Free Will vs Election

[DeaconDean]

He talked about CALVINISTIC predestination where fault blame and failure fall upon God, not biblical predestination where God predestinated a GROUP not unconditionally predestined individuals where fault, blame and failure is upon the individual for his own choices. He consistently used the word "cause" where God causes this or that. There is no free will choice in what is caused/forced upon man.

Have you ever studied in the Greek?

Have you actually took the time to read the passages where the word "predestinated" is used?

Have you ever read the Greek definition of "to predestinate"?

Until you do, it does no good to respond.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If they chose to come follow Him then He would make them fishers of men Mark 1:17.

What you have been promoting in this thread is the idea that man, unaided by God's Spirit has the ability to come to Christ. That view is in fact heretical. You are espousing the views of Pelagius.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . . (John 6:44)

No man "can" come means that no man has the ability to come to Christ. That also means that once granted the ability, as in the case of the elect, he does have the ability, which finally mean that he excursuses his will and freely comes to Christ.

Your concept of freewill, although illogical and dead wrong, is very common, so I don't blame you for holding it. I once did myself; however, Libertarian freewill is not taught in scripture, nor does it hold up under careful scrutiny. Man is not free to choose anything. He always chooses what he most desires, and sinners don't desire God. Sinners run and hide from God, just as the first sinners did in the Garden.

A great book on the subject, which I think should be required reading for all Christians, is The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther.

Fish are free to live under water, and sinners are free to sin. A sinner could no more freely come to Christ than a fish could freely choose to sit on my sofa and watch season 2 of Breaking Bad with me this weekend.

 

[DeaconDean]

What you have been promoting in this thread is the idea that man, unaided by God's Spirit has the ability to come to Christ. That view is in fact heretical. You are espousing the views of Pelagius.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . . (John 6:44)

No man "can" come means that no man has the ability to come to Christ. That also means that once granted the ability, as in the case of the elect, he does have the ability, which finally mean that he excursuses his will and freely comes to Christ.

Your concept of freewill, although illogical and dead wrong, is very common, so I don't blame you for holding it. I once did myself; however, Libertarian freewill is not taught in scripture, nor does it hold up under careful scrutiny. Man is not free to choose anything. He always chooses what he most desires, and sinners don't desire God. Sinners run and hide from God, just as the first sinners did in the Garden.

A great book on the subject, which I think should be required reading for all Christians, is The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther.

Fish are free to live under water, and sinners are free to sin. A sinner could no more freely come to Christ than a fish could freely choose to sit on my sofa and watch season 2 of Breaking Bad with me this weekend.

Also sounds like the typical Arminian viewpoint.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Also sounds like the typical Arminian viewpoint.

God Bless

Till all are one.

At least (true) Arminians have a concept called, "prevenient grace" which credits God with temporarily removing our sinful nature so that we are able to "choose" Him. Pelagius didn't think that was necessary.

 

[DeaconDean]

At least (true) Arminians have a concept called, "prevenient grace" which credits God with temporarily removing our sinful nature so that we are able to "choose" Him. Pelagius didn't think that was necessary.

Yep, Adam's fall in no way hurt man.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yep, Adam's fall in no way hurt man.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I've come to believe that a vast majority of the problems with modern-day evangelicalism is rooted in its lack of understanding, "total depravity".

For instance, if the poster who is arguing against God's sovereignty in election in this thread understood what happened to mankind at the fall, he would give up the false notion that man is willing and able to come to Christ on his own.

 

[DeaconDean]

I've come to believe that a vast majority of the problems with modern-day evangelicalism is rooted in its lack of understanding, "total depravity".

For instance, if the poster who is arguing against God's sovereignty in election in this thread understood what happened to mankind at the fall, he would give up the false notion that man is willing and able to come to Christ on his own.

Sad but true.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

 

[jten]

Again, this your challenge is founded upon the presupposition that election and salvation are the same thing. You are reasoning in circles, friend.

It's a straw man to call it circular. The reason you cannot show an example is that none exists for elect is the same as saved.

The answer to your question is simple. There are many examples of people in Scripture who, at one point in their life, were elect but not save. In fact, this is true for every believer, because election necessarily precedes salvation (again, because they are not the same thing soteriologically; a fiction that you keep asserting as if it is obvious).

Then give example one of the "many".

As for your request for me to find someone in Scripture who "was saved but not elect," this is were your presupposition becomes clear, because salvation outside of election is impossible. No one can be saved unless they are elect. Now, before you object by saying, "Then election is salvation," realize that just because A necessarily precedes B does not make A and B the same thing. For example, regeneration necessarily precedes glorification, and it is therefore impossible, just like with election and salvation, for me to show you someone who is glorified who is not at the same time regenerate (which is identical to the request you just made). However, that does not lead to the conclusion that regeneration is glorification. If we say otherwise, we are simply being hard-headed, unwilling to bow to the truth. Therefore, just because election necessarily precedes salvation does not give you the foundation to conclude that they are the same thing, which is what your question is presupposing, otherwise you wouldn't have asked it.



Again, until you decide to stop confusing predestination/election with salvation (they are not the same thing, as I demonstrated above), then you will keep raising these irrelevant complaints.

I am beginning to get the feeling that you are here to fight, not to understand. I am not at all saying that you have to or even should agree with Reformed theology, but I am saying that you should at least put forth an effort to understand it. So far you have not.

YOu did not demonstrate nor give one example of a person who was of the elect yet not saved.

 

[jten]

When you seek to elevate yourself to sit next to God and presume to have his thoughts the above is the result.

What God knows and how He knows it is not identical to what we know. He is the archetype we are the ectype in terms of knowledge. God makes it clear from Scripture that election is unto salvation...at the appointed time and through the appointed means He has ordained. God, being atemporal in His aseity, sees all past, present, and future equally vividly, so your attempt to match your knowledge with God is foolishness and, explicitly, forbidden (Deut. 29:29).

Suppose one grants your confused view. Then unless you are willing to deny God's knowledge of the future, you cannot escape the fact that He knew of your decision to choose wisely before you did so. How God contemplates that knowledge, as in "from God's perspective you have always been saved" illustrates the dilemma you face in these matters when trying to extract yourself from your temporal existence and place yourself in God's eternal existence. You cannot escape the very thing that you are caviling about. Hence the command from Deut. 29:29, to prevent the dissonance that arises when temporal creatures seek to peek behind the curtain.

The fact that God knows the future is the result of the decree of God. For had He not so decreed, there would be no objects of knowledge for God to know. This is what we call the grounding of God's simple knowledge. God knows because He has decreed. But, your view in this discussion illustrates a common error against the proper view that God's foreknowledge is not causative. This will be explained in the Spoiler below.

The ordained decree of God includes the fact that our choice to believe will be our free choice.

Spoiler

The decree of God is His
1. eternal,
2. unchangeable,
3. holy,
4. wise, and
5. sovereign purpose.

The decree of God comprehends at once all things
1. that ever were,
2. are, or
2. will be.

These things are comprehended in their
1. causes,
2. conditions,
3. successions, and
4. relations.

The decree of God also determines the certain future existence of all things.

Man’s thoughts are free thoughts. We are self-determined creatures, moved by our desires, circumstances, upbringing, our natures.

Our inclinations drive what we desire (want). We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. If we have no inclinations to choose, we deny the very inclinations that led us to not choosing. So even "no choice" is a choice, by these terms.

To be genuinely bereft of inclination is to be wholly arbitrary, truly random, independent of reality, and anything we would "choose" would be of no consequence and meaningless. It would be the mule standing before two buckets, sweet corn and sweet apples, unable to choose, ultimately starving to death in a frozen pose. This is not what Scripture teaches us about man's constitution, which serves but one of two masters (Matthew 6:24).

Naturally, God is the antecedent cause of all things, yet we are the proximate causes of our actions. God is not the author of sin; He does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us by creating fresh evil in us." God's sovereign decree always intersects with the moral agent’s free choices.

The many contents of God’s single eternal purpose are, because we are finite and God is infinite, limited by our faculties to comprehend fully, hence when we speak of the decree of God, we conceive of the decree in partial aspects and/or logical relations, and thusly we, as finite creatures, speak of the decreess of God. So while we may write or speak about the “decrees” of God, we should always remember that there is but one decree.

Also, we should be on the same page with respect to God’s foreknowledge and God’s foreordination.

Foreknowledge is an act of God, infinitely intelligent, knowing from eternity, without change, the certain future existence of all events of every type that ever will come to pass.

Confusion about the foreknowledge of God is seen in what immediately follows:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning.
(This is Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. God's knowledge of the future is not direct cause of the events of the future that God knows. Instead, for the example above, the proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning.
(This is Correct)​

In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.

God's knowledge of our past, present, and future is grounded in His ordination of all that happens. God's ordaining (decreeing), is an act of the will of God, who is infinitely intelligent, foreknowing, benevolent, and righteous. Foreordination is an act of God from eternity determining the certain future existence of all events of every type that will come to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes the certain future existence of events, while foreordination makes them certainly future.

In summary:
1. God's decrees are eternal. Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 2:7.

2. They are immutable. Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9.

3. They comprehend all events.

(1) The Scriptures assert this of the whole system in general embraced in the divine decrees. Dan. 4:34, 35; Acts 17:26; Eph 1:11.
(2) They affirm the same of fortuitous events. Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29, 30.
(3) Also of the free actions of men. Eph. 2:10, 11; Phil. 2:13.
(4) Even the wicked actions of men. Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:29; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4; Rev. 17:17. As to the history of Joseph, compare Gen. 37:28, with Gen. 45:7, 8, and Gen. 50:20. See also Ps. 17:13, 14; Isa. 10:5, 15.​

4. The decrees of God are not conditional. Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 14:24, 27; 46:10; Rom. 9:11.

5. They are sovereign. Isa. 40:13, 14; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:11, 15-18; Eph. 1:5, 11.

6. They include the means. Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2.

7. They determine the free actions of men. Acts 4:27, 28; Eph. 2:10.

8. God himself works in his people that faith and obedience which are called the conditions of salvation. Eph. 2:8; Phil. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25. God is not doing the believing for the regenerated man, but God will certainly be acting, according to His ordained free, necessary, or contingent means, to ensure that the believing man will persevere in his belief.

9. The decree renders the event certain. Matt. 16:21; Luke 18:31-33; 24:46; Acts 2:23; 13:29; 1 Cor. 11:19.

10. While God has decreed the free acts of men, these moral agents are none the less responsible, for had God not decreed man's freedom to act, there would be no freedom at all. Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28.

1. Since God has decreed all events and, as I have defined above, thusly made all events certain to occur in the future, God foreknows all events.

2. The decree of God relates equally to all events of every type that will occur. This includes free actions of moral agents, the actions of necessary agents, whether these actions be morally right or sinful.

3. That said, and what is often abused by those that are not well-informed about this doctrine, things have been eternally decreed by God under certain aspects.

- God has decreed some things Himself immediately. For example, God’s act to create the universe.
- God has decreed to do make certain some things through the action of secondary causes, causes which act under laws of necessity, such as physical aspect of nature, e.g., planetary motion.
- God has decreed to move or to permit free moral agents to act in the exercise of their free moral agency. Nevertheless, despite these distinctions between these classes of events, they are all rendered certain by the decree of God.​

4. While God has decreed all events, it is vitally important to note that while God’s decree includes the ends, His decree encompasses the means, the causes as well as the effects, the conditions as well as the instrumentalities, for all events that will depend upon the same.

5. While the decree of God determines the certainty of future events, the decree of God neither directly effects or causes no event. (Please read that statement one more time!) But…stay with me…in every case the decree of God provides that these events are rendered certain by causes that are acting in such a manner that is perfectly consistent with the nature of these events in question.

In other words, when considering every free act of a moral agent, God’s decree provides at once, that:

1. the agent is a free agent;
2. the agent’s antecedents and every antecedent of the action in question be what they are;
3. the present conditions of the action be what they are;
4. the action by the agent be perfectly spontaneous (i.e., freedom of spontaneity) on the part of the agent; and
5. it shall be certainly future.

6. The purposes of God that relate to every kind of event constitute one single, comprehensive intention by God’s comprehending all events. Thus God comprehends the free events as free events, the necessary events as necessary events, all together, including all their causes, their relations, their conditions. This comprehension is one, indivisible system of things, every link of which is essential to the vital integrity of the whole.​

God ordains that no violence is done to the will of man, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather they are established by the very decree of God (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33). When we are monergistically quickened from spiritual death to life, we will be morally equipped to choose rightly. That we will synergistically choose to not not believe is not a robbery of our freedom. At that moment of regeneration we will only want to believe and will do so.

1) I looked up the word "elect" and "election" in the KJV and I find nowhere one was of the elect but not saved.

2) Foreknowledge does not demand preordination.

 

[jten]

You have improperly interpreted the account of the interaction with Nicodemus.

In John 3:7, Christ says to Nicodemus, “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'” The non-believers possess no inherent ability to save themselves by their own choosing for they are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and slaves of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

As Christ states, without the new birth, no one will be saved. Christ here uses a strong term, dei (must), indicating a necessity, that regeneration is essential, imperative, absolutely necessary for salvation.

Some, like yourself, will argue that Nicodemus should take personal responsibility for his own new birth. But nowhere do we find Christ instructing Nicodemus to take personal responsibility and make a decision using his volitional will. Rather, “You must be born again” is a declarative statement of fact, not an imperative command to be obeyed. Our Lord—instead of suggesting Nicodemus take ownership of his situation and do something about it—is teaching exactly the opposite. Christ is teaching that new birth is a necessity, but no man can cause it to happen, even if a man could figure out how to return to the womb. Only God can perform this work.

Now you may complain that Christ telling someone about the necessity to be born again, then also telling them that they have no ability to produce such a work is self-defeating and contradictory. On the contrary, Our Lord's objective was to expose the fallacies of trusting in one’s own efforts and works for salvation. If only being religious and devoted to keeping the law could save a person, Nicodemus was safe, but Christ clearly states that no one is safe, regardless of their works, religious fervor, etc. Because of universal sin, a new birth is a necessity and the debilitating effects of universal sin means no one has the ability to rescue himself. John 3:7 teaches a sinner’s only hope for eternal bliss is through the sovereign grace of God.

The “new birth” is no more or less than the sovereign and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration (re-birth, quickening) is immediate. Faith is the gracious gift of God in regeneration (Ephesians 2:8). The sinner responds to the life-giving voice of the Jesus Christ (John 5:25) just as Lazarus immediately responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. The quickening of God is an involuntary response, a perfect obedience to the divine imperative of Christ. God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient. This is the grace that is irresistible. God’s gift of faith enables the newborn soul of a person to function spiritually, an ability the person did not have prior to his quickening (John 3:3b; John 3:5b; 1 Corinthians 2:14). The gift also gives the person the ability to believe, that is "ears to hear" (Revelations 2:7; Revelations 2:11; Proverbs 20:12; Matthew 11:15). The gospel good news is, subsequently, addressed to the regenerated (Acts 2:39; Acts 13:16; Acts 13:26), for the unregenerate cannot believe (John. 8:43; John 10:26; Romans 3:10-18).

Did you or did you not claim one can only be born again if God does it, that is, man has no ability in being born again because he is too evil/depraved? If so, then Christ did unjust unfairly condemned Nicodemus for what was out of Nicodemus control. No one is accountable for how they are passively born.

Neither does the bible teach men are born totally depraved/born sinners. None of the verses you cited speak to how men are born but to what men choose to become.

You posted "non-believers possess no inherent ability to save themselves by their own choosing

Yet in Acts 2 we have a very clear example of unbelievers, Peter said their wicked hands crucified Christ, yet they willing and able to listen, understand, have their hearts pricked and obey the inspired gospel words of Peter. Peter even told them to "save yourselves" v40

 

[jten]

Do you know how they fished? It was with nets. They didn't try to persuade the fish into the boat. They dragged the fish into the boat.

1) they could only be fishers if the conditionally followed Christ

2 Corinthians 5:11, Acts 13:43 men are persuaded by the gospel. The gospel was not forced upon any against their will.

 

[jten]

Not even close. Man's sin is why he is lost. They are guilty, and they will be punished, as God will let no sin go unpunished.

Sinners have no one to blame but themselves, and saints have no one to thank but God.

If men are born sinners, then men are NOT responsible for how they are born. Therefore orginal sin is not biblical.

My point still stands that the bible does not teach God unconditionally chooses each individual's salvation or condemnation. Such an idea puts fault blame and failure upon God for the faithless/lost.

If before the world began God did NOT choose Joe to be saved and Joe has no choice or say so in the matter then it cannot be in any way 's fault he is lost, it is 100% God's fault, culpability.

 

[jten]

Have you ever studied in the Greek?

Have you actually took the time to read the passages where the word "predestinated" is used?

Have you ever read the Greek definition of "to predestinate"?

Until you do, it does no good to respond.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The bible DOES teach predestination, just NOT Calvinistic predestination for it puts culpability upon God.

1) God predestined a group (Christian) to be saved and it is man's responsibility to be in that group. If man is not in that group it is his own failure not God's.

2) Under Calvinistic predestination God forces salvation condemnation upon the individual making God 100% culpable for the lost.

There is a nite and day difference between above two.

 

[jten]

What you have been promoting in this thread is the idea that man, unaided by God's Spirit has the ability to come to Christ. That view is in fact heretical. You are espousing the views of Pelagius.

Acts 2 proves my point.

Those unbelievers that crucified the Messiah in Acts 2 were able to come to salvation BY THE WROD of God spoken to them and not by any supernatural event by the Holy Spirit acting upon them apart from the word and their own volition/

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . . (John 6:44)

No man "can" come means that no man has the ability to come to Christ. That also means that once granted the ability, as in the case of the elect, he does have the ability, which finally mean that he excursuses his will and freely comes to Christ.

Your concept of freewill, although illogical and dead wrong, is very common, so I don't blame you for holding it. I once did myself; however, Libertarian freewill is not taught in scripture, nor does it hold up under careful scrutiny. Man is not free to choose anything. He always chooses what he most desires, and sinners don't desire God. Sinners run and hide from God, just as the first sinners did in the Garden.

A great book on the subject, which I think should be required reading for all Christians, is The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther.

Fish are free to live under water, and sinners are free to sin. A sinner could no more freely come to Christ than a fish could freely choose to sit on my sofa and watch season 2 of Breaking Bad with me this weekend.

You leave out John 6:45 that explains how the drawing is done and substituted your own theological bias as to how the drawing is done.

Men are taught, hear and learn the word of God then men "cometh unto me". Again, there is no supernatural act by the Holy Spirit upon men apart from the word or apart from man's volition in coming to Christ.


Deeper analysis of Jn 6:45:

The Divine Drawing
With a most emphatic thrust of truth, the Master Teacher said:

No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draws him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me” (6:44-45).

It is upon this passage that we pause to focus our attention. The following points are worthy of serious reflection.

It is important to note first of all that Jesus appeals to the Old Testament (Isaiah 54:13) to buttress his argument. The term “prophets” is a general reference, much as when we say, “The Bible says . . .” The expression “it is written” (found eighty-two times in the New Testament, including parallels) always refers to a divine document, the validity of which is unequivocally affirmed.

The first clause of this sentence, “No man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him,” has been one of the most abused texts of the New Testament for many centuries. For example, John Calvin taught that man is “so enslaved by the yoke of sin, that he cannot of his own nature aim at good either in wish or actual pursuit” (1975a, 265). Thus one “cannot possibly come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit.” He is drawn “both in mind and spirit exalted far above [his] own understanding” (Ibid., 500). The drawing is not indirectly through the Scriptures, but “inwardly by the Spirit” (Ibid., 277). God works in the elect so as to “guide, turn, and govern [their] heart by his Spirit” (Ibid., 269). The “grace of God is insipid to men, until the Holy Spirit gives it its savor” (1975b, 253).

A careful examination of the passage, however, reveals the following facts.

The statement, “No man can come to me [Christ], except the Father that sent me draw him,” is explicit. The only route to Christ is by means of the “drawing” of God. But that does not completely explain the issue. Two questions are paramount: (a) Is the “drawing” by God irresistible; i.e., is the divine drawing an appeal to man’s mind (intellect and emotion), or is it a force so strong as to bypass “free will”? (b) Is the drawing miraculous, by the direct impulse of the Holy Spirit, or is it indirectly exerted through a divinely appointed means?

In his commentary on The Gospel According to John, the late Leon Morris argued that it is utterly impossible for a man to come to Christ on “his own volition”; rather God himself must initiate the action. He repudiated the idea that choice is “the free decision of man.” Calvin is quoted to the effect that the Spirit moves upon some, to turn them from unwilling to willing. It is alleged that God’s drawing power is always triumphant; it simply cannot be resisted (1995, 328-329).

This view is antagonistic to the teaching of the New Testament. First, the “drawing” is not by a force that is “irresistible,” as some claim (Sproul 1994, 69). Sproul cites Kittel on the word “draw” as meaning “an irresistible and supernatural force” (1964, 503), but this descriptive does not fit the biblical evidence. It is “commentary,” not “definition.” (For a discussion of the distinction between “draw” and “drag,” see: Trench 1890, section xxi; Vine 1991, on “drag”). If “draw” connoted an “irresistible force,” then all would be saved, for later in this Gospel narrative the Lord says: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself” (12:32). The “drawing” is a beneficent pull. The Lord said to ancient Israel: “I have loved you with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn you” (Jeremiah 31:3; cf. Song of Solomon 1:4).

Second, in verse forty-five Jesus reveals precisely how God draws people to Christ. Quoting from the prophet Isaiah (54:13)—and possibly alluding to Jeremiah 31:34—the Lord employs four verbs to stress the personal volition of human beings and the method employed in their being “drawn” to him. They must be taught, hear, learn, and come. To ignore these inspired words is exegetically irresponsible.

(1) The term “taught” is from the adjective didaktos, found only twice in the Greek New Testament. The word has to do with “being taught, instructed” (Danker et al. 2000, 240). In 1 Corinthians 2:13 it is employed of the teaching that ultimately originates with the Holy Spirit but is made known by means of words through men who convey the message—either those inspired originally, or now by means of their words as recorded in Scripture. Professor Merrill Tenney wrote: “Verse 45 indicates that God would do his drawing through the Scriptures and that those who were obedient to God’s will as revealed in the Scriptures would come to Jesus” (1981, 76). Bernard observed that the “drawing” was by “being taught” (1928, 205).

Some appeal to 1 Thessalonians 4:9—“[Y]ou have no need to have any one write to you, for your yourselves have been taught of God”—in an attempt to establish the theory that the teaching is an internal, subjective instruction by the Spirit (Hiebert 1971, 178). The actual point here being made, however, is that the teaching regarding brotherly love had been done previously (in fact since their conversion and their comprehension that they all were “family” by virtue of a common “new birth”), and such an elementary matter did not need to be rehearsed in the present letter.

(2) The word “heard” is important for it is preliminary to “coming” to Christ. The verb is a past tense form of akouo. Mounce notes that there are at least five senses in which akouo is used in the New Testament. In this case, it is a hearing with a view to learning (2007, 327); to receive information about something (cf. Danker et al. 2000, 38).

(3) “Learn” derives from manthano, “to gain knowledge or skill by instruction” (Danker et al. 2000, 615). It involves more than mere exposure to information; it embraces the idea of processing that data. As Mounce observes, it “involves not only exposure to information but also comprehension” (2007, 397). It conveys the sense of “understanding” (cf. Matthew 9:13).

No one is qualified to “come to” Christ, or even needs to, if he is incompetent to understand the rudiments of the gospel (Romans 1:16). Paul’s statement in Romans 6:17 that gospel obedience is “from the heart” shows, among other things, “that our decision to surrender to God was our own choice and was not coerced or irresistibly imposed upon us” (Cottrell 1996, 413). This nullifies Calvinism’s dogma of predestination, and denominationalism’s practice of infant sprinkling.

(4) The fourth verb is “comes.” Only those who are “taught” the truth, listen intently with the motive of “learning,” and who understand the foundational elements of the gospel, are qualified to “come” to Christ. While “coming” is the result of God’s “drawing,” by means of revealed truth, the term contains the implication that one has the ability, when the preliminary requisites are satisfied, to come to the Lord. Coming is not the result of divine compulsion; it derives from an intellectual and emotional decision to surrender to the Savior.

Simple logic provides a clear picture of the process. God “draws”; people “come.” Those who “come,” however, are those who have been “taught,” who have “heard” and “learned.” Hence it is perfectly transparent that God “draws” sincere people by means of gospel instruction by which people are taught, hear, and learn.

Jesus invited the people of certain cities in Galilee to “come unto me” (Matthew 11:28), and that invitation had resident within it the implied ability to yield. Why invite those to come, who simply cannot, due to an alleged depravity that holds them incapacitated by sin? In the final days prior to his crucifixion, Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem, lamenting the fact that though he had longed to gather them under his protective care, they “would not” (Matthew 23:37). There is a vast difference between “would not” and “could not.” However, if a stubborn person practices “I won’t” long enough, it can become “I can’t” (John 12:39). See also John 5:40 and Revelation 22:17 for the matter of free will.

Conclusion
When John 6:44-45 is rescued from the morass of sectarian theology, it becomes thrillingly fresh, invigorating the soul with instructive principles that guide one through the correct processes to the redemption that is through Christ. Let us study this methodology, exhort our contemporaries to pursue it, and rejoice when they become our kinsmen in the Lord.

References

• Bernard, J. H. 1928. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Vol. 1. Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark.
• Calvin, John. 1975a. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Calvin, John. 1975b. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Cottrell, Jack. 1996. The College Press NIV Commentary – Romans. Vol. 1. Joplin, MO: College Press.
• Danker, F. W., et al. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
• Hiebert, D. Edmond. 1971. The Thessalonian Epistles. Chicago, IL: Moody.
• Kittel, Gerhard, ed. 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Morris, Leon. 1995. The Gospel According to John – Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Mounce, William D. 2007. Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Sproul, R. C. 1994. Chosen By God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.
• Tenney, Merrill. 1981. The Gospel of John – The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Trench. R. C. 1890. Synonyms of the New Testament. London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.
• Vine, W. E. 1991. Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Iowa Falls, IA: World Publishing.

Scripture References
John 6:10; Deuteronomy 18:15-17; Mark 6:48; Matthew 14:24; Matthew 14:33; John 6:26; Mark 6:54; John 6:27-29; Isaiah 54:13; Jeremiah 31:3; Jeremiah 31:34; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:9; Matthew 9:13; Romans 1:16; Romans 6:17; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 23:37; John 12:39; John 5:40; Revelation 22:17; John 6:44-45
Cite this article
Jackson, Wayne. "The Drawing Power of God." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: May 17, 2017. The Drawing Power of God

 

[TaylorSexton]

It's a straw man to call it circular.

You are confused as to what a straw man fallacy is. A straw man is when someone argues against a belief that either the opponent does not hold or is a caricature of the opponent's belief. Calling someone's argument circular is not a straw man. The fact that you are arguing for your presuppositions by asserting them is, by definition, circular reasoning. An assertion is not a straw man simply because you do not like it.

Again, it is apparent to me that you are not here to gain understanding. I would like to reiterate that it is perfectly okay if you do not accept our theology. However, you need to make sure that it is our theology that you do not accept, not some caricature which you have formed from your own imagination. To give us a fair listening is the least one could expect in this situation.

Then give example one of the "many"...You did not demonstrate nor give one example of a person who was of the elect yet not saved.

I told you: Literally everyone who has been, is, or will be saved at one time in their lives were elect but not saved. Examples of this would be Moses, David, the Prophets, all of the Apostles, Lydia, Cornelius—and the list goes on and on.

Again, you insist on operating upon the presupposition that election is salvation. The moment you stop doing this, that moment this conversation will become profitable.

 

[TheSeabass]

You are confused as to what a straw man fallacy is. A straw man is when someone argues against a belief that either the opponent does not hold or is a caricature of the opponent's belief. Calling someone's argument circular is not a straw man. The fact that you are arguing for your presuppositions by asserting them is, by definition, circular reasoning. An assertion is not a straw man simply because you do not like it.


Again, it is apparent to me that you are not here to gain understanding. I would like to reiterate that it is perfectly okay if you do not accept our theology. However, you need to make sure that it is our theology that you do not accept, not some caricature which you have formed from your own imagination. To give us a fair listening is the least one could expect in this situation.



I told you: Literally everyone who has been, is, or will be saved at one in their lives were elect but not saved. Examples of this would be Moses, David, the Prophets, all of the Apostles, Lydia, Cornelius, and the list goes on and on.

Again, you insist on operating upon the presupposition that election is salvation. The moment you stop doing this, that moment this conversation will become profitable.

You CLAIMED my argument was circular.
You CLAIMED my argument is just presupposition.

Yet you have not proven either claim. Once again you had an opportunity to provide an example form the NT of one that was elect but not saved but did not.

Those of fleshly OT Israel were elected by God to bring the Messiah into the world. Even though they were elected for htis they still had to be obedient to God to be eternally saved.

When I am speaking of elect, I am speaking about salvation and not elected to bring the Messiah into the world. As far as the Apostles, Lydia or Corn what verse says they were of the election before being saved?

The bible says nothing about certain individuals being unconditionally, randomly "elected" before the world began to be saved later when they are in the world....nothing at all.

The bible does teach God elected a GROUP, not any individual, to be saved and a person must be in this group to be of the elect/saved.

1 Thessalonians 1:4 "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God."

How did the election of those Thessalonian Christians come about? The context tells us:

1 Thessalonians 1:5 "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake."

'For' and explanatory preposition giving explanation to verse 4 as to their election.
'gospel...came unto you'

Therefore their election came about as a result of their acceptance/obedience to the gospel.
Later Paul tells them they were called through the gospel 2 Thessalonians 2:14.

Their election and calling (2 Peter 1:10) was through the gospel and included their volition and accountability and was not an unconditional or baseless choice forced by God upon them before the world began.

Another verse on election:

1 Peter 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

How did the election of those Christians to whom Peter was writing come about?

Their election involved:

1) "foreknowledge of God" - before the world began God foreknew a plan of salvation for man and God foreknew that those that would be of the election would be conditionally "in Christ" Eph 1:4. Man is 'in Christ' by his own volition by obeying the gospel of Christ, as again, the Thessalonians were elected and called through the gospel.

2) 'sanctification of the spirit' The spirit is the author of the word, the bible and it is by the spirit's instructions and man's choosing to obey those instruction that men are sanctified by the word, John 17:17 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Eph 5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

3) 'unto obedience' 1 Pet 1:22 "Seeing ye have purified your souls (how did you purify your souls?) in obeying the truth..."

4) 'sprinkling of the blood' refers to Christ's shed blood on the cross.


So election is not Calvinistic in being arbitrary and unconditional apart from the gospel word and man's volition and accountability. Nothing in either passage shows election anyone was randomly and unconditional elect but not saved.

Election involves God foreknown plan of salvation, Christ's death, the spirit's gospel word instruction and man's obedience to that word.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

1) they could only be fishers if the conditionally followed Christ

2 Corinthians 5:11, Acts 13:43 men are persuaded by the gospel. The gospel was not forced upon any against their will.

You've evaded the question I posed from the text.

Calvinism does not claim the gospel is forced on anyone against his will. Where in Calvin's writings have you found such a thing?

 

[TaylorSexton]

You CLAIMED my argument was circular.
You CLAIMED my argument is just presupposition.

Yet you have not proven either claim.

Something obvious does not need to be proven. You are attempting to argue for your conclusion by asking questions and making assertions that assume your conclusion. This is, by definition, circular reasoning.

Those of fleshly OT Israel were elected by God to bring the Messiah into the world. Even though they were elected for htis they still had to be obedient to God to be eternally saved.

Scripture? That seems like an evasion to me.

When I am speaking of elect, I am speaking about salvation and not elected to bring the Messiah into the world. As far as the Apostles, Lydia or Corn what verse says they were of the election before being saved?

In order to believe something do you need an explicit and positive assertion stated in Scripture somewhere? That is not good Bible reading, friend. Where is your Scripture that says the Apostle Paul was not Satan incarnate? There is no Scripture saying he wasn't, therefore, by your logic, I am justified to believe it.

Besides, you are again arguing in circles. All of your questions have presumed the things for which you are trying to argue. This is circular reasoning, and is therefore fallacious.

The bible says nothing about certain individuals being unconditionally, randomly "elected" before the world began to be saved later when they are in the world....nothing at all.

I agree; Reformed theology doesn't teach this either, despite your repeated and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. When are you going to actually deal with what Reformed theology actually teaches?

So election is not Calvinistic in being arbitrary and unconditional apart from the gospel word and man's volition and accountability. Nothing in either passage shows election anyone was randomly and unconditional elect but not saved.

Didn't you just complain about straw men?

 

[TaylorSexton]

ll. Where in Calvin's writings have you found such a thing?

For that matter, where in any Reformed theological literature can one find such doctrine?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Some posts in this thread puzzle me. Is it possible that not all Bibles contain Ephesians 1?