The "him" of John 6:44

[agedman]

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. - Jer. 31:34

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Cor. 4:6

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - 1 Jn. 2:27

This is the teaching by God under the New and "everlasting" Covenant. Ultimately God must be the teacher as the problem is internal and only God can give understanding to the mind and make the blind see. Our problem is internal - Eph. 4:18 - "darkened understanding....ignorance that is in them.....blindness of heart" Only God can deal with that.

I find your answer in complete agreement with my posts; although "all" may be taught "of (about) God," it is "everyone" of those who the "Father instructs" believe.

Therefore the verse actually states that out of the "all" who learn "OF" God, there is a select group that learns "FROM" God in which "everyone" of that select group will believe.

 

[Van]

No one can paratroop jump out of an airplane, except that they ride in an airplane. Calvinist read this and claim the grammar requires that everyone who rides in an airplane, paratroop jumps out of the airplane.
Banality.

 

[Van]

No one can come to Me, except the Father draws him, says the subset of those who come to Me, come out of the full set of those drawn. It does not say the reverse, everyone that the Father draws comes to Me.

 

[Van]

Only those within the subset, those that were drawn and come to Me, will be raised up on the last day.

 

[Van]

Who is raised up on the last day, those that come to Me, those Jesus will not cast out, those given to Me, they that are all taught by God, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Eleven pages of misinformation concerning John 6:44-45, trying to rewrite the text to say the opposite of what it clearly says.

 

[Skandelon]

I have a few more minutes. The parallel between your illustration and John 6:44 ultimately hinges upon the ability of the recruiter to recruit versus the ability of God to draw.

Incorrect.

My illustration wasn't employed to address the ability of the one doing the recruiting/drawing, but was to illustrate the various potential intentions of the author. Of course God is able to irresistibly draw someone to come to Christ, that is not a matter of debate. The question is whether or not that is what God chooses to do.

Likewise, the Army Recruiter could pull out a gun and force a guy to go to war, or maybe drug him making him desire to sign up, but that is not what he CHOOSES to do. Instead he chooses to RECRUIT. In the same manner, our contention is that God chooses to draw/invite/appeal men to come through normative means, not irresistibly compel them through inward means.

Your recruiter is limited in ability to merely the power of mental persuasion and external incentives. In contrast drawing by God requires ability to deal with internal moral obstacles rooted in human nature (Rom. 8:7-8).

Again, this is all beyond the scope of the illustrations purpose. I was simply attempting to show how the HIM being drawn and raised up doesn't necessarily imply an irresistible drawing just as the Recruiting and training doesn't imply an irresistible recruiting. You are focusing on points beyond that when that is not the purpose of the illustration.

Furthermore, if you concede that verse 45 is scriptural support and explanation of the internal power of God's drawing then God's success rate is 100% without failure in drawing him to Christ. You must admit that the Father's drawing has to be internalized by nature similar to what is explained in verse 45.

I addressed the effectual nature of the word 'draw' in a previous post and it has still not been answered...

 

[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 above presentation by Skandelon is his best presentation of his illustration and application to John 6:44.

I have been able to get away from this argument for a while and give his illustration a little more consideration.

This illustration is not a proper parallel illustration with John 6:44 and therefore supports a theological position that is contrary to John 6:44 for the following reasons:

1. The source of inability is not parallel. In John 6:44 the inability is found INTERNAL and inherent in “him” (“no man can”) whereas the source of inability in his illustration is not found internal or inherent in the person being recruited but EXTERNAL to the person of the recruit but found in the arbritrary policy imposed upon him by the Army policy.

2. The nature of the inability is not parallel. In John 6:44 the nature of the inability is not merely internal and inherent in “him” but it is a SPIRITUAL inability that prevents him from coming to Christ– “no man can come.” Coming to Christ is a SPIRITUAL act and the words “no man can” demands a universalSPIRITUAL inability to come to Christ except by the power of God – draw him. However, in his illustration the issue of inability is not merely external to the person of the recruit but it is NON-SPIRITUAL.

3. The cause of inability is not parallel. In John 6:44 the stated cause is the very thing his illustration is designed to deny – Total Spiritual Inability. The words “no man can” is a universal negative that demands all men are without spiritual ability to come to Christ APART FROM God’s intervention to “draw” him. However, the whole illustration given by Skandelon is designed to deny this very inherent demand of John 6:44 and his parallel is external to the person of the recruit.

4. The Purpose is not parallel. The purpose of John 6:44 is not to explain contrary options due to being drawn, but to present drawing as the only means to overcome universal inherent inability to come to Christ.

5. John 6:45 reinforces drawing by the Father by scripture and explanation and 100% "taught" come to Christ. This is explanatory of what it means to draw, which is an INTERNAL and SPIRITUAL act by God within the man that results in coming to Christ. 100% taught come and that repudiates your interpretation and illustration of John 6:44

CONCLUSION: Therefore, his illustration fails to be parallel in crucial areas with John 6:44. His illustration is not parallel with the source, nature or cause of the inability to come to Christ. Indeed, his illustration is designed to deny what John 6:44 demands – universal spiritual inability.

 

[The Biblicist]

I find your answer in complete agreement with my posts; although "all" may be taught "of (about) God," it is "everyone" of those who the "Father instructs" believe.

Therefore the verse actually states that out of the "all" who learn "OF" God, there is a select group that learns "FROM" God in which "everyone" of that select group will believe.

The first clause in verse verse 45 is the quotation of Scripture. The second clause is the explanation of that Scripture quotation.

However, your interpretation contrasts them instead of the second clause being explanatory of the first clause. Do you understand what I am saying?
You are treating them as two different options when the latter is merely explaining the former rather than a contrast or another option.

The Scriptural assertion is "ALL' are Taught of God. The explanation is shows this "taught of God" involves "heard" and "learned" by "every man" being taught of God. For example, no one can say they have been taught by anyone if they neither "heard" or "learned" from that person. No one can claim they are taught if they never "heard" or "learned" anything. So the latter clause is simply explanatory of the first clause.

Moreover, the last part of second clause demands that verse 44 that "him" drawn is "him" raised as all drawn/taught do in fact come to Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist,

We are repeating a lot of our points on the two on going threads, so just for your info I'm limiting my comments to the other thread for the sake of time and clarity...thanks.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist,

We are repeating a lot of our points on the two on going threads, so just for your info I'm limiting my comments to the other thread for the sake of time and clarity...thanks.

I would be finding a back door too if I were in your shoesraying:

 

[Skandelon]

I would be finding a back door too if I were in your shoesraying:

Yeah, you got me. Your debate skills are overwhelming.

Why would I be seeking to leave a debate with someone who clearly hasn't even come to a point in their study that they understand their opponents perspective well enough to actually engage it?

 

[Skandelon]

We really shouldn't even be discussing this topic in this forum as it really needs to be in the CAL/ARM area, but especially since we are having the same discussion on two separate threads...let's just leave it on the one thread.