Drawing and John 6

And so we are just supposed to take YOUR word for it. YOUR reading of the totality of scripture. I think not. Oh, and BTW, I dont "hate" (nor does Winman) calvinisits. I just intellectually and theologically disagree with it in the strongest possible terms.

 

Very good point by your bolded statement there. We must look at the Bible as a whole. I'm not attempting to build an entire doctrine on this one verse, just trying to understand what this verse in its context means. I agree humility is required, but it almost appears as if we are being saved by being humble. Or are you saying that our pride gets in the way and we must be humble. What makes us be humble as opposed to those that don't?

 

Hi winman, this is really sad about your family member. Remember though, no matter how good you are at persuasion, God is the one that will do the work in his heart. You plant the seed(gospel) and let God do the rest. I'll pray for your family member. My wife's grandfather was just like this for years. He would get angry if you mentioned Jesus' name. (unless you were using it as a cuss word, then it was ok). He was saved just a few months ago! Never give up on a person's salvation. Even if it seems as if they will never come, they just might.

As far as your point, I would agree that a person could almost come to Christ, but not. I don't believe(per my previous post) that this is what is going on here. It says that the Father draws the person to the Son. That statement there means they came. Your family member hasn't been drawn to Christ yet.

Winman, I have said many times that I don't believe a person is forced to believe against his will. I wish you would understand that.
Now, let's suppose for a second you are right, that persuaded is what drawn means. Then Agrippa was almost drawn. He wasn't drawn, just almost drawn. Again, he wasn't drawn.

Do you think the dictionary is wrong with the definition of drawn? I have yet to see you reply to my quoting of the definition of drawn.

Very much agree.

Was that fish drawn to the boat or not? Jesus says that no man can come TO ME unless the father draws him, meaning unless the father draws him to me. In your story, yes the fish was drawn, but not to the boat. He never made it to the boat. The fish was drawn to the net, but never to the boat. This is why I believe we are speaking of a finished drawing here in John 6 to Christ. He says he must draw a person to Christ.

Do you think the dictionary is wrong with these definitions?

dictionary
to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.

Webster
: to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading) <drew him aside>
: to bring by inducement or allure : attract <honey draws flies> b : to bring in or gather from a specified group or area <a college that draws its students from many states> c : bring on, provoke <drew enemy fire> d : to bring out by way of response : elicit <drew cheers from the audience> e : to receive in the course of play <the batter drew a walk> <draw a foul>

 

I simply don't agree with your idea of drawing. If I hook a fish and reel it in, I am drawing it whether I actually get it in the boat or not. I bet if you asked the fish he would tell you he was being drawn in.

You are redefining the word to fit your doctrine. Because you believe in Irresistable Grace, you will not accept that men can resist the Holy Spirit as Stephen said the Jews were doing in Acts 7.

Now, think about this carefully. Unless the Holy Spirit was drawing these men, pulling at them, how could it be said they were resisting? Do you understand that? If the Holy Spirit was not excercising some influence and pull on them, then you cannot say they were resisting. If you hook a fish and he fights to get away he is resisting you. If he is not hooked he is not resisting you. So the very fact that Stephen said they were resisting the Holy Spirit shows the Spirit was drawing them.

Think about that.

 

As I have said before, it says that we have been drawn. The fish was not drawn INTO the boat. Yes you are drawing the fish up to the boat, but you did not draw the fish into the boat. If you lost all the fish, and your fiend asks you how many fish did you draw, you would have to say none, I lost them.

How can you say something like this? I gave you the definition of the word from the dictionary. How am I redefining the word?

Here it is again.

dictionary
to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.

Webster
: to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading) <drew him aside>
: to bring by inducement or allure : attract <honey draws flies> b : to bring in or gather from a specified group or area <a college that draws its students from many states> c : bring on, provoke <drew enemy fire> d : to bring out by way of response : elicit <drew cheers from the audience> e : to receive in the course of play <the batter drew a walk> <draw a foul>

Where am I redefining the word, or do you think the dictionary is wrong?

Also, please don't misrepresent me. You are in your anti-calvinist mode and are not responding to my posts. I made many points last time and you continue to ignore them and just repeat stuff, including items as this that are untrue. Men do resist the Holy Spirit. I never said they didn't.

They are drawing(not finished) and draws(finished are different. Per your example above. You were drawing them in, but you didn't draw them into the boat. You only drew them as far as they went. John 6 says the Father draws us to Jesus. No one can come unless God draws them to Jesus. This is a finished drawing. People are resisting the calling of God.

They are resisting the call of God.

And you didn't draw that fish into your boat. Those that resisted the Holy Spirit were not drawn to Jesus. The Holy Spirit may have been pulling at them..., but the Holy Spirit didn't draw them to Jesus.


Is the dictionary wrong. you keep claiming I'm redefining the word, yet I have the dictionary definition posted below.


dictionary
to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.

Webster
: to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading) <drew him aside>
: to bring by inducement or allure : attract <honey draws flies> b : to bring in or gather from a specified group or area <a college that draws its students from many states> c : bring on, provoke <drew enemy fire> d : to bring out by way of response : elicit <drew cheers from the audience> e : to receive in the course of play <the batter drew a walk> <draw a foul>

 

Make that that you do not agree with biblical drawing.

People do resist the Holy Spirit as Acts 7 teaches. But,as has been said repeatedly, that does not deny effectual calling. The Lord gets those of His choosing.They,and they alone are drawn to Him. These elect ones are under spiritual arrest -- it's unavoidable. They are brought into spiritual union with the Lord.Drawing is always brought unto completion -- it is not a partial attraction. Christ will lose none of those whom the Father has given to Him. No one comes to Jesus except the ones who the Father draws.

 

If someone came part way due to the action, you would say that the person was drawn part way.

If I say that I drew you to me, the definition of the word would mean that you actually came to me. If you did not actually come to me, I would say that I tried to draw you, but failed.

Think of tug-of-war. Each side is trying to draw the other side into the mud puddle. If one side ends up in the mud, the other side drew them there.

Joh 21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

According to Winman's definition of draw the verse could have said that they, in fact, DID draw the net, but the fish did not come. No. The verse says that the were not able to draw the net. If they were able and did draw the net, the net would have ended up in the boat. This is the essential definition of the word.

To say that something is drawn from point A to point B by definition means that it actually went from point A to point B. How do you describe it if the action did not happen as intended? "tried to draw"

 

Yes, as the fish is moving toward the boat, it is being drawn. To say that you drew the fish to the boat would mean that the fish ended up in the boat. If this did not happen, you would say that you tried to draw the fish to the boat. If the fish fell off the hook half way, you would say that you tried to draw the fish to the boat, or that you drew the fish half way. This is the dictionary definition of draw and its equivalent helkuw in the Greek. Show me an instance of a form of helkuw in the New Testament where it doesn't mean that the object actually went from point A to point B.

You are redefining the word to fit your doctrine. If you accepted the dictionary definition of the word, then you would have to face the clear meaning of the statements of Scripture in which the word is used.

One can resist the presence of the Holy Spirit, but not the helkuw of the Father to the Son.

Of course.

Of course.

Not necessarily. Stephen did NOT say that the Holy Spirit drew (helkuw) them.

 

This is like arguing with teenagers.

I would say I was reeling him in and he got away.

You guys will go to any extreme to rationalize your doctrine. If I had to make a fool of myself to make doctrine work, I would abandon that doctrine immediately.

 

Like changing the definition of a term?

Draw
to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.


: to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading) <drew him aside>
: to bring by inducement or allure : attract <honey draws flies> b : to bring in or gather from a specified group or area <a college that draws its students from many states> c : bring on, provoke <drew enemy fire> d : to bring out by way of response : elicit <drew cheers from the audience> e : to receive in the course of play <the batter drew a walk> <draw a foul>

I'm getting the sense that winman is out of arguments. We have refuted them all, so now he just give little rants. Says we are acting like fools, yet he is the one that cannot defend against our counter points. Very telling.

 

No, others beside me have pointed out you don't have to pull something in to completion to be considered drawing. Everybody knows if you hooked a fish and pulled it in but it got away that you were drawing it in.

But you and a few others go to wild extremes and say this is not drawing. That is what I meant by making a fool of oneself to make their doctrine work. Do you really think anybody here is convinced by your ridiculous argument?

You probably actually do.

It's not that I am out of arguments. When you asked for an example of drawing being resisted in the scriptures I showed it in Hosea 11. What did you do? Explain it away. It is obvious you will not listen, I am really the one who is a fool for arguing with you.

You cannot reason with unreasonable people.

 

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-divine-sovereignty-human-responsibility-debate-part-one-

 

You changed the term from draw, to drawing. Drawing would indicate it hasn't been completed yet. "I'm drawing the fish in" means they are coming, but not yet here yet. The passage in John 6 doesn't say that. It says .draws him(unto Jesus)." This is a finished drawing. This hasn't been refuted yet.

Draw
to bring toward oneself or itself, as by inherent force or influence; attract: The concert drew a large audience.


: to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading) <drew him aside>
: to bring by inducement or allure : attract <honey draws flies> b : to bring in or gather from a specified group or area <a college that draws its students from many states> c : bring on, provoke <drew enemy fire> d : to bring out by way of response : elicit <drew cheers from the audience> e : to receive in the course of play <the batter drew a walk> <draw a foul>

My argument hasn't been refuted by anybody yet. I showed why I believe it is a finished draw, and not a continued drawing. (btw, it doesn't say drawing) It says " No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:"

No, don't lie now winman.

I asked for an example of someone that was drawn, but didn't come. Not someone that was being drawn, but didn't end up going all the way. Nice cleaver way to twist the words, but I'll still hold you responsible.

You are the one that cannot accept the definition of the term. You continue to change it to suit your theology. Then when you realize I have you on something, you change the tense of the term.

So, you still haven't given an example of a person that was drawn to something but didn't get to that something.

"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."

It doesn't say, no man can come to me unless the father is drawing him to Jesus, is says unless the father draw him.

 

Thanks for the link. Here is part two

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-divine-sovereignty-human-responsibility-debate

 

Humble

I'm not going to quarrel over words it ruins the listener. No meek and humble person is going to say look what I done, they will praise Jesus and what He did. We know we are sinners and the Gospel truth is the wages of our sin is death, nothing we can do can save us, so we have to depend on Christ. So being humble is not what saves, it is Jesus praise be to Him. A sheep doesn't know how to take care of themselves, they have to depend on the Shepard. Just as Jesus being an example to us always brought all praise to the Father so do we through Jesus. Being humble is part of the Gospel by listening and learning from the Father through the words of Jesus we are drawn to come. Only men see this as us earning our salvation through this, God doesn't because through out scripture God tells us to be humble and trust in Him. To Him it doesn't take away His grace only men see it that way.

 

This may interest some..........http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1395-the-drawing-power-of-god

 

Thanks for the link. One of the things he does is say that you can't believe that the drawing of God is effectual because then all would be saved per John 12. Of course he doesn't address the context of John 12 at all, which would support that all is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles. The term all always has a context. It refers to all of something. If I tell my church that all are invited to the fellowship hall for food, do I mean that the whole world is invited? No, I mean all (of those in the service today at church) are invited today. Context determines this. We can go into more discussion of John 12, but there are two groups of people there, the Jews and the Gentiles. After the Gentiles come, Jesus says he will draw all men unto himself. The problem here and in John 6 of interpreting all men to mean every single individual that ever lived is we must change the definition of "draw." The passage in John 6 doesn't say "no man can come to me unless the father... is drawing him." It says that "no man can come to me unless the father...draw him" In John 12, it says "will draw all people to myself.” This says that Jesus will draw all people to himself. If one is drawn to Jesus, he has come to Jesus. As I pointed out earlier, drawing is a process of a person coming, but he hasn't been drawn to Jesus until he is there.

In the example of the fish, we can say we were drawing the fish, but we can't say we drew the fish to us unless the fish is "to us." We might have drawn the fish part way, but to have drawn it to us, we must have the fish. We can't change definitions of words to suit our doctrine.

Now, does this mean a person comes to God against their will? I would say no. The passage does say a person can't come...which I would say that if God draws him, he comes. It doesn't say the person is dragged against their will.

Cypress, you did bring up a very good point about if it was a complete drawing or not. To me, its really the only good argument against my interpretation of the passage. Changing the definition of words or ignoring context isn't a good argument. I hope I have answered you question about if it is a complete drawing or not.

 

Job 9:
29 Since I am already found guilty,
why should I struggle in vain?

30 Even if I washed myself with soap [Or snow ]
and my hands with washing soda,

31 you would plunge me into a slime pit
so that even my clothes would detest me.

32 "He is not a man like me that I might answer him,
that we might confront each other in court.
33 If only there were someone to arbitrate between us,
to lay his hand upon us both,

34 someone to remove God's rod from me,
so that his terror would frighten me no more.

35 Then I would speak up without fear of him,
but as it now stands with me, I cannot.

Job 16:
18 "O earth, do not cover my blood;
may my cry never be laid to rest!

19 Even now my witness is in heaven;
my advocate is on high.

20 My intercessor is my friend [Or My friends treat me with scorn]
as my eyes pour out tears to God;

21 on behalf of a man he pleads with God
as a man pleads for his friend.

Acts 7:
54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

I do believe as the Calvinist do but i see a little more. Before the cross everything they teach I agree with, but when Jesus is lifted up from the earth He will draw all men to Himself, but only those who see Jesus that way. Who see Jesus at the right hand of the Father pleading their case, making intercession for them, a sinner who can't plead their own case ,who need Jesus. In the end we will see amount saved that cannot be counted, so Jesus changed the few after He was lifted up.

 

I think it's ironic that you make this point with regard to John 12 yet SEEM to miss the historical context of John 6. Allow me to demonstrate what I mean:

1. Who is Jesus addressing in John 6? Jews or Gentiles?

2. Isn't it true that Israel is being temporarily hardened/blinded by God so that they are unable to see, hear, understand and believe? (Acts 28:21-18; John 12:39-41; Rom 11; etc)

3. Isn't the gospel the power of God unto Salvation? Doesn't faith come through hearing? In other words, hasn't God chosen his word to "draw" or "call" men to salvation?

4. Has that Gospel been sent to Israel at the time of John 6, or wasn't that truth being hidden in parables and weren't they being given eyes of stupor so they couldn't understand it? (Mk 4; Matt 13; Rom 11; etc)

5. Wasn't only after Christ sent his disciples (who were uniquely chosen and reserved from Israel) into the whole world to preach the gospel that thousands came to Christ? Almost like they couldn't come while Christ was still on earth, uh?

Could it be the people of John 6 couldn't come because they were being hardened by God temporarily while only the disciples of that time were being reserved from the hardening process, and only after Christ was lifted up would they be able to come? Just something to consider.

 

Interesting, I would agree that Jesus is talking to Jews here. One thing I see is that Jesus doesn't say, You cannot come..., but says that "no one can come." It doesn't appear that Jesus is limiting his conversation to just the ones he is speaking to. Jesus also doesn't mention that no man can come until the disciples are gone out, so I don't see Jesus limiting this to just the current time period.

Are you saying that the passage doesn't apply to us today anymore, or just the drawing part?

BTW, this isn't my only proof text, I'm just looking at this one passage. it seems that many times people just proof text each other to death, so I figured we could just look at one passage. Your argument here is much better than changing the definition of the word. I don't see this as being limited to just the Jews at that time period.