Featured Biblical vs Secular Definitions of English Words

Clever, but manipulative to create a false impression.

God called Abram out of his people to follow God.
God chose a reluctant Moses to deliver God's people.
Samuel did not volunteer to help Eli and God called to Samuel at night.
Samuel sought out and anointed David, David did not seek out Samuel to volunteer for service to God.
With respect to Peter, who said: "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."?

In case there was any doubt ... "You did not choose Me but I chose you." - Jesus [John 15:16]

Given the context of John 6:44, I do not see how it can not be about salvation in that instance. It is the reason why the non-believers should stop griping (John 6:43), Jesus promises to raise "them" at the last day (John 6:44), and all who learn from the father will come to Jesus (John 6:45-46).

Because I like you, I will make a confession that I would never make to Van ...

• The "DRAW" in John 6:44 could be "persuasion" or it could be "compel". Either definition of the word (in Greek and English) fits the context. However God draws, the surrounding context merely makes the drawing irresistible. So John 6:44 either states that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father "commands" them to come (like God commanded Moses to go to Pharaoh and Jonah to go to Nineveh ... they may have argued and resisted, but they both ultimately went), or it states that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father makes them fall in love with Him (and who could resist falling in love with a perfect God).

The reason that I am forced to seem less reasonable in public is that I have a role to play in a stupid game. People like Van will post in topics having nothing to do with John 6:44 (like THIS topic) that "persuasion" is the ONLY POSSIBLE CORRECT MEANING of DRAW in John 6:44 and that means that everything in the Doctrines of Grace (which he calls "Calvinism") is completely a lie made up by men to deceive others. So I am obligated to demonstrate that the OTHER VALID MEANING (in English and Greek) is also Biblicially supportable.

Can you at least acknowledge the linguistic possibility in John 6:44 that the Father draws to the Son like a Fisherman draws fish in a net ... compels rather than invites?
I ask nothing more than that in a topic on Biblical vs Secular Definitions of English Words.

 

Yet another change the subject post, misrepresenting who knows what, his view, my view, the biblical view?

 

Thank you.
In a world of constant change, it is reassuring to know some things are as constant as the rising of the sun.

 

Which subject is that?
"Van is right and anyone that disagrees is wrong."
That subject?

Sorry, let me get back on subject.
Biblical vs Secular Definitions of English Words

NO ONE: : no person
CAN: 1a : be physically or mentally able to
COME: 1a : to move toward something
UNLESS: 1 : except on the condition that
DRAW: 1 : to cause to move continuously toward or after a force applied in advance

• #1 makes it the most common meaning of the word.

[John 6:44 NASB] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him ..."

How can the most common meaning of the English words not be a potentially viable meaning?
The burden is on you to prove the most common meaning is "impossible" and you have made no attempt to do so.

 

To claim the "most common meaning" is always the intended meaning is twaddle. The Greek word translated draw in John 6:44 and John 12:32 means to attract not compel.

 

Lets consider a few words found in scripture (or more accurately in our English translation of scripture).

1) Draw - does it mean compel by irresistible grace or attract by the persuasion of lovingkindness?
2) Foreknow - does it refer to knowledge of the future or knowledge acquired or formulated in the past, such as a plan?
3) Men of flesh - does this mean someone whose mind is set on fleshly desires, or to any unsaved person?
4) Propitiation - does this refer to the act of turning aside God's wrath or the means of salvation from God's wrath?
5) Come to Me - does this mean to put our faith in Christ, or to be spiritually placed in Christ?

A few more "special words" that mean (or meant in the past) one thing in a dictionary, but something else according to one's religious dogma.

1) Predestination - refers to God deciding to bring about a future event. However, some think the word means God chose certain individuals before creation for salvation.

2) Atonement - refers to reconciliation. However, some think the word refers to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. When the KJV used atonement, it meant reconciliation, however now dictionaries say that meaning is archaic. JonC addressed this drift in post #19.

 

Like when the fishermen "attracted but not compelled" the fish into the boat with a net, or Peter "attracted but not compelled" the sword into his hand to slice off an ear?

Just like the English word, it can mean BOTH. It primarily means "compel" but can be used metaphorically to mean "attract".

[G1670] from root "to take for oneself"; to draw; to drag (literally or figuratively)
1. properly: unsheathe; a person forcibly and against his will;
2. metaphorically: to draw by inward power, lead, impel

My complaint is not that it cannot mean what you claim, but that you falsely state that it MUST ONLY mean what you state.
Why can God the Father not DRAW men to Christ like a fisherman draws fish into a boat?
Did God not choose Moses and send him to Pharaoh over his objections?

Here is the exact same word used in another verse: [John 21:11 NASB] Simon Peter went up and drew[G1670] the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

I only ask for the possibility that God is as capable as Peter.

 

How can the most common meaning of the English words not be a potentially viable meaning?
The burden is on you to prove the most common meaning is "impossible" and you have made no attempt to do so.

 

I stated why draw means attract at John 6:44 and John 12:32. You have not even attempted to address why my view is the majority view.

 

Which post was that?
I clearly remember you stating that it DID mean that, but honestly overlooked your explanation of WHY.

The MAJORITY reject Christ. The MAJORITY of Christians believe the Pope in Rome is the head of the Church on Earth and there is no salvation apart from the Mother Church and the Blessed Virgin. The MAJORITY of Non-Catholic Christians believe in baptizing babies. I am unimpressed by the MAJORITY view as an indicator of truth.

If I had to speculate, I would hazard a guess that any view (like yours) that empowers MAN appeals to the human ego more than having to accept that our salvation is 100% because of the grace (undeserved favor) of a Sovereign God.

 

"The word translated "draw" in John 6:44 and John 12:32, is used metaphorically to mean attract, not compel.

Everyone attracted to Christ does not put their faith fully in Christ, see soils #2 and 3 of Matthew 13.
All people who "behold" Christ high and lifted up (dying for them on the cross) do not put their faith fully in Christ, otherwise it would not be true that few find the narrow path that leads to life.

The obvious truth is draw, as used in John 6:44 and John 12:32 does not mean compel."​

Yet another material false statement misrepresenting the biblical view. Did I say salvation depends on the man that wills or on God alone? God alone!!!

Is our salvation 100% because of the grace of our Sovereign God? Yes, thus not in dispute.

On and on folks, misrepresentation and subject change.

Calvinists present the minority view (the Greek word translated draw in John 6:44 and John 12:32 means compel.) The majority view, held by scholars across the spectrum, agree with the attraction (the cords of love) on display as Christ dies for all mankind. Why do people love Jesus? Because they were compelled by irresistible grace? Nope. Because He first loved us? Yes.

 

Did you or did you not claim that God invites and men are free to come to Christ or not? (John 6:44)
I may have misunderstood your point.

 

This is just a statement of fact, not a proof of anything. I know this is what you believe and I disagree.

Unless only the Good Soil is DRAWN (compelled to come by the Father) and the other soils are told to "Stop grumbling because you CANNOT COME unless the Father DRAWS (compels) you.
Why is my interpretation IMPOSSIBLE?

I agree, but am unsure exactly what this has to do with the DRAW in John 6:44. I think this is an issue of understanding that "all people" means "SALVATION, Its not just for Jews any more"!

The obvious truth is that you refuse to see even the possibility that John 6:44 means DRAW in the same way that John 21:11 means DRAW.

[John 10:26-29 NASB] 26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand.

• The Father gave His sheep to Jesus (John 10:29) = "unless the Father draws them" (John 6:44)
  
• His sheep follow Him and Jesus gives them eternal life (John 10:27-28) = "to me, and I will raise them on the last day" (John 6:44)
• Those not given to Him by the Father are not His sheep and they do not believe BECAUSE they are not His sheep (John 10:26) = "Do not grumble, no one can come to me" (John 6:43-44)

Can you see no possibility of a parallel?
I am not asking you to believe that I am correct, I just want you to stop accusing me of lying and making it up.

 

I would be surprised if you actually misunderstood. Lets consider your assertion:
Did I claim or did I not claim? Could you not find the quote where I claimed whatever? Of course. Since you did not provide a quote, the possibility of misrepresentation arises.

Does God invite men (people)? Yes, Matthew 9:13. 2 Corinthians 5:20.

Now when you say men are free to "come to Christ" many different things could be meant.
Does anyone come to Christ without being allowed by God? Nope.
Does come to Christ mean to put our faith in Christ, or to be transferred into Christ's kingdom by God alone?

Are most people able to put their trust in Christ, provided God allows them to do so? Yes (People in the soil #1 condition cannot understand the gospel.)
Does this result in "automatic salvation?" Nope
When and if God credits a person's faith as righteousness, then He puts the person into Christ, i.e. baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ.

 

I have explained why your view is precluded by scripture. If your view was correct, then John 12:32 would indicate everyone to whom the gospel is preached would be compelled to accept Christ. To avoid that, you simply redefine all men (people) to mean all kinds of people, Gentiles and Jews. Not how it reads.

I have no interest in disparaging your character, Sir, it is Calvinism, that is false doctrine. And that false doctrine includes the claim draw means compel at John 6:44 and John 12:32. If the Calvinist claim were true, then soils 2 and 3 would be saved, for they heard and understood the gospel. Since they fell away, draw means attract, not compel. It is a lock Sir!!

 

Sigh. Jesus WAS lifted up and Jesus did not draw (entice, allure invite or compel) all men without exception to him. Everyone living in the Western Hemisphere never heard of Jesus until the Spanish arrived in the late 1400’s, so ... How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? [Romans 10:14 NASB]

Your definition of “all men” in John 12:32 must be incorrect.
Since your conclusions about John 12:32 are incorrect, the conclusions on John 6:44 based entirely on those conclusions must also be suspect.

 

After all of that, I still have no answer to what was a simple question on DRAW in John 6:44:

Can men resist the DRAW of God the Father to the Son in John 6:44?

Under my definition of DRAW as “compel”, I would answer “No.”
I still have no idea what your answer is under your definition of DRAW as “invite”. I speculated that it might be “Yes.” I speculated that I might have misunderstood your position. Now that you have explained it (quoted above), your position is as clear as mud.

 

This is where Jesus was telling them that those who did not bear fruit would be pruned from the branch. If this is about salvation, then you have to admit you can lose it.

There is still doubt the impression was neither manipulated nor false. The callings are for a specific purpose. I don't doubt that salvation attended most of these callings, but Pharaoh was also chosen (raised up for a particular purpose). Nebuchadnezzar was chosen. Cyrus was chosen. Nebby and Cyrus showed some aspect of belief, but not Pharaoh. Chosen doesn't always mean salvation.

On your list, there was much that informed God's choice in these cases, just as in other cases. Someone who was set to always rebel against God would not be someone who God would choose to do His work--even in the case of St Paul. Jonah was a prophet (ooo! ooo!) before he ran away from the call to Nineveh. Cornelius was a godly man before God sent Peter to Him. Moses was for God's people in his own way and his own power, but it wasn't the way God wanted to work it.

Which means, to me, that godliness doesn't save anyone, but God rewards godliness. There ARE some that seek after God, at least according to scriptures. Which then puts Rom 3:11 smack into the middle of this discussion. Does "none" mean "none", just as "all" doesn't always mean "all"? Does "none" in Rom 3:11 even mean the same as "none" in Ps 14 or Ps 53? At least we should look at it carefully before endlessly throwing it in each other's face.

Agreed that John 6 is mostly, about salvation. So that's why I mentioned John 5. What I would propose as a solution is that the Father does draw all men to Jesus, by His death on the cross. And He will raise them up in the last day. Some will be raised up to eternal life, some will be raised up to damnation.

Maybe you don't know me well enough yet...

I can acknowledge that it could mean that, but I don't think it does. If no one could resist falling in love with a perfect God, why does anyone need to be made to do so? Can anyone actually be made to fall in love with someone else? Real love, that is.

 

Hurray! I’ll take it.

Sorry, that question is above my pay grade. Ask the manufacturer.
It might have something to do with “original sin” and the heart being “desperately wicked”.
I tend to view it through a lens of:

• [Eze 36:26 NASB] 26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
• Stone = dead; flesh = alive.
  
• [Eph 2:4-5 NASB] 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
  
• Dead people need more than a little encouragement.

Strangely, yes.
It is how con-men work (their love is just one sided).

 

So much for truth.