Yet, that illustration is perfectly parallel to the parable of the wedding banquet that Winman mentioned earlier. He sends his servants to do his 'bidding' and to 'invite' or to make an 'appeal' to all people. That supports our contention that the 'drawing' is more liken to an 'appeal' than to an 'irresistible work of regeneration.'
With that said, however, when we are speaking of God's drawing or giving of the Remnant from Israel (the twelve) to Christ while he was here on earth, there was certainly a more 'effectual' or 'predetermined' plan in place. But, we must remember that proof of God's use of effectively convincing means (i.e. signs, big fish, bright lights, big storms, etc) to call out his appointed messengers is not proof that God irresistibly makes certain hearers believe that message.
I am not seeing the distinction. You say God must "draw" him (irresistibly call/regenerate OR appeal/woo), and the General in my illustration is saying that a recruiter must recruit him. What is the difference?
The "him" of John 6:44
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jul 20, 2013.
Page 5 of 6
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Second, the kind of teaching in John 6:45 never is reject by "ALL" or "ANY MAN" taught by God as "EVERY MAN" thus taught does in fact come to Christ (v. 45b).
So, the gospel call must be distinguished by who is the speaker - man or God. Moreover, God's teaching is INTERNAL and unseen (v. 46) but that is not true of the gospel in the hands of men. -
That is what Paul says: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Second, neither is the parable of the wedding banquet parallel with John 6:44-46 or with scripture in general. Those taught by God in John 6:45 "ALL" effectually came to Christ - "EVERY MAN" thus taught. That is not true when men preach the gospel - hence that demands TWO different kinds of teaching - one that is effectual to "EVERY MAN" it is applied to and one that is not. That is what Paul teaches in 1 Thes. 1:4-5. They know their salvation because the gospel did "NOT COME IN WORD ONLY" but it came "in power and in the Spirit and in much assurance". You cannot possibly claim that is how the gospel comes to every man hearing it - thus again TWO DIFFERENT kinds of calls.
He never says "no Jew" or "all Jews" but purposely omits "thy children" from Isiah 54:13 to deny that kind of interpetation. There are many contextual factors that completely and utterly repudiate that kind of restrictive application in John 6.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So the fallicy is that as long as we continue in your fabricated changing illustration you can prove any point you desire and you know it.
Your illustration won't fit verse 45 at all but verse 45 is the Divine context that verse 44 does fit. So why should I accept a manufactured illustration to fit your theory of John 6:44 when it contradicts the immediate context of verse 44 - namely verses 45-46?????????
You are basing doctrine on human reasoning and extrabiblcial fabricated stories to change the meaning of a text in its immediate context to suite your own theological perspective. In contrast, I am dealing with the grammar and immediate context (vv. 44-46) which directly contradicts your extra biblical fabrications
Find yourself any preacher that when he teaches the gospel "every man" that "heard" and "learned" from him came to Christ - "ALL" with no exceptions. You see, verse 45 is teaching exactly what the grammar of verse 44 demands. That is consistency in context.
The point is that the message is sent to all...whether we, his messengers, obey is up to us and we are responsible for that.[/QUOTE] -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I think this illustration by Skandelon is probably the best illustration to defend their point yet given. So I give kudo's to Skandelon for ingenuity behind the illustration.
That said, because the illustration does not use the Biblical language nor provides a context as does John 6:44, and because he can and does tweak it to make it fit his theory of John 6:44 it is more difficult to deal with.
However, the vital points where his illustration fails is:
1. "recruited" is parallel to "draw" in John 6:44 and yet draw is not regarded as an option but necessity for every "him" coming to Christ while in his illustration "recruited" may or may not occur. If he says the boy was "recruited" then that means he is in the army. If he says he was not recruited then he says he has not joined and that is precisely where the parallel breaks down because every him that comes is drawn period.
2. In John 6:44 coming to Christ is the consequence of being drawn. However, in his illustration coming to the recruiter is assumed before being recruited which is paralle with draw in Jn. 6:44. So he reverse cause and consequence.
3. His illustration can be tweaked to support his interpretation of John 6:44 but it cannot be tweaked so that his interpretation of John 6:44 will harmonize in context with verses 45-46. He has drawing in verse 44 as ineffectual to coming but verse 45-46 are explanatory of how God draws and in verse 45 "ALL" taught by God do come to Christ which contradicts their interpreation of verse 44 and drawing.
4. Also verse 45 contradicts their interpretation of drawing in verse 44 as they have drawing to be general to all men but ineffectual for drawing all men to come to Christ whereas the explanation of drawing by the father in verse 45 has it that "ALL" taught do effectually come to Christ. -
Perhaps this is breaking a BB rule - I don't know.
But because Biblicist may not notice this question, I wanted to re-post it in this thread on the same passage discussed.
Here is the quote from the other thread:
Biblicist,
Would the following thinking be inconsistent with the context?
Preface: The rational for this thinking is found in the two prepositions "of" and "from.""It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’"But not everyone "taught of God" actually is given eyes to see and ears to hear. Therefore the verse concludes that those that are given to see and hear do come.
"Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."I have taught thousands of students who never learned.
Isn't it historically accurate with the wisdom and teaching of God, also - that many are schooled, but few are believers?
The determining factor isn't the teaching, it is the ability to hear and learn.
Such ability comes "FROM" the father, not from learning "OF" God.
Your thoughts? -
edit *let's all stay on topic*
-
2. At that time, however, only Israel was in view because the gospel had yet to be fulfilled (cross/resurrection) and sent to the Gentiles (Paul is called the apostles to the Gentiles, and Peter has a dream)
3. Paul refers to the fact that both Jews and Gentiles are being drawn is the "mystery" of the gospel...in John 6 that mystery was not yet known.
4. The context of John 6 was addressing Israel and at that time most of Israel was being hardened/blinded from the truth (not enabled/not drawn), but there were exceptions (the twelve), who God had set apart and 'gave to Christ.'
5. And I agree with Calvinists that there is an 'effectual' tone or meaning to this word 'draw' because when it came to getting out His Message, God did use effective and convincing means to ensure its distribution (signs, lights, fish, storms, etc). The difference is that Calvinists think this is a universal doctrinal teaching on how God effectually draws every hearer of the message, rather than a lesson on God's appointing of the remnant from Israel to be his divinely appointed messengers to go into all the world and make an appeal to everyman. Read the rest of the context of John 6. He specifically talks about the twelve...those from Israel who WERE enabled to come to Christ (while in the flesh) and to learn from him (the qualification for being an apostle).
No analogy is perfect, but it is given to ILLUSTRATE a point. You accuse me of using 'extra biblical fabrications' but that is all an illustration is meant to do...to relate something in the bible to something common so as to understand it better...to MAKE A POINT. My point has been made...you are missing it...or maybe intentionally diverting to another unrelated point because you don't want to admit that the author may have actually had this intent in mind when writing. Plus, I have use many biblical examples which BETTER illustrate the concept of God's 'bidding' or 'appealing' for all people to come to Christ. Can you present any that explicitly teach the concept of irresistibly calling? I doubt it. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
edit *let's all stay on topic*
-
I just responded to some of this but wanted to point this out as well...
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
However, that same "new" covenant and its "all" is the same "new" covenant under which all true children of God have been saved and are now being saved as it is quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10 as THE ONLY COVENANT of salvaiton fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ - Heb. 8-10 as our High Preistly sacrifice. It is called "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" in Heb. 13:20.
That eliminates your interpretation based on "of" and "from" idea completely as the same Greek word translated "all" in the first clause is the same Greek word translated "every man" in the second clause - same "all" as the interpreation and application of Isaiah 54:13 is applied to the same "all" as the Father gives to Christ in John 6:37-39. This is the "all" of the new covenant just as Isaiah 54:13 is the "all" of the new covenant. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Consider that no one is being 'enabled' to come to Christ except a few Israelites. (and the gospel hadn't even been fulfilled or sent to the Gentiles yet)
Those who are being 'drawn/enabled' are the twelve who have been set apart to be apostles (which Jesus specifically mentions in this chapter)...the rest are being blinded (not drawn, not enabled).
That is kind of important to understand the intent of the author whether you are willing to admit it or not. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The recruiter, like God, may draw/enable/recruit many who freely choose to reject their appeal. That point was clearly illustrated.
Further more, you have ignored much of my post regarding the more effectual nature of the word 'draw' in that immediate context regarding the twelve. Can I ask why that isn't being addressed, as I believe it is the strongest of the arguments. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Furthermore, if you concede that verse 45 is scriptural support and explanation of the internal power of God's drawing then God's success rate is 100% without failure in drawing him to Christ. You must admit that the Father's drawing has to be internalized by nature similar to what is explained in verse 45.
At minimum verse 45 demands there is at least two different types of drawing/calling in scripture as that kind explained in verse 45 is 100% effectual to "all" taught by God in that manner.
So it seems to me, that your one sided argument about one kind of drawing/calling is skewed by verse 45 and other similar scriptures (Jer. 31:34; etc.)
Therefore, verse 44 by immediate context it refers to the verse 45 kind of drawing rather than the general kind of drawing. This is also confirmed by the general context of verse 44 in regard to the first work of the Father introduced in verses 37-39 which is also effectual to "all" given to the Son do come to the Son.
Finally, if all given by the Father and all come to the Son and all taught by the Father all come to the Son then verse 44 would favor that interpetation as well that him drawn by the Father is him that comes to the Son especially as given the scriptural support and further explanation provided by verse 45. -
Not certain that I disagree nor agree.
It is true that the "all" and the "everyone" are the same word. However, is not the respondents (the all) conditioned upon the ability rather than the knowing?
In the first instance, the "all" is certainly the total body of people who are "taught of God." These are those who gain head knowledge and scholarship much as the rabbinical folks are known to be much about learning and discussions of and about matters of learning. The learning is directed from human to God, not God to human.
For instance, when one is instructed in driving a car, the person must learn of (or about) the various safety features of the vehicle. The person is questioned about their knowledge of (or about) the vehicle before taking the driving test. One learns from one who has learned of (or about) and experience with the car. But, the car does no instructing.
In the second instance, the "everyone (all)" is connected specifically with those who have heard and learned "from" the Father. The significance is the learning is directed by God to the human.
Using the illustration, above, the person who is to learn is not taught from an outside source, but the car itself gives instructions. The voice "from" the car gives instruction in the operation and how to experience the car. The car directs the learning and the person hears directly "from" the source - the car.
Is this not holding truthfully to the context? -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Cor. 4:6
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - 1 Jn. 2:27
This is the teaching by God under the New and "everlasting" Covenant. Ultimately God must be the teacher as the problem is internal and only God can give understanding to the mind and make the blind see. Our problem is internal - Eph. 4:18 - "darkened understanding....ignorance that is in them.....blindness of heart" Only God can deal with that.
Page 5 of 6