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

[Charis kai Dunamis]

My response to the OP would be John 1; that the Lord Jesus Christ is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world, and also where it plainly states that all who received Him were given power to become the sons of God.

Well, that Christ enlightens every man, is quite a relative statement. We know that Christ doesn't enlighten every man to salvation, otherwise it would be Universalism. We know that Christ enlightens all types of men, which may be the inference since 1:11 says His own did not receive Him (Israel). Whether enlightening equates with drawing can be debated. Jesus certainly has enlightened practically all men with knowledge of His coming; He has enlightened every man just through His coming alone. He is a manifestation of the grace of God, in a sense, and in this way also enlightens all men unto God's existence.

I think we could name countless ways that Christ enlightens every man, and yet, does not equate with a soteriological necessity.

Concerning those who He gave the power to become sons of God, He only gave that power to those who have received Him. That is clearly a limitation.

As for drawing, who can estimate how God draws men to Himself? It's like you can't even go there unless you have Godspeed understanding of how the Spirit of God works within the hearts and minds of His creatures.

Well the word itself seems to infer that God draws men by His own means apart from the needs or wants of man. I have repeated over and over that when water is drawn from a well, the water really plays no part in the drawing. As to how God draws, all I can say is that it is an irresistible drawing of those who He has given to Christ to Himself.

So my question would be this. How does a person know whether or not the Father is drawing men to Himself, or has in the past, or will in the future ?

Well I don't think you can know about a future drawing... but certainly if you are saved you have been drawn in the past. I'm not sure if you would necessarily be cognizant of God's drawing of you to Himself in the present moment of conversion. I'm sure some are, but I don't think it is necessary.

If we look at the story in Gen 24, the servant was clear if the woman was not willing to go to where Isaac was. Scripture is obvious that Isaac is a type and picture of Christ, and therefore Rebekah is a picture and type of the church of God. The story doesn't speak of drawing per se, although the circumstances in her life led her to the well which was where the servant found the virgin woman to be.

I don't think it is good hermeneutical practice to analyze what you believe to be allegorical/parable/symbolism and draw dogma from it.

 

[Markea]

Well, that Christ enlightens every man, is quite a relative statement. We know that Christ doesn't enlighten every man to salvation, otherwise it would be Universalism.

I disagree. It doesn't need to be universalism for Christ to enlighten every man that comes into the world. I take it at face value, and it says plainly that Christ is that true light that lighteth every man that comes into the world.

That's every man that comes into the world.

We know that Christ enlightens all types of men, which may be the inference since 1:11 says His own did not receive Him (Israel). Whether enlightening equates with drawing can be debated. Jesus certainly has enlightened practically all men with knowledge of His coming; He has enlightened every man just through His coming alone. He is a manifestation of the grace of God, in a sense, and in this way also enlightens all men unto God's existence.

The word of God doesn't say that He enlightens all types of men, it says that He enlightens every man that comes into the world.

Who am I to go against what God says plainly in His word ?

I think we could name countless ways that Christ enlightens every man, and yet, does not equate with a soteriological necessity.

How would we know the scope of how He enlightens every man ?

Concerning those who He gave the power to become sons of God, He only gave that power to those who have received Him. That is clearly a limitation.

I agree, and it's plain that He give power to those who do receive Him.

Well the word itself seems to infer that God draws men by His own means apart from the needs or wants of man. I have repeated over and over that when water is drawn from a well, the water really plays no part in the drawing. As to how God draws, all I can say is that it is an irresistible drawing of those who He has given to Christ to Himself.

As I said previously, how would we know ? Do you know when God is drawing men or not ? I don't, but I trust that He is that true light which does lighteth every man that comes into the world.

Well I don't think you can know about a future drawing... but certainly if you are saved you have been drawn in the past. I'm not sure if you would necessarily be cognizant of God's drawing of you to Himself in the present moment of conversion. I'm sure some are, but I don't think it is necessary.

I would agree that those who do believe have been drawn to Christ.

I don't think it is good hermeneutical practice to analyze what you believe to be allegorical/parable/symbolism and draw dogma from it.

Why is that ? Don't you see Isaac as a picture of Christ ?

 

[Markea]

I also don't see the water bucket analogy to be valid, because men are not inanimate objects, they can reason and think about things like life, death, and what's after that. I think that most people are very concerned with these 'real' life issues, especially when they're confronted with death.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well there you have it folks, all the usual suspects poured feverishly on the truth to deny it.

You get Matthew 23:13 not meaning what it says because that would falsify Calvinism.

You get charged with avoiding the Calvinist point that draw means drag when referring to inanimate objects. And of course that point is irrelevant - merely an effort to change the subject.

You get a data dump, an avalanche of verbiage having nothing to do with the point in contention, which is not that draw is used metaphorically to mean lead or impel, the issue is when used metaphorically does it mean to draw irresistibly by irresistible grace, and that is the invented meaning.

But to repeat, scripture actually says God draws folks with lovingkindness, and love does not demand its own way, therefore draw does not mean to be compelled by irresistible grace. Second point, Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that to be drawn such that you are entering heaven is not irresistible, they were turned aside by false teachings.

You and another member of this thread who shall mremaion nameless, are presented with facts. Yet you both fail to dispute the presented facts and then you guys accuse Calvinists of "inventing" definitions to fit our doctrines.

You guys are the ones challenging Calvinist beliefs and yet the burden of proof lies on us?!?

You challenge Calvinist beliefs, but, the burden of proof to prove Calvinist beliefs are false is on you.

The burden of proof is not on us to defend, but on you to prove its is wrong.

Now, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "draw" is not what I said it was, that it is not what all the lexicons, dictionaries, and classical Greek says it is, you don't have a leg to stand on.

So...

Prove "elko" does not mean what I said it was.

You accuse Calvinists of "inventing" definitions, yet you present no proof, produce it.

You and another member who shall remain nameless, come here to bash Calvinist beliefs, and to prove then false, yet you produce no evidence to back it and then deflect the burden of proof to Calvinists.

Calvinists have a set of beliefs just like Arminians. If I attack the Arminain position, the burden of proof to prove it wrong is on me, yet here, when you guys attack the Calvinist position you guys shift the burden of proof on us to prove our beliefs correct. Talk about placing the mule before the cart.

And, we might add that it should be done without the usual rhetoric. Please.

Therefore, we ask that you produce valid, undisputable proof that Calvinist beliefs are incorrect. That Calvinists invent definitions to "fit" our doctrines.

I am sure that nobdysfool, Hammster, JesusFreak5000, and myself, plus a few others, are waiting with baited breath for this to happen.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

I also don't see the water bucket analogy to be valid, because men are not inanimate objects, they can reason and think about things like life, death, and what's after that. I think that most people are very concerned with these 'real' life issues, especially when they're confronted with death.

Like most analogies, it doesn't do good to fake it too far. The point is to illustrate the word 'draw'. It has nothing to do with attraction or persuasion. It is a forceful act. And by forceful, I don't mean violent. But an act perfomed by one thing against another. That's all. You may not like the illustration, but then it would be up to you to provide a better one for the word.

 

[DeaconDean]

Like most analogies, it doesn't do good to fake it too far. The point is to illustrate the word 'draw'. It has nothing to do with attraction or persuasion. It is a forceful act. And by forceful, I don't mean violent. But an act perfomed by one thing against another. That's all. You may not like the illustration, but then it would be up to you to provide a better one for the word.

Just between you and I brother, man left to his own "free will", would never leave his or her world of sin.

So when Jesus said:

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

Man will not come, of his own free will, to Jesus that he maight have eternal life because he and his will, is in bondage to sin.

If a man comes to God/Jesus, it is because the Holy Spirit has literally drug/pulled/dragged kicking and screaming from his sinful lifestyle.

Thusly:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw(drags/pulls) him:" -Jn. 6:44 (KJV)

The bible makes it abundantly clear that mans will is controled by the heart.

And God says mans heart:

"...is evil from his youth;" -Gen. 8:21 (KJV)

That mans heart:

"...is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jer. 17:10 (KJV)

And Jesus said that:

"...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man:" -Mt. 15:18-20 (KJV)

And until God has created a clean heart and renewed a right spirit (cf. Psa. 51:10), mans will will never be truely free.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

And here is something else that's odd. A lot of people, when giving their testimony, will give stories about how they were living in sin and God got ahold of them and they just couldn't not accept Christ as Savior (or something like that). I don't know if I have ever heard a testimony from someone who said that they did a comparison of the different religions and decided to believe in Christ.

Now, I admit that this is anecdotal. But I think it is still illustrative of what happens.

 

[Markea]

Like most analogies, it doesn't do good to fake it too far.

It's not a scriptural example, and a water bucket doesn't fit with respect to a human being created in God's image, with reasoning capabilities. Can a bucket of water reason ? God says, Let us reason together.

The point is to illustrate the word 'draw'. It has nothing to do with attraction or persuasion. It is a forceful act.

There's nothing in the scriptures which I see concerning the Father forcing anyone to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Salvation is a free gift which is unto all, and upon all that do believe the testimony of God concerning His Son.

And by forceful, I don't mean violent. But an act perfomed by one thing against another. That's all. You may not like the illustration, but then it would be up to you to provide a better one for the word.

It's not my thread, I just wanted to point out what I see as a poor analogy concerning being drawn by God.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I also don't see the water bucket analogy to be valid, because men are not inanimate objects, they can reason and think about things like life, death, and what's after that. I think that most people are very concerned with these 'real' life issues, especially when they're confronted with death.

Don't argue with us, argue with Jesus/John. Jesus spoke Aramaic but John used this Greek word as the equivalent for a reason. We know John is careful with His Greek construction, John 1:1.

 

[Hammster]

It's not my thread, I just wanted to point out what I see as a poor analogy concerning being drawn by God.

Then what would be a better analogy?

 

[Markea]

It's not my thread, I just wanted to point out what I see as a poor analogy concerning being drawn by God.

Then what would be a better analogy?

I would use the water as the word of God uses it, as a type of the word itself.. ie, we are sanctified and washed by the water of the word.

When we lift up Christ through His word, that's the power of God (His gospel) and that draws men to Christ.

There are countless other ways which we could imagine how God draws men to Himself. Through the circumstances in their life, their relationships. Acts 17 says that God is not far from any one of us and that He has determined the bounds of our habitation that we might seek Him.

Unless we are God then it's pretty difficult to be precise in how He actually does draw men to Himself. We're not Him so we need to simply trust that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I would use the water as the word of God uses it, as a type of the word itself.. ie, we are sanctified and washed by the water of the word.

When we lift up Christ through His word, that's the power of God (His gospel) and that draws men to Christ.

There are countless other ways which we could imagine how God draws men to Himself. Through the circumstances in their life, their relationships. Acts 17 says that God is not far from any one of us and that He has determined the bounds of our habitation that we might seek Him.

Unless we are God then it's pretty difficult to be precise in how He actually does draw men to Himself. We're not Him so we need to simply trust that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.

Again, it doesn't matter how God does it. It doesn't matter what the means are. What matter is thatGod does it, not man and God together. That is what Jesus is saying in John 6:44. A man cannot come to Jesus unless the Father takes hold of the man and brings him to Jesus.

You can make up all of the analogies in the world, you can try to argue the nuances, but Jesus' teaching in John 6 remains the same. Accept it or reject it.

 

[Hammster]

I would use the water as the word of God uses it, as a type of the word itself.. ie, we are sanctified and washed by the water of the word.

When we lift up Christ through His word, that's the power of God (His gospel) and that draws men to Christ.

There are countless other ways which we could imagine how God draws men to Himself. Through the circumstances in their life, their relationships. Acts 17 says that God is not far from any one of us and that He has determined the bounds of our habitation that we might seek Him.

Unless we are God then it's pretty difficult to be precise in how He actually does draw men to Himself. We're not Him so we need to simply trust that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.

Nice analogy. But you didn't deal with the word draw. All you did was give what you think it means to draw.

 

[Markea]

Nice analogy. But you didn't deal with the word draw. All you did was give what you think it means to draw.

Well, I offered some thoughts on the matter. If you'd rather stick to the water bucket analogy, then you're welcome to.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Well, I offered some thoughts on the matter. If you'd rather stick to the water bucket analogy, then you're welcome to.

Here, pick one:

Jhn 18:10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.

Jhn 21:6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish.

Jhn 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

Act 16:19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities,

Act 21:30 Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.

Jam 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?

 

[Markea]

So in your opinion, a sword being drawn or a net being dragged is how you view God drawing men to Himself ?

I don't typically equate men with swords or nets or any inanimate object.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

So in your opinion, a sword being drawn or a net being dragged is how you view God drawing men to Himself ?

I don't typically equate men with swords or nets or any inanimate object.

You're missing the point. By a long shot. We are not equating men with swords. Or nets. Or water. It doesn't matter what it is. A sword has weight, nets are full of fish which fight, buckets of water can spill, etc. But that is all besides the point. Don't read into the analogy. The word means that one party did something with an object or another party. That object may or may not have fought back in reality, but the active party accomplished its goal without the help of the other party. When Peter drew his sword, there is no questioning how hard it was for him to draw it, whether it got stuck in its sheath before it came out, whether it was heavy, etc. All we know is that he drew it. The sword didn't help, because the active party isn't the sword; Peter is the active party.

Therefore, we equate God's drawing/dragging/hauling of men to himself. Do men fight back with God? Experientially it seems they do, and other Biblical texts make a case for it. But that isn't mentioned here in the immediate text. All it says is that God draws/drags/hauls men to Himself. What role does God have? Drawing, dragging, hauling. God is the subject. What role do men have? They are drawn/dragged/hauled. Men are the direct object. In Greek grammar, direct objects only receive. That is what defines them. They never act. The subject does the acting.

Does that help at all?

 

[Hammster]

Well, I offered some thoughts on the matter. If you'd rather stick to the water bucket analogy, then you're welcome to.

You aren't focusing on the word "draw". You are focusing on what you think it means to be drawn. Two different things. But if you'd rather avoid that, I understand.

 

[Markea]

You're missing the point. By a long shot. We are not equating men with swords. Or nets. Or water. It doesn't matter what it is. A sword has weight, nets are full of fish which fight, buckets of water can spill, etc. But that is all besides the point. Don't read into the analogy. The word means that one party did something with an object or another party. That object may or may not have fought back in reality, but the active party accomplished its goal without the help of the other party. When Peter drew his sword, there is no questioning how hard it was for him to draw it, whether it got stuck in its sheath before it came out, whether it was heavy, etc. All we know is that he drew it. The sword didn't help, because the active party isn't the sword; Peter is the active party.

Therefore, we equate God's drawing/dragging/hauling of men to himself. Do men fight back with God? Experientially it seems they do, and other Biblical texts make a case for it. But that isn't mentioned here in the immediate text. All it says is that God draws/drags/hauls men to Himself. What role does God have? Drawing, dragging, hauling. God is the subject. What role do men have? They are drawn/dragged/hauled. Men are the direct object. In Greek grammar, direct objects only receive. That is what defines them. They never act. The subject does the acting.

Does that help at all?

Yes, I understand what you're saying.

Isn't it obvious in scripture that God does draw men to Himself ? I would even agree that men have no part in that. Acts 17 again, God has set the bounds of our habitation so that we might happly seek after Him, though He be not far from any one of us.

We didn't have a part in that, ie, setting the bounds of our habitation.

We also know that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world. I don't know if we can understand all that this entails, but we do know that He is full of grace and truth.

 

[Hammster]

Then if one agrees that the Father draws/drags men to Christ, then one have to agree that those who are drawn will be raised up by Christ.