John 6:44

Which is not what you said.

I haven't even addressed either of these ideas, much less confused and conflated them. Where did you get the idea that I had said anything about either idea? I simply pointed out that you were wrong in your assertion. (You make this too easy, Lloyd. At least try to challenge me with some substance.)

This is true. It is exactly what Calvinism teaches.

 

Hey Pastor Larry

At last we get to the source of the confusion. You don't know what Calvin teaches!

Where did you get your theology training? I thought every knew about T-U-L-I-P! The L in TULIP stands for LIMITED atonement. Free Grace theologians believe in a UNIVERSAL atonement.


Go back to square 1 and at least learn your position before you start trying to have a level discussion.

Lloyd

 

Wrong again PL! If you scroll back you can see that I clearly said:

You have simply got to start reading the posts by those you consider to be opponents. This might help you stop the springboard remarks that are patently false. The egotistical urge to promulgate your error upon others makes you jump to a response before you fully comprehend what it is I was saying.

Those speedy and errant responses cause a lot of dissension.
Lloyd

 

whatever,

Don't have much time, but let me respond to your points and your lexical defn. of ELKUW...

First, you are assuming that everyone who is drawn by the Father (who hears the Word) comes... it's all those who hear and learn. Not all learn. The text is clear.

No one can come to the Father unless drawn.

All those who come will be raised up.

But... not all those wooed/drawn will come. The text simply does not say that. Please do not make me explain in detail again about the logic. That has not been addressed.

whatever said...

Words mean different things in different contexts. You cannot separate it from the context. It is translated as "drag" when the context is that of pulling some inanimate object... such as a sword out of a scabbard or a net out of the water. But when involving people, it generally means first to "draw" or "woo." Kittel points out how the word is used in classical Greek to refer to a man wooing a woman.

Now there is nothing in the immediate context to make us conclude that the Father forces us to be dragged in a particular direction - one in which we oppose. (According to your view of Romans 3:10ff you would have to say that we always oppose His drawing.)

The "chair" in your quote is an inanimate object. It should be translated as "drag" there.

The Concise Bible Dictionary has...

The first two meanings listed are, "to draw, attract." The meanings of "to drag is said to indicate coercion, and it can also have the idea of "haul in" as with a sword (or a net, as used in John.)

Now notice that virtually every English translation of this word in John 6:44 translates it as "draw." I won't list them... I assume you have access to Crosswak or StudyLight.

FA

 

Wrong again PL! If you scroll back you can see that I clearly said:

</font>[/QUOTE][/quote]There is no debate about what you said. You even quote it twice here. You said: That the lifting up of the serpent was an act of grace to all present. Then you come back and add: The ability to LOOK at the brazen serpent was extended to all present. To that, I responded, Which was not what you said. Now, you can look at your first comment and see that it is not your second comment. Then you can see that I was indeed correct. And then you can apologize to me. I was correct.

I did read what you said. That is how I know you second comment was not the same as your first comment.

Please point out a "patently false springboard remark" that I have made.

I have no egotistical urge. I do get a good laugh out your comments. Second, I did fully comprehend what you were saying. You probably didn't say what you meant. But you did say what you said.

There was nothing particularly speedy about my response, and as you can see, I certainly wasn't in error. You are the one in error.

Now, go back and read what you said and then offer an apology for accusing me of being wrong about what you said.

 

Well, let's get some thigns straight. First, Calvinism isn't about what Calvin teaches. AS I have pointed out, Calvinism is a POV about what the Scriptures teach on soteriology. Second, I do know what Calvin teaches.

Scripture mostly.

Calvinists are free grace. There is no other kind of grace. If it isn't free, then it isn't grace.

Yes, the L stands for limited atonement. Yet if you took time to study, you would know that there are several issues. First, historically these have been characterized this as particular or general atonement, as well as limited vs. unlimited. Many, myself included, would prefer not to speak of a limited atonement. But at least I know what it means.

Second, limited atonement speaks of the efficiency of the atonement. The sufficiency of the atonement is unlimited. These are basic concepts you learn very early when you actually study what Calvinism teaches. You would do well to quit talking so much and start learning. You don't have to agree with us, but you should at least learn what we believe.

Third, that is completely irrelevant. Your comment was Salvation is a universal offer accepted by only those who believe. There is nothing in TULIP that addresses the offer of the gospel. YOu are so confused, Lloyd. Do you want to talk about TULIP? Do you want to talk about the offer of the gospel? Please decide, but don't change in the middle.

As is clear, I know very well what my position is. As you have demonstrated, you do not. This is typical of your side. I have seen it an awful lot in here, though you are fairly new. People long before you were making these same mistakes. If you want to talk about what Calvinism believes, then let's have that conversation. No doubt many here will converse with you, even if I don't carry on at length. But you need to learn what Calvinism teaches.

To be clear: A Calvinist can believe TULIP and believe that the offer of the gospel is to all who believe. In fact, they should and must. If they don't, they will be wrong. A Calvinist can believe limited atonement, and affirm that the atonement was sufficient for all sins for all time.

If you have questions about that, then ask. Don't just make stuff up.

 

Hey Pastor Larry


I know perfectly well what Calvin teaches. It has taken me several posts to lead you to a statement that begins to express the TULIP principles. We still have more work to do before you correctly articulate your own position - the position you claim to know so well.

You cannot sound an indistinct note here. Even Arminian's believe what you just posted. Christ's atonement is sufficient for all but only efficient for some. This might be a quote from some text, but it nevertheless theological double talk that let's you run from a direct answer and avoid the natural damning conclusions from Calvin's error.


Your response is weak for it works well for both sides of the free will issue. For Calvin, the "L" of TULIP is limited because Calvin's god has decided not to regenerate some. Hence, the destiny for the unelected is hell for they cannot efficiently avail themselves of the sufficient atonement. What double talk - even it is found in Grudem or Boice!

For others, the God of the Bible extends the sufficient atonement to all such that whosoever wills may efficiently avail themselves of it. This is the common sense understanding of John 3:16 based on a common sense illustration.


This leads us back to your confusion of Num 21. God had Moses erect the brazen serpent sufficient for all present. Whosoever decided to LOOK at the serpent was efficiently saved. Even with your confusing double-speak words, it is clear that salvation is God's gift that can be rejected (thwarted) or accepted.

Yes! God's grace is free. That is not the issue. Please try and stick with the issue. The issue is whether or not one can accept this gift. Eph 2:8-9 clear says that this is a gift. In the common sense world, gifts can be rejected.

This leads us back to your error of John 12:32 where Jesus declared, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

First, context dictates that all men is simply that - everyone. It takes a lot of theology to twist a common sense word into either (1) all of a subgroup or (2) a subgroup of all.

Second, your appeal to verse 21 still stands as an example of theological fantasy. There is nothing in that verse or in the intervening verses that allows you to redefine ALL as either (1) or (2) above.

You've danced and avoided the issue really well. The bottom line is that the presupposition of God's predetermined election not based on foreknowledge of our individual free will decisions is errant.

The Bible clearly says that election is based on foreknowledge. Now please - don't go running to a Calvinisticly corrupted TDNT that says "pre-arrangement." The Greek word is simply "to know in advance."

As usual, you have done this rabbit trail for some time and will blindly adhere to denominational creeds rather than the common sense interpretations that the untrained first century reader would understand.

It takes a lot of theology to believe Calvin.
Lloyd

 

Apparently not.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think I know what I believe. Do you know how ridiculous it sounds for you to say I am not articulating my own position? I have expressed my position on TULIP countless times in the last few years on this forum. I haven't even addressed it in any serious matter here. That was not the topic ... which is why I didn't address it.

I have made this point many times. Everybody but universalists limit the atonement. You are a few years late articulating this here. We have been over this many times.

What error? Please point it out.

There is a fairly large contigent of historical theologians who say that Calvin did not even believe limited atonement.

And it is what Calvinism teaches. You are revealing that you don't understand what you are talking about. We do not believe God saves someone who won't. And we do not believe that God refuses to save someone who will.

Where did I deny this? I believe this. Again, you are late to the party, and you are stating what every Calvinist believes.

This is hilarious coming from you. Look at the topic title: John 6:44. You are hte one who changed the issue to other things. You are the one who left the topic. I am laughing so hard I can hardly type. You kill me ...

But remember, the Bible doesn't say "all men." It says "all."

I have done no such thing.

I haven't redefined "all."

No, I haven't. I have addressed every issue you have put forth.

Then you have to deal with Scripture on that, not with me. It is not my presupposition. THe Bible says that God works all things after the counsel of his own will. I believe that means "all things" not just "some things." Do you agree that "all" means "all" or do you want to redefine it?

Then explain Rom 11:2 where foreknowledge is the difference between Isreal and others. Did God really not know about other nations in advance?

I have gone down this rabbit trail to answer your questions. The topic here was John 6:44 till you got it off topic. Secondly, I follow no denominational creeds. I can defend everything I believe from Scripture. If you disagree, then fine. You will answer for that.

It takes a lot of theology to believe Calvin.

 

FA,

You assume that the word means 'drag' whenever the object is inanimate and 'woo' whenever the object is animate. I have shown three examples from the NT where the word was used of animate objects in such a way that 'woo' makes no sense.

You then assume that God doesn't draw men to Himself the way men draw one others into court. How, since the natural man is hostile to God and cannot submit to Him, does God's 'wooing' ever work?

 

What puzzles me is how many have such a narrow or weak view of the power of the Word. The heavens and earth were created out of nothing. The raging sea was calmed, Lazarous was risen from the dead, and a murderer was converted to lead the gentiles to salvation and write much of the New Testament, but the Word has not power over man's puny and whining depraved spirit.

I must have missed something because It ripped mine to shreds.

 

Hey Pastor Larry

The so called rabbit trail that you wish to deny started with your declaration that our understanding of “drawn” (ELKUW) can be enhanced by a look to John 12:21.

I have merely shown you that there is nothing in verse 21 or the intervening verses that support your claim. You’ve followed this outlandish statement with fantasy after fantasy.

Instead of making clear statements about your views, you climb on your stool of superiority and feel offended that you should have to repeat yourself as if it is my responsibility to go running through hundreds of posts to find your golden egg.

You can’t use Bible directly but you can use denominational redefinitions.

It is hard to have a level discussion with someone who so easily disdains the common sense reading of God’s Word and chooses instead to redefine the word in order to make God a capricious tyrant.
.
.
.
.
It is clear that you have no clue what Calvinists believe. Consider this recent exchange.

Excuse me while I try to hold my hurting side and pick my jaw off the floor. Let me show you how other Calvinists discuss the issue:

Is it clear enough Pastor Larry? You don’t understand Calvinism. Your view is outside mainline theology. Yet, you write as if I’m the one who doesn’t understand. Your view is NOT WHAT EVERY CALVINIST BELIEVES.

You make this far to easy for me!
Avoid redefining God’s Word to suit your whims!

Lloyd

 

Yes, it can, but that was all I said. Then you got into a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with John 6:44.

Incorrect on both counts.

I am not offended, and am on no stool of superiority. I am sitting i my chair typing with amusement. I am not going to repeat myself. I have neither the time nor the interest. But it is ridiculous for you to tell me I don't know what i believe.

Actually, you will notice that I have quoted only the Bible, and not yet used a denominational redefintion.

It is hard to have a level discussion with someone who so easily disdains the common sense reading of God’s Word and chooses instead to redefine the word in order to make God a capricious tyrant.</font>[/QUOTE]Several problems. First, pointing out what Scripture says is hardly "disdain." It is honest. John 12:32 says "pantas." That means "all." (Look it up.) It does not say "pantas anthropos" (all men). Again, look it up if you doubt me.

Second, you have engaged in bad argumentation. I didn't do anything "in order to make God a capricious tyrant." Now, that may be the result (though it is not). But it was not the intent. Please use proper argumentation. Don't attribute something to my motives. You have no idea why I believe what I believe. You certainly can't say I believe something "in order to make God a capricious tyrant."

No, actually you are incorrect again.

Excuse me while I try to hold my hurting side and pick my jaw off the floor.</font>[/QUOTE]So you can't show me where I denied this? Is that what you are admitting?

</font>[/QUOTE]Assuming all these quotes are correct, which of them tell us what a Calvinist believes about Numbers 21? Remember, Numbers 21 is the topic of this part of your post. So far, in those quotes I see nothing about what Calvinists believe about Numbers 21.

You are clearly wrong. Ask anyone here. I know Calvinism. I may be wrong in what I believe, but I know what they believe.

No it's not.

You don't understand. If you understood Calvinism, then you would know that what I believe is what the majority of Calvinists believe.

Really? You have yet to make even one point. You won't answer any questions.

I do.

 

Uh, which ones?!

Let me emphbasize that ELKUW can refer to dragging with people - it can refer to dragging men into court, for example. But the context makes that very clear. In general, the first usage of ELKUW regarding people is "tgo attract/draw/woo." Kittel says that. Liddell and Scott says that.

All translations translates ELKUW in 6:44 as "draw." None translate it as "drag." You've gotta come up with something else.

FA

 

Hey Pastor Larry

First, congrats! You didn’t try any foolishness trying to deny the truthfulness of those five quotes. It is curious that you hold to the validity of these quotes and yet hold to the fact that your view that allows God’s gift to be thwarted. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1604/4.html#000047

Clearly, these five Calvinists and you cannot both be right. Your view of Calvinism appears to be confusion. If you actually hold to this statement, then you should begin calling yourself a Free Grace Theologian instead!

I wonder if the position of moderator and the title of Pastor makes you think that everything you write must be correct – regardless. Does the fact that you’ve posted message after message fighting error (as you see it) make you afraid of admitting that you’ve goofed?
.
.
Second, John 12:21 “pas” means ALL. There is no wiggle room to say (1) all of a subgroup or (2) a subgroup of all. This is exactly what you are trying to do even while you vigorously write about denying it. You have mastered the art of saying “Yes” and “No” in the same sentence.

The KJV translators were not wrong in adding the word “men.” They could have equally written “humanity” for ALL means EVERYBODY. In order to have less than ALL, the author must necessarily use a limiting qualifier of some sort. There is none! Thus, it has the common sense idea of every single human, man or women, adult or child. This verse, and this entire passage, has no artificial category of elect versus non-elect.
.
.
Third, you need remedial help with Numbers 21. The pole was erected so that all (everybody – male/female, old/young, Jew/Gentile, believer/unbeliever) could look at the brazen serpent and receive salvation from the snake bites. The Hebrew tenses used indicate at one time completed act of looking results in a completed act of salvation.

Jesus uses this analogy with Nicodemus in John 3. In verse 14 Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” Jesus is providing the offer of universal salvation to the entire race. There are no limiting qualifiers anywhere in His illustration. Jesus says, “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

The phrase “whosoever believeth” is a gnomic present [hope you are up on your Greek here. If not turn to Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 523]. Notice again that the word “pas” is used. The KJV correctly translates it as “whosoever” without any limiting qualifiers.

So Numbers 21, John 12:21, and John 3:14-16 all tie in together. This is called context; something you only “think” that you use! Scripture verifies itself. Salvation is a costly gifts that is offered universally to all – without qualifiers.


Finally, I’ve answered this question three times now. Your ego forces you to write as if I haven’t addressed the issue even once. It is rather amazing to see how the foibles of human corruption work out – even by God-fearing pastors who dare not admit to any error.

Lloyd

 

Again, you assume that God drawing men into faith is not like men drawing men into court. You have yet to attempt to prove this assumption. This is where you continue to beg the question.

How can men, who by nature are hostile to God, ever submit to His demands?

 

Again, you assume that God drawing men into faith is not like men drawing men into court. You have yet to attempt to prove this assumption. This is where you continue to beg the question.

How can men, who by nature are hostile to God, ever submit to His demands? </font>[/QUOTE]whatever,

I'm sorry, but I'm getting very frustrated here. The lexicons are very clear on this. The FIRSt meaning has to do with attraction/drawing. All Bibles translate with that understanding of its meaning. It is up to YOU to show that it should not mean its normal meaning. I am not begging the question. Look it up in a grammar. I can't just keeprepeating myself.

FA

 

As you should hae noticed, I didn't even comment on those five quotes becuase they are off topic and irrelevant. The discussion was about Numbers 21 and you brought in five totally irrelevant quotes. Why would I comment on them?

First, where did I ever say that I hold to the validity of these quotes? Second, how did allowing God's gift to be thwarted get brought in here? You seem really disjointed here. You are way off topic, and bring up irrelevant stuff.

"Free Grace" theologian doesn't mean anything. Why would you think that I disagree with these statements? I didn't read them closely and analyze them, since they are off topic. I read through them looking for their relevance and could find none.

Of course not.

Of course not. When I goof I admit it. But that clearly doesn't apply here since I didn't goof. YOu simply are confused.

You need to learn to read. Go back and honestly read what I said. You are not being honest here with the argument. Your tactics are unethical.

Really? Does "all" in John 3:16 mean all humanity? Clearly, the answer is no. It means "all who believe." And I could go passage after passage and show that "all" doesn't always mean "all humanity."

No one has argued that this passsage addresses elect vs. non-elect. Again, you are changing the subject. And no one here has argued that "all" means less than "all." So don't conflate the issue.

Speakign of remedial help, you need help with reading. Again, go back and look at what was said. YOu said that the serpent was an act of grace extended to all. I pointed out that you were wrong. It was an act of grace extended to all who looked. You were incorrect in your initial statement, and I poitned it out. Second, you need to learn some Hebrew. The Hebrew tense (or what is really called aspect) does not really indicate such a thing.

Now here you are partially right and partially wrong. You are right to say that there is a universal offer of salvation. You are wrong to say that there are no qualifiers. You yourself even quote the qualifiers. The salvation is only to those who believe. It is not an act of grace to anyone else. It is limited.

You are simply wrong again. You even quoted the qualifier ... All who believe. How could you miss something so simple? In your efforts here, you are badly embarrassing yourself by attributing things to me that I did not say, and by contradicting yourself.

This is true. No one here has disputed this. It is offered to all, but given to all who believe. That is a qualifier.

 

Sure you can. It's all you've done so far.

Here's Thayer's:

Here's Strong's:

Both offer "drag" as the first meaning.

I am left with no reason to believe that the word here, and in John 12:32, means anything other than what it means everywhere else it is used in the NT. By the way, I believe you attempted to use Robertson in support of your veiw earlier. Have you read what he says of John 12:32? It's quite interesting.

 

Sure you can. It's all you've done so far.

&lt;snipped&gt;
I am left with no reason to believe that the word here, and in John 12:32, means anything other than what it means everywhere else it is used in the NT. By the way, I believe you attempted to use Robertson in support of your veiw earlier. Have you read what he says of John 12:32? It's quite interesting.</font>[/QUOTE]whatever,

Yes, I have looked at At Robertson on John 12:32. It supports what I've said about John 6:44, so I'll post it:

I don't see what you see here, except his last sentence in referring to "all men."

I guess I've got to bring more evidence to bear. Do you always respond to those with whom you interact on these forums, when they do not agree with you, by ridicule? FYI, I refuse to have anything to do with those who act with unChristlike attitudes on such forums. Please consider a more gracious response.

BTW, by quoting from Strong's and Thayer's were you implying that they agreed with you? I didn't see that. I don't mean that in a disrespectful manner, but it simply reinforced that ELKUW can and is often used to mean physical dragging. It did not say or suggest that ELKUW means to forcibly drag in a nonphysical context. This distinction is very important, because there are actually 2 other Greek words used to refer to dragging. But neither of them are ever used to mean "attract" or "draw" as ELKUW often does. That's why John chose this word.

OK, in John 6:44 does God, in fact, draw or entreat men to come to Himself, as Jonn 6:44 appears to teach, and all English Bibles translate as such, or does God actually drag and coerce them into the kingdom? Do we need to insist on "drag" so that it will make it ALL of God and NONE of man's effort? No, we do not. But from a Calvinist's viewpoint, this magnifies God, lifts up the grace of God. I do appreciate their motive. Some Calvinists, such as RC Sproul, argue that God drags men into His kingdom actually against their will, if you can imagine that. The key for him is this verse, John 6:44 (ELKO/ELKUO). He interprets it to mean to mean "“to drag, force, or coerce."

Who are we to tell God how He must do things? Who are we to tell God that if He allows people a choice, then He could not have chosen them before they were even born? If God's Word teaches both of those truths, then I am going to accept both as truth.

The verb ELKO, which is a closely related verb to ELKUW, occurs only twice in the NT (James 2:6 and Acts 21:30). In both cases believers are being dragged against their will into court. The same is true of ELKUW (the word used in John 6:44) in its only use outside of John (Acts 16:19 where Paul and Silas are dragged before the authorities). But please note that all of these involve physical dragging, not some mystical, magical phychological dragging. Oh God is most definitely miraculously involved in our coming to Him. Most definitely we would not trust in Him, or seek Him, unless God enabled us and drew us to Himself. But God has chosen to draw us to Himself, not to force us to come when we don't even want it.

So why might someone conclude that the use of ELKUW in John 6:44 also means to “drag” in the sense of force - against someone's will? You got me. It's just not a rational or realistic assumption, and it is not a natural reading of the text.

OK, here's a few more references on ELKUW:

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament - by Kittel:

Vine's: (Not a particular favorite of mine... but here it is

Notice that he says it is the #2 meaning for ELKUW.

A CONCISE GREEK-ENGLISH DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - BARCLAY M. NEWMAN:

Bauer, Gingrich and Danker (BGAD): (Specifically of its use in a figurative sense, as here)

In BGAD they give their opinion of how every Greek word should be translated in the NT. For John 6:44, they suggest "draw."

In the Song of Solomon - Septuagint (LXX - the Greek translation of the Hebrew text) Look at how S. Sol 1:4 is translated in English:

Song of Solomon 1:4 Take me with you -let us hurry.Oh, that the king would bring me to his chambers; we will rejoice and be glad for you; we will praise your love more than wine. It is only right that they adore you.

Now, here the Greek word ELKUW was used to express the idea of a new bride being brought to their wedding night bed chambers. Think Solomon dragged his bride to their bed? I ask you to find one clear example in Classical, attic or koine Greek in which ELKUW is used to refer to someone being dragged of the inner man in a fashion in which he cannot oppose such... like in a hypnotic trance.

The idea is always that of wooing (not of coercion) when regarding people when other than physical. I do wish to repeat a portion of that Dave Anderson article:

A conditional election view of God does not detract from the fact that God gives first (in predestination) and then the individual comes (in time). They are no contradictory. Neither does such a view make salvation any less from God nor does it make light of the sovereignty of God. Jesus did not specifically state in this verse what is involved in God’s “giving"; He merely said that God gives. We must go elsewhere (either in the immediate context or further removed) to discern the details of what was involved in the choice God made in giving. In the immediate context we see that Jesus said, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life” (verse 39). That is an explicit affirmation that God, in predestinating (i.e., “giving”), took into consideration man’s faith. This simply cannot be ignored when considering the meaning of 6:44.

Well, actually I do not consider my position at all "conditional election" since I do not see God's choosing at all predicated on our future believing, though I am convinced both are true.

We have a choice. God wanted it that way - designed it that way. He placed man in the garden originally for the same reason - man could choose to obey Him - to not eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. We know the story - man chose to rebel.

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

Is it not clear here that Jesus is speaking of drawing Israel to Himself, "like a hen does her chicks... but you were not willing"? Clearly, God has left us with a choice in the matter. Here we see a description of God wanting to gather us under His wings, like a mama hen, but He restricts Himself, so as to not violate our will. A choice is clear. That is how God chose to do it. Who are we to tell God how He must go about His business. That's what bothers me the most about this theology... the presumptuousness. Let God be God.

The picture here is like in Hosea. There God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute, because His people had deserted Him and was unfaithful to him, much like this harlot wife was to Hosea. So Hosea experienced the pain of loving someone, yet having that one be unfaithful and not responding to his love. Look at the Lord's description of what He would do with Israel:

Hosea 2:14, 15 "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, Will bring her into the wilderness, And speak comfort to her. I will give her her vineyards from there, And the Valley of Achor as a door of hope; She shall sing there, As in the days of her youth, As in the day when she came up from the land of Egypt.

Notice, God did not drag Israel into the wilderness. He "allured" her. That is how God "draws" us. Your view of John 6:44 distorts how God's Word says God acts with people, and ignores many, professional Greek resources. BGAD and Liddell & Scott are the two lexicons used, in general, by professionals. Know any profs who use Strongs? Few and far between.

You continue to say simply that since in some places ELKUW is referring to physical dragging of people, that it always means this. But the lexicons and dictionaries are very clear that this is NOT true. That is the trap of illegitimate totality transfer, referred to by exegetes as taking the use of a word in one context and applying it in a universal manner. It is a fact that when a nonphysical usage involving people is involved, it means to attract, woo.

Now, I think I must call it a night.

FA

 

FA,

No, I ignore those I don't like and ridicule the rest. Seriously, I meant no ridicule. I only meant that you continued to argue your assumption as proof of your assumption.

As for the rest:

I guess I am doing a really bad job of getting my point across. I will try once more. I do not say that 6:44 and 12:32 are referring to physically dragging people. What I do say is that the drawing of God is like dragging in this sense - those so drawn end up in a place (believing) where they would have never chosen to be even if they had the ability to so choose. The fact that when they get there, they want to be there, is irrelevant to the point.

You keep making much of the choice of the word 'draw' as opposed to 'drag'. As I have already shown the two are synonyms. The choice of one synonym for another does not change the meaning of the statement. At least one of your sources also uses 'attract', which you seem to like. Well first, that source uses 'attract' in the sense of magnetism, and magnets don't 'woo' that which they attract. And second, that source is using a physical example to illustrate a nonphysical reality, which seems to negate your inststence that the meaning in a nonphysical context is always different that in a physical context. I still don't see why you insist that your sources prove compulsory movement in a physical context and voluntary movement in a nonphysical context.

As for Matthew 23, I read that differently. I see significance in the fact that Jesus says "how often would I have gathered your children" rather than "how often would I have gathered you", as it is usually (mis)quoted.

As for Hosea, you ought to also consider what God says He plans to do to His people prior to verse 14. Basically He plans to strip them bare and then 'allure' them. How do you think they will respond?

Oh, I almost forgot - about Robertson on 12:32. Not only does he say that 'all men' doesn't mean every single person, he also points out that some are actually repelled, not drawn, by the cross. I find that interesting to meditate on.

You still haven't answered my question. How can men, who by nature are hostile to God, ever submit to His demands?