Reference to John 6:44
Your response does not speak to the issue of the text at all. The point is that one cannot come to Jesus unless God first draws him. The text affirms exactly what you deny. You deny that the text affirms that people lost ability. The text in John 6:44 says "No one can." The word "can" speaks of ability.
You speak of the context... I apologize for being blunt, but your comment shows no understanding of the context. You say that the context is "Stop grumbling..." That is not at all the point of the context. It is a basic rule of hermeneutics that one should observe repeated language in a context. The repeated language is about the word come.
Vs 35 "I am the bread of life, he who comes to me
Vs 37 "All that the Fathers gives to me will come to me
Vs 39 (Slight change in term) Father has given to me.
Of course verse 44 is followed by verse 45 which has the same phrase.
Vs 45 "learned of the Father, comes to me."
Verse 44 is repeated in verse 65.
Who can come to Christ? The text is clear... "No one" (the first two words). We come because the Father draws, not of our own ability. That is the whole point of verse 44.
I am unable to agree with you because this would not be a pass on an English grammar test.
For example, based on the following statement, "No one can enter the theatre unless they have a ticket" who can enter the theatre? The answer is … people who have a ticket.
The sentence contains a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (have). You cannot ignore the subordinate clause and interpret the sentence correctly, therefore the correct answer to the question "Who can enter the theatre?" cannot be "No one." The rules of grammar dictate this.
John 6:44 in the ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and NLT to name a few, all structure the sentence in the same way as the theatre sentence example. There is a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (draws [KJV says draw but that changes nothing.]) Since no-one would even jokingly argue that the translators did not use correct grammar when forming English sentences, correct grammar will dictate comprehension (which is essentially what grammar it is for.)
NASB Jn 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.
I assume the context of Jesus responding to Israelites in the present tense is not in dispute (context comes from v43 and earlier) so when look at Jn 6:44 and ask, “Who is the verse saying can come to Jesus?” The only grammatically correct answer is … those people who the Father draws.
Since the sentences are all in present tense when referring to those who come, this is only referring to people who were in existence at the time the discourse was occurring. To read yourself into the text would be narcigesis instead of exegesis.
This gives rise to the question, "Who was the Father drawing to Jesus when He was incarnate performing His earthly ministry?" (Present tense grammar from v44 and earlier is enough to provide this context) The very next verse provides the answer.
NASB Jn 6:45b Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
If the Father needed to draw people in v44 for them to come to Jesus and v45 says that everyone who previously heard and learnt from the Father comes to Jesus, the conclusion must be; the Father was drawing everyone who was already hearing and learning from the Father; to Jesus. The past tense of the people’s relationship with the Father is in the words “has heard” and “learned.” These are the people who are being referred to when the phase “comes to me” is used.
On a side note, verse 39 is not a slight change of term. The word “given” in verse 39 is used in the same way as the word “gives” in verse 37, it is not a synonym for the word “comes.”
Your interpretation of the verse is Jesus saying,
No one
has the ability from birth to respond positively to me
or the gospel unless the Father who sent me
supernaturally regenerates their ontological nature and irresistible draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Do you find the re-wording to be theologically correct?
Is this any different from Pelagianism?
This is the Bogeyman label argumentation that allows the adherent to avoid addressing the substance of the argument by labelling (incorrectly as noted below) the person.
If you go to the CARM.org website run by Matt Slick, a well-known Calvinist, you will find four conditions in the definition of Pelagianism. Since the content only agreed with one point, this is the same as non-Christians saying Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians because they believe in the existence of God. This over generalization ignores the fact that they do not believe the Trinity among other things. Agreement on one point does not equal agreement on all points. This sort of argumentation is either born of a lack of understanding or intellectual dishonesty. I assume you made the statement out of not enough knowledge of the facts.
To include Eve would not be biblically accurate at all. The whole issue concerns only Adam.
No, when we look at Genesis 3 we see that Adam sinned and Eve sinned. Both sinned and both received a punishment for their own actions. Eve was not punished for Adam’s sin, she was punished for her own act of sin. The consequences of the punishment each received is still experienced by people today. For example, pain in childbirth and thorns growing in the ground. Their choices, like our Grandparents choices, have consequences in the lives of future generations. The consequences do not show that the nature of Adam or Eve changed in respect to their ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.
This is why Romans 5 talks about Adam.
Romans 5 talks about Adam in relation to how his sinful action provided consequences that effected the world and those who are in it.
NASB Rm 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned-
Here Paul explains that “sin entered the world.” It does not say, sin entered people or every person. Then it says, “and death through sin.” Death enters the world because of sin being in the world. Death spreads to everyone because everyone sins. “Sinned” is used in the past simple tense of the verb, sin therefore referring to the act of having committing sin and not the state of being a sinner. It did not say; because everyone has the guilt of Adam’s sin or that everyone was born a sinner. Grammatically, you cannot separate the spread of sin from the active sinning due to the word “because” being a subordinating conjunction making the “all sinned” a dependent clause.
The result of Adam committing sin is that his offspring are now in world containing both sin and death.
NASB Rm 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law.
Here we see God’s mercy in not counting a person’s sin against them prior to the knowledge to the Law.
NASB Rm 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Death entered the world because of Adam’s sin and death effects those in the world. People who had not committed sin like Adam did, are still in a world which has death in it. They will experience death whether they commit a sin or not. This is the result of a change of environment not a change of nature.
The chapter then goes on to contrast how Adam’s actions opened the door to sin and death, while Jesus actions opened the door to life eternal. None of this supports the doctrine of inherited sin (as Wayne Grudem calls it.) We have inherited a world that ensures every person will become a sinner before they are 6 years old (although I expect that every two-year-old has already sinned by disobeying their parents and become a sinner.)
This is why 1 Corinthians 15 talks only about Adam.
Adam is spoken of in 1 Cor 15 because his sin resulted in death entering the world. It does not speak about him because his sin changed humanity’s nature. The only thing mentioned is death.
The scripture (Eph 2:3) says that we are "by nature children of wrath." Our bondage is a part of our nature.
In the context of this passage Paul is telling Christians about their former ways as unbelievers. No one disputes that the nature of a sinner is to sin like the nature of an alcoholic is to get drunk. This in no way shows a condition from birth. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon also defines this use of nature as indicating by long habit and references Eph 2:3 which I provided at the start of post #53.
We can no more change our nature that a Leopard can change its spots (Jeremiah 13:23).
If your nature has been changed by your sin then you need God to change you. Interesting to note, in the rest of the verse you did not quote it says this applies to those who "are accustomed to evil" which is referencing habitual behaviour. This points away from a nature from birth.
Your view also avoids the issue of human nature being "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1; Romans 6 and many more).
As per you comment later in your post, you acknowledge I do think sinners are dead in sin. Verses that show people are dead in sin do not equal verses showing people are born dead in sin. Bible verses showing a person is born dead in sin are required to justify your interpretation.
You make the nature of man to be merely wounded or a little sick, but able to be healed. We do not need just a little mending, but we need a transformation.
Yes, as sinners' people do need to be transformed from death to life but there is no Bible verse that shows sinners are incapable of accepting to the gospel.
This is soooo unscriptural. The word is "dead" not tainted.
What scripture do you supply to show the world is dead?
You think men become sinners when they sin. That is not the scriptural teaching. Men sin because they are sinners by nature. David admitted to being "brought forth in iniquity." (Psa 51:5)
Context is a very important part hermeneutics and the Psalms use figurative language, including this one. Verse 3 states "my sin is ever before me" which is expressing how much David is thinking about his transgression. Verse 7 says “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;” which is referring to the purification from transgressions as hyssop was used in the Passover and other sacrifices. If a literal interpretation is applied to verse 3 then David is referring to the actions of his mother and circumstances of his conception. To interpret verse 5 as referring to people being born sinners requires a non-literal interpretation. If the correct interpretation is not literal, then there are more than one possibility including David lamenting his actions to the point where he uses hyperbole to show how sinful he sees himself regarding his actions. Even though this scripture does not contradict the doctrine of a sinful nature from birth, it does not support it either.
To sin is to rebel against God. Following the way of the world and being in sin is referred to as being dead in transgressions and sins. Someone who sins is by nature under the wrath of God.
No disagreement here
Well, at least you admit we are dead in sin, but the rest is far to weak. We rebel against God because it is our nature. We sin, because it is our nature. Only regeneration can change that.
The difference in our belief is when and how people have a nature of sin.
You fail to know the grace of God fully. You see man as holier then what he really is, and God as less graceful that what God is.
Actually that opposite is true.
When is man more blameworthy, when he is not a sinner and chooses to sin or when he is born a sinner already and could not do anything else because of his nature? Man choosing to sin, carries the greater fault.
When is God more gracious, when He gives grace to those who rebel because of their nature dictates they must or when He gives grace to those who chose to rebel? He is more gracious when he shows grace to those who choose rebellion.
