No one can come to me unless the Father draws him...

[Van]

Hi Jesusfreak5000, please spare me the "that is not what Calvinists believe" dodge. Assert what you do believe that differs from my characterization. Otherwise my view is unchallenged.

You did not lay a foundation in scripture, you cited John 6:44 and then asserted it said what it does not say, ditto for John 12:32.
"Bottom line, neither verse says what Calvinism claims, John 12:32 does not say "draw all [kinds] of men" and John 6:44 does not say "Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Me."

Thus no foundation in scripture.

John 6:44 does not say the everyone drawn will be raised. This assertion has no basis in scripture. What it does say is 100% of those given come to Me and 100% of those who come to me because they were given by the Father will be raised up. Proving one point, all those given are granted or allowed and they are all saved, does not prove the second assertion, all those drawn are given. No basis in scripture. Also all those allowed to come to Jesus do not necessarily come to Jesus. See Matthew 23:13.

Have Christ's "other sheep" been given to Him? Again, there is no basis in scripture for this assertion. There are folks who are "of My sheep" that are not yet "My sheep" and these "of My Sheep" and "of God" folks are receptive to the gospel because they believe in the Father. But they have not received the gospel yet, God has not credited their faith as righteousness yet, and God has not given them to Christ by spiritually placing them in Christ yet.

The sequence is clear, first a person must hear and understand the gospel to be drawn. Next, a person drawn must also have learned, which is to put their trust in Jesus. Now those whose faith God credits as righteousness are the ones who have heard and learned, John 6:45, and they are the ones given to Christ, and therefore come to Christ, and are saved. A person who has not been granted cannot learn because their heart has been hardened and therefore they are not given and so they cannot come to Me.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Hmm... When I think of the word draw, it brings to mind the thought of casting nets as a fisherman. The fisherman casts out his net, then draws it back to himself, bringing in the fish. Like Jesus said of his disciples when he told them that they would be fishers of men. So, to proclaim the Gospel is like casting out the net, the net being a metaphorical Holy Spirit as it captures the "fish"; then the "fish" are drawn in. Do the fish choose to go into the net, or are they simply caught?

Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.

Apparently God has control over the fish too.

 

[Hentenza]

Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.

Apparently God has control over the fish too.

If you do a word study on appointed it becomes quite clear that God has no issues appointing. lol

 

[Thaeoles]

Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.

Apparently God has control over the fish too.

But even then, I don't feel like my analogy does justice to the truth of the matter. We are evil. We deserve Hell, in fact, we are destined for Hell because of our evilness. And yet God shows mercy to some to glorify himself, and lets the others get what they deserve to glorify Himself in justice. Who are we to make such bold claims to say that we chose Him, when it is He that chooses to give us mercy? I can't fathom it.

 

[Van]

As I have often said, it does no good to prove one point and then claim some other point has been proven. Can God compel an outcome such as causing a great fish to swallow Jonah? Of course. Does this prove when God draws someone, they are compelled to trust in Christ 100% of the time? Nope.

To extrapolate the appointing of a great fist to the meaning of draw as only compulsion by force, as opposed to the attraction of the gospel message is unnecessary and therefore unsound doctrine.

 

[Hammster]

As I have often said, it does no good to prove one point and then claim some other point has been proven. Can God compel an outcome such as causing a great fish to swallow Jonah? Of course. Does this prove when God draws someone, they are compelled to trust in Christ 100% of the time? Nope.

But Scripture does.

 

[BrotherBob]

What is it that makes someone believe in Jesus Christ? The gospel
is preached every day in churches, street corners, on radio & TV and
the number of those who accept it is small. Do those that believe
have superior intellect to understand that they are being offered
eternal life as a free gift. Would anyone except a fool turn it down.
Until God sends the Holy Spirit to present the Gospel in a clear
light so its acknowledged as truth, carnal man is dead in his sins
and unable to save himself. So, yes I know, from my personal
experience, and what the Bible teaches that Gods draws us to Him.
If some fool wants to, by his own free will, reject the offer of God,
then I doubt that God has called him.

 

[Van]

The biblical answer to this question is provided in scripture. The parable of the four soils, and the account of the rich young ruler provide the answer. All these repeated claims of total spiritual inability are demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

Secondly the use of the term called is vague. Called like "come hither" an invitation, or called as in "the called" those whose faith has been accepted by God?

 

[razeontherock]

In the end, I do find them to be the same drawing. Christ will not draw men whom the Father does not draw. But that is not my point. What I am saying is that there are two different types of drawing, one being general, and one being specific. The drawing by Christ is for all types of men, Jew or Gentile, that being specified by the context. The drawing by the Father, however, as mentioned in John 6, is intended towards specific individuals. No one can come to the Christ unless the Father draws them, including your Aunt Sally or Uncle Eddy.

See my point?

Yes I do, thank you for the explanation. Actually, I've always gotten this sense from Scripture! So from your vantage point, does it do any good to pray for the Father to draw an individual?

 

[DeaconDean]

Jhn 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Most Calvinists point to this as being a proof of monergism; God must draw the individual first before he can come to Christ. A similar statement is made later on, enforcing the statement made in verse 44:

Jhn 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Because Jesus says that He has already said this thing, it makes it quite reasonable that He was pointing back to what He said in verse 44. No one can come to Jesus unless the Father has granted it to them, and the Father must draw them to Christ.

Now the typical rebuttal is to immediately run to John 12:32, where it says:

Jhn 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

And the synergist says "See! He draws all men!"

And I am going to prove this line of reasoning as false, right here and now.

The synergist jumps on the opportunity for a proof text, for no other reason than they are helpless against John 6. John 6 clearly teaches monergism, I didn't quote much of it but there is a whole lot more that Jesus says to support this claim.

Now, most of us are probably familiar with the terminology in John 6:44, and the English "draw". The word means nothing of "wooing" or "convincing" as it may mean in the English. The closest correct interpretation from the English word "draw" would be something like drawing water from a well, or drawing a sword from its sheath, or drawing a net of fish from water. The Greek is ἕλκω (helko), which is a verb (or an action word). The word is most accurately defined as one animate force or party acting upon one inanimate force or party. Meaning, if someone were to "draw their sword" or "draw water from a well" or "draw a net of fish", the sword is inanimate, or the water is inanimate, or the fish are inanimate. There is no fighting between the two objects, as well as the opposite; there is no synergy between them at all. It is one party acting upon another. All biblical usages fit under this description with absolute certainty.

Jhn 18:10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.
Jhn 21:6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish.
Jhn 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.
Act 16:19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities,
Act 21:30 Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.
Jam 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?

Now in some of these usages, it might be easy to see that there may have been struggling going on from the object/party which is being acted upon. And that may have been; Paul may have been struggling when he was dragged away, and those fishing may have been struggling to pull the net in. But that is not stated in the word itself. It's similar to me saying that I caught a fish. By using there word "caught", you don't know whether there was really a fight between the fish and I at all. All you know is that I somehow caught a fish, whether with a net, or my hands, or a fishing pole, etc. It is the same here.

So now that I got some background covered, let's jump back to John 12:32. If ἕλκω defines God as drawing men, by Himself, with no help or struggle in either direction, then wouldn't John 12:32 be saying that God was going to save all men, since He would be drawing all men to Himself?

There is a slight problem here (apart from Universalism). The passages are being falsely equated. Who is doing the drawing in John 6?

Jhn 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

The Father is drawing.

Jhn 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Jesus is drawing.

Right here, you have two different statements. They cannot be equated. First, Jesus says no one can come unless the Father draws him. Then later on Jesus says the He Himself will draw all men.

It is clear that what is meant here are two different drawings. We Calvinists would still affirm that John 6 is teaching Monergism, and more specifically, monergistic regeneration. But from the context, John 12:32 can be spelled out very specifically in opposition to the synergists, now that we have established a few things.

In John 12, the context is that Greeks (Gentiles) were going up to worship, and these were who Jesus was speaking to.

Jhn 12:20 Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast;

and Jesus says, among other things,

Jhn 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.

and John provides commentary, to clarify this statement which Jesus had made:

Jhn 12:33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

Now, the most plausible interpretation, according to the context, as opposed to Universalism (which is the only other option), is that Jesus was telling the Greeks that His death would be made available for all men, Jew or Gentile. Thus, the reference to drawing all men to Himself is pointing to the fact that His death would not only be for Jews, but also for all other people (Gentiles). It is not in reference to individuals, but instead mankind as a whole. We might point to John 10, where Jesus makes a statement along these same lines:

Jhn 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
Jhn 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
Jhn 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

One flock is the Jews, the other flock is the Gentiles. There are of different folds; a fold is a place where the sheep are kept. They must become one flock, meaning the Church, and He will be their shepherd.

I say all of this to show that simply quoting John 12:32 as an opposition to the whole chapter of John 6 is not adequate, and is based on a logical fallacy. It shows that synergists cannot reconcile what Jesus has taught, and are in a desperate scramble to preserve their supposed free will.

The only verse that I would add to this is:

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." -Jn. 5:40 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes another effort to support Calvinism without laying a foundation in scripture.

1) Draw only means to literally drag by compulsion according to Calvinism, yet draw seems to be used metaphorically to refer to presenting the gospel in an attractive way.

Hum..."elkush", "according to Calvinism..seems to be used metaphorically". Hum...

elkw-to draw, drag, John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas. 2:6; to draw a sword, unsheath, Jn. 18:10; met; to draw mentally and morally, Jn. 6:44, 12:32

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, "elko", p. 135

Helkuo - King James Version Greek Lexicon, says:

Definition

1. to draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

I wonder how many people have "falsely" used these definitions to teach?

Tell me somethimg friend, what did John Calvin, since your an expert on what Calvinists believe, teach regarding:

"Then was Jesus led (anhcqh) up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." -Mt. 4:1 (KJV)

And:

"And immediately the spirit driveth (ekballei) him into the wilderness." -Mk. 1:12 (KJV)

Does "ekballei" mean "driveth"?

Does "anhcqh" mean "led"?

Was Jesus "cast out, ejected by force, to expel, force away, to refuse, to extract, to reject with contempt, dispise, contemn, to send abroad, dimiss, to bring out, produce" into the wilderness?

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, "ekballw" p. 124

Was Jesus "to conduct, to lead or convey from a lower to a higher place, to offer up as a sacrifice, to lead out, produce, as a nautical term, to set sail, put to sea"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, "anhcqh" p. 20

Which is it?

Was Jesus led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness, or was He driven as one does cattle or sheep?

What did Calvin teach about this?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The biblical answer to this question is provided in scripture. The parable of the four soils, and the account of the rich young ruler provide the answer. All these repeated claims of total spiritual inability are demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

Secondly the use of the term called is vague. Called like "come hither" an invitation, or called as in "the called" those whose faith has been accepted by God?

In the parable of the sower, of the four types of soil in which the seed was planted, which type turned out to be true Christians and which ones were only deceiving themselves?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

In the parable of the sower, of the four types of soil in which the seed was planted, which type turned out to be true Christians and which ones were only deceiving themselves?

God Bless

Till all are one.

And who prepared the soil? Our synergist brothers would have us believe that the soil was prepared once the seed fell on it.

 

[DeaconDean]

And who prepared the soil? Our synergist brothers would have us believe that the soil was prepared once the seed fell on it.

Our Hyper-Calvinist friends would have us believe that the soil was prepared before the person was born, or, from before the foundation of the world.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[anthony55]

tha:

Hmm... When I think of the word draw, it brings to mind the thought of casting nets as a fisherman.

Thats not the only definition see post 12.

 

[nobdysfool]

The biblical answer to this question is provided in scripture. The parable of the four soils, and the account of the rich young ruler provide the answer. All these repeated claims of total spiritual inability are demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

Strange, that scripture seems to be the "Swiss Army Knife" of choice, among the synergists lately, or at least one synergist....

Secondly the use of the term called is vague. Called like "come hither" an invitation, or called as in "the called" those whose faith has been accepted by God?

I think the context would clear up any vagueness. That is, unless, one is trying to shoehorn one's own view into the scriptures....

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Yes I do, thank you for the explanation. Actually, I've always gotten this sense from Scripture! So from your vantage point, does it do any good to pray for the Father to draw an individual?

Yes, I pray for it whenever I have the chance, whenever there is a presentation of the Gospel in my Church, whenever I know someone who is considering Christ, etc. I can pray because I am not aware of who God has elected. He may have taken my prayer into account in eternity past. God is outside of time and is not limited by time. He has determined us as the means, and therefore, prayer is capable of being answered simply because you prayed it.

On the flipside, in synergism, God has already extended all of the grace to man that He will. It is all out on the table, now it is up to man to grab hold of it. It is the synergist who cannot pray for the salvation of the individual. God cannot do anymore without becoming a terrible puppet-master God, whose sole purpose is to glorify John Calvin.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The only verse that I would add to this is:

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." -Jn. 5:40 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

And...

Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
Jhn 10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

Like I said in the OP, John is full of monergism. It is everywhere. I tried not to include too much though because I figured the opposition would barely read it anyway.

 

[razeontherock]

On the flipside, in synergism, God has already extended all of the grace to man that He will. It is all out on the table, now it is up to man to grab hold of it.

This clearly defines synergism as false, since Christ ascended to give gifts to men. That can't be finished as we still have unfulfilled prophecy.

 

[Van]

According to Calvinists, how does God draw? By irresistible grace, compulsion, etc. All these posts saying draw is used metaphorically simply evade the doctrine. They must use this definition to shoehorn their view into scripture, and so I am charged with that practice. This is the swissarmyknife of Calvinism, redefine words that falsify Calvinism. Notice that this asserted meaning of "to draw irresistibly" is not logically necessary, and therefore takes scripture too far. And that Calvinism defends other of its false premises using the made up definitions in support.

Logically, if no one can come unless drawn, does that mean everyone drawn must come? Of course not. But if draw means to compel with irresistible grace, then why would God drag folks except for the purpose of giving them to Christ. Anyone can support any doctrine if they can redefine the meanings of words so they fit the doctrine.

Are there more than the two disputed examples of "draw" being used metaphorically to me attract by persuasion rather than compulsion? In Jeremiah 31:3 we learn that God draws men by lovingkindness - the Hebrew word being hesed which means steadfast love. Why do we love God? Because He first loved us and demonstrated that love by dying for us while we were sinners. So the gospel message presents God's love, and those that respond to that love have be drawn by lovingkindness. Irresistible grace is no where to be found, so out comes the swissarmyknife and love is redefined as sometimes meaning irresistible grace. Viola, everything fits.

There is no basis in scripture if you accept the common meaning of words, rather than the specialized ones invented to support Calvinism.