John 6:44

Larry,

Well, I agree that it says that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. But the text simply does not say that all those drawn will be raised up, or even that all those drawn will come to Him. It says that all those who are drawn and who come to Him will be raised up. IOW, all those who have come to Him will be raised up.

John 6:44 must be understood in the light of verse 45: "It is written in the Prophets, 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listen to the Father and learns from him comes to me." Here the sinner comes to Christ by listening to the Father, not by passively experiencing "Efficacious Grace."

Look for a moment at the parallels in these two verses. Verse 44 says that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. Verse 45 says that all who listen to the Father and learn from Him come to Christ. It would seem clear that the teaching ministry of God through His gospel and word is the means by which men are brought to Jesus. There is nothing in the text that necessitates an "effectual call" on a total disabled unbeleiver. This is confirmed by Peter (1 Pet. 1:23) and James (James 1:18), both of whom declare that the Word of God is an agency of the new birth.

John 6:44 is sometimes abused by insisting on translating ELKUW as "drag." It just does not apply in this manner, and that's not what most Calvinists believe on it anyway - they do not see it as "dragging" (implied - against our will), but on God wooing us and stimulating us so that we want to come to him. The difference is that you say that the one wooed ALWAYS responds by coming - I say that we do NOT always respond in that manner - we have a choice. The text does not say that all who are drawn come, but that all who come were drawn... not the same thing.

let's look at the uses of ELKUW in John:

ELKUO is never used in the sense of "forcible" drawing/dragging with people (unless the context would make it clear that this was exactly what was intended - dragging as with a net). The idea is always that of wooing (not of coercion) when regarding people. The question we have to ask ourselves is if the context of John 6 is that of the other uses meaning "drag" in which a person is "dragged" before a king, etc.. Clearly, that is not what is envisioned here. It is saying that we cannot come to Him uless He allows it - causes us to respond to Him.

We must take John 6:44 in context, because Jesus referred back to His comment in vs. 44 later:

John 6:61-66 - Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were complaining about this, asked them, "Does this offend you? Then what if you were to observe the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some among you who don't believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would not believe and the one who would betray Him.) He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father." From that moment many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him.

Now, let's take this logically. In 6:65 Jesus said, as in John 6:44, that it must be "granted" to us. Now, does that sound like "dragging?" I don't think so.

So Jesus made it clear that when He said in 6:44 that no one can come to Him unless drawn by the Father that He was referring to an opportunity being given to respond to the gospel in faith. In 6:65 he explains what He meant by "drawn" (ELKUW) - "being granted by the Father." But what is being granted? Well, vs. 64 makes that clear - Jesus knew who would believe in Him. So unless the Father draws people to Jesus they will not believe in Him. But the two possible ways of choosing are clear in 6:64. There are those who WOULD believe when drawn by the Father and those who would not believe. Referring to Judas' betrayal should make it clear that just knowing about Him was NOT enough. The Father MUST draw the seeker to Jesus. We agree here. By picking one of His 12 disciples it becomes clear that God is involved in the process. But earlier Jesus asked some of His disciples if they were offended by what He had said earlier. IOW, they heard the same thing as those who believed, but their response? - they were offended.

So we agree then that God MUST draw a person to Christ or they will simply NOT respond to the gospel in faith. But I do not agree that we do not have a choice in the matter. I may respond in faith... or I may become offended by God's drawing. We've all seen such responses. If we were more sensitive to the fact that it has to be a "divine appointment" for someone to respond to the gospel it would change the way we shared the gospel.

So you see, I actually do not object to the biblical concept of election - I object to saying that we have no choice in the matter. We do. Jesus expressed it in that manner. We never know when sharing the gospel whether or not that particular person will respond to the gospel as they are drawn by the Father, or if they will become offended. One obvious thing that Jesus intended was that the Father was drawing people to Him, and so if they were becoming offended, they were resisting the Father. To the apostle Paul, Jesus said on that Damascan road, "It is hard to kick against the pricks."

It is possible that some of those who were listening to Jesus in John 6 and were offended at the time later became open to the gospel and responded in faith. That was clearly what happened to Paul.


Let me repeat:

John 6:44 - "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

Jesus said that unless the Father drew someone to Himself that he could not come to him. Hence, what can we assume? That some are drawn/enticed to come to Him by the Father. Now what else is clear here? It is clear that those who have come to Christ He will raise up on the last day. So we can assume that everyone who comes to Jesus will be raised up. We can also assume that everyone who comes to Jesus was drawn by the Father. But we cannot assume that everyone who is drawn to Jesus WILL come to Him. The text does not say that. Dr. Paul Dixon wrote a dissertation on taking NT statements to be saying more than was intended logically, and I believe that this applies here.

Here's a link to one of his articles on it:

http://members.aol.com/dixonps/Negative_Inference_Fallacies.html


If we consider the context we see that John 6:37 refers to God's choosing (election) of us.

ELKUW is only used 3 times in John, and only one other time is it used in reference to people - John 12:32 ->

John 12:32 - "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

At first this appears to be saying much the same as 6:44. But this analogy was used by John earlier in chap. 3 to refer to the bronze snake that was lifted up for the children of Israel in the wilderness so that men could come to it and once seeing it not die of the snake bites. There Jesus refers to drawing ALL men to Himself. So as such I cannot see how the drawing should be seen as only applicable to the elect. The Father draws all men to Himself - but some are "granted" faith - they will respond in faith to the message. But they had a choice.

I'll conclude by repeating a portion of an article on this by Dave Anderson:

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Anderson.htm

FA

 

That is precisely not what it says. This is what I meant when I said it woulnd’t take long for people to start changing the verse. The verse makes two assertions:

1) No one can come unless he is drawn.
2) He will be raised up at the last day.

In the verse, there is no jump between coming and being raised. The one raised is the one drawn, who comes. You have to change the verse to get your conclusion from it.

This is a common false charge. No one here said anything about coming without listening to the Father. Of course, the one who comes must listen. To come is to believe, in the context. You can’t believe without listening to what God says.

Exactly, until the end where you contradict yourself. People come to Christ through the teaching ministyr of the word. That is the means by which people are brought. But not all who “hear” really “hear,” as John 8 makes clear. There, this same Jesus talks of those who “hear” but cannot understand. The drawing of God is the work by which people are regenerated and brought to faith.

Remember, vv. 37 and 65 draw a tight circle, and no one on your side wants to really deal with that, and for obvious reasong.

Of course we have a choice. The text doesn’t deny that, which is why I don’t. But again, focus on what the text says. Don’t add to it.

Irrelevant, since I am not claiming it does. All I said from the beginning was that we actually have to read the verse and believe it. You can’t add to it to skip over the connections in the verse.

If you remember, I have been begging for this.

And in v. 37, he says that all that the Father grants will come. So there is your clear connection and refutation of your position. You cannot come unless given, and if you are given you will come.

Yes.

I am not sure who you are disagreeing with here. We believe you do have a choice in the matter. The Bible teaches that the unregenerate will always choose to reject. That is his choice.

The text says that the one drawn will be raised up. That is the closest antecedent. When taken in the context of the rest of John 6 and the NT, it become clear.

Really? Would a parent who loves his child not be willing to force that child not to play in the street? I think it is not hard to see the fallacy of this.

 

Hey FA

What a tremendous post! It is a shame that such a scholarly contribution is not seen by more people that the few that visit this website.

Your analysis of ELKUO is exemplary!

Kudos to you!
Lloyd

 

Lloyd,

Thanks.

Pastor Larry,

Don't have much time now, so I'll just address one point:

Larry said:

Well, just look at the context:

1) No one can come unless he is drawn. (...by the Father - agreed)
2) He will be raised up at the last day. (agreed - Jesus will raise "him" up.)

But what does vs. 45 add?
3) They shall all be taught by God
and
4) Everyone who hears the Father and actually "learns" from Him comes to Me (Jesus).

A response is inherent in #4 above. As we are illuminated by the truth and we learn, then we reach a point at which we respond... we come. Now, what with vs. 44 including the context of vs. 45, isn't it clear that the one who will be raised up is the one who comes?

But we cannot assume that everyone who is drawn will hear and learn and hence come. The choice is clear in the text. Some who hear do not learn. Jesus spoke of such several times, and Paul referred to those "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

The text simply does not say that all who are drawn will come or that all who are drawn will be raised up. It says that all who come will be raised up. "No one can come to Me..." You are assuming that all who are drawn will come - butthe text simply does not say that. It says that none can come unless drawn.

IOW, "If you came" -> then we know that "you were drawn."

Dr. Dixon points out that the inverse and converse are not necessarily true. From logic classes I remember that only the contrapositive is necessarily true:

"If you came -> You were drawn," can be restated in an IF-THEN contrapositive format as...

"If you are not drawn" -> "you will not come."

(To get the contrapositive you negate both clauses and reverse the order.) For example, let's say that all centers in the NBA are at least 6'10" tall. Does that mean that all people who are 6'10" tall are centers in the NBA? No. Does that mean that if you are not a center in the NBA then you are not 6'10" tall? No again. But the contrapositive is true:

If a center in the NBA -> you are at least 6'10" tall.

Contrapositive:
If you are NOT at least 6'10" tall --> you are NOT a center in the NBA.

So I do not agree that what you said follows logically necessarily. You are taking Jesus' statement beyond what He said. It also does not agree with the immediate or greater context.

Gotta go,

FA

 

Yes, That is what I said. But what you have still omitted is the drawing. V. 44 connects the one raised up directly from the one drawn. Those two are the same groups in v. 44. V. 45 doesn’t change that.

You don’t have to assume it. The Scripture says it. There are some who “hear who do not learn.” Those people are not at issue. Don’t associate “hearing” with “drawing.” That connection is not made in the Scripture. Jesus, in John 8, very clearly denies that connection.

But that’s exactly what it says. Look at the verse. It says “come … drawn … raised up.” The “he” of raised up is the one drawn. That is the order the text gives. There is no legitimate reason just to skip over that.

Furthermore you are still (for some reason) skipping the clear connections of v. 37 and v. 65.

Well, Dr. Dixon is not the be all and end all of the discussion. But he is right. The inverse and converse are not necessarily true. But what he omits (apparently from what you say here) is that they might be true. The teaching of the text is what determines it.

Not at all.

To the contrary, I am trying to get you to deal with the context. It absolutely supports what I have said, and I have demonstrated it to be so.

 

Larry said:

I agree, Pastor. They could be true. But that does not demonstrate anything to be true, if it is based on either the inverse or the converse. The context is key to the possibility that either the converse or the inverse might be true. IOW, we simply cannot rely on an inverse or converse statement. It has nothing to add at all. But you are right that we cannot say that the inverse or the converse MUST be false either.

Larry said:

Sorry Pastor, but I still am going to have to disagree:

John 6:44 - "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

Vs. 44 connects the one who comes with the one drawn, meaning that no one can come unless drawn. And you're still not addressing the logic.

The text says, "if not drawn, cannot come."

The contrapositive says, "if can come then was drawn."
(The contrapositive is always valid.)

You're saying,
1 - "if drawn then will come"
and
2 - "If drawn then raised up."

I can't keep repeating myself. The converse switches "if" and "then." The 1st of your assumptions is the inverse (negates both clauses) The inverse is not always true.

For example, let's assume that all birds can fly. Then we could say, "If it's a bird then it can fly." The inverse is, "if it's not a bird, then it cannot fly." But we have no basis for making that statement. (Some mammals fly.) OTOH, we could validly say, "if it cannot fly then it is not a bord."

Your error in the 2nd is that You are correctly concluding, from your 1st assumption, that if all that are drawn come then all will also be raised up. That would be true if your 1st assumption were true.

Now I realize that we have to be careful about taking such logic too far, IOW, we need to look at what the person (Jesus in this instance) were attempting to communicate. But the context includes 6:64, 65 as well as 6:45 - the immediate context. Looking at those verses as I outlined earlier makes it clear that the drawing involves a wooing in which some seek to be taught by the Father. It is also clear that the focus is on the coming, not on the being drawn. God draws us, IF we respond and come, then we WILL be raised up.

The "he" of raised up is from among those drawn. But it simply, logically does not say that ALL who are drawn will COME.

I think I've said all I'm going to say on this text. I understand that you differ with my understanding. But do you see what I'm getting at about your drawing conclusions beyond what can safely be drawn?

BTW, for anyone following this thread, Dr. Paul Dixon wrote his doctoral dissertation on the proper use of logic when interpreting the Bible. He is not "free grace" in soteriology, but that article is well worth reading. It warns us of things to be careful of, which it would behove us all to consider.

Logic summary:

Thanks for considering what I've shared, Larry.

FA

[ October 17, 2005, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Faith alone ]

 

THIS IS GREAT! LARRY SAID CALVINISM IS NOT BASED ON CALVIN! THE WONDERS NEVER CEASE! THE CONTRADICTIONSOF CALVINISM AND ITS DEFENDERS NEVER END AND ARE MORE AND MORE AMAZING.

The sum and substance of Calvinism is illustrated thus:

The barefoot boy with his boots on stood sitting there.

 

FA,

Verse 45 says "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" - in other words, those who do not come have not heard and learned from the Father - in other words, they have not been drawn.

This is a classic case of "begging the question". "It means what I say because the context says that it means what I say". Well, no. It means what it always means, whether the object(s) can resist (Acts 16:19, Acts 21:30, James 2:6) or not. It is hard to imagine Paul and Silas being wooed by a mob to come into the marketplace to be beaten, or the poor being oppressed by the rich who woo them into court to steal their possessions.

 

Forget Elkuo ! We don't need one word to prove the point that God elects some to salvation.

The significance of John Chapter 6 is that Jesus essentially says the same thing THREE TIMES!

1.He says it the first time! Joh 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.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 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.
Joh 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.

2. He Says it a Second Time! Joh 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 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.
Joh 6:45 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.

3. He Says it a Third Time! Joh 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.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father .

This is not about John Calvin.
This is not about Elkuo
This is about What Jesus Said.

When Jesus says something one time - I believe it.
When Jesus says something three times - I tend to believe it is very important!!!

 

FA,

You earlier (and rightly) connected the drawing with the giving. The "giving of the Father" in v. 65 is required to come. The giving of the Father in v. 37 guarantees coming. There is no room for someone to be "given" but not come, or to come without being "given." NOw, to think about that in terms of drawing, we should very easily see the connection.

What is interesting though it that Calvinists are charged with a system based on logic. What we see over and over again is that the opposite is true. The "refutation" of Calvinism is often based on logic and human reasoning. I have always found that fascinating. There is nothing wrong with logic, but our small minds can't comprehend God. Let's not force Him into our small boxes. When God says something, our understanding is not required. Our acceptance is.

 

No, I don't agree with this conclusion. Cannot someone be appealed to to do something, and decide not to do it? When you proposed to your wife, was it not possible for her to turn you down?

Many hear, but do not learn. You are assuming that all who are drawn hear and learn and hence come. Is not the entire context of chapter 6 that of many of Christ's disciples being offended, though having been drawn, and deciding to stop following Him? Did not our Lord ask His 12 disciples if the ywere going to do the same as the rest who had stopped following Him? The context is pungent with the smell of "choice."

This is a classic case of "begging the question". "It means what I say because the context says that it means what I say". Well, no. It means what it always means, whether the object(s) can resist (Acts 16:19, Acts 21:30, James 2:6) or not. It is hard to imagine Paul and Silas being wooed by a mob to come into the marketplace to be beaten, or the poor being oppressed by the rich who woo them into court to steal their possessions.</font>[/QUOTE]whatever,

No, I'm not begging the question. You seem to have a very static view of languages. Context is always critical in translating. Did I not show that the context was in support of not coersion but of "wooing?"

Did you read the article by Dave Anderson? Did you notice the reasons I gave for why certain texts using ELKUW were more relevant in John? Obviously ELKUW can be used to refer to physically dragging someone, aswhen the apostles were dragged before the Sanhedran in Acts. Is that what you are saying it means for us?

If you are saying that every instance in which ELKUW is used it refers to the "dragee" having no choice, then please give one clear example in the NT (or LXX) in which the person is drawn in such a manner in which he cannot help but respond. (not physically dragged) The only instances of such are those in which the drawing is a physical thing. When ELKUW is used regarding people in a non-physical way it always means to "woo." Look it up in any Greek aid you desire.

Why do you think that it is never translated as "drag" or some other more impelling term if no resistance is possible? You appear to be reading your theology into the text. (I hesitate to ever say this of someone, so I will assume that this is just the appearance to me.)

Kittel has a great comment on this term. Ask yourself, "why do all Bibles translate it as 'draw' rather than 'drag'?" Why does Liddell & Scott say that John 6:44 should be translated as "draw" rather than "drag?"

And FYI ELKUW does not mean to draw rather or not the objects can resist or not. Where did you get that definition? Here's AT Robertson's Word Pictures:

IOW, ELKUW means here, as in John 12:32, to draw by moral power. SURW is another word meaning to drag which could have been used here, but was not, as Robertson points out. Robertson points out that John 6:44 merely says that the approach of the soul to God (those who come to Him) is initiated by God.

You see, I agree with the Calvinist position that unless God draw people to His Son that no one would respond. I just include the possibility of responding in a negative manner, such as those Pharisees and other disciples in John 6... context.

Sorry if this isn't true, but I get the feeling that you didn't really read what I wrote.

FA

[ October 18, 2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Faith alone ]

 

Hardliner,

Thanks for the excellent argument for the security of the believer from this chapter! Good stuff.

Yet you seem to think that I do not believe that God elects all who come to Him. I do. Unless God drew us to Himself, no one would come to Him.

The place I object to is not even making this election unconditional except that reformed theology gives it a sense that sinners are excluded from being able to respond to the gospel. IMO they are not mutually exclusive.

It is possible to fully accept election - and not just an election that has been watered down as essentially a foreknowledge - as well as genuine free agency for people. The key is just not to limit God's tremendous omniscient knowledge... ever read about "middle knowledge?"

God has chosen all who will come to Him... He did it before the foundation of the world. According to Revel. 13:8 and 17:8, our names were written in the Book of Life also before the world was even created...

Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up from the abyss and go to destruction. Those who live on the earth whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be astounded when they see the beast that was, and is not, and will be present again.

Yes, I am convinced that God chose me... and it had nothing to do with knowing that I would choose him, or any good thing about me.

FA

 

Pastor,

Here's what I said:

What I was referring to above was the giving of an opportunity to respond in faith. Now let's look at vs. 37, for we will see that it is being used there much differently than I used it...

John 6:37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.

I agree that God elects/chooses all who come to Him. In fact, it's actually more accurate to say that He HAS chosen them all already.

Now, does not vs. 44 refer to God drawing/wooing us? Isn't a possible response implicit in that?

How about vs. 45? There we see the nature of the rawing -through His illumination of the truth of His Word.

How about vs. 65? There Jesus says that no one could come to Jesus unless it is granted by the Father. God must be involved in thecoming to Him of sinners. I hate it when Christians share the gospel in a manner as if God isn't involved, but that we can convince peoiple through our arguments. If God doesn't do it, if He isn't at work, then they simply will not come... will not respond in faith. But there IS a response.

Let's look at vss. 66-71 more cloesly:

Here we see that some of Jesus' disciples "choose" to stop following Him. Now could we also say that God knew that this would happen and that He did not choose them? Yes, of course. (Though it certainly is possible and even quite likely that some of those who turned away from Him later came to believe in Him.)

Jesus asked His disciples ifthey wouldchoose to go away also. Choice. Later Jesus refers to having chosen these 12 disciples. Now I know this is not referring to election choosing here, as Judas is not of the elect. But the point is that we see God's choosing and drawing throughout John 6, and we also see people challeneged to consider just Who Jesus is. We see people choosing not to follow Christ.

To read vss. 44 & 45 in a context that says that no choosing is involved is to miss the whole point of the chapter.

How aboutthe thesis of the entire gospel? John makes his purpose for writing the gospel very clear:

John 20:30, 31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

The gospel was written so that the possibility of us believing that Jesus is the Christ and thus gaining eternal life might be actualized. A choice is implicit there as well.

ANd if we look at John 12:32, which also uses ELKUW, the meaning of 6:44 isapparent:

John 12:32 As for Me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw (ELKUW) all people to Myself.

So as I see it, ALL people are drawn to Christ through the cross. But that does not mean that God has chosen ALL people to believe in Him.

FA

 

Here is what you said just after that: In 6:65 he explains what He meant by "drawn" (ELKUW) - "being granted by the Father." My point is that in v. 37, we are told that all who are "granted" will come. It seems to me to be hard to get around that. You can't come unless granted; if you are granted you will come. You can claim (as you did) that the word in v. 37 is being used very differently than you used it. But perhaps we would agree that it is iirrelevant how you used it; it matters how Christ used it. In the context, there is no reason to assume he used it differently in v. 37 than in v. 65. There is every reason (theologically and textually) to assume that he used it the same.

You say, To read vss. 44 & 45 in a context that says that no choosing is involved is to miss the whole point of the chapter. I agree. That isn't the point. There is a choice involved.

As for John 12:32, it is important to look at the words and the context. First, the words. You quote it as drawing "all people" to myself. Yet, I am sure you recognize that Jesus didn't say that. He said "all." That's it. Not "all men," or "all people." He said "all." That leads to the question, "All what?" You have supplied "people." That's fine, but recognize that you have added that in.

What does the context say? Going back to v. 21, there were Greeks who asked to see Jesus in the midst of the Jews. Jesus said No. He said when he was crucified he would draw all to himself. The context leads us to conclude that "all" means all kinds of people, Jews and Greeks both.

 

Hey Pastor Larry

Verse 21 has no such implication. The fact that Greeks wanted to see Jesus has no bearing whatsoever on redefining "all" (pas) to mean "some of all" types of peoples. Furthermore, there is nothing in verses 22-31 that would support such a redefinition.

Second, the term "lifted up" is also used by Jesus in John 3:14 with no implications that it is valid for only a pre-determined group of Israelites (Num 21) or a pre-determined group of any peoples. John 3:16 continues this with a gnomic present tense offer to the entire world.

Third, the term "lifted up" is also used by Jesus in John 8:28. In context, Jesus speaks to the world (v26). Jesus is arguing against elected groups.


Your redefinition is driven by Calvinistic presuppositions - NOT a common sense reading of God's Word.

Lloyd

 

First, you call it a "redefinition" which begs the question. You have not yet demonstrated such. Clearly, it is not a redefinition since "all" means "all" according to everyone here. The question is "All of what?" You assume an answer that is not stated in the text.

Secondly, all Scripture must be interpreted in context. If you wish, you may separate v. 21 from the rest of the chapter, but it will not be proper to do so.

You are confused. The discussion is not about the meaning of "lifted up," but about who the referent of "all" is in the comment about "drawing." Please don't get distracted. "Lifted up" is a reference to his crucifixion. This is a different topic. Start your own thread if you wish to discuss that.

Well ... No. John 8:28 has nothing to do with arguing against elected groups (whatever that is). John 8:28 is about the identity of Jesus, who was claiming to be God. He essentially says, "When you crucify me, you will know that I am God." AGain, don't confuse the issue by bringing in unrelated passages.

What redefinition? I didn't redefine anything. I think you and I agree on the meaning of all. The "common sense" reading of God's word assumes that all who read have common sense. We have seen that they don't. But even at that, the common sense reading takes into account the context, and that is what I did.

 

Hey Pastor Larry

First, you call it a "redefinition" which begs the question. You have not yet demonstrated such. Clearly, it is not a redefinition since "all" means "all" according to everyone here. The question is "All of what?" You assume an answer that is not stated in the text.

Secondly, all Scripture must be interpreted in context. If you wish, you may separate v. 21 from the rest of the chapter, but it will not be proper to do so.</font>[/QUOTE]Bible give the all of what to be "all men." Common sense shows that this is a universal drawing of all men. You are the one who lifts the word from context and tries to make it say something it doesn't. All means all; NOT all of a limited subset.

You are confused. The discussion is not about the meaning of "lifted up," but about who the referent of "all" is in the comment about "drawing." Please don't get distracted. "Lifted up" is a reference to his crucifixion. This is a different topic. Start your own thread if you wish to discuss that.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry PL. The lifting up of the brazen serpent was an act of grace extended to all those present. Likewise, the lifting up of Jesus on the Cross is sufficient for all those who wish to believe (John 3:16). This is NOT a different topic - - - unless you wish to devise ways to cut and chop God's Word leaving only the bits that seem to support your pre-determinism.

Well ... No. John 8:28 has nothing to do with arguing against elected groups (whatever that is). John 8:28 is about the identity of Jesus, who was claiming to be God. He essentially says, "When you crucify me, you will know that I am God." AGain, don't confuse the issue by bringing in unrelated passages.</font>[/QUOTE]How can you deny that the context is the world when "world" is used just prior? It is about the identity of Jesus but it is such that the whole / entire / all the world might know Who He is! Context rules!

What redefinition? I didn't redefine anything. I think you and I agree on the meaning of all. The "common sense" reading of God's word assumes that all who read have common sense. We have seen that they don't. But even at that, the common sense reading takes into account the context, and that is what I did. </font>[/QUOTE]Well - no you didn't. You denied context in each of the illustrations so that you could avoid the common sense reading of ALL.


Lloyd

 

FA,

Just a quick reply to a couple of points. On John 6:45 -

Of course it was possible for her. Unfortunately that option is not available according to John 6:45, which says "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me". If you don't believe that, well, it's your choice, but what it says is clear.

Why is it translated "draw" in Acts and James too? Look up the word in any dictionary. One of the definitions you will find is something like this:

So, draw is a valid English synonym for drag. Sorry.

You say this:

The question is, 'what is the nature of the drawing within the context of John 6?' You have assumed that because there is no physical contact the nature of the drawing in this context is that of 'wooing'. In other words, you have assumed that "to draw by moral power" is not coercive, and you have built your case on that assumption; hence, you have begged the question.

It isn't true. If you are thinking that anyone who really reads what you write will always agree with you then you are on the wrong Internet.

 

No it doesn't. You are reading it through your presupposition.

I am actually the only one of the two of us who appealed to the context. You ignored it.

I agree. But all of what still has to be asked.

No it wan't. Go back and read the Bible. It was an act of grace to those who looked, not to all present.

This is a very calvinistic statement. Do you really believe this? We do.

I am one of the few who demand that we view all of Scripture. For instance above you tried to change it. You can't do that. When you read the Bible, you must say what it says. It is a different topic because we are talking about drawing. We agree on what "lifted up" means.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with this topic. Did you even read this passage you are talking about?

 

Hey PL

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter.

The ability to LOOK at the brazen serpent was extended to all present.

The saving benefit of that brazen serpent was available only to whosoever believed and LOOKED.

You wrongly confuse and conflate these two ideas.


Salvation is a universal offer accepted by only those who believe.
Lloyd