Featured The "him" of John 6:44

Those who oppose my exposition of this text must READ INTO this text "OF THEM" which are drawn by the Father only him that comes shall be raised to eternal life.

The text not only does not say that, but it repudiates that idea. It denies any one can come to Christ except for "him" that is drawn. It is that same "him" drawn which is then promised to be raised again as there are no other options provided by the text but the "him" drawn.

Jesus approaches this from a universal NEGATIVE "no man can" to only one possible exception "him". Therefore, there are no other alternatives offered in the text but that ONE exception "him" which can be raised to eternal life.

 

As I said, you must read into the text a PLURAL "those" when it uses a singular "him." You won't use a singular becuase that limits it to ONE rather than many. The antecedent is a singular noun "man" and Jesus is addressing this from a INDIVIDUAL view point.

the text says only "HIM" that is drawn comes! It does not says "those" drawn SOME come - that is your intepretation READ into the text. Look at your next attempt below:

Why don't you carry it through Winman??????? Your next line should have read Verse 44 says only that "HIM which is drawn comes. That limits it to just ONE "him" and not a PLURAL from which only SOME come as your interpetation demands and which must be READ INTO the text while avoiding "him" as you do in your scenario above.

Only because you IGNORED the singular "him" in your scenario. If your scenario would have followed it through:

Verse 44 does not say ALL that are drawn come. It also does not say only SOME of whom are drawn come. It says only "him" is drawn comes.

But you refused to include the word Jesus used because it repudiates what you READ INTO the text "OF THOSE drawn him that comes is raised u"

If you had read it right then you don't have to go outside the text to another context to see who is drawn and who comes. The only possible one that can come to Christ is the SINGULAR "him" that is drawn - period! There are no ALTERNATIVES offered by the text. It does repudiate that anyone else can come to Christ but "him" singular that was drawn! That in turn demands the only one that Christ will raise to eternal life is also "him" that is drawn. In the singular there are no other alternatives, no other options, no other possibilities.

You will not stick to the Biblical language because it totally repudiates your interpetation of the text that requires you to READ INTO the text the plural "OF THOSE" drawn "him" that comes is raised.

Your interpetation of the text, and your theological position requires a PLURAL POTENTAL in regard to drawing that can be limited in coming. Your explanations and illustrations require a PLURAL POTENTIAL "of those" in drawing that can be limited in coming. The singular "him" in drawing cannot be limited in coming as it is only the "him" singular that is drawn that is possible to come and that denies any PLURAL POTENTAL that is drawn but does not come.

 

The opposing interpretation REQUIRES a PLURAL POTENTIAL drawn but a REDUCED number that actually comes.

The Lord chose words that make this interpetation IMPOSSIBLE!

He chose a singular noun and singular pronons where no such REDUCTION from a PLURAL number drawn to a smaller number coming is possible.

The only possible one that can come is the singular "him" drawn as "no man" but that "him" is possible. Hence, if that "him" does not come than "no man can come."

 

It changes everything as it repudiates the idea that "him" drawn did not come to Christ as there are no other options made avaible to come to Christ but the "him" drawn!

Your theory depends on increasing the number drawn over the number coming and the singular does not allow that interpretation as the text offers no other option for anyone coming to Christ but the "him" drawn. If the singular "him" drawn does not come to Christ then "no man can" come to Christ as no other singular man can be found in the text as a possible alternative choice.

The universal negative singular eliminates any other man from coming but that one exception. Therefore, "him" is the only possible singular option. If "him" does not come then "no man" comes as there are no other exceptions offered.

Salvation is not a corporate thing but an INDIVDUAL thing and Christ addresses it in the individual number - SINGULAR!

Salvation is personal and individual. However, that is why Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13 immediately following this individualized act of salvation by the Father using a PLURAL demonstrating what the Father does INDIVIDUALLY is not restricted to merely one person but to "ALL" that is "TAUGHT" by him in this manner. Also notice that ALL taught equal ALL that come just as "him" drawn equals "him" raised.

This is Christ's explanation of what it means for the Father to "draw" this "him" to Christ. It is INTERNAL REVELAITION that is "heard" and "learned" by "EVERY MAN" thus taught so that "EVERY MAN" comes to Christ. Again, matching versre 44 on an indidvidual basis so that the SAME him drawn is the SAME him raised. Also consistent with verses 37-39 where the same "ALL" given are the same "ALL" that come to Christ and "OF ALL" given NONE ARE LOST. Thus verses 37-39, 44 and 45 all consistently demand that the Father's work of giving, drawing and teaching finalize in ALL comng to Christ and being raised up with none lost (vv. 39b, 44b, 45b).

 

Let me put it this way. Jesus says no man can come to Christ. There is only one man given as the exception to this rule. There is only one man provided as an exception to this rule. If "him" that is drawn does not come then what other alternative is provided in this verse that will come???

Just point to the other alternative provided in this text and I will give up my argument!

 

Where do you find "IF" in this text? Nowhere! Why is it necessary then for your intepretation? Because your interpetation is not supported by the text so you add "if" and plural pronouns "those" and "all."

Let me put it this way. Jesus says no man can come to Christ. There is only one man given as the exception to this rule. There is only one man provided as an exception to this rule. If "him" that is drawn does not come then what other alternative is provided in this verse that will come???

Just point to the other alternative provided in this text and I will give up my argument!

Your interpretation requires replacing singular pronouns with plural pronouns. Your intepretation requires INSERTING the idea of a PLURAL NUMBER of drawn that can be reduced to a lesser number coming to Christ of which the singular repudiates. Your intepretation demands conditions added "IF" when not are found. Your intepretation is patently false!

Another flawed illustration. First no invitation is even spoken of in this text. Second, if no one but me got the "invitation" but me and I did not come then NO MAN CAME AT ALL! And that is my point. Jesus says "no man can come" but one exception - "him"! If that one exception does not come then find some alternative "him" in this context that can? Find some alternative "him" in this context that will be raised up? You can't do it, because there are no other alternatives offered by the text that can or will but "him" drawn.

Throughout this discussion you have repeatedly attacked my person, or insulted me or called me degrading names like "dude" and I have not once attached your person, insulted your person or addressed you in any degrading manner. Personal assault is the weapon of those who have no other options available. May we simply discuss this like gentleman and leave the personal insinuations and insults out of it?

Jesus says "no man can" but this "him". Please find me some other alternative in this text other than that "him" if the does not come to Christ? You can't! So if he does not come then "no man can come" as no other man is provided as an alternative option than "him."



I

This flawed interpretation depends upon a GREATER PLURAL NUMBER drawn than coming and the text provides no such option. If "him" does not come then "no man can come" as no other man is provided but "him" that is drawn.

Do every lost one you witness to get saved? Do they all understand what you have said? The text speaks of the Father teaching not men teaching and the teaching he does is INTERNAL and invisible not external (v. 46). That teaching is spelled out in 2 Cor. 4:6 as an INTERNAL revelation. I grant you it accompanies external preaching by men but it is the internal teaching of The father that brings them to Christ.

"Blessed art thou Simon bar Jona, for flesh and blood hath not taught you these things but my Father which is in heaven"

Again, you are inserting what is not stated in the text. You forget that "ALL" and 'EVERY MAN" thus taught comes to Christ! Can you say that about your preaching????? NO! So why pervert this text by including the preaching of men when it is not true of any preacher???

You just can't help imaking degrading insulting insinuations and making personal attacks can you?

 

The Lord so worded the Father's work of giving in verses 37-39 to deny any possiblity that ALL given did not equal all coming and all saved.

The Lord so worded the Father's work of Teaching in verses 45-46 to deny any possiblity that ALL taught did not equally EVERY MAN coming to Christ thus taught.

The Lord so worded the Father's work of drawing in verse 44 to deny any possibility that the SAME him drawn is the SAME him coming to Christ and the SAME him raised up.

Readers do you see a consistency in the Father's work in the Son's careful choice of words???

 

The universal denial "no man can come" accompanied by only one exception "him" denies any possibility that there is anyone else that comes to Christ but "him" drawn, as all other possible options are denied, leaving only "him" to come to Christ.

What kind of "him" the DRAWN him!

 

Once again, the universal negative removes the possiblity that any other man is being considered but "him". That is a singular "him" which denies any other alternative for consideration in this text that will come to Christ. Find any other alternative in this text that will come to Christ and I will cease my argument. You can't, so you just repeat and repeat a false interpretation, as your interpretation REEQUIRES a NUMERICAL PLURAL drawn that can be reduced to to a smaller number that actuall does come.

In the context of John 6:44 drawing is defined as being "taught" by God whereby "EVERY MAN" thus taught has "heard" and "learned" and comes to Christ. In contrast the text you are quoting above teaches the character of Romans 8:7 - "ye would not". No teaching by God here.

Romans 8:7 and Acts 7:51 is the normal response of all men in response to the gospel. John 6:44-45 is the response of "all" the Father has "taught".


Again, the consistent use of the singular noun, pronouns accompanied with the universal negative that eliminates any other man except "him" drawn by God restricts the one coming to Christ to the only available "him" drawn. If that "him" drawn does not come then "no man" comes. This deliberate use of the singular and deliberate universal negative, prohibit any other interpretation but one - and that is the SAME "him" drawn is the SAME him that comes to Christ and is raised because the text offers no other alternative to "him" drawn.

 

The other interpretation would require John 6:44 to read:

"None cometh to me except THOSE drawn by the Father, and him that cometh to me I will raise up at the last day."

The strict limitation of singular noun and pronouns with a universal negative deny that any man but "him" drawn comes to Christ. The grammatical singular does not offer plural options that might or might not come to Christ.

 

The fallicy of your argument is attempting to make "join" the army parallel to "come" to me. You must first come to the recruiter or recruting station or have the recruiter come to a person before that person can join the army. So in your illustration coming is essential but not parallel with coming in verse 44. That twist and change of lanague invalidates your illustration as parallel with verse 44. To suggest that no man could come to the recruiter without joining the army would make little sense! However, that would be the proper parallel with verse 44.

Second, you are divorcing verse 44 from verses 45-46 making them speak of two different subjects and the scripture quoted is designed to reinforce the subject presented in verse 44. In verse 44 "all" taught do come to Christ.

Third, simply preaching of the gospel calls all who hear to repent and beleive but not all do. However, the teaching in verse 45 is effectual to coming to Christ by "EVERY MAN" thus taught. Hence, there are two types of teaching. One that proceeds from men which is not effectual to "ALL" who hear or learn from them whereas verse 45 teaching from God is always effectual to "EVERY MAN" thus taught by God as none fail to come to Christ.

Last, explain why verse 45 demands "all" taught do come to Christ and yet that would be inserted at the precise point in Christ's discussion that you interpret that not all drawn come to Christ? What is the parallel between the two passages then? What relationship would verse 45 where all taught all come to Christ have with a passage preceding where him drawn does not necessary come to Christ???

 

You are proving my point and invalidating your point. The teaching in John 6:45 is ALWAYS EFFECTUAL to coming to Christ by "EVERY MAN" thus taught.

However, Proverbs chapter one is not that case is it? So Proverbs cannot be applied to interpreting John 6:44-46.

Furthermore, preachers preach every Sunday to their audiance and the audiance is being "TAUGHT" by the preacher and they "hear" and "learn" from the preacher but all taught do not come to Christ do they? Hence, that is not the kind of teaching in connection with the Gospel by the Father being addressed in John 6:45 because "EVERY MAN" taught thus by the Father do in fact come to Christ. Hence, two different kinds of teaching with two different effects.

 

In every illustration offered to counter my interpretation of John 6:44 thus far, the illustration considered on its on merits makes perfect sense. However, when it is tested by how it parallels with John 6:44 it is flawed.

The flaw in Winman's illustration about being the only man invited to dinner at the white house would mean if refused NONE came to dinner. That was the flaw in his illustration.

The flaw in Skandelon's illustration of the Army recruiter was much more subtle. The illustration was incomplete and impossible without either the potential recruit coming to the recruitor, recruiting station or the recruiter coming to the recruit, however, that was entirely ommited in his illustration but the very esence of verse 44 which was about drawn and coming. If he made the illustration parallel with verse 44 then it would make little sense as coming would precede joining whereas in verse 45 drawing precedes coming.

This is the problem with forsaking the wording of the scripture in the context the Holy Spirit places it and jerking it out of that context and placing in your own manufactured context. However, this is what they MUST do in order to avoid the grammatical and logical conclusions of the context of John 6:44-46.