Featured Draw = Taught = hear and learn - Jn. 6:45

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Where is Satan working? EXTERNAL to them or "IN WHOM"

Where is the blindess? External or Internal? Where is the "mind"?

 

Again, you are admitting you have no idea what relationship this quotation of scripture in verse 45 has to verse 44. Again you are providing an interpretation of verse 45 that has no association to anything Jesus said in verse 44. Again, according to your interpretation Jesus quoted Isaiah for no contextual related reason to anything He just said.

 

So coming to Christ is utterly dependent upon being drawn AND being taught by God but you see no direct correlation between the two even though they are placed in direct correlation to each other as you would expect an assertion would be enforced by scripture according to the normal pattern of Christ elsewhere???? You reject the Scriptural insertion is further explanatory of the assertion, but you view them as distinct and separate acts of God even though both are essential to coming to Christ? So according to your interpretation Jesus jumps from one subject in verse 44 to another subject in verse 45 by quoting a verse that has no bearing on what He just said but applies to a completely different application.

Second, you take a passage in the Old Testament that deals with EXTERNAL calling by God through indirect means and claim this is explanatory of what can only be an INTERNAL and DIRECT drawing/teaching by God in John 6:44-45 and I am supposed to accept that?

Third, you turn attention to a parable NOT FOUND IN THIS CONTEXT that can equally be intepreted as a distintion between an external and internal call but insist upon your intepretation of it in support of your interpretation of John 6:44-45 thus playing the skip hop and change text and context game that has no end once you start playing that game.

In other words, we play a game of mental gynastics that arbitrarily demands Christ called upon Scripture to teach something he never asserted but to introduce something quite different?

 

Before we lose track of the OP and the simplicity of its meaning, I am introducing back into this discussion the OP.

The mental gymnastic required to oppose the above OP in my opinion is unreasonable and contrary to the simple truth that one must be drawn by the Father in order to come to Christ in faith as no unbeliever will be raised up in the resurrection to life (v. 44).

The fact that Drawing and Taught by the Father EQUALLY are required to come to Christ in faith gives more credibility that Jesus is quoting scripture at this point to further define what it means for the Father to draw men to Christ in faith. The fact that simply refers to both the one drawn and the one raised by the same simple pronoun "him" corresponds with "ALL" equal to "EVERY MAN" thus taught who also come to Christ.

 

That is quite an accusation don't you think?

But that is NOT 100% of what the verse says. Without further description he claims the "him" that is drawn is "him that is raised and you do not believe that although that is the NATURAL interpretation as Christ does not make any different description of the "him" in the second clause from "him" in the first clause.

No it does not say "men who" but it says "EVERY MAN" that is "taught" by God comes to Christ. The same Greek word translated "all" is translated "every man." There can be no teaching without having "heard" and "learned" and yet "EVERY MAN" thus taught does come to God WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS as that is what "EVERY MAN" means, not "SOME" men nor "men who" which leaves open the possibility that some men don't when the text says "EVERY MAN" thus taught does!

You in fact did change words and you did omit words as I pointed out.

This text explicitly predicts NONE of the foolish and ungodly will come to him but God will mock them. Whereas, John 6:45 claims "EVERY MAN" so taught does come to Christ. There is simply no comparison between these but they are direct opposites and that is the difference between a purely OUTWARD call and an INWARD teaching by God. John 6:44-45 must be an INWARD teaching as it results in "every man" thus taught coming to Christ, while your passage teaches the very opposite.

So you have proven nothing but contradictions and inappropriate applications of scripture.

 

There is a pattern of eisgesis by those who deny the obvious teaching of this passage.

1. They deny that the "him" of the first clause in verse 44 has any correlation with the "him" of the second clause in verse 44

2. They deny that verse 45 has any correlation with the first clause of verse 44.

3. They deny any correlation between "draw" in verse 44 and "teach" in verse 45 when both are EQUALLY causal to coming to Christ.

4. They deny "coming to Christ" in verse 44 and verse 45 must include faith in Christ when it is obvious that no unbeliever can be raised to eternal life

5. They deny that "ALL" in the first clause of verse 45 has any correlation to "every man" in the second phrase of verse 45 even though they represent the same Greek term and even though the second clause is explanatory of what "taught" means in the first clause.

6. They deny that "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is COMPREHENSIVE of "every man" thus taught by God in the second clause because all thus taught come to Christ.

7. They deny that quoting of scripture by Christ in verse 45 follows the normal pattern by Christ for affirming a previous assertion.

This is the very same eisgetical tactic used by those who deny OSAS in verses 37-39. They dissect these verses so that one phrase does not correlate with another phrase. Then they JUMP out of the context to outside texts chosen to contradict the obvious flow and meaning of John 6:37-39.

I reject this clear eisgetical attempt to pit one part of a verse against another part of the verse.

1. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "him" drawn in the first clause of verse 44 is the "him" raised in the second clause of verse 45.

2. There is no exegetical grounds to reject the insertion of Isaiah 54:13 in verse 45 as explanatory of what it means to be drawn by the Father in verse 44.

3. There is no exegetical grounds to reject the comprehensive "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is the same comprehensive "every man" in the second clause of verse 45.

4. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "cometh unto me" as inclusive of faith because no man can be raised to eternal life in unbelief and the entire context demands that come to Christ means "come in faith to Christ.

5. There is no exegetical grounds to reject "taught" and "heard" and "learned" as internal invisible work of the Father that draws sinners to Christ as verse 46 demands this is an invisible work.

6. There is no exegetical grounds to repudiate that coming to Christ in faith is the work of the Father giving (vv. 37-39), drawing (v. 44) and teaching (v. 45) that is effectual to "all" given, to "him" drawn and to "every man" thus taught.

7. The responses by Winman and James depend upon dissecting and pitting one clause against another, denying "all" means "all" and reading into this passage outside texts in order to deny what the text clearly states to the contrary. The EXACT same eisgetical tactics used by those who oppose OSAS in verses 37-39. Only their theological bias forces them to apply such eisgetical tactics contrary to the NATURAL flow of the text.

 

In the first clause of verse 45 it does not say "SOME" shall be taught of God but "ALL" shall be taught of God. Whoever this "all" is, none fail to be taught by God. The same Greek term transalted "all" in the first clause of verse 45 is the same Greek term translated "every man" in the second clause of verse 45.
Thus "all" in the first clause EQUALS "all" in the second clause and NONE of that "all" in the second clause fails to come to Christ.

Moreover, "taught" in the first clause is further explained in the second clause to mean they have "heard" and they have "learned" of the Father. This should be obvious as it is impossible to say you have taught anyone if they have not "heard" you or "learned" from you. This further proves that "all" in the first clause equals "every man" in the second clause or else NONE of the "all" in the first clause have been taught by God.

Winman attempts to read into this text TWO different classes of people. He attempts to make the first "all" extend to all mankind without exception while the second "every man" to mean SOME of the "all" in the first clause but not equal to the "all" of the first clause. However, NONE can be "taught" by God if they have not "heard" and "Learned" from God and yet the first clause deamnds that ALL shall be taught by God. Second, if the text is read "They ALL shall be taught of God, ALL therefore that have heard and have learned come unto me." In contrast, Winman's explanation demands "all" will be taught of God without hearing and learning from God which is a contradiction because NONE can be taught without both hearing and learning, and yet "every man" that hears and learns does come to Christ. This is a total repudiation of Winman's attempt to classify "all" differently than "every man."

Moreover, the first clause is a scripture quotation while the second clause is explanatory of that scripture rather than a contrast to that scripture as Wiman's interpretation demands.

There is no exegetical basis for his distinction. The only basis for such a forced distinction is due to a theological bias period.

This is the same eisgetical tactic used in verse 44 that demands the second "him" in the second clause is not the first "him" in the first clause. There is no exegetical basis for such a distinction, only a theological bias can demand that.

 

The same attempt by Winman and James with verse 45 to read into it two different classes of people is also applied by them to verse 44.

They demand the first "him" in the first clause of verse 44 is not the "him" of the second clause of verse 44 because if they admit that then all drawn equall all raised to eternal life just as all taught equal every man coming to Christ in verse 45.

However, this unnatural interpretation can be exposed by simply asking the question What "him" is raised to eternal ife in verse 44? If the text is allowed to answer that question then the ONLY answer the text supplies is the "him" that is drawn:

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.

The context offers no other answer. Verses 41-43 describe those who will not believe in him. The answer offered by Winman and James is theologically READ INTO the text rather than exegetically read out of the text.

Thus the "him" drawn is the only possible "him" the context offers that can be raised to life. However, Winman and James reject this not because it is contextually sound as the only contextual option but because it does not fit their theology.

This is the same reason they reject "all" in verse 45a to be "every man" in verse 45b not because it is exegetically unsound but because it does not fit their theology. Exegetically it is impossible for anyone to be taught, much less "all" to be taught by God if they never have HEARD or LEARNED from God. Exegetically it is the very same Greek term translated "all" that is translated "every man." Exegetically the first clause is a scripture quotation while the second clause is an explanation of that quotation.

Hence, there is no exegetical reason for Winman's interpretation but only a theological reason in spite of the exegetical facts of the text are contrary to his theology.

 

"

Taught of God​

​

"​

Is it possible to claim you have been "taught" if you neither have "heard" the teacher or "learned" from a teacher? No!

Is it possible to claim you have taught "ALL" if SOME have never "heard" you speak or "learned" from you? No!

Therefore, for "all" to be "taught of God" demands that "EVERY MAN" must have "heard" and have "learned" of God or else "ALL" have not been taught of God.

Here is the exegetical problem for Winman and James. Jesus demands that "EVERY MAN" who has "heard" and "learned" comes to him. NONE fail to come to Him that have been "TAUGHT" of God if teaching includes hearing and learning.

This not only demonstrastes their interpretation of this text is theological based instead of exegetical based but these facts completely repudiate their theology. It demands that "ALL" equals "EVERY MAN" in verse 45 or NONE have been taught by God.

This also demonstrates that verse 45 is further explanatory of verse 44 and what it means to be drawn by the Father. Drawing by the Father must refer to INTERNAL influence by the Father that brings them to Christ in faith because Christ does not promise to raise unbeleivers to life. To be drawn by the Father is to be "taught" by the Father and teaching requires they have both "heard" and "learned" of the Father. The latter "learned" includes obedience which results in coming to the Son.

This whole context defends that faith is the work of God (v. 29) explained in God giving, drawing/teaching so that a person comes to Christ in faith. This is the effectual call clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Rom. 8:28-30; etc.).

Jesus said that the PLURAL "prophets" said this:

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. - Jer. 31:34


This passage is quoted by the writer of hebrews (Heb. 8; 10) and called the "new" covenant which not only will be applied to Israel IN THE FUTURE but is applied to the Hebrew Christians being written to as the "new" covenant (Heb. 10:15-17). It is contrasted to the "old" covenant and described as the "new" covenant fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ as our High Priest (Heb. 8-10). Hence, "ALL" in John 6:45 refers to the covenant seed of promise or all those "given" to Christ (Rom. 4:16; Jn. 17:3) or the elect.

 

You consistently provide NOTHING to any discussion except complaints. Notice in my posts I restrict my comments to scriptures not people, and positions not persons.

I quote my previous post because I am continuing a thought related to the previous post. Isn't that how any good teacher teaches or any good preacher preaches or any good writer writes? What is the old addage? Tell them what you are going to say, then tell them, and then tell them what you said.

Try making a contribution rather than just complaining all the time.