John 6:44

Whatever you might say about the drawing, the verse clearly teaches that the one drawn will be raised up at the last day. So that means that the drawing is effective, and that there are none drawn who will not be raised up.

It won't take long for this thread to reveal those who like to add to Scripture by ignoring what the verse plainly says. But the verse will continue to say what it has said for 2000 years ... that those who are drawn will be raised up at the last day.

 

I think "I will raise him up" refers to the man who comes to Jesus. This man has also been drawn by the Father. It does not follow that all who have been drawn will come.

 

An analogy:

No man can work for me, unless the Boss interview him: and I will write his paycheque on the last day of the month.

The paycheques go to those who "work for me", not necessarily all who are interviewed. (This example is just meant to demonstrate sentence structure, not anything about works, etc.)

 

With all due respect, we all need to remember that what someone thinks is irrelevant. We have to ask What does the verse say? The verse says that the ones drawn will be raised up. There is no legitimate way to skip over that phrase. Of course, it also applies to the ones who come, because those who are drawn do come.

There is no difference here. Even if it is "irresistable" it still have to be responded to. The idea that God saves people against their will is a common charge made by people who are ignorant of Calvinism, or who are unwilling to listen to what Calvinism actually believes and teaches.

Absolutely. But the "raised up" is connected with "the drawn," not with "those who come." Remember, we ahve to deal with what the verse says. The Holy Spirit said it in a very particular way. If he had wanted to say something else, he certainly could have.

I wouldn't use the word irresistable. The verse merely declares that

1) no one can come unless they are drawn;
2) "he" will be raised up.

"He" by grammatical and exegetical rules applies to the nearest antecedent which is the one drawn. You have to add to Scripture to get anything else. In addition you have the later declaration that "all that the Father gives will come." There is another very clear statement.

Is it irresistable? Well ... "effectual" is a better call. But even "irresistable" properly understood can certainly be used here. Many want to use it in a negative way that God is somehow twisting the arms of people who don't want to come. That is a false charge against Calvinism. This is not the only verse that teaches the effectual call. There are many others. This is merely one ... and a very clear one at that.

John 6 has been often discussed, and almost as often cussed. Those on the other side have tried all sorts of ways to chop up the text and rearrange it, but we should always remember that if the Spirit had wanted to say it differently, he certainly could have. He said it this way on purpose. The least we can do is accept it.

 

No, I think it is not. But your first sentence presents a false dichotomy. Irresistible drawing is indeed responded to by those who are so called.

 

First, remember that Calvinism is not based on the writings of Calvin. It is a POV about soteriology based on what Scripture says. Second, your quote (unsubstantiated) does not even address the point. My comment was that God doesn't save people against their will. He doesn't. Nor does he send people to hell against their will. Those who get saved are saved because they "will," and those who are not saved are not save because they "won't." Your quote addresses only their condition, not their will.

Why would you expect every mention of being "raised up" to address every single part of what's involved in it? No verses qualifies for any doctrine if that is the standard. The question is not "What don't certain verses say?" The question is, "What does this verse say?"

Verses 40 and 54 are completely consistent with v. 44.

The better question is why would someone deny it? V. 44 is clear. The "only way" to be raised up is to be drawn and to come. Both of those go hand in hand. You don't have one without the other. Remember, the entire context. You don't expect people to parse your messages by taking each sentence one at a time. You take the sentences in context of the whole paragraph and the whole discourse. We should do no different with Jesus' words. No one pulls v. 44 out and declares anything. You are the one who was isolating it. Remember, I already appealed to the context of the discourse earlier.

For instance, compare v. 37 and v. 65: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me ... no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." That sets an exclusive group of "the given." Those "given" come, and no one who hasn't been "given" comes. How in the world do we get around that without distortion to the text?

 

But those are two different points. Go back and read what you were objecting to. I was commenting on the fact that God does not save people against their will, nor does he save people against their will. When someone is reprobate, it is not against their will. It is their will to reject God. When someone is saved, it is not against their will. It is their will to be saved.

How can you reconcile this statement with man's total inability and the limited atonement? Either man can respond to God by the act of his free will (because they will) or he cannot. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not sure where the conflict is. Because of sin, man’s “free will” always freely chooses to reject God. Limited atonement is totally irrelevant to that. Man is not forced to reject God. He does that freely because of sin.

And I am pointing that that it has nothing to do with the word you attach to it. You can call the drawing whatever you want. The text says that those who are drawn are raised up. According to the text, there is no room for someone to be “drawn” with the drawing of v. 44 and not be raised up. You have to add to the text to get around that.

Yes. But what you do is change the text so that the “drawn” are not the same as the “raised up.” That is adding to the text to get around that. You have to add an exception that is not found in the text.

 

Yes. There is nothing about that that Calvinism would disagree with. We do not belive (most of us anyway) that God forced you to get saved. He changed your will so that you willingly accepted. As Phil 2 says, It is God who is at work in you both to will and to do his good pleasure. The context there isn't salvation, but the principle is clear that God works in the will.

Yes.

Yes.

No. The drawing of the Father is the work by which he opens the mind, gives a new nature and new will with spiritual understaqnding, so that you willingly beleive.

Again, I think "irresistable" is a bad word for it. It fits the acronym nicely, but not the doctrine as most people think of it. It is better to think of it as an effectual call. It demonstrates the greatness of hte love of God in that he woos and wins his beloved elect. That is not to say that he doesn't love others. He certainly does. But he loves his elect in a saving way. Therefore, he did not just make salvation possible in hopes that some might accept. (They never would). He made it certain by drawing his beloved to himself. The love of God is so far beyond our imaginations that these attempts to put it in little boxes such as is often done by silly statements like "God loves your child more than you do" are absurd. It is so far off the point to argue such a thing in such a way. God's love of his chosen is not a love of possibility, but a love of certainty.

 

Pastor Bob quote:

"The drawing of the Father is the work by which he opens the mind"

Matching verse, Luke 24:45 - "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/irresistable.html

 

That was actually my quote I think. I don't think my friend Bob wants to be tarred with my beliefs on this matter.

 

Thanks for the correction, I almost tarred and feathered the wrong pastor.

 

Pastor Bob,

What caused you to be inclined to say yes to Jesus on the date you did?

If you could have said no - What stopped you from saying no?

I prefer to call it an effectual calling instead of an irresistable calling. God effectually calls the elect to salvation and he does it through his Church as it preaches the Word.

 

Pastor Bob,

Your experience is very much like my own.

I was 11 years old and had not planned on doing anything during the Friday Night Revival Service except rushing outside after church and playing chase with my friends.

But during the service, Jesus got a hold of my heart and wouldn't let go.

I honestly cannot say I could have said "NO" because I didn't. That would be mere speculation on my part. All I knew was I had to say "Yes".

My will did come in line with God's will on that night. The difference in me and you is that I believe God changed my will and enabled me to say Yes, where my former inclination had been to ignore the gospel preaching it was changed to receive it and act on it.