "drawing".

No, coming is the subect of John 6:37-39 that is consequential to the Father giving and "OF ALL" the Father gives none fail to come or fail to be raised up. Hence - coming to Christ must be coming in faith as none but those who come in faith will be raised up. Therefore, since that is already plainly defined in verses 36-39 then "come to me" in verse 44 also is consequential to the same giving in verses 37-39 as none fail to come and none that come fail to be raised up. So in both cases it is the Father's work that is causal to coming whether in John 6:37-39 or in John 6:44.

Your conclusions about the doctrine of an "effectual calling" being taught here are mistaken. Whether that doctrine is true or not, this passage does nothing to prove it, as you have posed your argument.

I have proven that your whole line of logic begins in the wrong place (v. 40) instead of verse 39 where is really the first place the phrase to raise up this 'him" is first found and its cause is explicitly defined to coming to Christ in faith (as none other can be raised up to life) which in turn finds the cause of coming with the Father giving them to the Son and "OF ALL" given none fail to come. This demands effectually calling.

 

[Iconoclast]

I couldn't agree more. However, don't isolate verse 40 from verses 36-39 where the CAUSE of coming to Christ is the Father giving such to Christ (v. 37) and "OF ALL" those given to Christ NONE fail to come and so the "him that is raised in verse 40 is first the "it" that is raised in verse 39 due to being given by the Father.

Moreover, contextually to "cometh Christ" is synonymous with "beleiveth on him" which those in verse 36 did not do but those in verse 40 did do BECAUSE of the Father's work in verses 37-39.

In other words the same "him" in verse 40 is the same "it" in verse 39 that is raised up at the last day which is the same "him" raised upon in verse 44.

The neuter "it" in verse 39 is demanded because the words "all" and "nothing" are both in the neuter case.



True! Just as there is no reason to divorce verse 40 from verse 39 which places the cause for coming to Christ in faith is the Father giving them to Christ. Indeed, Hebrews 11:6 demands that one cannot come to God without faith and please him. Thus coming to Christ means coming in faith to Christ.

Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.






Drawing is the cause of "come to me" and to come to him means to come to him in faith. Just as beleiving in verse 40 has its cause in the Father given them to the Son as ALL the Father gives to the Son "come to me" and again this is coming to Christ in faith.



You logic fails simply because it does not start at the right point. Verse 40 is explained due to verses 37-39 and verse 39 is the first verse to introduce what we find as the last phrase we find in verse 40 and 44. So the Biblical starting point has to begin at least at verse 39 and in verse 39 the cause of coming to Christ is found in the Father's work as it is in verse 44.



As I see this, your logic breaks down simply because you fail to recognize the correct starting point in verse 39 for the closing phrase used in verses 40 and 44 and in both verse 39 and 40 the cause of coming is directly attributed to the Father's work (giving, drawing). The words "no man can" is a universal negative in regard to ability. That can be easily seen by asking "who can?" ANSWER "no man can". Can do what? "can come to me" meaning coming in faith to him as any coming without faith means nothing. The universal exception to this universal negative is "him" that is drawn by the father.




Your argument can be easily refuted because Jesus did not say "All who come and believe will be drawn." You reverse the cause and effect. Likewise in verse 40 you reverse the cause and effect which is found clearly stated in verse 39 that coming is the consequence of being given not vice versa.



First, to have heard and learned is attributed by Christ in verse 45 to the Father's work of drawing:

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

To be drawn by the Father is the work of being "taught" by God that involves hearing and learning. Note that "EVERY MAN" that has been taught in this manner do come to Christ in faith.

Second, your argument is based upon starting at verse 40 instead of verse 39when the first mention and qualifications for being raised up is attributed again to the work of the Father in giving and again "OF ALL" given none fail to come to Christ in faith.

Yes....you have easily shown this is the truth here.I do not inderstand why any would try and find fault with this:thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

The second "him"....is the man who "comes to me". Jesus has already told us that 4 verses earlier:
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
....[some content deleted for size]

The natural conclusion is that whoever sees the Son and believes will be "raised up". There is no reason to divorce v. 44 from v. 40.
The him who is "raised" has also been drawn, and MUST have been drawn...but the "drawing" is not deciding factor, it is he who "seeth and believeth".

That is a non-sequitor. The conclusions we can draw from this are these:
1.) All who "see" and "believe" and "come" will be "raised-up".
2.) All who "see" and "believe" and "come" must be "drawn".
3.) None who are NOT "drawn" can "come to him"
4.) Therefore, all who "come" have been "drawn".

But it is a non-sequitor to say that all who are "drawn" in fact, "come". The logic simply doesn't follow. From a formal perspective, your argument "strengthens or affirms the consequent". It would be the same as arguing:
1.) If it is raining then it is wet.
2.) It is wet
3.) Therefore, it is raining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
In your O.P. the "drawing" functions as your consequent....those who "come and believe" are your antecedent. This is formally invalid.
I would agree that all who do come MUST BE "drawn".

That's PART of the equation.....but you seem to have ignored thay they also must have "HEARD", and "See" as well.
Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
A word study on those who "hear" as Jesus uses the phrase throughout the gospels (and even the Apostles in the epistles) will reveal much. I must wonder why you said that those who are "taught" DO COME. That's not what it says...it says those who "have heard" AND "are taught". One must "see" him as well according to vs. 40. Jesus has used this before:
Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.
Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: What happened when Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness?
Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
If John 12:32 is to be believed than we have a problem, since Christ says that he draws "ALL MEN", and we don't want to believe in "Universalism".
Me-thinks there is more pre-supposition that you have brought into this passage than you realize.

Yes...well, to Israel anyway, no argument.

I'm sure you don't mean to, but here you have smuggled in to your argument those who "come to him" in order to prove that since there is a perfect correlation between those who "come" being "raised" and that since being "drawn" is a necessity for "coming" and "believing", you piggy-back "drawing".

You can't ignore the assumption of the "coming" and "believing" and "hearing" in vs. 44-45 in the first half of your argument above which I pointed out and then smuggle them in later as you did here in order to suggest that the perfect positive correlation between those who come being "raised-up" necessitates that same perfect positive correlation between those who are "drawn" actually "coming". That doesn't follow.

Your conclusions about the doctrine of an "effectual calling" being taught here are mistaken. Whether that doctrine is true or not, this passage does nothing to prove it, as you have posed your argument.

Excellent analysis, I don't see why anybody would try to find fault with this

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes....you have easily shown this is the truth here.I do not inderstand why any would try and find fault with this:thumbs:

I think truth ought to be the objective and I can honestly say that was and is my only objective. The text speaks for itself and the Lord selects and weaves his words so thoroughly that any other interpretation will be hard pressed to sustain itself in such a context.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

Again, I do not jump out of the context to define a text when there is more than ample and sufficient contextual data in the immediate context to define it precisely according to this context.

For example, those in verse 36 also saw and heard Christ as they were standing right their but did not believe. However, "OF ALL" the Father gives NONE fail to come to Christ in faith (vv. 37-39). Hence, they were not "OF ALL" those given to Christ by the Father. Again coming is the consequence of being given not vice versa.

Nonsense that "OF ALL" the Father gives "NONE fail to come". The Father CLEARLY gave Judas to Christ. Jesus said plain as day in John 17 ALL THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME I have lost none BUT the son of perdition" John 17:12. No matter how you twist it, skew it, dance around it, the text is clear as the stars on a cloudless night that the Father GAVE Judas to Christ and Judas DID NOT COME. Thus there is a clear difference being those drawn and those who come. You can ignore that issue and make excuses for it "But Judas was the SON OF PERDITION" but it makes no difference. You have built a definition of "draw" and "given" that is clearly and blatantly contradictory to the testimony of Judas.

Judas was drawn, he was GIVEN to Christ by the Father, and he DID NOT COME. NOWHERE does John 6 say coming is the CONSEQUENCE, it is the CONDITION which is clearly indicated in the AND, he that shall come I will in no wise cast out.

The abuse of this text is a travesty and a clear violation of basic hermeneutics.

1. The word "man" is not found in the Greek text and it is italic in the KJV
2. The immediate preceding context that leads up to these words are completely ignored - Gentiles wanting to see Christ.
3. The anathrous construction of "pas" (all) commonly is used to mean "all" classes and kinds or all without distinction of race or class.
4. Trying to use this LATER statement to reinterpret the more comprehensive teaching on the same subject in John 6 instead of interpreting Jn 12:32 by the previous comprehensive explanation of John 6.

1. The abuse of text that is a travesty is you failing to follow the common sense rules of translation where an OBJECT MUST BE PROVIDED. Your analysis that "man" is not "in the Greek" would still not help your argument, it only changes the AUDIENCE to cats, dogs, elephants, snakes, and trees because the literal translation would be "If I be lifted up, I WILL DRAW ALL TO MYSELF". Draw "ALL" of what??? Virtually the ONLY person or version that does not add the pronoun "men" here is Darby, EVERY TRANSLATION disagrees with your analysis, and even Darby's version does not resolve the object because it does not distinguish all of what?

Πάντας here is masculine accusative plural of the adjective " πᾶς-πᾶσα-πᾶν" = all, the whole, EVERY. "Anthropos" being a masucline noun (the one that's not "in the Greek") is perfectly acceptable as it is related to pas. Your failure to see this disagrees with EVERY major Greek scholar that has translated (and even MIStranslated) this verse.

2. Gentiles WANTING to see Christ BEFORE THEY ARE DRAWN specifically refutes your view of "effectual call". Gentiles according to Calvinism (your views) are not supposed to WANT anything from God, as you say, they "CAN'T BE" desirous of God, and yet here you admit that Gentiles want something that they have not yet been DRAWN TO WANT.

3. The anathrous construction does not demand that simply because a clause is without an article, that it redefines that mean of pas. You have a bad habit of attempting to use grammatical construction to REDEFINE WORDS. Grammatical structure does not turn apples into oranges. Pas, Pantas, does not mean "ALL KINDS".

First of all, this would still include "non elect" because non elect is STILL A KIND. By changing the definition from ALL to ALL KINDS you can not make a distinction between elect and non elect because BOTH are still a KIND. There is NOTHING in the definition of this word that says it is all KINDS. The literal definition of the word is "each", "every", "any", "all", "the whole". When the text requires that "kind" be added, it uses "genos" or "tis" to denote either specific groups or number. That is not used here. The natural and general use of all here MEANS ALL, not all KINDS. All "KINDS" is an ADDED meaning that presupposes the text.

4. Ironically, you accuse others of not interpreting by context, and then criticize Jovert BECAUSE HE USES CONTEXT. You pick and choose when you want to isolate a verse, and then when you want to argue context when you use BOTH to support only a presupposition instead of rightly dividing the word of truth.

No, coming is the subect of John 6:37-39 that is consequential to the Father giving and "OF ALL" the Father gives none fail to come or fail to be raised up. Hence - coming to Christ must be coming in faith as none but those who come in faith will be raised up. Therefore, since that is already plainly defined in verses 36-39 then "come to me" in verse 44 also is consequential to the same giving in verses 37-39 as none fail to come and none that come fail to be raised up. So in both cases it is the Father's work that is causal to coming whether in John 6:37-39 or in John 6:44.

Have you ever read what God said about Israel in Jeremiah 31:3?

"The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

But what happened to Israel? " And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim" Jer 7:15, "Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth." Jer 15:1; "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!" Matthew 23:37

God had DRAWN Israel, and they WOULD NOT.

I have proven that your whole line of logic begins in the wrong place (v. 40) instead of verse 39 where is really the first place the phrase to raise up this 'him" is first found and its cause is explicitly defined to coming to Christ in faith (as none other can be raised up to life) which in turn finds the cause of coming with the Father giving them to the Son and "OF ALL" given none fail to come. This demands effectually calling

It doesn't matter whether this begins at verse 39, or verse 40. Verse 39 does not contradict verse 40, neither does it redefine it to mean that those who believe, do so BECAUSE OF verse 39. Verse 40 DEFINES verse 39 because it states "AND THIS IS the will of him that sent me". Those who come to Christ and believe are the ones who are saved. I have shown plain as day from Jeremiah that God DREW MEN and they did not COME. I have shown that God GAVE JUDAS to Christ and Judas DID NOT COME. Yet you focus on one theme that ignores the responsibility to OBEY the gospel (2 Thess 1:8, Acts 26:19, Romans 2:8, 1 Peter 4:17).

Furthermore, Song of Solomon 1:4 clearly shows that one can ASK to be drawn. Your entire analysis from start to finish, in English and Greek is dead wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nonsense that "OF ALL" the Father gives "NONE fail to come". The Father CLEARLY gave Judas to Christ. Jesus said plain as day in John 17 ALL THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME I have lost none BUT the son of perdition" John 17:12. No matter how you twist it, skew it, dance around it, the text is clear as the stars on a cloudless night that the Father GAVE Judas to Christ and Judas DID NOT COME. Thus there is a clear difference being those drawn and those who come. You can ignore that issue and make excuses for it "But Judas was the SON OF PERDITION" but it makes no difference. You have built a definition of "draw" and "given" that is clearly and blatantly contradictory to the testimony of Judas.

Judas is specifically dealt with in the John 6 context as well and listed among those who were not drawn by the Father but was always known by Christ to be an unbeliever "from the beginning":

Jn. 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father......70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
.


I believe John 6 precedes John 17 or am I mistaken?? The clear teaching of John here is that Judas was never drawn by the Father, was an unbeleiver from the begining and even as he spoke in John 6 Jesus said of him that he "IS" a devil.

Thus, John 17 explanatory of Judas being given by the Father, not in salvation, not drawing, or coming to Christ in faith but for the purpose of using as the "son of peridition" to betray him.

James you just can't take part of scripture while ignoring others and that is precisely what you have done in the case of Judas. You are forced to take a position that PITS John 6 and its denial that he was ever drawn by the father and ever did come in faith to the Son but "IS" a devil against YOUR interprtation of John 17 while my position HARMONIZES both together.

Judas was drawn, he was GIVEN to Christ by the Father,

John 6:64-65 rebukes your conclusion and denies that Judas was drawn by the Father or ever did come to him in faith but was a devil in chapter six and the only sense the Father gave Judas to Christ was as the "son of peridition." By the way do you know what the term "perdition" means James?? By the way do you know what "the son of" means when attached to any descriptive noun James?

NOWHERE does John 6 say coming is the CONSEQUENCE, it is the CONDITION which is clearly indicated in the AND, he that shall come I will in no wise cast out.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

He does not say he that "is coming" to me "shall be given to me by the Father" but that is what you are demanding it means. You are attempting to make his words mean the very exact opposite.

"shall" come is future tense while "give to me" is present tense (v. 37). Hence, coming is consequential to giving. Judas was NEVER given to the son in this sense (Jn. 6:64-65) because "OF ALL" the Father gives "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" (v. 39) Again "shall" is future tense from the point of giving. This is simple grammar.

 

[The Biblicist]

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

He does not say he that "is coming" to me "shall be given to me by the Father" but that is what you are demanding it means. You are attempting to make his words mean the very exact opposite.

"shall" come is future tense while "give to me" is present tense (v. 37). Hence, coming is consequential to giving. Judas was NEVER given to the son in this sense (Jn. 6:64-65) because "OF ALL" the Father gives "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" (v. 39) Again "shall" is future tense from the point of giving. This is simple grammar.

Πάντας here is masculine accusative plural of the adjective " πᾶς-πᾶσα-πᾶν" = all, the whole, EVERY. "Anthropos"

First "anthropos" is not found in the text and Jesus could have easily used it if that were his intention. Second, he is using the anarthous construct purposely to include what his own disciples would have excluded - "greeks" wanting to see him.

Second, you interpretation along with commentators who share your theological views ignore that a full and comprehensive treatment of "draw" has already been given by Christ earlier in chapter six and this one line is not going to contradict what he already has restricted to the "of all" in John 6:37-39 where the first mention of "shall raise up at the last day" is first introduced and then repeated in verse 40 and again repeated in verse 44 showing that all given = all who come = all who are drawn as the very same people of the resurrection to life and this "all" of John 12:32 is of that same "of all" not something different.

2. Gentiles WANTING to see Christ BEFORE THEY ARE DRAWN specifically refutes your view of "effectual call".

Read the text again as you fail to see they ARE COMING (20-22). Second, the verses 23-33 specifically deal with "the hour" of his death and what it would accomplish in regard to "all" classes of mankind not merely the Jews.

Gentiles according to Calvinism (your views) are not supposed to WANT anything from God, as you say, they "CAN'T BE" desirous of God, and yet here you admit that Gentiles want something that they have not yet been DRAWN TO WANT.

The fact they are seeking Christ is proof that God gave them to Christ, drew them to Christ as both giving and drawing are causal to coming and nothing you can say can change "shall" into a present tense or "come" into a future tense but that is what you are demanding by your interpretation of John 6:37,39,44,65.

3. a clause is without an article,

. Again, what MAIL ORDER school did you attend? It has nothing to do with "a clause" but with nouns, pronouns and adjectives.

that it redefines that mean of pas. You have a bad habit of attempting to use grammatical construction to REDEFINE WORDS. Grammatical structure does not turn apples into oranges. Pas, Pantas, does not mean "ALL KINDS".

Again, what MAIL ORDER school did you get your degree from and learn Greek????? The context determines the anarthrous constructs application. Is the context "apples" or non-Jewish men????? Don't you understand context defines the anarthous application?????????????

First of all, this would still include "non elect" because non elect is STILL A KIND.

If the context were speaking of THEOLOGICAL classifications of men you would have a point. Again, don't you understand context determines the application and the context has nothing to do with THEOLOGICAL types of men but RACIAL types "Greeks"!!!!!

4. Ironically, you accuse others of not interpreting by context, and then criticize Jovert BECAUSE HE USES CONTEXT. You pick and choose when you want to isolate a verse, and then when you want to argue context when you use BOTH to support only a presupposition instead of rightly dividing the word of truth.

Jovert cherry picked what aspect of the context suited his interpretation at the expense of the real contextual beginning point of the phrase he was discussing. He cherry picked his beginning point in discussion of the phrase "and I will raise him up at the last day" to begin in verse 40 when it actually began in verse 39. That is ignoring the facts of the immediate context. He cherry picked John 12:32 when the discussion actually began in John 6 where draw is definitively explained in full while also ignoring the immediate context of John 12:32 which began back in verses 20-23. Just as you are doing. Just as your are doing he PITTED scripture against scripture.

Have you ever read what God said about Israel in Jeremiah 31:3?

"The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

But what happened to Israel? " And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim" Jer 7:15, "Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth." Jer 15:1; "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!" Matthew 23:37

God had DRAWN Israel, and they WOULD NOT.

Israel is characterized as God's Elect and treated as an individual "Jacob" or "My servant" etc. Hence, one must look at the whole existence of Israel as one would look at the whole existence of an individual "elect." They are "chosent to salvation" and God's time is yet future but He will save "All Israel" (Rom. 11:25-28) when the gospel comes to them not merely in "word only" but "IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT and IN MUCH ASSURANCE."

It doesn't matter whether this begins at verse 39, or verse 40

1. If you are going to treat exegetically and expositionally the phrase "and him shall I raise up at the last day" you MUST begin with its first usage in verse 39 as the first usage of anything in scripture determines the true meaning.

2. Verse 39 spells out that the Father giving PRECEDES and is therefore causal "OF ALL" that come and it is this "OF ALL" that is raised up at the last day which demonstrates verse 40 cannot be interpeted or applied as he attempted but teaches the very exact opposite of his application.

Verse 39 does not contradict verse 40,

Exactly! But it does contradict HIS INTPRETATION of not only verse 40 but his interpetation of the very phrase he is claiming to give a faithful exposition of.

neither does it redefine it to mean that those who believe, do so BECAUSE OF verse 39.

Exactly! But it does contradict HIS INTERPRETATION of those who believe as it attributes the cause of beleiving in Christ (cometh to me) to having been given by the Father for the very purpose to come to Christ or otherwise Jesus could not say "OF ALL" that are given they all come and NOTHING SHALL BE LOST. Again giving precedes coming and nothing you can say will change that. Furthermore, Christ limits those coming to him to only those given to him and nothing you can say will change that.

Verse 40 DEFINES verse 39 because it states "AND THIS IS the will of him that sent me".

That phrase is first used in verse 38-39 before verse 40 and so you make the exact same mistake he does as that is defined first in verses 38-39 rather than in verse 40. You are attempting to do the same thing he is and that is REVERSE and REDEFINE the meaning of both from how it is FIRST defined.

The will of the Father has to do with Christ not losing any "OF ALL" those given to him. ALL those given to him come to him and "OF ALL" given NONE shall be lost - that is the will of the Father. Coming to him equal's coming to him in faith because none but those coming to him in faith can be never lost and raised to life eternal. Hence, verse 40 is in direct opposition to those in verse 36 and verses 37-39 are explanatory of that opposition. They believe because they were given by the Father for the very purpose to come (believe) in Christ. You are reversing the verses in order to reverse the cause and effect clearly stated and nothing you can say will change giving before coming (believing) as "shall" is future tense ("shall come) not present tense and "come"is present tense not future tense. You are mishandling God's word intentionally as you are attempting to REVERSE the order of both the verses and the cause and consequence relationships.

Those who come to Christ and believe are the ones who

WERE FIRST GIVEN to come/believe - Jn. 6:37-39 and so that is why they both see and believe (v. 40) and that is precisely why those in verse 36 see and yet do not believe - because they were not "OF ALL" that were given by the father to come/beleive in the son.

 

[The Biblicist]

Judas is specifically dealt with in the John 6 context as well and listed among those who were not drawn by the Father but was always known by Christ to be an unbeliever "from the beginning":

Jn. 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father......70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
.


I believe John 6 precedes John 17 or am I mistaken?? The clear teaching of John here is that Judas was never drawn by the Father, was an unbeleiver from the begining and even as he spoke in John 6 Jesus said of him that he "IS" a devil.

Thus, John 17 explanatory of Judas being given by the Father, not in salvation, not drawing, or coming to Christ in faith but for the purpose of using as the "son of peridition" to betray him.

James you just can't take part of scripture while ignoring others and that is precisely what you have done in the case of Judas. You are forced to take a position that PITS John 6 and its denial that he was ever drawn by the father and ever did come in faith to the Son but "IS" a devil against YOUR interprtation of John 17 while my position HARMONIZES both together.




John 6:64-65 rebukes your conclusion and denies that Judas was drawn by the Father or ever did come to him in faith but was a devil in chapter six and the only sense the Father gave Judas to Christ was as the "son of peridition." By the way do you know what the term "perdition" means James?? By the way do you know what "the son of" means when attached to any descriptive noun James?




All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

He does not say he that "is coming" to me "shall be given to me by the Father" but that is what you are demanding it means. You are attempting to make his words mean the very exact opposite.

"shall" come is future tense while "give to me" is present tense (v. 37). Hence, coming is consequential to giving. Judas was NEVER given to the son in this sense (Jn. 6:64-65) because "OF ALL" the Father gives "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" (v. 39) Again "shall" is future tense from the point of giving. This is simple grammar.

Let me make this as easy to understand and as easy to see as possible. In the first comprehensive teaching on giving and drawing by the Father and in direct connection with the very words of John 6:44 repeated in John 6:65 does Jesus describe Judas as a "beleiver" or "IS a devil"???


64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Verse 65 is given to explain WHY "some of you...believe not" and WHY Judas "IS" a devil as Father did not give Judas to Christ in the sense of verse 44 but in the sense of the "son of perdition." Jesus did not choose Judas because he "knew from the beginning" he was a true believer but because he was given by the Father to him as "the son of perdition."

Verse 65 is a rebuttal that those in verse 64 were ever given to the Son by the Father in the sense of coming to Christ in TRUE FAITH.

So my question to James and all his advocates is - How could Judas in John 6 be in the PRESENT TENSE "IS" a devil and yet a true believer in regard to John 6:65 at one and the same time???????


The obvious is that Judas was never given to the Son in regard as a true believer and Christ never chose him as a true believer as he knew "from the beginning" he "believed not" and "IS" a devil. He was given by the Father and chose by the son to be "the son of perdition" and that is why he apostatized! He apostatized from a FALSE PROFESSION.

 

[Inspector Javert]

4. Ironically, you accuse others of not interpreting by context, and then criticize Jovert BECAUSE HE USES CONTEXT. You pick and choose when you want to isolate a verse, and then when you want to argue context when you use BOTH to support only a presupposition instead of rightly dividing the word of truth.

The irony I find...is that he begins his entire OP with vs 44...and after I back it up to vs. 40....he gets huffy that I didn't start with vs. 39!
If vs. 39 were so important initially, than his O.P. should have begun with vs. 39.

It's called "moving the goalpost"
http://fallacyaday.com/2011/10/moving-the-goalposts/

 

[saturneptune]

The irony I find...is that he begins his entire OP with vs 44...and after I back it up to vs. 40....he gets huffy that I didn't start with vs. 39!
If vs. 39 were so important initially, than his O.P. should have begun with vs. 39.

It's called "moving the goalpost"
http://fallacyaday.com/2011/10/moving-the-goalposts/

It is obvious we do not agree on election, but I do appreciate the tone and wording of your posts. You and a few others over the last several weeks have called me on the tone of some of my posts on both sides, and believe it or not, after thinking about it, is a positive thing. One other member on your side also pointed this out to me, Webdog.

The differences are not so sharp that they should put a barrier of mistrust and anger between brothers in Christ.

 

[Inspector Javert]

It is obvious we do not agree on election, but I do appreciate the tone and wording of your posts.

Thanks!......:flower: Of course, now I'll feel compelled to try to live up to that completely un-deserved compliment. Gee...thanks

The differences are not so sharp that they should put a barrier of mistrust and anger between brothers in Christ.

They are not. God himself does not say to his beloved the things we sometimes say to one another, many of us (definitely including me) have been guilty in the past. Your humility does you credit, it takes courage to say that S.N. :wavey:

 

[The Biblicist]

The irony I find...is that he begins his entire OP with vs 44...and after I back it up to vs. 40....he gets huffy that I didn't start with vs. 39!
If vs. 39 were so important initially, than his O.P. should have begun with vs. 39.

It's called "moving the goalpost"
http://fallacyaday.com/2011/10/moving-the-goalposts/

It was important to YOUR ARGUMENT not mine. You were trying to establish a contextual antecedent for "him" in verse 44 based on the phrase "I will raise him up at the last day" which you arbitrarily decided should be verse 40 when in fact that phrase is first used and defined in verse 39. You insisted that "him" in verse 44 ought to be determined by YOUR INTERPRETATION of verse 40. I merely pointed out that both your interpretation of verse 40 and that phrase was contradictd by its own immediate context.

BTW I did not get "huffy" about anything. I simply pointed out that your analysis contradicted the context.

 

[Inspector Javert]

It was important to YOUR ARGUMENT not mine. You were trying to establish a contextual antecedent for "him" in verse 44 based on the phrase "I will raise him up at the last day" which you arbitrarily decided should be verse 40 when in fact that phrase is first used and defined in verse 39.

It answers your question...to wit, specifically, who the "him" is in verse 44. Verse 39 doesn't change anything. The answer is still that the "him" is the one who "cometh to him"...not the one "given" nor even the one who is "raised". The "him" is described in verse 44 itself...and it's whoever "COMES"...not "who is drawn".

You insisted that "him" in verse 44 ought to be determined by YOUR INTERPRETATION of verse 40.

It has nothing to do with interpretation. It's just what it says. Given verse 39...the "him" in verse 44 is STILL the one who "comes and is raised". not particularly the one who was "given".

I merely pointed out that both your interpretation of verse 40 and that phrase was contradictd by its own immediate context.

Verse 39 has no effect on my statement about verse 40 and 44. Dr. J already tried to explain that to you. Verse 39 changes nothing.

BTW I did not get "huffy" about anything. I simply pointed out that your analysis contradicted the context.

I used "huffy" because I couldn't readily think of a better way to describe it...."take exception" would be better. I was hoping you wouldn't take any offense.

which you arbitrarily

Arbitrarily huh....o.k. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

It answers your question...to wit, specifically, who the "him" is in verse 44. Verse 39 doesn't change anything.

It changes EVERYTHING! You are basing your exegesis on the similarities due to the same phrase used in both places that conclude both verses containing "him." Then you arbitrarily determine that this him is the one who "sees and believes" on Christ using that to counter and deny my interpretation that "him" drawn EQUALS "him" raised as verse 45 demands where "all" taught EQUALS "every man" taught in this specific manner (heard and learned of God) do in fact come to Christ in faith thus again "him" drawn EQUALS "him" raised.

I simply point out the same is true in verse 40 in its context as the last phrase in verse 40 is also the last phrase of verse 39 that definitive qualifies who it is that sees and believes on Jesus Christ and is raised up again at the last day. It is NONE ELSE but those given by the Father to come to Christ in faith as ALL given EQUAL ALL who come and none "OF ALL" fail to be saved.

So again the Father's work of giving these unto Son is the CAUSAL reason why the come to Christ in faith, just as the Father's work of drawing these to Christ is the CAUSAL reason why the come to Christ in faith. In both cases ALL drawn/given EQUAL ALL who come to Christ in faith and these alone represent the "him" individually that are raised up in the resurrection of life.

Your arbitrary starting point (v. 40) and your arbitrary LIMITED definition of "him" in verse 40 is simply eisgesis rather than exegesis as it ignores the contextual based definition of those who see and believe in Christ in verse 40 to be in direct contrast to those who see and do not believe in Christ in verse 36 which difference is specifically addressed as to CAUSE in verses 37-39.

To say that verse 39 changes "nothing" is the height of eisegetical reasoning as it changes everything. It changes your definition of "him" entirely and completely. It completely and thoroughly repudiates your whole interpetation and changes the whole meaning of John 6:40-45 completely.

 

[Iconoclast]

Biblicist,

That you are patiently laying out verse after verse and remaining on the topic is going very well.You call those back to the OP,and leave them in a position of having to face the truth which is being faithful to scripture.It is edifying to see the overall flow of scripture and not to get up in the disputing of words,and philosophical and emotional objections...
Do not be weary in well doing, for in due time we shall reap.