The Reformers - The Doctrine of Drawing - And Serious Error?

[atpollard]

This is a provocative title but a man who believes and teaches this should be able to present a sensible and reasonable and logical defense of it from the scriptures, if this is what they teach.

I do not think it can be proven by sound bites or by attacking those who ask you to defend it.

How does one present from scripture to prove what God specifically drew ME to do when the very act that those in scripture do “believe the Son” is excluded because Jesus spoke to them?

I would like to comply, but your request seems to be formulated to both require and exclude biblical evidence at the same time. That leaves me confused what you are asking for.

Painting with a broad brush … WHAT = God calls me to believe what Jesus called Nicodemus to believe in John 3 and HOW = by the Father “drawing” (John 6) and as His sheep vs not His sheep (John 10) with greater detail on God’s MODUS OPERANDI provided in Ephesians 2:1-10.

 

[DaveXR650]

JD. Please remember that at the point of a person coming to Christ when it comes to the action of repentance, belief, and the whole process we are on the same page. But for anyone to understand why and what causes a person to do this we do have differences.

There is nothing wrong with the will, Dave, it is the heart that is at odds with God and is the precise reason that sinners are called upon to repent.

The idea that there is nothing wrong with the will puts you at odds with almost all of known Christianity, although there is much debate about exactly how impaired our will is and what it means to be "dead" spiritually. And like I said, for a person who comes to Christ, it is not necessary to think about or consider the theological implications of all this - just like it isn't necessary to understand the engineering of your engine in order to drive a car. But, a faulty understanding of this can lead to disasters in a denomination or Christian school as well as the development of bizarre doctrines.

Now if I asked you if you have ever seen the son you will have to answer no. But Jesus ministered in the boundaries of Judah and Israel for three and one half years and most if not all saw him at some point. Of course Paul never saw him but in addition to being an apostle, he is also a type of Israel believers when Christ returns and saves the nation. Therefore to be consistent with our doctrine we must understand that Israel only is being addressed here and this is not an eternal church doctrine that is being presented and established.

I don't know where you get this kind of conjecture but I would simply say I completely disagree. What group, denomination or school of thought teaches this?

The Calvinists and the Reformed will not believe the power of the word of God. In all places the nature of it is dealt with in scripture it is said to be alive. It is a living word. It is likened to the seed in the physical realm that is planted and brings forth another person. The seed is alive every time.

Rather than answer every single mistake you are making I will just say that you should stop and think on this yourself. If scripture is living and has power what does that mean? Is it not in itself words? The "power" is another way of saying the Holy Spirit is working on people using the word. Read Calvin. He was very specific in that the word is essential for conversion but you have to decide what is going on exactly when the word has an effect.

Bottom line is that if you want to go with free will then you are the determiner and decider and even God's word cannot really do anything more to you than act as advice or instruction. So don't lecture the Calvinists on their lack of trusting in the "power" of the word when they actually build their whole system on God's power saving people from start to finish. Like I said before, I sometimes think my Calvinist brothers go to far when they try to do too much with predestination, limited atonement and irresistible grace. But they certainly nailed it when it comes to the condition of our will in our natural state and our need for God's grace and the direct work of the Holy Spirit for anyone to be saved.

 

[atpollard]

One thing I am sure of and that is that God the Father did not draw a single Reformed believer in the same manner as he drew those Jews in John 6. I would be interested to see how a Reformed believer would show how he was personally drawn by the Father and what he was drawn by the Father to do.

I am a Particular Baptist. I only know this fact because an online survey of my beliefs reported that what I believe is a 100% match to something that it called “Reformed Baptist” even though I had never attended any Baptist or Reformed church. I had specifically attended (from birth to that moment):

Lutheran; Methodist; Roman Catholic; Campus Crusade for Christ; Church of God of Anderson Indiana; Evangelical Free Church; Pentecostal.

So you ask how the Father drew me according to John 6. A starting point would seem to be an accurate summary of how God drew in John 6:

John 6:44-51 [NKJV]
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 "I am the bread of life. 49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

I will paraphrase the critical bullet points as follows:

• The Father draws
• HOW = hear and learn (FROM the Father)
• RESULT = WILL and DO come (100%)
• WHAT = BELIEVE in Jesus
• CONSEQUENCE = “eat bread” and live and not die
• Ultimate promise = Jesus WILL RAISE on the last day.

Now to PROVE that God drew ME as He drew them.

1 Jan 1960 … I had not yet been born. My paternal grandparents were ‘Lily and Holy’ Methodists, attending the church twice a year to be seen in their new hats by all the other ‘good people’ of the community in their ‘Sunday best’. My Maternal Grandparents were ‘good Italian-American Roman Catholics’ - which means they practiced a form of Catholicism that was equal parts religion and superstition - with the shrine to their dead son such a central part of their lives, it was closer to a “cult of the dead” in practice that even the modern RCC. Into these families was born my mother, a Catholic that prayed to Mary because she was terrified of God and a father who was openly atheist.

9 Jan 1962: I was born into the above - barely even nominal Christian - setting. My birth created a major theological rift between the families. The Catholic maternal grandparents were determined that their grandchild (me) would be infant baptized as required by the CHURCH to protect me from eternal damnation. My Methodist paternal grandparents (this was the 1960’s) was determined that hell would freeze over before their grandchild would be raised Catholic. My atheist father wanted only peace and quiet in the family, so he arranged that I would be infant baptized in a Lutheran Church (which I attended all of TWICE in my life … once when I was baptized). However, GOD had compelled an ATHEIST to mark an infant as someone that … far against all odds … God would redeem when the time was right.

My paternal grandparents instilled in us the importance of our SOCIAL OBLIGATION as “Christians” to be seen at church every Easter and Christmas. So twice a year for ten years I was compelled to dress in uncomfortable clothes and go to the CORRECT church in whatever community we lived (we moved around a lot). The correct church was not a doctrinal decision. In every town, there is a church - a large, new church with a conservative membership - that is the church where all the important local business people network. None of that matters to the children coloring pictures of Noah and animals, or Jesus inviting little children to sit near him. An observation from a child ‘Lily and Holly’ … when you learn about the Easter Bunny and Jesus and Santa Clause and Jesus all at the same time … year after year … when it comes time to accept that the Easter Bunny and Santa are not real, it only seems natural to view the stories of Jesus as belonging in the same ‘heap’ of childhood fables.

We live in the real world. When I was 8 years old, my best friend missed school so I went to bring him his homework. The street was lined with police cars. His mother’s boyfriend had sexually assaulted him. There is nothing in the experience of an 8-year old to prepare you to respond when confronted with the reality of evil on a scale you had never even imagined possible. As he spoke to me of his pain and I struggled just to comprehend it, with NOTHING to offer him … I saw the light go out in his eyes.

I was a precocious 8-year old. The working definition of God is “Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent”.

• OMNIPOTENT … God COULD have done something, but did not.
  
  
• OMNISCIENT … God was completely aware of what was going on and chose to do nothing about it.
  
  
• OMNIPRESENT … God was right THERE; and just stood watching.

There is a word that describes that behavior: EVIL.
So which is it? Is God EVIL or is God a work of childhood fiction, like Santa?

I was almost 9 at the time and we moved again. I spent the next 2 years searching for an answer. I read nearly 3600 books looking for the answer (including the Bible). I came to rest on a quote by Bertrand Russel … “The evidence of contemporary Christian life is such, that God, if he ever existed, must surely be dead”. At that point I WAS an atheist and soon a NIHILIST.

[as this is getting long, I will stop here to point out the obvious parallel between myself and those to whom Jesus was speaking in John 6:44. We (they and I) had both been marked as infants, both been taught (both right and wrong) and both chosen to reject God.]

QED.
Jesus was speaking TO me and ABOUT me.
(to be continued, maybe).

 

[JD731]

JD. Please remember that at the point of a person coming to Christ when it comes to the action of repentance, belief, and the whole process we are on the same page. But for anyone to understand why and what causes a person to do this we do have differences.

Thanks Dave for your answer because it illustrates my point so well. The point is that if Jn 6:44, which says that no man can come to Christ except the Father draws him, is to be applied to you as someone who became a believer on this side of the cross, then you must also apply this verse that says this;

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. Joh 6:40
Jesus accused the Jews there that day of seeing him yet not believing.

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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

One cannot have varying hermeneutics in the same passage.

The idea that there is nothing wrong with the will puts you at odds with almost all of known Christianity, although there is much debate about exactly how impaired our will is and what it means to be "dead" spiritually. And like I said, for a person who comes to Christ, it is not necessary to think about or consider the theological implications of all this - just like it isn't necessary to understand the engineering of your engine in order to drive a car. But, a faulty understanding of this can lead to disasters in a denomination or Christian school as well as the development of bizarre doctrines.

A dog has a will but he does not have intellect with reason. Many dogs have done things that caused them to have to be put down, but no dog has ever had to answer for why they did the act. To claim our will is impaired is to make us a non person and without accountability. It is one of the most ridiculous theological propositions of all time, IMO.

I don't know where you get this kind of conjecture but I would simply say I completely disagree. What group, denomination or school of thought teaches this?

Jesus said in Matt 15 to a gentile woman, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house (family) of Israel. When he sent out his apostles to preach in Matt 10, he told them not to go to the Samaritans or the gentiles, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In Mark 16, Jesus sent out these apostles to preach to every creature and he said he that believes and is baptized will be saved and he that believes not shall be damned. The logical thing to do is to track them over the next several years to see where they went and who believed and was baptized to receive the Holy Ghost (which is salvation).and, whalla, all questions are answered for us.It was the circumcision only. But if we needed a second opinion we have one here;

Ga 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person) for they (the other apostles) who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

I encourage you to read the whole context but you can see here the "creatures" are the circumcision.
What is the point? The point is that the ministry of Jesus Christ must go to the Jew first and the written history of eye witnesses proves that it did. Therefore, the drawing of the Father in John 6 is to Jews only. You cannot make that apply across the board and as a church doctrine because it is not.

Rather than answer every single mistake you are making I will just say that you should stop and think on this yourself. If scripture is living and has power what does that mean? Is it not in itself words? The "power" is another way of saying the Holy Spirit is working on people using the word. Read Calvin. He was very specific in that the word is essential for conversion but you have to decide what is going on exactly when the word has an effect.

This is a proven error of theology. The reason it is proven is because I challenged you to prove your Reformed doctrine with scripture saying this and you have been unable to do it, as I knew this would be the case. Calvin is not scripture. The word "draw" is used in Jn 6 only. It applied to the Jews during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ only.

Bottom line is that if you want to go with free will then you are the determiner and decider and even God's word cannot really do anything more to you than act as advice or instruction. So don't lecture the Calvinists on their lack of trusting in the "power" of the word when they actually build their whole system on God's power saving people from start to finish. Like I said before, I sometimes think my Calvinist brothers go to far when they try to do too much with predestination, limited atonement and irresistible grace. But they certainly nailed it when it comes to the condition of our will in our natural state and our need for God's grace and the direct work of the Holy Spirit for anyone to be saved.

It is not just free will acting alone. It is free will along with intellect and reason and ability to apply logic and faith. The action is the product of the will after the proposition has been considered and the logic applied. Jesus said men put in this position do not believe because their deeds are evil and they love darkness rather than light. He does not say they cannot believe. believing is a personal choice based on the information received. In the case of salvation, it comes through the ear.

This doctrine of the Reformed is "serious" error, Dave. I encourage you to reject it and to embrace the truth by faith.

Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[DaveXR650]

Thanks Dave for your answer because it illustrates my point so well. The point is that if Jn 6:44, which says that no man can come to Christ except the Father draws him, is to be applied to you as someone who became a believer on this side of the cross, then you must also apply this verse that says this;

JD. Am I to understand that you are seriously going to take the position that John 6 is of no use to those of us on this side of the cross? John 6 is one of the big ones in the Bible. Have you never talked to a Roman Catholic? You didn't answer before when I asked if some school of thought teaches this so I'm asking again. Where are you getting this or did you come up with it yourself?

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave, I am sorry but you just gave your opinion. You did not make a scriptural case for your position. If you can quote a few verses in the context of salvation where this is taught, it would be helpful.

There are plenty of scriptures that indicate that God or the Holy Spirit must do a work directly on the heart in addition to the actual delivery of Spirit inspired words. Here's one:
"Jeremiah 31:18-19 ... turn thou me and I shall be turned....after that I was turned I repented..."

Lamentations 5:21 "Turn thou us unto thee O Lord, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old."

My quote was from Acts 2:37-39 and I was just trying to show JD that the ones who said that were "pricked to the heart"

And then this is your answer:

Dave, I am not going to answer you point by point or by your two or three supporting scriptures for your argument.

That is apparent. And could I ask why I should give you more scripture references for you to blow off, without refuting? I would suggest you stop making the mistake a lot of folks do who claim they don't like systemic theology. The key word there is "systematic" and without trying to put concepts together you are left with constantly looking for zinger verses. The additional method you use is to claim problem verses for you don't apply to us gentiles. I guess if it works for you use it but don't try to say you and you alone have verses. You have not addressed any of my verses.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is a proven error of theology. The reason it is proven is because I challenged you to prove your Reformed doctrine with scripture saying this and you have been unable to do it, as I knew this would be the case. Calvin is not scripture.

As you can see above it wasn't the case. Have you actually ever read Calvin? His writing abounds with scripture quotes and references as do all Reformed theologians. Like I said earlier I certainly don't agree with everything Calvinists say. But Calvinism in general has a wide range of handling all the theological issues and I have never said anything on here that cannot be identified and referenced to serious theologians in addition to the scripture references. I have asked you where you are getting your ideas and so far have heard nothing. And you have not refuted any of my scriptures except to say they don't count. I hate to tell you this but it looks like your OP is half baked. I would suggest, if you have a problem with Reformed theology and you want to confront it, at least read up on it first. If you are like me you may not agree with all of it but it is thought provoking, and the devotional part of Calvinistic writings is the best I have ever seen and beneficial to your Christian life.

 

[JD731]

JD. Am I to understand that you are seriously going to take the position that John 6 is of no use to those of us on this side of the cross? John 6 is one of the big ones in the Bible. Have you never talked to a Roman Catholic? You didn't answer before when I asked if some school of thought teaches this so I'm asking again. Where are you getting this or did you come up with it yourself?

 

[JD731]

JD. Am I to understand that you are seriously going to take the position that John 6 is of no use to those of us on this side of the cross? John 6 is one of the big ones in the Bible. Have you never talked to a Roman Catholic? You didn't answer before when I asked if some school of thought teaches this so I'm asking again. Where are you getting this or did you come up with it yourself?

My proof included the fact that no scriptural evidence exists in the pages of scripture for the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement based on John 6. The" drawing" of some withe the exclusion of others by the Father to Christ is not something that the NT history or the epistles teaches. The word "draw" is not even used by the apostle Paul as he writes letters to gentiles and the Jewish Christians who write letters to the strangers and people of Israel who are scattered in the nations uses the word a few times but not in the context of salvation.

I fellowship with Independent fundamental Baptists and none of them accepts the doctrine of limited atonement because of what John 6:44 says. If they did I would move on. There is context to the gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus Christ on the earth as a man. He is the son of God and the son of man. John is dealing with his deity and what he is accomplishing on the earth as the son of God. Every thing he records points to that aspect of his person and his ministry. It is the reason John gives for writing his account of Jesus.

Jn 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

If I am not wrong there are 7 specific carefully chosen miracles of Jesus that John records that advances this revelation of his person and mission. Do not ignore this Dave. What you have been taught by Reformed teachers is not according to truth.

I must address your other comments but I will do it later. I have hit a very busy time now, but I do appreciate your interaction on this subject. Thank you for that.

 

[DaveXR650]

My proof included the fact that no scriptural evidence exists in the pages of scripture for the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement based on John 6

I agree and do not believe in limited atonement either. Moderate Calvinists take more of a position that of course God had in mind who exactly were eventually going to be saved and thus in a sense they were in the ones Christ died for. What they (and I) reject is a deterministic view where some are shut out and in fact were only created in order that they would be damned. I don't know if you realize this but there is good evidence that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement or at least never considered it.

The" drawing" of some withe the exclusion of others by the Father to Christ is not something that the NT history or the epistles teaches.

Here we just disagree. But please understand that I am only arguing for a work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of a person before they are able to come to Christ. I am not certain the drawing is as decisive and irresistible as some Calvinists define. I further argue that we all believe this in reality. When we pray for someone's salvation, are we not asking God to intervene supernaturally? If we really believed it was all up to your free will it would be not according to God's will to pray for something that is clearly the responsibility of the individual.

I fellowship with Independent fundamental Baptists

Nothing wrong with that. That's my background too and my only complaint with them is that they are too quick to separate over anything and everything.

If I am not wrong there are 7 specific carefully chosen miracles of Jesus that John records that advances this revelation of his person and mission.

I don't remember the exact numbers either but yes, the miracles that we have recorded were carefully designed. Remember that Reformed teaching agrees with this and agrees with God using all kinds of things from miracles to circumstances and events, to hardships, and so on to bring us to Christ. But the Bible also teaches that our tendency is to think the things of God are foolish, or we can't "see" it's value, or we are caught up in other interests. But I don't know of any Reformed teacher who denies the part that those other things play in a person's coming to faith in Christ.

but I do appreciate your interaction on this subject. Thank you for that.

And I appreciate you taking the time to reply also. It is a pleasure to converse with you.

 

[JD731]

And then this is your answer:

JD Said This is a proven error of theology. The reason it is proven is because I challenged you to prove your Reformed doctrine with scripture saying this and you have been unable to do it, as I knew this would be the case. Calvin is not scripture.

That is apparent. And could I ask why I should give you more scripture references for you to blow off, without refuting? I would suggest you stop making the mistake a lot of folks do who claim they don't like systemic theology. The key word there is "systematic" and without trying to put concepts together you are left with constantly looking for zinger verses. The additional method you use is to claim problem verses for you don't apply to us gentiles. I guess if it works for you use it but don't try to say you and you alone have verses. You have not addressed any of my verses.

Dave, I remind you that my op suggests that "the drawing of the Father" to Christ as the son of God and the promised Christ as a continuing church doctrine is serious error of those who teach it. I would like to deal with the first of your verses that you think refutes my argument, but first I want to appeal to logic and reasoning with the context of history.

The drawing of the Jews logically began at the baptism of Jesus Christ when he was introduced to Israel as the anointed one of the OT scriptures. Logic says he could not have been known and drawn before that because no one even knew him. So the drawing did not precede his showing to Israel. The drawing of the Father to Jesus to the Jewish nation ended when they conspired to put him to death. God saw that as an answer, why can't we?

Mt 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (they conspired to kill him in Mt 12)
Mr 8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
Lu 8:56 And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

No more light given after one rejects the light when it is given.

Here is the order of doctrine for every believer. They must believe that Jesus Christ is the virgin born son of God before they can believe on him as savior. This is a fundamental of saving faith. In the gospels it is plain that Jesus Christ presented himself as both man and God in one person.
John, the apostle who dealt with his deity was both the 4th and last disciple to write a gospel account. So now you know that my logic is reasonable.

Now, I am going to deal with the first verse you presented as proof that the Spirit draws men to Christ, which is Jer "Jeremiah 31:18-19 ... turn thou me and I shall be turned....after that I was turned I repented..
The context will show that this is the attitude of the northern kingdom of Ephraim, the firstborn of God, he says in the text. You will find a nation being drawn by the loving kindness of the Father but the Spirit is not mentioned. This is a prophecy of the last days events. The gentiles are not in the subject of these verses.

1 ¶ At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.
2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.
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.
4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.
5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat [them] as common things.
6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.
7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, [and] with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

10 ¶ Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
11 For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.
12 Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the LORD, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all.
13 Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow.
14 And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the LORD.
15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
16 Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

18 ¶ I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.
19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.
Note: This is Ephraim, the nation collectively, after their salvation.See 1 Peter 2:9 & Rom 10:19 & Hosea 1:10
20 Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.
21 Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.
22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The LORD bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness.
24 And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks.
25 For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.
26 Upon this I awaked, and beheld; and my sleep was sweet unto me.

27 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
28 And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 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.

Continued:

 

[JD731]

35 ¶ Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
38 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner.
39 And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.
40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever.

There is context to these verses. I thought I would show you the whole chapter so who it is that is beingspoken to and who is doing the speaking in your Jeremiah quotes

 

[DaveXR650]

JD. I believe that almost all stories and passages in scripture have a literal and immediate meaning and purpose but I think they also have a message for all of us who come later. We certainly can make make mistakes if we mess this up, as history proves. But those old testament stories contain at the least principles which we can learn and use - even though they were not the main purpose of the scripture in question.

In the case we are talking about, that of a person coming to Christ, and how or if we are supernaturally "drawn" I think we can use those stories and examples to find out how this works. If you find in scripture descriptions of the will of the king being in God's hands, or read of God changing someone's plans or purpose, or of God making a person find favor in the sight of God, I think that indicates our wills being under some control of God.

Now we also have plenty of instances of God using circumstances and creating perceptions in men's minds which effects changes on their will that look more like the familiar methods we know of for changing one's mind. But still, there are many cases of direct action by God on the will of men. And I admit that always our perception will be for us that of simply discovering what we think the best course of action will be and then going that way under the direction of our free wills. So, to your point earlier, it is perfectly correct for you to point out that Jesus told the Jews he was with that they would be guilty of rejecting him after plainly seeing with their physical eyes what Jesus did. But it is not correct to say that therefore we are limited to that interpretation only. I say it is legitimate to claim this same truth applies to someone later, Jew or gentile, who say hears the gospel clearly taught, or especially, feels a conviction or drawing of the Holy Spirit in addition to the actual word of God being preached, and still rejects it.

No more light given after one rejects the light when it is given.

I agree with you here but must point out that this is not necessarily a once and then nothing arrangement but is under God's authority and timing. And the high Calvinist Reformers taught this very thing - and I can show you sermons where they warn people not to delay coming to Christ lest he stop "drawing" you and thus leave you lost. I heard this preached when I was a fundamentalist and I thought they were correct then, and I have since discovered that Owen, Bunyan, and Edwards preached the same way.

 

[DaveXR650]

So, what I'm trying to say is that while it is important to not take passages of scripture and make them apply any way you want, that does not mean we can make no application except to the situation originally occurring. The story of Joseph and how he ended up in Egypt is indeed about Joseph, not me, a 21st century gentile. But I am certainly allowed to use this to help me trust God's providence and keep strong in my faith.

When I started looking into Reformed (mainly Puritan) literature I too noticed how they could find application for so many old testament scriptures. In some cases they did go too far but for me the Old Testament came alive and I love the way they handled scripture.

So, I would just suggest that you can go too far in using a method of scripture study where the immediate context and situation is the only thing you can legitimately look at.

A while back on here we got into a discussion where some Calvinist claimed how improper it was to apply Revelation 3:20 to salvation. Several prominent Calvinist theologians take that position. I was a little taken back by this because in my fundamentalist upbringing we were always taught it referred to being saved. And of course we all knew the song. I then searched and found every single Puritan era writer, Calvinist or non Calvinist agreed with what I had been taught by the fundamentalists years ago, and they did indeed freely apply that to salvation - even though it was specifically written to a certain church. It's something to think on.

 

[JD731]

JD. I believe that almost all stories and passages in scripture have a literal and immediate meaning and purpose but I think they also have a message for all of us who come later. We certainly can make make mistakes if we mess this up, as history proves. But those old testament stories contain at the least principles which we can learn and use - even though they were not the main purpose of the scripture in question.

I certainly agree with what you have said here Dave. I love to hear preaching from the OT scriptures, especially when someone has the skill and understanding to elaborate on the character and ways of God that must have their foundation in those passages. In addition to all other ways the Bible can be described, one must recognize that it is a spiritual book and the character of God does not change between the testaments. So, amen to that.

In the case we are talking about, that of a person coming to Christ, and how or if we are supernaturally "drawn" I think we can use those stories and examples to find out how this works. If you find in scripture descriptions of the will of the king being in God's hands, or read of God changing someone's plans or purpose, or of God making a person find favor in the sight of God, I think that indicates our wills being under some control of God.

"The wheel begins to run off when we do not recognize that God is not functioning on the earth in sovereignty. He is ruling over what is his by providence. He has in the past and will in the future make adjustments in order for history to move in the direction that he wants but it is through the will of men that his providence shines through. - Psa 115:15 - Ye are blessed of the LORD which made heaven and earth.16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." Men could not be accountable for the horrible acts they have committed if God arranged it all. The men in Jn 6 were responsible, not only for believing on Jesus Christ for their own sakes, but for the sake of the entire generation of Jews. Matthew 1:1 to Acts 28:31.

Now Dave, I want you to consider just how guilty the free will rejection of Jesus Christ by the generation, who had the charge to receive him, was to God the Father: Consider these words outside your Reformed thinking, and tremble;
Lk 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; (just WOW!)
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The wills of these men were not under the control of God. They took from Israel the key of knowledge!!!

Now we also have plenty of instances of God using circumstances and creating perceptions in men's minds which effects changes on their will that look more like the familiar methods we know of for changing one's mind. But still, there are many cases of direct action by God on the will of men. And I admit that always our perception will be for us that of simply discovering what we think the best course of action will be and then going that way under the direction of our free wills. So, to your point earlier, it is perfectly correct for you to point out that Jesus told the Jews he was with that they would be guilty of rejecting him after plainly seeing with their physical eyes what Jesus did. But it is not correct to say that therefore we are limited to that interpretation only. I say it is legitimate to claim this same truth applies to someone later, Jew or gentile, who say hears the gospel clearly taught, or especially, feels a conviction or drawing of the Holy Spirit in addition to the actual word of God being preached, and still rejects it.

Yes Dave, God is omnipresent and omniscient. There were good men in Egypt we know because Joseph lived under one of them and was treated well and served the king. But for God's purpose of birthing this nation physically in the earth he manipulated events and circumstances so that the person who would do his will at that time would do it because he wanted to. Therefore one could say it was God who put the right man for his purpose on the throne of Egypt through his providential work. God knew how Pharoah would react but he did not make him act that way. God used the circumstances of his character to get fame for himself and fame he got. We are still talking about how God delivered Israel at this very day. Now if you wanted confirmation of this truth just read about it in Rom 9.

I agree with you here but must point out that this is not necessarily a once and then nothing arrangement but is under God's authority and timing. And the high Calvinist Reformers taught this very thing - and I can show you sermons where they warn people not to delay coming to Christ lest he stop "drawing" you and thus leave you lost. I heard this preached when I was a fundamentalist and I thought they were correct then, and I have since discovered that Owen, Bunyan, and Edwards preached the same way.

Well, that is the point of contention between us. You say they are compelled to come and I say they are invited to come.

Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[JD731]

So, what I'm trying to say is that while it is important to not take passages of scripture and make them apply any way you want, that does not mean we can make no application except to the situation originally occurring. The story of Joseph and how he ended up in Egypt is indeed about Joseph, not me, a 21st century gentile. But I am certainly allowed to use this to help me trust God's providence and keep strong in my faith.

When I started looking into Reformed (mainly Puritan) literature I too noticed how they could find application for so many old testament scriptures. In some cases they did go too far but for me the Old Testament came alive and I love the way they handled scripture.

So, I would just suggest that you can go too far in using a method of scripture study where the immediate context and situation is the only thing you can legitimately look at.

A while back on here we got into a discussion where some Calvinist claimed how improper it was to apply Revelation 3:20 to salvation. Several prominent Calvinist theologians take that position. I was a little taken back by this because in my fundamentalist upbringing we were always taught it referred to being saved. And of course we all knew the song. I then searched and found every single Puritan era writer, Calvinist or non Calvinist agreed with what I had been taught by the fundamentalists years ago, and they did indeed freely apply that to salvation - even though it was specifically written to a certain church. It's something to think on.

Dave, I believe all scripture has a spiritual application and meaning. But I also believe it has a literal meaning unless we are told differently and I cannot think of a place where we are told that. Now, if you took a poll of the posters on this Baptist Board you would not find a single one, I believe, that will accept the chapter I quoted to you literally. You, yourself, did not go there to make a point from the literal meaning of the text. There are no fundamentalist Christians posting on the threads I post on. There might be Christians, but there are no fundamentalist Christians, IMO. Fundamentalists will believe the words of Jeremiah 31 whether they understand them or not. All others will spiritualize what is told us in that chapter. I doubt that Owen, Bunyan, and Edwards will believe that is a prophecy not yet fulfilled entirely. I f I am wrong about that then I need to apologize to those men.

Who would believe that God has two sons, Judah and Ephraim, with Judah devoting himself to the law of God and a strict adherence to it while Ephraim was wild and careless and worldly and wicked in a different way than Judah, but not as wicked as Judah, according to God? And who would believe that Ephraim was the firstborn son. You know in Israel it is the firstborn son that gets a double portion of the inheritance. Ephraim was dispersed by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It is the second born son who God always uses. You can easily trace this truth through scriptures.

There are many spiritual applications that can be made from Jeremiah 31 but I am not going to make any now. Ephraim will be drawn by God the Father. He is his Father but he chose to leave his Father and his people.

Now, I would love to see you go to Luke 15 where we have all three of these principles together in a family unit again. The Father, who loves both his sons, The Eldest Son, who represents Judah, and the younger son, representing Ephraim. But, you say, in Jer 31 it is said that Ephraim is the firstborn. The reason for this is because Jesus is dealing in Luke with the physical birth of the two sons and Jer is dealing with the spiritual birth of these two son. It was the second born son who came to the Father of his own free will and the Father did nothing but stand in the door to watch to see if he will return. The eldest son, who bragged about keeping the law complained about the repentance and the return to the Father of the younger son.

This is Judah and Ephraim in the NT era. All the Jewish Christian apostles and writers of scripture went to Asia Minor and that area because that was where Ephraim was at that time. and the Jews followed them demanded they must keep the law to be save,

Ga 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Judah, will be saved and joined with Ephraim at some point in the future because God is able to save them. But it will be after the rebels will be purged with the fires of the great tribulation and few left to save. But right now they are judicially blinded in this age by the Judge of all the earth, the Father.

Mt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (aion =age= time frame), neither in the world to come.

Has Israel been saved in this current age? NO. We are living in the age to come when Jesus spoke the above words. Will they be saved in the age to come after this? Yes, that is what we are told. I read about it in Jeremiah 31.

Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Rightly dividing the word of truth is so important. We would not want the curse of the Jews in Jesus days. God is not drawing gentiles or Jews in this age. They come by invitation.

 

[DaveXR650]

Bottom line is that the OP takes the position that all the Reformed preachers were wrong in their understanding of "drawing". I've tried to explain that this charge would include not just the strict Calvinists but a lot of other Reformation groups as well. They were all wrong but the modern day fundamentalists. Your arguments consist of tons of other scripture exegesis which has no bearing on this passage.

Well, that is the point of contention between us. You say they are compelled to come and I say they are invited to come.

This is not what I say. I do say that the word "invited" is not strong enough. Compelled is used by many Calvinists to mean forced. But not everyone who believes John 6:44 means what it says thinks that draw means forced. That is a main argument that strict Calvinists like Sproul used to prove Calvinism. So to that extent, using that definition, I agree with you.

What I believe is that we are in such a state by nature, in our fallen condition, that the direct action of the Holy Spirit upon us is necessary or else we will not accept the invitation. More is going on than an invitation. And compulsion is not too strong a word. When scripture says they compelled people to come in it does not mean they physically forced them but that they emphatically invited them and at the same time the Holy Spirit drew them. Draw can mean an enlightening of understanding, strong conviction, opening of your eyes (spiritually), and so on.

And if you think about it, the ideas you do accept, that God "blinds" a group of people for a time for example, is a very deterministic idea - exactly what Calvinism teaches. And for a fundamentalist, who tends to value minute details of prophesy, I would think you have to have as a basis the idea that God is controlling all this. Fundamentalists should be very close to Calvinists, except in infant baptism and the Lord's supper. And in fact, that is pretty much what a Reformed Baptist is, except they have given up the extreme separation tendencies of fundamentalists and embrace the other Calvinist folks as brothers.

But what you guys are doing in recent years is moving to a complete Pelagian theology, which even Rome condemns. I would look into that in a lot more detail if I were a fundamentalist. If you read old fundamentalist literature you find much more emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in a persons salvation than you do now. Just remember, you find this idea of "drawing" in Spurgeon and Bunyan, who every fundamentalist I know accepts as solid, as well as G. Campbell Morgan, who helped write some of the original stuff for the beginning of the fundamentalist movement in the 20's.

In fact, let me just say that the atrocious "soul winning" methods that I was a part of myself, where you try to get people to say a prayer, is the logical extension of a failure to realize that the drawing we are talking about is real, and essential, and always occurs in anyone who really gets saved.

 

[JD731]

Bottom line is that the OP takes the position that all the Reformed preachers were wrong in their understanding of "drawing". I've tried to explain that this charge would include not just the strict Calvinists but a lot of other Reformation groups as well. They were all wrong but the modern day fundamentalists. Your arguments consist of tons of other scripture exegesis which has no bearing on this passage.

1) -This is not what I say. I do say that the word "invited" is not strong enough. Compelled is used by many Calvinists to mean forced. But not everyone who believes John 6:44 means what it says thinks that draw means forced. That is a main argument that strict Calvinists like Sproul used to prove Calvinism. So to that extent, using that definition, I agree with you.

2) What I believe is that we are in such a state by nature, in our fallen condition, that the direct action of the Holy Spirit upon us is necessary or else we will not accept the invitation. More is going on than an invitation. And compulsion is not too strong a word. When scripture says they compelled people to come in it does not mean they physically forced them but that they emphatically invited them and at the same time the Holy Spirit drew them. Draw can mean an enlightening of understanding, strong conviction, opening of your eyes (spiritually), and so on.

3) And if you think about it, the ideas you do accept, that God "blinds" a group of people for a time for example, is a very deterministic idea - exactly what Calvinism teaches. And for a fundamentalist, who tends to value minute details of prophesy, I would think you have to have as a basis the idea that God is controlling all this. Fundamentalists should be very close to Calvinists, except in infant baptism and the Lord's supper. And in fact, that is pretty much what a Reformed Baptist is, except they have given up the extreme separation tendencies of fundamentalists and embrace the other Calvinist folks as brothers.

4) But what you guys are doing in recent years is moving to a complete Pelagian theology, which even Rome condemns. I would look into that in a lot more detail if I were a fundamentalist. If you read old fundamentalist literature you find much more emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in a persons salvation than you do now. Just remember, you find this idea of "drawing" in Spurgeon and Bunyan, who every fundamentalist I know accepts as solid, as well as G. Campbell Morgan, who helped write some of the original stuff for the beginning of the fundamentalist movement in the 20's.

5) In fact, let me just say that the atrocious "soul winning" methods that I was a part of myself, where you try to get people to say a prayer, is the logical extension of a failure to realize that the drawing we are talking about is real, and essential, and always occurs in anyone who really gets saved.

Point # 1 -
Actually the KJV uses the word compel in the invitation of sinners, but it is the preacher who is instructed to do the compelling, not the Spirit. The preacher is preaching the gospel.
Luke 14:23
And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

2 Cor 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.


Point #2 -
Except the scriptures do not say the Spirit draws men. You assume he does. It is the Father that is drawing the Jews in John 6. If you have read the scriptures very much you will see that the Godhead is one but each of the three members have different roles in redemption. I will give you two chapters that you can see this clearly. 1) Corinthians 12, and 2) Romans 8.

It is the word that does the work in the heart through the conscience. No mention of the Spirit in this context.

Point #3
This is not a personal blinding, but a national blinding. Those ruling men could have individually repented and been saved but they were no longer speaking for the nation. The promise that the kingdom of heaven was "at hand" was now off the table.

Jn 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Romans 11:14
If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Point #4
I do not know what a Pelagian is, and I don't care to know. It is not a term that I ever use. The Reformed use this word all the time. Let me just say Dave that just because we don't accept the Reformation believers doctrine of drawing does not mean that we do not think the Spirit of God is not involved in our salvation. He is a person and he IS salvation when he enters into our mortal bodies by faith. He comes and saves us when we believe from the heart the gospel of Jesus Christ which is delivered to us in words.

Ga 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Repeat these word is verse 2 out loud Dave, and see if you believe what you hear. Your Reformed brethen teaches that faith is the gift of God and one must have the Spirit (regeneration) in order to believe.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Answer that question out loud.

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

I do not know how this could be any more clear, but it is a stumbling block for the Reformed.


Point #5
Salvation does not come by praying, it comes by believing. One can pray all his waking hours and not be saved. One must hear the gospel and believe it and then he has God's word on it that he is saved. I am not in favor of praying a prayer. The gospel message works on the heart (mind- conscience) and when one believes from the heart God can see it and will save him if he never prays. I am as much against the fundamentalists who practice a faulty doctrine as I am the Reformed.

You have not quoted me a verse yet that says the Spirit draws unbelievers or pre chosen men to Christ.I have shown you where the Spirit enters when a sinner believes in Jesus Christ. This should not be this hard to understand.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This quote from C.H. Spurgeon may be helpful to those who have not already read it:-
“.....The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith,”

 

[JD731]

This quote from C.H. Spurgeon may be helpful to those who have not already read it:-
“.....The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith,”

Saving faith does not come by reading. Someone should have told C.H. Spurgeon. There are several people in the hall of faith, Hebrews, chapter 11, who lived before a single word of God was written. Twenty five hundred years passed before Moses wrote Genesis. Maybe Job was written earlier but if it were it was not by much.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. This must mean that there were words of God to hear before they were written.