Featured Given EQUALS draw - Jn. 6:44,65

Where in the immediate context of John 6 can you base that "all" in verses 37-39 means "ALL MANKIND without a single exception"? Please give the verse in John 6 that says this?

Where in John 3 can you find the subject of drawing and giving people to Christ stated? Verse please?

If you can't find either, then what exegetical basis do you have for making either statment???? Every cultists interprets scripture exactly as you are doing here - they use the very same methods - injecting into a context what the context says nothing about.

Furthermore, what is stated in the context repudiates your definition completely as the words "OF ALL" leaves out none included and it is "OF ALL" which are given that Christ says "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING." That is a flat denial that ANY "OF ALL" can be lost.

This is a negative stated rule that excludes all with one exception to that rule. However, you have turned it into a positive stated rule that includes all with no exceptions. You have reversed it to say the exact opposite of what it says and means.

John 6:39 destroys this argument completely. Bob, what does "OF ALL" include? Does it include ALL MANKIND without a single exception? Or does it only refer to those "given" by the Father to the Son? Are you going to claim that ALL MANKIND without a single exception were "given" by the Father to the son??? If so, then "OF ALL which the Father hath given me, I SHALL LOSE NOTHING." Bob, will Christ lose ANY "OF ALL" the Father gave him?

Your "unqualified" all fails in verse John 6:39. It also fails in John 6:37. Is the "all" in John 6:37 qualified or unqualified? If you answer "unqualified" then you are forced to take the position that "ALL" means ALL MANKIND without a single exception has not only been given to Christ by the Father but ALL MANKIND without a single exception also comes to Christ. Is that right Bob???? If so, are you going to call Jesus a liar as he said there were some that will not come to him:

Jn. 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Bob says no exceptions but Christ claims there are exceptions! Who shall we believe? Christ or Bob?

So much for your imagined "unqualified" all that includes ALL MANKIND without a single exception.

Unfortunately for you we have the full verse in the Bible preserved so you cannot cut it short and pervert it. The "him" that is drawn is the "him" that is raised meaning all drawn are all raised to etenal life. "EVERYONE" that has been taught and EVERYONE that has learned cometh to Christ. Hence, no exceptions.

Bob, you want to make "ALL" unqualified to mean no exceptions but then you want to make what Christ says about this "all" full of exceptions when Christ makes no exceptions. "OF ALL" given I SHALL LOSE NOTHING - no exceptions. ALL taught, learn, and come to Christ - no exceptions.

[/QUOTE]

You are saying ALL mankind without exception are given ability to come but not "OF ALL" given do come when in fact Jesus says "OF ALL" given DO COME and ALL that come I WILL NOT CAST OUT and I SHALL LOSE NOTHING but raise each one given, drawn, coming to the resurrection of life.

The doctrine is spelled out in John 6 fully and completely in many verses while only referred to in one verse in John 12. John 12 must be interpreted by John 6 not apart from it or reversing it and making your own interpretation of John 12 the basis for interpreting John 6. This is cultic type of hermenutics. Of course SDA is a cult.

The choice to follow God.[/QUOTE]

A calvinist must of wrote John 6:44 and John 6:65 because that is exactly what we find written in each verse. We find "draw" in verse 44 and "given" in verse 65 and Jesus is saying that what he says in verse 65 is a repeat of what he said in verse 44!!! So, "draw" must equal "given" as it is Jesus that substitutes "given" for "draw" in verse 65.

You don't have to "imagine that" because the text states it explicitly, clearly and precisely -

Jn. 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;

Shall we believe Bob's imaginary denial or Christ's words?

Again, we don't have to "imagine that" because it is actually spelled out clearly, explicitly and precisely in black and white by Christ:

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Again, shall we beleive Christ or Bob's imaginary denial?

So much for your logic.

in Christ,

Bob[/QUOTE]

 

Bob willfully refuses to accept that Christ himself uses "given" in John 6:45 as a synonym for "draw" in verse 44.

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.

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.


Furthermore, this given abiltiy (draw/given) provides for the very same result "come to me."

Second, the "him" in John 6:44a that is drawn is the same "him" in John 6:44b that is raised so "him" drawn EQUALS "him" raised that would be 1 out of 1 drawn is raised - 100%

Third, "ALL" do come that are "given" by the Father to the Son - Jn. 6:37

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

Hence, "all" given EQUALS "all" that come or 1 out of 1 given come - 100%

Last, this is not true of Bob's definition of "all" and those that come! John 5:40 clearly denies that ALL Mankind without exception come to Christ:

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

But the "all" Christ refers to in John 6:37-65 do come to Christ "without exception.






And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
I stand at the door and knock IF ANYONE hears my voice -- (This is the unqualified ALL aspect)
AND opens the door I WILL come in -- (this is the more narrow -- all squares are rectangles)
Rev 3:[/QUOTE]

He is addressing the whole church at Laodicea, every last member. He is addressing those who have "ears to ear". He is not addressing lost people. He is not addressing the world. Bob, all you have to do is read the verses before and after to clearly and plainly see this. Can't read?

human preachers call everyone in their audiance to come to Christ but "few" respond because not ALL Mankind without exception is given to Christ by the Father. Not all are drawn.

 

This is intentional deceit as my comment which you quoted was taken out of context as I did not make that comment in reference to John 12:32 and you know it. You know very well I made that comment in reference to the words "many are called but few are chosen." Dishonesty and disceit are your calling cards

 

Again you are being wholly dishonest. You repeatedly made the statement that "all" in John 6 is an "unqualified" all that refers to ALL Mankind without exception. I simply demonstrated how false your statement was as "all" in John 6:37 and 39 cannot be the "unqualified" "ALL mankind without exception" as that would demand that "ALL mankind without exception are given to the Father to come to the Son, and thus ALL mankind without exception shall come to the Son." John 5:40 proves this "unqualified" all is false in regard to the "all" of John 6:37-40.

Again, your calling cards are dishonesty and deception with scripture and with those who oppose you.

 

You are wrong! You are wrong because in the John 6 context "draw" is synonymous with "given" (v. 44 compared to v. 65) and "ALL" that are given do in fact come to Christ (v. 37) and NONE given are lost (v. 39).

However, what I have said repeatedly above is too difficult for you to grasp. Perhaps I can use BIG letters next time if you can't grasp the little letters???

Dont you ever get tired of intentionally perverting what I say????? Again, I said that in connection with your "unqualified" comment concerning "all" in John 6:37,39. The "ALL" in John 6:37,39 is QUALIFIED as NONE are lost that are given or come (v. 39) and "ALL" given do come (v. 37).

Do you need big letters to understand what I am saying? Stop jerking my words out of context!! However, I guess that is the only way you can stay in the conversation isn't it?

 

The OP is on John 6:44,65 or can't you read? And in fact he does say that all drawn will come to me in John 6:44-45 as "him" that is drawn in verse 44 is the same "him" that is raised to life. The "all" who are taught are "EVERY ONE" that "cometh to me" in verse 45.

In fact, all drawn equals all given as verse 65 uses "given" for "draw" in verse 44 and ALL that are given do come (vv. 37,39).

Do I need to put this in big letters for you too????

John 6 defines and precedes John 12. The latter must be interpreted by the former not vice versa.

 

Jn 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

You either believe Christ or you don't! He said that "OF ALL" that the Father gives him "NOTHING" shall be lost. "OF ALL" is qualified by the words "which he hath given me" and the Father has not given "ALL Mankind without exception" to Christ and some of "ALL Mankind without exception" shall be lost.

In addition the word "all" in John 6:37 is also qualified because "ALL" that the Father gives actually "shall come to me" and "ALL Mankind without exception" do not come to Christ as John 5:40 proves.

Now this text says nothing about CALLING. However, Bob and his friends want to force it into this context. We all know that there is a difference between when the human preacher calls the lost to come to Christ that many do not come. However, John 6:37-39 is not talking about what a human preacher does but what the Father and the Son do. This text is not talking about the power of the will of those being given, but the power of the Son carrying out the will of the Father in making sure "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

Now none of our opponents can respond rationally, so some do not respond at all but act as a cheering section for ignorance while the others respond irrationally. However, it really does not matter how they respond or if the respond at all because it does not change the words of the Lord at all.

 

The problem is your method of interpretation. You want to jump from one text to another text and read them back into this text. That method can make a text mean whatever you want it to mean and that is precisely what you are doing. If I approached scripture like you are doing, no one could ever prove my view of any text is wrong because I would just jump to another text and read it into that text to defend my view. That is what you are doing. You are not first doing an expository treatment by the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT.

So as long as you do this jumping jack method of Bible interpretation while completely ignoring the immediate context there is no hope for any real serious discussion of any text of the Bible with you.

However, if we do it properly, let each context define its text first, then go to Matthew 7 or John 12 and do the same thing with those texts in their context then your position falls like domino's and your error is exposed. However, you will not follow a contextual based interpretation method and so there is no hope of real discussion between us.

 

On the surface this argument by Bob sounds reasonable IF you simply ignore the immedate context.

Bob does not want to establish the meaning of ANY TEXT by its CONTEXT. He wants to go OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT and find his proof texts, which he does not establish their meaning by their context either, and then take them and read them into this context.

The problem is that he defines NO TEXT by its context but simply uses it because it superficially suits his purpose.

Now consider his statement above "He did not say 'ALL DRAWN will come to me"! That is only true if "draw" does not mean "given" in this immediate context! However, the truth is that "given" is substituted by Jesus for "draw" in this context and I have provided the absolute proof in v 65 WHICH HE HAS NEVER ADDRESSED! Why? Because he cannot address it honestly without giving up this superficial argument. So contextually, his denial is false and he knows its false but continues to perpetuate his falsehood. He furthers his falsehood by injecting into the John 6 context his presumptuous explanation of John 12:32 which is contrary both to the previous explanation in John 6 and contrary to the grammar and context of John 12. Hence, he jumps to Matthew 7 and makes another presumptuous explanation that has no contextual basis in Matthew 7 when the context there is examined. And so this jump and hop game he plays has no end and there is no way to deal with this kind of methodology because it always is based upon presumption that is never established by the context of any text he chooses to use.