A Thought on John 6:44

[OldAbramBrown]

But it implies ability as well, because of that. Who can climb the mountain of the Lord, except he who has clean hands and a pure heart - which He is able to make possible.

 

[GDL]

I understand that you don't agree with the argument I've presented. What I don't understand is why. You've consistently objected to the claim that being drawn/made able to come to Christ necessarily results in coming and being raised, yet there really hasn't been interaction with the argument I've offered for that claim. Your objection that "ability implies contingency" has been addressed, and that response remains unchallenged.

This has been relegated to the back seat in my use of time. My apology.

It seems to me you may not understand me because I don't speak the language you do. e.g. and I'm doing this from memory so I may make a mistake, you've objected to my use of "contingency" and supplied reference re: contingency vs, possibility as used in philosophy. I do appreciate the lessons, but I've not found the time I desire to apply to them beyond a point.

I'm going to throw something your way that may be in your realm and I think may express what I've been saying about "able" from the beginning of our discussion. In the list of logical fallacies, I see the fallacy of "Proving too much", among others that may apply. Remaining just in John6:44:

• I've attempted to explain that I do see that a man whom Jesus raises has been drawn to come / enabled to come to Jesus and has come to Jesus.
• I've said that "able to come" does not prove to me that all who are drawn to come, do come.
• So, I might say this re: John6:44:
  • It is true that Jesus will raise a man whom the Father has drawn to Jesus / enabled to come to Jesus.
  • It is not proven that whomever the Father has drawn to Jesus / enabled to come to Jesus, does come to Jesus and will be raised by Jesus.

I also mentioned along the way that there were some eternal security issues that are not addressed in John6:44 but would come into play as this discussion branched out. So, I might add as pertinent:

• It is not proven that the man whom the Father has drawn to come / enabled to come to Jesus and has come to Jesus, will remain in Jesus, and Jesus will raise him [to Life] in the last day.

I appreciate the time and energy you've put forth. The discipline of logic as I've said, is of interest and has been for quite some time. I've shelved its pursuit a few times due to other stronger interests in Theology. Honestly, I don't have a lot of interest in Irresistible Grace and never have. My interest has always been more directed to matters of Progressive Sanctification and the full scope of Salvation. IOW, once we're in Christ, what's it take to receive a Well Done?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

you've objected to my use of "contingency" and supplied reference re: contingency vs, possibility as used in philosophy.

The purpose of pointing out the distinctions I've raised is to show that your argument is question-begging. You're assuming too much. Nothing about the nature of ability entails a contradiction to necessity. Yet your view of contingency suggests that it must. I don't deny that contingency is inherent in ability in some sense. What I deny is that the contingency of an action must mean that there is no sense in which that action can also be said to be necessary. I don't need philosophy to prove this. I've used Scripture to do so, and there has been no interaction with my comments there.

In the list of logical fallacies, I see the fallacy of "Proving too much", among others that may apply.

How have I proven too much? An argument proves too much when its logic can be extended to prove other things that are obviously false. For instance, the argument that slavery is evil because some masters beat their slaves proves too much because the same logic could be used to argue that marriage is evil because some men beat their wives. Though slavery is indeed evil, this particular argument isn't the best to use for making that conclusion. The logic is that beating another human being is bad, therefore an institution in which this occurs is bad. Well, that logic encompasses both bad and good institutions.

I'm not sure where you see the relevance of this fallacy to my argument. You've underlined the words "not proven" in your response. But lack of proof isn't the same as proving too much.

Moreover, I have offered proof. You still have not interacted with it. So I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish at this point.

Also, since you brought it up, it's worth pointing out that your own perspective on "ability" is kind of an example of proving too much. The implication of your comments on contingency have been that if a thing is contingent, it must be so in every sense. That is, it can't be that a thing (such as a choice) can be contingent in one sense (proximate cause), and necessary in another (ultimate cause). Do you have a response you can offer against what I've argued on this point? Or do you take for granted that a thing cannot be both one thing and something else at the same time, in different senses? If the latter, what then do you do with the Trinity and hypostatic union? (There's where you may be proving too much.)

Returning to my concern about not being sure what you're wanting to accomplish at this stage in our discussion, can you please offer some interaction now with the rest of my argument? I don't mean to rush you if you're still working through it. Do take your time. But you keep responding with claims I've already offered rebuttals to. For instance:

• It is not proven that whomever the Father has drawn to Jesus / enabled to come to Jesus, does come to Jesus and will be raised by Jesus.

...

• It is not proven that the man whom the Father has drawn to come / enabled to come to Jesus and has come to Jesus, will remain in Jesus, and Jesus will raise him [to Life] in the last day.

I have specifically argued the contrary, particularly to your first claim here, but also by implication the second. You've yet to interact with critical portions of that argument. Can you please quote that argumentation and interact with it? Here or in the other discussion is fine. See these particular posts:

No one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me MAY NOT DRAW him

Apologies, but busy with other things and I'm not always seeing alerts enumerated on my page. I'll read what you've written when I can. You've put forth quite a bit of effort and I should probably just ask you to consider being my instructor in logic. But you'd probably end up flunking or...

www.christianforums.com

No one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me MAY NOT DRAW him

Apologies, but busy with other things and I'm not always seeing alerts enumerated on my page. I'll read what you've written when I can. You've put forth quite a bit of effort and I should probably just ask you to consider being my instructor in logic. But you'd probably end up flunking or...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

@GDL , don't miss my above reply. In my typical fashion, I just had more I wanted to elaborate on.

You say it hasn't been proven that those whom the Father draws necessarily come to Jesus and are raised. On the contrary, I believe I have shown this. And I need to reiterate the fact that critical portions of that argument remain unaddressed. Let me bring it back into focus here.

What I have shown is that the contingency inherent in ability need not preclude the possibility that man's choices are also necessary in another sense. There is no contradiction implied in the assertion that man necessarily exercises his contingent ability, for it is contingent in a different respect (viz. as to its proximate cause, i.e. its mode of production) than that in which it is necessary (viz. as to its ultimate cause, i.e. the consequence of God's decree). Just as God ultimately causes the sun the shine, though it is the sun that does the shining, so God ultimately causes the enabled one to respond (via the regeneration of the spiritually dead heart), though it is the individual that does the responding.

I've argued for these categories from Scripture, appealing to Acts 2:23, the Exodus narrative, and other texts. I've also shown how the juxtaposition of these categories (what I've chosen to call ultimate necessity and proximate contingency) fits nicely with what we read in the context of John 6:44, namely concerning verses 37a, 39, and 37b, 40, respectively. Jesus definitely seems to be pointing to this, such that verses 39-40 expound upon a distinction raised in 37a-37b, respectively:

• We see ultimate necessity (i.e. the revelation of God's decree) in Jesus' promises that "all that the Father gives me will come to me" (vs. 37a) and "I should lose nothing of all that he has given me" (vs. 39).
  • Note also that even within 37a the individual's coming (a contingent choice) is described in terms of purpose; the promise of a definite outcome.
• We see proximate contingency (i.e. the secondary causes, or the means by which, God works through agents to bring about His purposes) in the statements "whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (vs. 37b) and "everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life" (vs. 40).

Thus, the response of the elect is both contingent and necessary. It is necessary in the sense that the decree of God orchestrates things in such a way that they will choose to exercise faith. And yet this does not take away from the reality of their contingency, for they remain contingent in their mode of production. That is, the choice is still a choice, and the individual making it bears moral responsibility for the choice. It is the nature of choice (indeed, it is the nature of all created things) that it is contingent, and yet the choice follows necessarily from the inclination of the individual's heart, for man is not free from the constraints of his nature. (Are spiritually dead sinners capable of pleasing God? Are those in heaven capable of sinning? Can a bad tree bear good fruit? Can a good tree bear bad fruit?) In other words, the contingency of the choice is with respect to its intrinsic nature, but this says nothing of whether or not a choice may be made extrinsically necessary by external factors affecting the orientation of the will that chooses.

Think about divine omniscience. Do you agree that God knows all things exhaustively? Is there anything that He does not know perfectly? I had a turkey sandwich for lunch the other day. My choice to have that sandwich, and not something else, was a contingent choice. That is, as to its mode of production, I was not forced against my will to eat turkey. I "could have chosen" to eat something else (that is, in the sense that it is conceivable, from my perspective, that I could have done it; it was a logical potentiality). At the same time, however, is it not the case that God knew beforehand that I would choose to eat that turkey sandwich, and not something else? If I had chosen at the last possible second to scrap the sandwich and go for the leftover pizza instead, would I have thwarted God's foreknowledge? Or would He have foreseen that change in choice?

If we can agree that whatever it is I choose has already been perfectly foreknown by God, then we ought to be able to agree that there is some sense in which those choices are necessary. It is not meaningful to speak of perfect knowledge of something that is not certain to take place. And it is not meaningful to speak of certainty without speaking of necessity. It must therefore be the case that everything God knows (which is, indeed, all contingent realities) is necessary, in some respect. But the sense in which it is necessary is different from the sense in which it is contingent, clearly. My choice to eat a turkey sandwich was a contingent choice. From my perspective, I could have made alternate choices, in the sense that they are logical possibilities. But whatever possibility I choose, God has foreseen it, and the inescapable result of that is that in some other sense the actual choice that I make is a necessary one. The choice is contingent with respect to potentiality, but necessary with respect to actuality.

I'm assuming you're not an Open Theist (I see that as the only meaningful alternative to the conclusions I'm laying out here), but correct me if you are. Assuming you're not, though, there ought to be no issue accepting that choices are therefore both contingent and necessary, in different respects. I am not forced against my will to choose contrary to what I desire. But my choices are mysteriously necessary as to their future certainty. Omniscience entails this.

So, since what is proximately contingent can also be ultimately necessary, it does not follow that "able" precludes the possibility of necessity. There is no contradiction implied in saying that contingent choices are made extrinsically necessary by God's immutable decree. Thus, you are not actually responding to anything I have argued when you simply point out the contingency inherent in ability. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the decree of God necessitates particular contingent outcomes.

God knows, perfectly, who will choose to believe and who will not, yes? How is that any different from saying that it is certainly the case that those who will choose to believe will do so? And how it that any different from saying that it is necessarily the case that those who will choose to believe will do so? No contradiction is implied if the choice is necessary in a different respect than it is contingent. And is it not obvious that it is, when you think about it? My choice to have a turkey sandwich was certainly a contingent choice. And yet, in some sense, it was also a necessary choice, if indeed God knew with certainty that I would make that choice.

For some mysterious reason that continues to elude me, I always seem to get hungry when discussing omniscience.

To relate all of this back to John 6:44, the fact that the drawn one is made able to come does not require the view that he will not contingently exercise that ability necessarily. God can determine, as an ultimate cause, that the drawn one will come, in the same way that He determines that the sun will shine, and yet the drawn one's choice to come, as a proximate cause, is still his own choice, in the same way that it is the sun that does the shining, for the individual making the choice makes it as a consequence of the underlying desire of his heart, which the drawing of the Father has graciously changed.

So "ability implies contingency" is not an argument against the view that the "him" who is drawn is one-to-one the same "him" who is raised. What other argument can there be, given the logic and grammar of the verse? Why should we not accept that when John 6:44 says "the Father draws him," and "I will raise him," that this is not talking, in every single instance, about the same individual? It is perfectly meaningful to take it that way, without doing violence to the will of man, and that seems to best fit the context.

 

[John Mullally]

I'm not really sure what you want me to "answer." You still haven't actually interacted with the argument of the OP, beyond simply asserting that it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Can you pick a point that I raised and show the error in it? Here's a simplified version, point by point:

1. The first two clauses of John 6:44 contain a conditional statement, with the "if/then" reversed: "[Then] no one is able to come to me, [if] not the Father draws him." Any disagreement with this?
   
   
2. The final clause ("and I will raise him up on the last day") is not a part of the conditional statement. Any disagreement with this?
   
   
3. If we let "one is able to come" be q, "the Father draws him" be p, and "I will raise him up" be r, then we can represent the verse symbolically with the expression, -q if -p and r. Any disagreement with this?
   
   
4. The expression -q if -p and r can be restated as -p --> -q ^r. This is just the formal way of expressing a condition in symbolic logic. Nothing has changed as far as what's being said. The expression reads, "if not p, then not q, and r." Any disagreement with this?
   
   
5. A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of a statement is when the "if" and "then" are both inverted and flipped. Example: The statement "if an object is blue, then it has color" (p --> q) is logically equivalent to "if an object does not have color, then it is not blue" (-q --> -p). Any disagreement with this?
   
   
6. The contrapositive of -p --> -q ^r would be q --> p ^r. Any disagreement with this?
   
   
7. The expression q --> p ^r reads, "if he is able to come to me, then the Father who sent me has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Given all the above, this statement is logically equivalent to what we have in John 6:44. This is a conclusion to the above premises, none of which you have directly challenged.

Can you identify a number and tell me what's wrong with it?

If you can't, then what the conclusion (point 7) to this argument clearly demonstrates is that the "him" who is raised up on the last day is the "him" whom the Father draws, who is also the one who is made able to come. Thus, John 6:44 presupposes that all those whom the Father enables to come will actually do so (this is what I meant by Jesus "not recognizing" a distinction between being able to come, and actually coming), because it is the enabled ones who are described as being raised up on the last day.

How can Jesus promise to raise someone merely on account of them being able to come, unless something about the drawing/enabling activity of the Father effectually moves them to make that decision? After all, is that not exactly what we are told in verse 37? - "All that the Father gives me will come to me..."

Pre-Calvary:​

The next verse tells us who the Father draws to Jesus. It is the faithful Jews who had heard and learned from the Father.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. NKJV​

This is collaborated in John 5:45-47 where Jesus tells the Jewish leaders that they don't believe Him because they didn't believe Moses.. Those faithful Jews who learned from the Father will of course believe Moses.

John 5:45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”​

Post-Calvary:​

It’s not until Jesus is “lifted up" - speaking of Calvary - that He draws all men to Himself, and how does He do it? It’s through the global proclamation of the gospel: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)

Whereas the pre-Calvary drawing of John 6:44-45 was the Father’s drawing of the faithful remnant of Israel to His Son, the post-Calvary drawing of John 12:32 was the Son’s drawing of both Jews and Gentiles in transition to a global Christian Church. The significance is the inclusion of Gentiles, which more adequately reconciles the nature of the two drawings.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.​

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Hi John, thanks for your comments. Some considerations:

Pre-Calvary:​

The next verse tells us who the Father draws to Jesus. It is the faithful Jews who had heard and learned from the Father.

I maintain that arguing 'this other verse says' does not adequately address the comprehensive grammatical analysis that has been offered of John 6:44. That's not to say context isn't important, of course, only that your response is not a response to the argument presented. Respectfully, it seems more plausible that any perceived disparity between my conclusions on verse 44 and your interpretation of verse 45 would arise from an error in understanding on your part, given the comparison (so far) between your analysis and my own. I have diligently presented and defended my conclusions, on this thread and another, yet there has been a notable absence of grammatical counterarguments from any party involved. Your approach seems to lean towards appealing to consequences rather than engaging with the substance of my argument. Essentially, your response implies, 'Your interpretation cannot be valid because it contradicts my understanding of another text.' But perhaps that ought to signal a need for deeper consideration into your understanding? Grammatical analyses hold significant weight; they are to language what logic is to reason. Addressing the arguments already presented is essential for us to carry on a meaningful discourse.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. NKJV​

The phrase "everyone who has heard and learned" in verse 45 describes the nature of the drawing in verse 44, not conditions for it. Hearing and learning are not prerequisites for the Father's drawing; they are the outcomes of that drawing. This is evident in John's use of the genitive phrase διδακτοὶ θεοῦ ("taught of God"). Διδακτοὶ is a predicate adjective, emphasizing the reception of divine instruction. The term is never used of a "teaching" offered to people. Rather, it conveys the idea of individuals being "God-taught" or "God-instructed," with God imparting knowledge to them. The divine instruction has been engraved upon their hearts; its reception is not conditioned upon anything other than the One giving it.

Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 54:13. When considering the context of Isaiah 54, the passage underscores God's monergistic action in vindicating His people. It describes divine protection and provision for Israel after a period of affliction, highlighting God's sovereign intervention throughout. Jesus references this passage in John 6 to emphasize that the Father who sent Him will draw those entrusted to Him for salvation (as mentioned in verse 37a). These individuals will be taught by God / drawn by God, meaning they will receive the educational effect of the teaching, which enables them to hear, learn, come, and believe. Thus, just as in Isaiah 54:13, the promise here extends protection and provision for God's people after their spiritual affliction (depicted as being dead in sin in verse 44a).

This is collaborated in John 5:45-47 where Jesus tells the Jewish leaders that they don't believe Him because they didn't believe Moses.. Those faithful Jews who learned from the Father will of course believe Moses.

The Jewish leaders were religious and knew the Scriptures. That doesn't mean the Father has imparted divine knowledge to them with the purpose of protecting and providing.

It’s not until Jesus is “lifted up" - speaking of Calvary - that He draws all men to Himself, and how does He do it? It’s through the global proclamation of the gospel: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)

Agreed, but the contexts of John 6 and 12 are distinctly different, and describe different drawing activities. We can't force a comparison between them just because the same word is used. Mere use of the same word doesn't indicate descriptions of the same doctrine. In John 6, the Father is the agent of drawing, within a soteriological context. Jesus emphasizes the Father's indispensable role in enabling individuals to come to Him, building upon prior statements regarding the Father's sovereign activity in salvation (vv. 37a, 39). Conversely, in John 12, Jesus assumes the role of drawing, within an evangelistic context. This difference matters, just as the different economic roles of the persons of the Trinity matter. Whereas John 12:32 describes an outward, universal proclamation of the gospel to both Jew and Gentile (that is, all kinds of men), John 6:44 describes an inward, particular calling of individual hearts, where the Father's initiative persuades belief. As I've argued throughout this thread (and the other linked above), the "him" raised in John 6:44c corresponds grammatically to the "him" drawn, indicating that all whom the Father draws, individually (not all individually whom the Son draws, as His drawing references all kinds of people, not necessarily every individual who makes up those kinds) will ultimately be raised, and hence saved.

Whereas the pre-Calvary drawing of John 6:44-45 was the Father’s drawing of the faithful remnant of Israel to His Son..."

I think you're going to run into a problem limiting the truth of John 6:44 to Israel only. While Jesus is engaging in a conversation with Jews in the immediate context, he's appealing to a universal truth to make application to that immediate context. This is borne out by the grammar itself. The Greek of John 6:44 contains a third class conditional -- ἐὰν (if) + a subjunctive verb in the protasis (the "if" clause). Third class conditions typically denote probable future actions or hypothetical scenarios, but there exists a less common type known as a "present general," where the verb of the apodosis (the "then" clause) is in the present tense. Present general conditions are axiomatic. They articulate universal truths akin to proverbs, rather than only hold applicable truth to the immediate context in which they are used. John 6:44 fits this; δύναται ("he is able") is a present tense verb.

The significance of this is that when Jesus says "no one can come," this statement does not pertain solely to his immediate audience, suggesting, for instance, a barrier unique to their covenantal situation as pre-Calvary Jews. Rather, Jesus articulates a proverbial truth -- a fundamental axiom about humanity's fallen state, which renders individuals incapable, by themselves, of believing in the Son of God. The reason why the Jews in this context fail to grasp the spiritual significance of Jesus' words has nothing to do with their being pre-Calvary Jews, and everything to do with the fact that they are simply human beings. The truth of John 6:44 is therefore applicable to all of us.

No human being has within themselves the capacity or desire to forsake their sin and throw themselves upon Christ in faith, unless the Father, the one who sent the Son to earth to accomplish the redemption of the given ones (vv. 37-40), draws them. And as I have already argued, this drawing, despite being an enabling activity, nevertheless leads necessarily and infallibly to coming, because we are specifically told in verse 44 that the one who is drawn will also be raised up with Jesus.

 

[tall73]

I want to offer the argument that the logical structure of John 6:44 leaves little doubt as to its meaning.

The verse consists of three clauses:

A:	οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με	"No one is able to come to me"
B:	ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν	"if not the Father, the one who sent me, draws him"
C:	κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ	"and I will raise him up on the last day"

Seems pretty straight-forward.

• The protasis (the "if" clause) and the apodosis (the "then" clause) are reversed, given the negative way in which the condition is stated. The sense is, "[Then] one is not able to come, [if] the Father does not draw him."
• Clause B, or p, is the protasis (if); clause A, or q, is the apodosis (then).

Thus, stated properly in symbolic logic, the condition can be represented as -p --> -q, which reads, "If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to me."

I don't see how that is terribly helpful. The phrase seems to make sense in Greek or English as usually rendered, without confusing it in this way.

οὐδεὶς being rendered with the usual "no one" makes sense in the context. A group referenced are not coming to Him. He explains this by giving the general principle--No one ...can.....unless ....

It is almost as though you have re-phrased it in this way to make the connection between the person who can, and the one who is drawn more clear. But it already is clear that the "him" that is drawn is the exception to the principle of no one.

Clause C, or r, is not part of the conditional statement:

Yes, that seems correct.

No one can, unless, is the conditional. The next phrase is not part of that.

• It can't be part of the protasis because the verb ἀναστήσω is not in the subjunctive (which is required of the protasis in a third class condition).
• It is extremely doubtful that it would be part of the apodosis because the condition in that case would logically distribute to both clauses A and C, with the conclusion being that the Son would raise up those not drawn by the Father.

Therefore, r is best taken as an additional clause appended to the end of the conditional statement. Moreover, it assumes the fulfillment of the condition. Compare how the full verse reads when stated "properly" without the reversing of the protasis and apodosis:

• "If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to me, and I will raise him up on the last day."

I don't think it was improper to start with.


John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (NKJV)

The "him" of the last statement is the exception to the rule of no one, because the "him" referenced met the condition. He was drawn by the Father, he came to Jesus, and Jesus will raise him up at the last day.

The point that it is an example of the present general condition is sufficient to show how it is used. I don't think the rest of the explanation given adds to that.

 

[tall73]

The next verse tells us who the Father draws to Jesus. It is the faithful Jews who had heard and learned from the Father.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. NKJV​

I am not certain it must be limited to the Jews, and the usage is that of a general principle.

But, yes, the point is that those who come to Jesus are those who heard and learned from the Father .

Jesus was from the Father, the religious leaders claimed to learn from the Father, but His point is that they cannot come to Him, because they have not, in fact, heard and learned from the Father.

 

[tall73]

John 6:45 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. (NKJV)

I maintain that arguing 'this other verse says' does not adequately address the comprehensive grammatical analysis that has been offered of John 6:44.

When "this other verse" is the very next one, part of the whole chain of the argument, and there were no verse divisions , I don't think that objections works.

You can recognize the construction in the first two clauses of vs. 44, and still differ in your view of v. 45, and how it relates to the overall meaning.

That's not to say context isn't important, of course, only that your response is not a response to the argument presented. Respectfully, it seems more plausible that any perceived disparity between my conclusions on verse 44 and your interpretation of verse 45 would arise from an error in understanding on your part, given the comparison (so far) between your analysis and my own. I have diligently presented and defended my conclusions, on this thread and another, yet there has been a notable absence of grammatical counterarguments from any party involved.

If the disagreement is not with your understanding of the grammar of verse 44, then why should people argue with your understanding of the grammar of verse 44?

Your approach seems to lean towards appealing to consequences rather than engaging with the substance of my argument. Essentially, your response implies, 'Your interpretation cannot be valid because it contradicts my understanding of another text.'

It didn't look that way from here.

Verse 45 seems to be the heart of the issue between your views, more than the grammar of verse 44. So perhaps you need to focus on the grammar of vs. 45 to continue the dialogue together.


John 6:45 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. (NKJV)

John 6:45 45 Ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, Καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ θεοῦ. Πᾶς [οὖν] ὁ [ἀκούων] [ἀκούσας] παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθών, ἔρχεται πρός με.

And we have a Byzantine variant reading in verse 45 to account for as well.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I don't see how that is terribly helpful. The phrase seems to make sense in Greek or English as usually rendered, without confusing it in this way.

οὐδεὶς being rendered with the usual "no one" makes sense in the context. A group referenced are not coming to Him. He explains this by giving the general principle--No one ...can.....unless ....

It is almost as though you have re-phrased it in this way to make the connection between the person who can, and the one who is drawn more clear. But it already is clear that the "him" that is drawn is the exception to the principle of no one.

Confusing it? The verse is clear as stated, indeed. And yet, I quite frequently encounter individuals in conversation who don't treat it as such. I used to go back and forth all the time with a friend who oddly insisted (granted, this is quite unusual) that the verse "is talking about those the Father does not draw," referencing οὐδεὶς. The decision to represent the condition "positively" was borne out of that and other conversations. It has, actually, proven helpful.

Those who object to the idea that all who are drawn are raised up do tend to find it more difficult to respond to:

"if he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day," or
"if the Father draws him, then he is able to come to me, and I will raise him up on the last day,"

than to:

"no one can come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

These all mean exactly the same thing, and that should be clear. But the positive re-expression leaves less room for people to shoehorn in a distinction between the "him" drawn and the "him" raised. Why? Because the final clause is already a positively stated proposition, whereas the conditional statement is expressed negatively. It is somewhat understandable how some would read that, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him ... [pause] ... And I will raise him (who?) up on the last day," inserting a "the drawn one who chooses to come" (implying that not all necessarily do) into that final "him." A contrapositive expression, however, states everything positively, more directly identifying those two "hims." It illustrates that the final clause assumes the fulfillment of the stated condition (being made able to come), not merely the fulfillment of some further action (the choice to actually come).

I don't think it was improper to start with.

It's not improper; it's necessary, given the context. Note my quotes around the term "properly." I was merely referring to the fact that in the standard expression of a conditional statement you normally have an "if" before a "then," not vice versa. That's not to say there's anything wrong with state it the other way.

The "him" of the last statement is the exception to the rule of no one, because the "him" referenced met the condition. He was drawn by the Father, he came to Jesus, and Jesus will raise him up at the last day.

Correct. The issue is that many (most?) do not see the drawing of the Father as entailing the fact that one will come to Jesus. What many suggest instead is that the drawing of the Father enables people to come, and they may or may not act upon that ability to come. But that does not fit the grammar of the text.

When "this other verse" is the very next one, part of the whole chain of the argument, and there were no verse divisions anyway back then, I don't think that objections works.

You can recognize the construction in the first two clauses of vs. 44, and still differ in your view of v. 45, and how it relates to the overall meaning.

It doesn't work as an objection to point out that the interpretation offered might contradict the grammar of the previous verse? Unless I've misunderstood what John Mullally was saying, "the Father draws to Jesus ... the faithful Jews who had heard and learned from the Father" seems to suggest that hearing and learning are conditions for drawing. That doesn't work with what we have in verse 44. But I'll let him correct me if I've misunderstood him.

If the disagreement is not with your understanding of the grammar of verse 44, then why should people argue with your understanding of the grammar of verse 44?

Because that is the disagreement? I don't understand your question. Many people disagree with my understanding of the grammar of verse 44. That's why I posted this thread. If you're referring to John's comments in particular, maybe he doesn't disagree with my understanding. Maybe I've misinterpreted his reply as an objection when it wasn't intended as one. Again, he can correct me if I've done so. But it seemed to me that he's suggesting that verse 45 tells us something about the drawing of the Father that actually contradicts what's already been argued about the drawing of the Father from the grammar of verse 44. If so, that's not a response.

It's possible I may have jumped the gun on John's response, and once again, he can correct me if I have misunderstood him. But this is the standard way these conversations go:

Me: The grammar of John 6:44 indicates that all those drawn will be raised. Therefore, all those drawn will in fact choose to come.
Objector: That's false. John 12:32 / John 6:40 / John 6:45 / etc. indicates (for example) that the Father draws everyone, yet not everyone chooses to come.
Me: So what is your objection to the grammatical argument that the "him" who is raised is identified with the "him" who is made able to come?
Objector: You didn't respond to the other verses.

And around and around we go. The absence of counterargument is not an indication of agreement in these instances. It is an indication of avoidance. If, in fact, John 6:44 teaches that everyone made able to come to Christ will in fact be raised with Christ, as I argue the grammar suggests, then a response that merely points to other verses in an effort to argue the contrary without addressing that grammatical argument is tantamount to conceding (1) to universalism, or (2) to the possibility of contradictions in Scripture.

 

[tall73]

The next verse tells us who the Father draws to Jesus. It is the faithful Jews who had heard and learned from the Father.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. NKJV
​

The phrase "everyone who has heard and learned" in verse 45 describes the nature of the drawing in verse 44, not conditions for it. Hearing and learning are not prerequisites for the Father's drawing; they are the outcomes of that drawing.

Did he stipulate one way or the other? He said that verse 45 indicates who is drawn.

All the people who are drawn are taught of God. They are all people who have heard and learned of God.

The religious leaders claimed to meet that criteria, but did not.​

 

[tall73]

Because that is the disagreement? I don't understand your question. Many people disagree with my understanding of the grammar of verse 44. That's why I posted this thread. If you're referring to John's comments in particular, maybe he doesn't disagree with my understanding. Maybe I've misinterpreted his reply as an objection when it wasn't intended as one. Again, he can correct me if I've done so.

His whole argument seemed to grant the general thrust of your argument of verse 44, but point to verse 45 as impacting the larger picture.

Yes, he certainly can clarify.

 

[tall73]

Confusing it? The verse is clear as stated, indeed. And yet, I quite frequently encounter individuals in conversation who don't treat it as such. I used to go back and forth all the time with a friend who oddly insisted (granted, this is quite unusual) that the verse "is talking about those the Father does not draw," referencing οὐδεὶς. The decision to represent the condition "positively" was borne out of that and other conversations. It has, actually, proven helpful.

That is an unusual take. But I am not sure his take on "No one" should give reason to re-phrase the verse.

"if he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day," or
"if the Father draws him, then he is able to come to me, and I will raise him up on the last day,"

than to:

"no one can come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

These all mean exactly the same thing, and that should be clear.

I am not sure they do all mean the exact same thing. The actual verse points out a rule....no one can....unless.

The emphasis is not on the exception, but the rule, which the religious leaders were proving. They were part of the "no one". They were unable.

Now He does indeed go on to expand on the exception to the rule. But He was driving home the rule because those who He is addressing needed to hear that they were unable to come to Him, because they were not drawn by the Father, they had not heard and learned of the Father, as they claimed.

But the positive re-expression leaves less room for people to shoehorn in a distinction between the "him" drawn and the "him" raised.

The positive expression doesn't drive home the point that was being made to the religious leaders.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I am not sure they do all mean the exact same thing. The actual verse points out a rule....no one can....unless.

They do mean the same thing. They are all logically equivalent expressions. Demonstrating that was the purpose of my argument.

By the way, sorry but I ended up editing some of my last reply before I realized you had responded. Just FYI.

The positive expression doesn't drive home the point that was being made to the religious leaders.

Do you understand that I'm not arguing that the wording in your Bible should be changed? Of course it wouldn't have driven home the point to Jesus' audience. As I said in my previous reply, it was necessary that it be stated that way. The purpose of this thread was to address a misreading of the verse made easier by taking advantage of the negative-positive juxtaposition of expressions (my edits above should clarify what I mean by that). The benefit of the contrapositive expression is for the objector who wishes to say that being made able to come doesn't necessarily mean one will do so.

 

[tall73]

They do mean the same thing. They are all logically equivalent expressions. Demonstrating that was the purpose of my argument.

By the way, sorry but I ended up editing some of my last reply before I realized you had responded. Just FYI.

Do you understand that I'm not arguing that the wording in your Bible should be changed? Of course it wouldn't have driven home the point to Jesus' audience. As I said in my previous reply, it was necessary that it be stated that way. The purpose of this thread was to address a misreading of the verse made easier by taking advantage of the negative-positive juxtaposition of expressions (my edits above should clarify what I mean by that). The benefit of the contrapositive expression is for the objector who wishes to say that being made able to come doesn't necessarily mean one will do so.

If you recognize that the rephrasing wouldn't drive home the point to Jesus' audience, and your rephrasing was for the purpose of convincing those you speak to of something other than what Jesus was trying to drive home to the audience in context, then they are not in fact equivalent. What Jesus said, to the audience He had, did get across what He wanted to the audience.

The fact that your re-phrasing of it (to get across the point you have drawn from it to others) does not work to drive home Jesus' original point may show that you are trying to drive home a different point than Jesus in this passage.

 

[tall73]

The phrase "everyone who has heard and learned" in verse 45 describes the nature of the drawing in verse 44.....

So let's go with that understanding for a second.

No one can come to Me unless...

He has heard from and learned of the Father
( the Father who sent Me draws him; )

...and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is this how you see the relationship?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

If you recognize that the rephrasing wouldn't drive home the point to Jesus' audience, and your rephrasing was for the purpose of convincing those you speak to of something other than what Jesus was trying to drive home to the audience in context, then they are not in fact equivalent. What Jesus said, to the audience He had, did get across what He wanted to the audience.

Brother, this is very simple. You're overcomplicating it, and it is distracting from the discourse. Please stop. I'm happy to consider any interaction with the argument of the OP, but I'm not going to debate with you the merits of having the conversation.

People disagree on the meaning of John 6:44. That's not a disputable point. Debates occur on this passage all the time. I posted this thread in order to address a common interpretation of the verse -- an interpretation which suggests that the Father draws everyone, but not everyone chooses to come. That interpretation does not fit the grammar of the text. However, I believe the misreading is accounted for by the fact that we have a negative expression followed by a positive one, in the same sentence. There is nothing wrong with that. I never said there was. It is both necessary to the context, and is indeed clear as stated. But when people bring a particular tradition to the text -- namely, the idea that everyone has the ability to come, but some choose simply not to act on it -- and they need to find a way to make that idea fit with the verse, the juxtaposition between the negatively expressed conditional and the subsequent positive proposition is how they do it. The switch from negative to positive expression, for whatever reason, tends to result in a disconnect in the minds of some objectors between the "him" who is drawn and the "him" who is raised, such that they are not viewed as one-to-one the same individuals.

The benefit of stating the contrapositive of the conditional, in the context of addressing this particular interpretation, is that it removes the grounds for that disconnect. The contrapositive of a conditional is logically equivalent to the conditional itself. P --> Q is the same as ~Q --> ~P. The only purpose of going through this exercise is to clarify a misconception in the hypothetical objector's interpretation, not to suggest that there is anything unclear about the way the verse is stated. To your point, I shouldn't have to make the argument presented in the OP. But when people interpret the two "hims" as having different referents (i.e. the second being a subgroup of the first), the contrapositive statement is helpful in illustrating the point that this interpretation doesn't work grammatically. There is nothing wrong with presenting a logically equivalent expression to illustrate a point.

The fact that your re-phrasing it to get across the point you have drawn from it to convince others does not work to drive home Jesus' original point may show that you are trying to drive home a different point than Jesus in this passage.

False. The contrapositive of a conditional is logically equivalent to the conditional itself. In context it makes sense why the conditional is stated negatively. Jesus is explaining the unbelief of those he is speaking with. But the contrapositive of a conditional statement does not change the meaning of that statement. If we have the conditional statement, "if it is a crow, then it is black" (P --> Q), restating it as "if it is not black, then it is not a crow" (~Q --> ~P) is equally true. The only thing that changes is the emphasis of the expression. But that is not relevant to the specific point being made, which is simply that the two "hims" in the verse refer to the same individual. Thus, the following statements are logically equivalent:

(~Q <--> ~P) ^ R "No one can come to me unless [i.e. if and only if not] the Father draws him, and I will raise him up."
(Q --> P) ^ R "If he is able to come to me then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up."
(P --> Q) ^ R "If the Father has drawn him then he is able to come to me, and I will raise him up."

The only purpose to this exercise is to illustrate clearly that in the original expression, the one the Son raises up is equal to the one the Father draws. That is, the final clause does not merely assume that the drawn one comes (though that is true). What is assumes is the fulfillment of the stated condition regarding the matter of ability. Thus, the "him" whom the Son raises is the one who has been made able to come, thus implying that the granting of the ability is an act of God that infallibly entails a resultant choice to come.

So let's go with that understanding for a second.

No one can come to Me unless...

He has heard from and learned of the Father
( the Father who sent Me draws him; )

...and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is this how you see the relationship?

Yes.

 

[tall73]

Brother, this is very simple. You're overcomplicating it, and it is distracting from the discourse. Please stop. I'm happy to consider any interaction with the argument of the OP, but I'm not going to debate with you the merits of having the conversation.

I didn't say the entire conversation was without merit. I said I don't find your particular contraposative teaching technique overly helpful. That is an opinion. It is partly based on the notion that I don't think most people are, in fact, hung up on the negative in the construction, or cannot understand it. That there are a few, like your earlier referenced friend, who don't understand the usage, who may benefit from the approach, is granted. Though I think it the rare few indeed who would misunderstand the conditional, but then have that clarified by the application of the contrapositive technique referenced.

I also think that the whole passage may be better understood without the applications of the contrapositive technique, as the construction, as it is, matches the purpose of the statement. But again, that is an opinion.

Since part of your discourse in the thread has been the discussion of the tactical deployment of this contrapositive technique in such debates, opinions on the merits of such an approach fit the thread.

In any case, I do find merit to the overall discussion of the grammar of vs. 44, and how it impacts understanding of the entire passage.

And I noted earlier that there was merit to pointing out the type of conditional, and the implications. For instance, at one point, you argued that @John Mullally limiting those drawn to a particular group of Jews, was out of line with the grammar of verse 44, because the type of third class conditional indicates a general principle. I think that is helpful reference to the grammar, that he can then address (if he wishes to do so).

However, since you are claiming that the grammar of this verse impacts interpretation of the surrounding verses, then you cannot be upset if others want to look at surrounding verses. or consider approaches that are not directly addressed by your contrapositive teaching tool.

And of course, if it turns out that their approach may, in fact, be directly addressed by your teaching tool, you can point that out.

People disagree on the meaning of John 6:44. That's not a disputable point. Debates occur on this passage all the time

Very much agreed.

And people were discussing various points of disagreement, and in the process, interacting with the grammar, or in some cases, having to face follow-ups from you on the grammar. But not everything about the passage relates to the grammar of vs. 44. And the claims that you make about the grammar of verse 44 could be undercut by material in surrounding verses.

So, for instance, when you say to @John Mullally :

I maintain that arguing 'this other verse says' does not adequately address the comprehensive grammatical analysis that has been offered of John 6:44.

I am not sure that is fair. I don't think he was avoiding your chain of argumentation regarding vs. 44, but was attempting to present an argument that went beyond the scope of the grammar of v. 44. He seemed to be implying something antecedent in the chain. This is clear by the fact that you had to argue that the hearing and learning ARE the drawing, rather than a prerequisite.

The phrase "everyone who has heard and learned" in verse 45 describes the nature of the drawing in verse 44, not conditions for it. Hearing and learning are not prerequisites for the Father's drawing; they are the outcomes of that drawing.

Certainly, many think the hearing and learning constitute the drawing referenced in v. 44. But the fact that you had to use other argumentation, drawing on the quote from Isaiah, etc. means that it is not settled solely by the grammar of verse 44, and therefore, presents a possible challenge to your conclusions there.

If the Father draws to Christ those who are selected by previous prerequisites, that the religious rulers did not meet, then that opens the door for something prior to your chain of grammar in verse. 44.

Whatever the merits of the argument of the other poster, or how well it fairs in the back-and-forth, it was not avoiding your arguments, or failing to address them.

" I posted this thread in order to address a common interpretation of the verse -- an interpretation which suggests that the Father draws everyone, but not everyone chooses to come. That interpretation does not fit the grammar of the text.

I would agree that it is hard to argue that all are drawn, in the meaning of drawn in this passage, when the reason the religious leaders cannot come is that they have not been drawn. And you noted, in the discussion, that drawn can be used differently in different contexts.

But then the argument presented by @John Mullally did not seem to rely on all being drawn. To the contrary, it indicated who were, and were not, drawn. And the descriptions of the groups could, arguably, add another element prior to the drawing. Or, it could, as you argue, comprise the drawing.

That seems fair to look at, and is not just ignoring your analysis in order to look at a different verse.

Is the hearing and learning antecedent to the drawing, or is it contemporaneous, or is it the drawing itself? The variant reading also plays into that.

So I would propose looking at the grammar of verse 45 as well, and see if it gives any insight. Because I don't think appeal to the grammar of verse 44 resolves the issue the other poster presented. Verse 44, on its own, does not indicate that the drawing is equivalent to the hearing and learning.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Certainly, many think the hearing and learning constitute the drawing referenced in v. 44. But the fact that you had to use other argumentation, drawing on the quote from Isaiah, etc. means that it is not settled solely by the grammar of verse 44, and therefore, presents a possible challenge to your conclusions there.

Not following your argument here. I never said the grammar of verse 44 tells us what the hearing and learning in verse 45 refers to. What I said was that if an interpretation of verse 45 is offered which contradicts the conclusions to the grammatical argument offered on verse 44 (as the common suggestion that the Father's drawing is conditioned upon human action does), that doesn't get us anywhere. If the Father's drawing is based on whether or not an individual hears and learns, I contend that this contradicts verse 44. So do we have a contradiction in Scripture? Or is there an argument that can be offered showing that my conclusions on verse 44 are wrong, thus alleviating the apparent contradiction? Or, is it the case that the Father's drawing is not based on the individual's hearing and learning? That, too, would alleviate the apparent contradiction.

If the Father draws to Christ those who are selected by previous prerequisites...

What previous prerequisites would one who is characterized as "unable" be able to achieve? Any such prerequisites would rest upon God's choosing, not any act in the individual. This is the problem I am highlighting. The idea that hearing and learning are prerequisites to being drawn is in direct contradiction with the conclusions offered in my argument. A contradiction, however, is not a rebuttal.

So I would propose looking at the grammar of verse 45 as well, and see if it gives any insight. Because I don't think appeal to the grammar of verse 44 resolves the issue the other poster presented. Verse 44, on its own, does not indicate that the drawing is equivalent to the hearing and learning.

I've already offered a thought on the grammar of verse 45 as my basis for the claim that hearing and learning are descriptive of drawing. That argument neither relies on verse 44, nor Isaiah 54:13. Perhaps you'd like to address that comment? Or offer some grammatical thoughts of your own?

 

[tall73]

Not following your argument here. I never said the grammar of verse 44 tells us what the hearing and learning in verse 45 refers to. What I said was that if an interpretation of verse 45 is offered which contradicts the conclusions to the grammatical argument offered on verse 44 (as the common suggestion that the Father's drawing is conditioned upon human action does), that doesn't get us anywhere. If the Father's drawing is based on whether or not an individual hears and learns, I contend that this contradicts verse 44

There is no grammatical contradiction.

The condition which expresses the inability is in regards to coming to the Son. They cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws, and also described as the Father giving them to the Son earlier in the passage.

However, in verse 45 it describes those who come as those who have heard and learned of the Father.

I do not agree that it is limited only to Jews, but the post by @John Mullally indicating that those drawn are the ones who have heard and listened to the Father seems straight-forward.

John 6:43-45 43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. (NKJV)

If the Father gives to the Son those who have heard Him and listen to Him, how is that a contradiction?

The issue for those among the rulers who could not come to the Son is that they did not listen and learn from the Father, and were not drawn to or given to the Son.

What previous prerequisites would one who is characterized as "unable" be able to achieve? Any such prerequisites would rest upon God's choosing, not any act in the individual.

The inability is to come to the Son, if they are not drawn or given by the Father, if they have not heard or learned of the Father.

It does not say they are unable to respond in any way to God.

And to show that we can look at a prerequisite that is mentioned in various places in the gospels, and directly spoken of by Jesus.

Matthew 21:23-32
23 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”
24 But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: 25 The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.”
And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
28 “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They said to Him, “The first.”
Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him. (NKJV)

Jesus asks why they did not respond to the baptism of John that was from heaven. He says that John came to them in the way of righteousness, and while the tax collectors believed him the chief priests and elders did not believe him. And even when they saw the fruit of John's ministry they still did not relent and believe him.

Similarly, Luke indicates the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the will of God for themselves" not having been baptized by John:

Luke 7:29-30
29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. (NKJV)

And in the book of John Jesus points to the testimony of John so that they may be saved.

John 5:32-47
32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved.

The very next verses make it clear that these people who He is appealing to with the testimony of John are not listening to the testimony of the Father, the testimony of the works the Father gave the Son, or Moses. Yet he mentioned the testimony of John that they may consider that which they had rejected, and be saved:

35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (NKJV)


They could not come to the Son while rejecting every means the Father had sent, and not hearing and learning from the Father.

This is the problem I am highlighting. The idea that hearing and learning are prerequisites to being drawn is in direct contradiction with the conclusions offered in my argument. A contradiction, however, is not a rebuttal.

Your argument assumes that they had no role in their response to the Father. But they did. They had rejected God's purpose for themsleves, per Luke. They had still not relented and believed the testimony of John the Baptist (but Jesus still referenced it that they may be saved). They had not accepted the testimony of the Father, or the works that He gave Jesus, or heard Moses.

The grammar of v. 44 sets a condition regarding who is able to come to the Son. The Father has to draw them. Vs. 45 describes who is drawn, those who have heard and learned from the Father.

And we see specific statements that some among the rulers had rejected the various testimony from God.

I've already offered a thought on the grammar of verse 45 as my basis for the claim that hearing and learning are descriptive of drawing. That argument neither relies on verse 44, nor Isaiah 54:13. Perhaps you'd like to address that comment? Or offer some grammatical thoughts of your own?

I will try to soon, but am out of time for now.