The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

Brightfame52 said:

Its both, so the point is drawing actually saves

Click to expand...

I agree, we cannot possibly be saved unless we’re drawn. Our difference lies in whether or not a person can refuse to be drawn, or can turn and walk back away after being drawn.

Brightfame52 said:

No they can't refuse regeneration, it occurred while they were dead.

Click to expand...

And still some, after having tasted of the heavenly gift (Heb 6:4), or coming to the knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 2:20-22), may yet prefer to return to their death, to the flesh, like a dog to its vomit.

fhansen said:

Yes, by grace He draws all men to Himself. And yet He won't force anyone to come, or to remain. God's never been in the business of producing automatons. But if we come to Him and remain in Him we will produce much good fruit. those who do so to the end are the elect. Meanwhile there will by some who beleive they're His but who are not, and others who didn't know they were His but are.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind someone else chiming in on your comments. I wanted to offer some detailed food for thought.

John 12:32 occurs within the context of Jesus responding to the report that "some Greeks" desired to see Him (v. 20). The arrival of Gentiles signals that the redemptive focus is widening beyond Israel. Jesus interprets this event as the indication that His "hour" has come: the hour of His glorification through death (v. 23). Thus, when He says He will be "lifted up," He refers to His crucifixion (v. 33).

So when he says πάντας ἑλκύσω ("I will draw all people"), the phrase must be read in light of the preceding Gentile reference and the Johannine theme of universal scope of the gospel, not universal salvation (or the attempt at such). In other words, "all" here does not mean "every individual without exception," but "all kinds of people (Jew and Gentile alike) without distinction." The arrival of Greeks prompts Jesus to declare that His crucifixion will effect a drawing not limited to Jews. The verse, therefore, celebrates the inclusiveness of the atonement's scope (its sufficiency), not the universality of its effect (its efficiency).

In short, the "drawing" of John 12:32 refers to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel, through which all nations are summoned to faith. It is not a statement on the wooing effects of God's work on the hearts of individuals. The text is missional, not soteriological. Christ's cross will be the magnet of gospel appeal to every tribe and tongue.

In contrast, John 6:44 depicts a different kind of drawing. There, Jesus addresses unbelieving Jews who are grumbling over His claim to be the bread from heaven (vv. 41-43). He rebukes them, essentially telling them to knock it off (μὴ γογγύζετε), as if to declare that it is pointless for them to complain. Why? Why not just address their concerns and try to reason with them? He answers: "No one can (οὐδεὶς δύναται) come to me unless drawn," the implication being that they hadn't been, hence the reason for their persistent unbelief. The problem is not that they haven't been invited, but that they cannot believe. The issue is moral and spiritual inability, not ethnic scope.

Same verb as in John 12:32, but its sense differs. In John 6, the "drawing" is effectual; it infallibly results in saving faith. Grammatically, the object of "draws him" (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν) is the same as the object of "I will raise him" (ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν), both referring back to οὐδεὶς. Thus, while the text explicitly says that the one who is drawn is enabled to come, the grammar also entails that the one who is drawn is the one who comes, believes, and is raised. In other words, the text assumes no distinction between "enabled to come" and "those who do come." It presents man in two categories: those who are unable to come, and those who, being enabled, do so. (More on the grammatical argument for this below.)

So the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is not the external call of gospel proclamation (as in John 12:32), but the internal, regenerative work of grace whereby the sinner's will is made willing (cf. v. 65, which restates v. 44 but replaces the verb with that of v. 37).

fhansen said:

It means to draw, to appeal to, to coax, to prompt, to inform, to grace, to call, to knock on our door. And then, as we respond, we draw near to Him, and the nearer we draw to Him, the nearer yet He draws to us. That's the whole point of our faith; that's man's purpose, that's man's state of justice, his wholeness, his holiness, his complete and uncompromised happiness, to be near to God and to remain there in this life, and then be there eternally as this union is fully consummated in the next.

Click to expand...

This is too soft a definition of ἑλκύω. The lexical range of ἑλκύω is primarily in the realm of "drag" or "haul" (see John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; James 2:6). It's a term that expresses decisive action resulting in movement, not gentle persuasion. Even when used metaphorically, as in John 6:44 and 12:32, the same strength of meaning carries through, because the drawing accomplishes its intent. In John 6:44, it accomplishes (at the very least) an enablement to believe; in John 12:32, it accomplishes the worldwide extension of the gospel's appeal. These efforts do not fail. They describe an effectual change of position -- from unable to able to believe (6:44), and from restricted to universal scope in gospel proclamation (12:32). That's the semantic force of ἑλκύω, "draw."

fhansen said:

I agree, we cannot possibly be saved unless we’re drawn. Our difference lies in whether or not a person can refuse to be drawn, or can turn and walk back away after being drawn.

Click to expand...

Despite much debate, the syntax of John 6:44 is decisive on this. The main clause, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ("no one is able to come to me"), asserts total inability. The verb δύναται ("is able") makes ability, not willingness, the issue. The conditional clause, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ... ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν ("unless the Father... draws him"), introduces the single remedy for this inability: divine initiative. The construction is a present general third-class conditional, meaning Jesus is appealing to a general or axiomatic truth about humanity: mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.

The final clause, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ("and I will raise him up on the last day"), is not part of the condition, but its logical consequence. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. We could say, theologically, that the one raised is the one who actually comes. But what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual -- not in making people into "automatons," but in changing the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward. They will as their heart desires, and their heart desires Christ.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me."
"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)."

fhansen said:

And still some, after having tasted of the heavenly gift (Heb 6:4), or coming to the knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 2:20-22), may yet prefer to return to their death, to the flesh, like a dog to its vomit.

Click to expand...

These warnings describe those who are exposed to the blessings of God's gospel (tasting, seeing, or experiencing) without being truly regenerated. They illustrate the danger of false profession and the severity of rejecting God's gift. They do not demonstrate that the elect, those whom the Father draws and Christ saves, can finally fall away. The "return to death" is evidence of those who were never truly born of God (1 John 2:19).

Dikaioumenoi said:

I hope you don't mind someone else chiming in on your comments. I wanted to offer some detailed food for thought.

John 12:32 occurs within the context of Jesus responding to the report that "some Greeks" desired to see Him (v. 20). The arrival of Gentiles signals that the redemptive focus is widening beyond Israel. Jesus interprets this event as the indication that His "hour" has come: the hour of His glorification through death (v. 23). Thus, when He says He will be "lifted up," He refers to His crucifixion (v. 33).

So when he says πάντας ἑλκύσω ("I will draw all people"), the phrase must be read in light of the preceding Gentile reference and the Johannine theme of universal scope of the gospel, not universal salvation (or the attempt at such). In other words, "all" here does not mean "every individual without exception," but "all kinds of people (Jew and Gentile alike) without distinction." The arrival of Greeks prompts Jesus to declare that His crucifixion will effect a drawing not limited to Jews. The verse, therefore, celebrates the inclusiveness of the atonement's scope (its sufficiency), not the universality of its effect (its efficiency).

In short, the "drawing" of John 12:32 refers to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel, through which all nations are summoned to faith. It is not a statement on the wooing effects of God's work on the hearts of individuals. The text is missional, not soteriological. Christ's cross will be the magnet of gospel appeal to every tribe and tongue.

In contrast, John 6:44 depicts a different kind of drawing. There, Jesus addresses unbelieving Jews who are grumbling over His claim to be the bread from heaven (vv. 41-43). He rebukes them, essentially telling them to knock it off (μὴ γογγύζετε), as if to declare that it is pointless for them to complain. Why? Why not just address their concerns and try to reason with them? He answers: "No one can (οὐδεὶς δύναται) come to me unless drawn," the implication being that they hadn't been, hence the reason for their persistent unbelief. The problem is not that they haven't been invited, but that they cannot believe. The issue is moral and spiritual inability, not ethnic scope.

Same verb as in John 12:32, but its sense differs. In John 6, the "drawing" is effectual; it infallibly results in saving faith. Grammatically, the object of "draws him" (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν) is the same as the object of "I will raise him" (ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν), both referring back to οὐδεὶς. Thus, while the text explicitly says that the one who is drawn is enabled to come, the grammar also entails that the one who is drawn is the one who comes, believes, and is raised. In other words, the text assumes no distinction between "enabled to come" and "those who do come." It presents man in two categories: those who are unable to come, and those who, being enabled, do so. (More on the grammatical argument for this below.)

So the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is not the external call of gospel proclamation (as in John 12:32), but the internal, regenerative work of grace whereby the sinner's will is made willing (cf. v. 65, which restates v. 44 but replaces the verb with that of v. 37).



This is too soft a definition of ἑλκύω. The lexical range of ἑλκύω is primarily in the realm of "drag" or "haul" (see John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; James 2:6). It's a term that expresses decisive action resulting in movement, not gentle persuasion. Even when used metaphorically, as in John 6:44 and 12:32, the same strength of meaning carries through, because the drawing accomplishes its intent. In John 6:44, it accomplishes (at the very least) an enablement to believe; in John 12:32, it accomplishes the worldwide extension of the gospel's appeal. These efforts do not fail. They describe an effectual change of position -- from unable to able to believe (6:44), and from restricted to universal scope in gospel proclamation (12:32). That's the semantic force of ἑλκύω, "draw."



Despite much debate, the syntax of John 6:44 is decisive on this. The main clause, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ("no one is able to come to me"), asserts total inability. The verb δύναται ("is able") makes ability, not willingness, the issue. The conditional clause, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ... ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν ("unless the Father... draws him"), introduces the single remedy for this inability: divine initiative. The construction is a present general third-class conditional, meaning Jesus is appealing to a general or axiomatic truth about humanity: mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.

The final clause, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ("and I will raise him up on the last day"), is not part of the condition, but its logical consequence. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. We could say, theologically, that the one raised is the one who actually comes. But what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual -- not in making people into "automatons," but in changing the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward. They will as their heart desires, and their heart desires Christ.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me."
"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)."



These warnings describe those who are exposed to the blessings of God's gospel (tasting, seeing, or experiencing) without being truly regenerated. They illustrate the danger of false profession and the severity of rejecting God's gift. They do not demonstrate that the elect, those whom the Father draws and Christ saves, can finally fall away. The "return to death" is evidence of those who were never truly born of God (1 John 2:19).

Click to expand...

Nicely eisegeted.

fhansen said:

Nicely eisegeted.

Click to expand...

Well that settles it, folks!

Dikaioumenoi said:

Well that settles it, folks!

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it won't.

For myself, your post is one more in a litany of pseudo or semi-scholarly skewings of the Christian faith using quasi-plausible arguments to undermine the historical understanding of passages, changing the faith that hasn’t changed in over 2 millennia simply because it didn't need to, in an effort to support a novel and deficient albeit now popular theology. Christianity received all it needed at the beginning and required no additional man-based help on the basics.

Study more. Find out what and why the early Christians thought as they did. Go back and read the patristics, the earlier theologians, the early councils, the early church histories and catechisms

fhansen said:

Unfortunately, it won't.

For myself, your post is one more in a litany of pseudo or semi-scholarly skewings of the Christian faith using quasi-plausible arguments to undermine the historical understanding of passages, changing the faith that hasn’t changed in over 2 millennia simply because it didn't need to, in an effort to support a novel and deficient albeit now popular theology. Christianity received all it needed at the beginning and required no additional man-based help on the basics.

Click to expand...

The only thing I'm interested in is whether you can engage the exegesis and provide a rebuttal.

Dikaioumenoi said:

The only thing I'm interested in is whether you can engage the exegesis and provide a rebuttal.

Click to expand...

I've done it many times. What you need to do is follow the advice I added to the end of my last post,. Then we'll have something substantive to talk about.

fhansen said:

I've done it many times. What you need to do is follow the advice I added to the end of my last post,. Then we'll have something substantive to talk about.

Click to expand...

I'm really not interested in the rhetoric. If my exegesis is wrong, show it from the passage. If you can't do so, then let's give someone else the opportunity.

Dikaioumenoi said:

I'm really not interested in the rhetoric. If my exegesis is wrong, show it from the passage. If you can't do so, then let's give someone else the opportunity.

Click to expand...

Anyone can have at it all they want. I simply summarized some truths of Christianity, digested from years of study. I have no desire to argue the points now. Maybe later.