Featured Rebuttal of an Article on Jn. 6:44 by Dr. Flowers

No unbeliever condemns themselves for their unbelief! Unbelief is a SIN and sin violates God's Law and God is the one who condemns sinners for sin. Just drop to the last verse and you will see they are under the "wrath" of God (Jn. 3:36) and so this is God's condemnation upon them.

Jesus does not have to condemn anyone! Because they are condemned already by God (Jn. 3:17-19) and are presently (present tense) under "the wrath of God" (Jn. 3:36). Jesus did not come as a judge but as Savior but he will be their judge in the future.

Nothing wrong with the verse as it plainly states all unbeleivers are under condemnation and it is for more than mere unbelief but because they "love darkness" rather than light (Jn. 3:18-19). It is not "their own" condemnation but the condemnation of God as the last verse in this same chapter clearly demands - Jn. 3:36 This is not their own "wrath" but the wrath of God they are presently under. Paul reinforces this by calling all lost persons to be "by nature the children of WRATH" (Eph. 2:3). Paul was taught personally by Christ do you think Christ was a false teacher?????? Either he is or you are as both of you can't be right (1 Tim.4:1).

Do you believe Jesus taught Paul the doctrine of salvation or did Paul lie? Paul clearly states that all mankind both Jews and Gentiles are condemned by God's law (Rom. 3:9-20).

 

You forget to realize that the Holy Spirit is "sent" by the Father and the Son to act in their behalf and so the work of the Spirit is the work of the Father as the Spirit is "sent" by the Father to accomplish that work.

You are simply ignoring the contextual development and jumping from one text in one part of the chapter to another text in another part of the chapter. That is called proof texting and it usually leads to error and that is precisely the case in your attempt to ignore the immediate preceding context to John 6:44.

First, Jesus defines "come to" him as believing in him (Jn. 6:35) and then proceeds to define who it is that does not and does comes to him or believes in him (Jn. 6:36-40). All that the Father gives to him are the only ones who "come" to him and again coming to him is defined as believing in him (Jn. 6:40). John 6:41-46 continues this discussion about who and who does not come (believe) to him in faith. No man "can" (ability) come to him except the Father "draws" him and it is that drawn person who comes to him in faith. I have given a verse by verse and phrase by phrase exposition of this text which you either have not read or ignored. I don't think anyone, and I mean "anyone" on this forum can honestly repudiate the exegetical exposition I provided. If you think you can, then show me but don't do this proof text thing as you are simply jerking scriptures out of context and piecing them together to fit the narrative you like.

 

Deal with the text in a contextual manner and leave your grandma out of it. Put your bias aside and just deal with the text in the context honestly. If you could do that you wouldn't be writing this kind of stuff.

 

There are two types of posters on this forum. There are those who provide content that is worthy of consideration dealing with the thread and there are those who reduce themselves to hurling accusations and insults and stuff that is not worthy to even read. The latter type I just place on my ignore list so they don't show up on my screen. Congratulations you have made my ignore list and after this post you will no longer show up on my screen. Bye bye!

 

The exception clause is not called an "exception" clause for the fun of it. The exception clause defines/limits the condition which allows the man to come to Christ. This man first attempts to define the first clause as though it is not being modified by the second or exception clause. That is simply stupid! The first clause cannot be interpreted apart from the exception clause and when it is interpreted by the exception clause the result is a NEGATIVE not a positive (as this man distorts it to be). No man "can" (Gr. dunamis - able) or has the ability to come, he is without ability to come. This is a universal truth "no man" (not some men). This universal negative stands in all cases EXCEPT in cases defined by the exception clause.
Second, I don't care how he defines "draw" or how he believes I define draw! The context defines it clearly. Jesus quotes the plural "prophets" as definers of what it means to drawn by the Father and he is referring to Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34. In both cases this is an INTERNAL supernatural work of God performed in the heart that totally transforms the heart and always produces God's intent without failure. Just read Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Isaiah. 54:13.

In these texts "all" does not refer to all mankind without exception in either case by either prophet. In these texts "all" taught come to God in faith without exception - just read Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 and "all" taught believe with NONE failing or as Jeremiah says "from the least of them unto the greatest of them" no exceptions.

 

Get the overall context of John 6 first. There are three different classes of people who come to Christ but not in faith for salvation in 6:1-26:

1. There is the miracle seeking crowd who came to him to see miracles:

And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. - v. 2

2. There is the power seeking crowd who came to him because they wanted to usher in a secular kingdom to overthrow Rome:

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. - v. 15

3. There is the welfare crowd who came to him for food:

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. - v. 26


None of these came to Christ in faith for salvation - none! This chapter is given by John to show that coming to Christ for salvation by faith is "the work of God" (v. 29) and not of the "works" of men. He declares this by stating:

1. The Father must give a person to Christ if they are to come to him by faith - vv. 36-39
2. The Father must draw or do an internal transformation of heart in a person if they are to come to Christ for salvation by faith - vv. 44-46

These two assertions are proven by the fact by the facts:

1. That his crowd would not believe in him in spite of external miracles - v. 36
2. That they were incapable of understanding and accepting that Christ must be partaken of by faith even as you partake of food and drink - vv. 47-59
3. That a profession of faith does not mean a person is saved - vv. 60-71
4. That unbelief is proof the Father never gave them or drew them to Christ - vv. 64-65.

John 12:32 is jerked out of context and forced to contradict the clear teaching of John 6. However, in context John 12:32 is a rebuke to the Jews who restricted salvation to Jewishness when the drawing work is inclusive of all races - or "all men" without distinction of class, race or gender, in context referring to those "Greeks" who sought his disciples to come to Christ (Jn. 12:20-32).

 

Coming to him is defined in verses 29-36 - meaning coming to him in faith for salvation. There were those who came to him in faith for miracles, for food, for power, but he is referring to coming to him by faith for salvation - vv. 29-36. No question that verses 37-40 refers to coming to him by faith for eternal life. No question verses 47-71 refers to coming to him by faith for eternal life, or metaphorically partaking of him by faith for eternal life as one would partake of food and drink for physical life. So, where is verses 40-46 found? Smack in the middle of the context of coming to him by faith for eternal life.

 

No, this is the response of one who uses exegetical based exposition to interpret scripture in response to a person who lowers the conversation to personal insults or one who refuses to deal with the contextual factors in an expositional manner but jumps here and there like a JW does - pitting scripture against scripture or proof texting instead of doing the serious business of rightly dividing the word of truth by sound principles of exegesis.

Now, if you want to discuss this text based on sound principles of exegesis then I am your guy, but if you are into name calling ("pharisees") and making personal insults and jump here and there then I will leave you on "ignore" as that is the proper place for people who come on this forum and practice this kind of stuff. The choice is yours.