No one can come to me UNLESS the Father who sent me draws him

[tonychanyt]

Disclaimer: In this OP, I am not arguing whether or not the Father draws everyone. I am discussing the logical usage of the word "unless".

John 6:

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

Let's try to translate the above to the first-order logic language. The trouble is that there is more than one way to express the English concept of unless. The word carries two senses.

1. the weak sense: If the Father does not draw him, he cannot come to Jesus.
   ⇒ If he comes to Jesus, then the Father draws him.
   The Father's drawing of a person is a necessary condition. At this point, I don't know whether the Father draws everyone.
2. the strong sense: The Father does not draw him if and only if he cannot come to Jesus.
   ⇒ He can come to Jesus if and only if the Father draws him.
   The Father's drawing of a person is both necessary and sufficient.

John 6:

44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Jesus raises him up on the last day iff the Father draws him.

40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

He has eternal life iff the Father draws him.

There exists a person who does not have eternal life.

Therefore, the Father does not draw him.

According to the strong sense of the word "unless", the Father does not draw everyone. In either case, John 12:

32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

By the Cross, Jesus does draw all people to himself.

===========================================================================
Appendix 1

Sometimes the context tells us which sense is being used. Let's apply these two senses to 2 Timothy 2:

5 An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.

1. If he does not compete according to the rules, he is not crowned.
   Method 1 (weak sense of unless) is a valid interpretation.
2. He does not compete according to the rules if and only if he is not crowned.
   ⇒ If he is not crowned, then he does not compete according to the rules.
   ⇒ If he competes according to the rules, then he is crowned.

Method 2 implies that competing according to the rules is a sufficient condition for crowning. This is not true. Method 2 is not a valid interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:5.

===========================================================================
Appendix 2

Young's Literal Translation, John 6:44

no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

ἐὰν μὴ
if not

draws
ἑλκύσῃ (helkysē)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1670: To drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe. Or helko hel'-ko; probably akin to haireomai; to drag.

BDAG:

ⓒ w. other particles
α. ἐὰν καί even if Gal 6:1; likew. ἐὰν δὲ καί (POxy 472 II, 7) but if 1 Cor 7:11, 28; 2 Ti 2:5. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ παρακούσῃ but if the pers. refuses to listen Mt 18:17.
β. ἐὰν μή if not, unless w. pres. subj. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ ἀξία Mt 10:13; cp. Lk 13:3; J 3:2f, 5, 27. Mostly w. aor. subj. ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ Mt 5:20; 6:15; 12:29; 18:3; 21:21; Mk 3:27; 4:22 (s. KBeyer, Semitische Syntax im NT, ’62, 131); J 4:48; 6:44; 7:51; Ro 10:15; 1 Cor 9:16; 14:6; unless, without ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω Mt 26:42. W. fut. ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν Rv 2:22.

Biblehub listed 30 translations out of 51 use the word "unless" to translate ἐὰν μὴ with aorist subjunctive. In this case, it is not just ἐὰν μὴ; it is ἐὰν μὴ followed by an Aorist Subjunctive verb. This pattern has been observed frequently enough that some experts believe that this pattern is the equivalent of the English concept of "unless".

 

[Mark Quayle]

1. the weak sense: If the Father does not draw him, he cannot come to Jesus.
   ⇒ If he comes to Jesus, then the Father draws him.
   The Father's drawing of a person is a necessary condition. At this point, I don't know whether the Father draws everyone.
2. the strong sense: The Father does not draw him if and only if he cannot come to Jesus.
   ⇒ He can come to Jesus if and only if the Father draws him.
   The Father's drawing of a person is both necessary and sufficient.

This doesn't add up to me. I will disregard the inferences some will draw from the structures you propose, here, but:

You conclude 'the strong sense' #2 with, "The Father's drawing of a person is both necessary and sufficient." But to me, it only shows the necessity. I agree, it is sufficient, but I do not see the sufficiency of it logically implied by the statement alone: "44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Explain for someone who has studied logic in trade school, but not formally, beyond that.

 

[tonychanyt]

You conclude 'the strong sense' #2 with, "The Father's drawing of a person is both necessary and sufficient."

It is not a conclusion. It is a definition. There are two definitions for "unless".

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is not a conclusion. It is a definition. There are two definitions for "unless".

Ok, sufficient for what?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

You conclude 'the strong sense' #2 with, "The Father's drawing of a person is both necessary and sufficient." But to me, it only shows the necessity. I agree, it is sufficient, but I do not see the sufficiency of it logically implied by the statement alone

If the drawing of the Father is only necessary but not sufficient for enabling one to come, then all that tells us is that no one can come without that drawing taking place, but not that the drawing entails the granting of the ability. In other words, under the "weak" sense of unless, while we can conclude that no one can come unless drawn, we cannot conclude that everyone drawn can come. We would have to leave open the possibility that some may be drawn who nevertheless retain the inability to come. And that just doesn't seem to fit the point of the verse. So the strong sense of "unless" is best: The drawing of the Father is both necessary and sufficient for enabling one to come.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

1 Timothy 2:4 KJV
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering
to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

John 6:65 KJV
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father.


The Father is not willing that anyone should perish.
Does that willingness imply a drawing of everyone? Otherwise, it would seem that God's actions do not match His will.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

1 Timothy 2:4 KJV
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." - vv. 1-4

This is an "all kinds" of people, both those in high positions and those not. Why are prayers urged for such people? Because these people often oppressed early Christians. It would not have been natural to want to pray for them. The point being made is that the gospel is offered to men of all kinds, not some kinds. A universal proclamation that does not make any distinction in kind does not entail a universal purpose that makes no exception between individuals.

For instance, a lot of universal language in the Gospels -- e.g. one of several common uses of the word "world" -- is a reference to the inclusion of the Gentiles along with the Jews. It is not meant, necessarily, to communicate the idea of an "all individuals without exception," but rather an "all kinds of men without distinction," that is, between Jew, Greek, etc. The fact that salvation is offered to people of every tribe, tongue, nation, etc. does not mean the salvific grace of God is extended to every individual who makes up those groups.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering
to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Who are the "some" who count slackness? Who are the "us" to whom the Lord is longsuffering toward? Notice (1) that the Lord's patience is specified as being for "us" (the beloved; verse 1) in particular, in contrast to "them" (the scoffers, verse 3), and (2) that this patience for "us" is the reason for the Lord's apparent delay. From this, "any of us" and "all of us" seems to fit best contextually. Why otherwise would Peter have specified Jesus' patience for the beloved as His reason for not yet returning? Why not say He is longsuffering toward all?

Look at it this way: If the reason Jesus has not yet returned is because He is patiently waiting for people to come to Him, yet that patience is on behalf of every individual, and not a chosen people, then wouldn't it be the case that whenever Christ does return, He will do so reluctantly, knowing that had He waiting one more year, one more day, or even just one more hour, even more might have turned to Him in faith? If the goal is to patiently await the salvation of as many people as possible, wouldn't it make sense to delay His return indefinitely? Conversely, if the purpose of His perceived delay is that He is patiently awaiting for all of God's elect to come to Him in faith, then at the moment that the final person of that elect people turns to Him in faith, His patience will have exhausted its purpose, and He will return.

There is, however, another way of understanding this text that is fully consistent with the idea that the Lord desires to save all individually. And that is if this desire is understood in the sense of the preceptive aspect of God's will, but not His decree. We see plenty of examples of this mysterious union of aspects to God's will in Scripture. For instance, Acts 2:23: "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." Was it God's will that Jesus be delivered up? Yes. Is it also God's will that innocent men not be murdered? Yes. That's why the men who carried out the deed, despite it fulfilling God's purposes, are held accountable as guilty sinners. Does the decree of God therefore contradict His precepts? That can't be. Rather, this is just something beyond our understanding, and we are to simply trust in the Lord.

So is it the case that God desires in one sense (according to His precepts) that all be saved, and yet wills in another sense (according to His decree) that some will and some will not? It certainly may be; I think there are many passages of Scripture that argue very strongly in favor of this. But does that imply that God is in any way evil, schizophrenic, self-contradictory, or any other term that may come to the surface of our limited understanding? How could it? We wouldn't say that God being three and one is a contradiction. Why? Because Scripture teaches it. We can't wrap our minds around what that "looks like," but we know it's not contradictory, because there are different senses in which God is three, and in which He is one. Likewise, there are different senses in which God expresses His moral character and consequent desires, and in which He decrees what should actually come to pass, for His eternal glory.

John 6:65 KJV
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father.

The Father is not willing that anyone should perish.
Does that willingness imply a drawing of everyone? Otherwise, it would seem that God's actions do not match His will.

Verse 37a: "All that the Father gives me will come to me"
Verse 44: "No one can come to me unless the Father ... draws him"
Verse 65: "No one can come to me unless it is granted/given him by the Father"

Verse 65 refers back to verse 44, yet uses the same verb found in verse 37, where it is said that all of these ones will come.

Furthermore, the final clause of verse 44 also argues the point that all those whom the Father draws will in fact come and be saved:

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

Who is the one who is raised? The one who is drawn. This can perhaps be seen a little more easily if we state the contrapositive of 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."

Who will be raised up on the last day? The one who has been made able to come, by the Father's drawing. This implies that all those who are drawn by the Father will in fact be saved, and therefore not all are drawn.