1John 5:1 regeneration before faith

fltom

Well-known member
Which refers to the drawing by the Father
and when drawn they can come

How does he draw or enable them

John 6:45 (ESV) — 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—

through revelation

given revelation they can come
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Actually you are saved when you believe

Acts 16:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Gods salvation is Him manifest in you just as He was manifest in Jesus. See Matt 3:16. This is how His salvation works, Him coming to you and be in you.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
and when drawn they can come

How does he draw or enable them

John 6:45 (ESV) — 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—

through revelation

given revelation they can come
It does not say when they are drawn they can come
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
All who come have been drawn, all who come are raised on the last day. It does not say that all who are drawn necessarily come!

Okay... Let me explain to you how pronouns work. When you talk about a person over and over, it sounds awkward to keep using his name for every reference. So once you identify a person with their name, subsequent references can be made with a pronoun, which refers to the person previously referenced:

"Peter went to the store. After that, he spent some time at the park. Then he went to get a coffee. Finally he went home."

Every mention of "he" is referring back to the same person, namely Peter. Subsequent pronouns always have the same referent, unless there is something in the text to indicate a new individual/subject is being referenced.

"Peter came to the presentation.
He is from Boston.
("He" refers to Peter.)
Peter was listening to Bill, who was speaking of investments.
He suggested a diverse investment plan."
("He" is now referring to Bill.)

Now, let's look at the verse in question:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him(1). And I will raise him(2) up on the last day.

There are two instances of the pronoun here ("him", objective pronoun). They are both referring to the same person (namely the one Jesus is discussing whether they can come or not).

There is NOTHING in the text between the first "him" and the second "him" to warrant claiming a different referent, or that there are people who are allegedly "drawn" yet are not raised up at the last day (because they allegedly do not "come"). The only reason for ASSUMING a different referent is to try to smuggle in the false teaching of "free will" to try to claim man gets to decide whether he "comes" or not, to try to defend God and place the blame on man.

Further, the Arminian misinterpretation denies the meaning of the term, "draw" ("ελκυω"). I have previously posted a word study on "draw" in English and "ελκυω" in Greek (link). There is ZERO usage of the term where somene is "drawn" but does not "come". It means "impel" or "compel".

You can't say a flame "draws" moths, unless they COME.
You can't say you "drew" the blinds, unless they were drawn.
You can't say the band "drew" a crowd, unless the crowd came.
You can't say the musketeer "drew" his sword, unless it came out of the sheath.

So not only does the Arminian interpretation DENY the meaning of the term, "draw", but there is ZERO evidence in the Bible of someone who was "drawn" but did not "come".

“No one can come unless they are drawn” cannot be made to say that all drawn do come.

We don't have to "make" the verse say that, because it's what it NATURALLY means.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It doesn't say that all drawn actually come either. That's my point! We cannot make an argument about irresistibility one way or the other.

Of course we can!

First of all, the natural meaning of "draw" REQUIRES it.

Secondly, the "him" who is drawn refers to the SAME "him" who is raised up at the last day.
So all that were drawn WILL BE raised up.
And unless you want to argue that they can be raised up without "coming", then they are drawn, then come, and finally raised up.
 

fltom

Well-known member
Okay... Let me explain to you how pronouns work. When you talk about a person over and over, it sounds awkward to keep using his name for every reference. So once you identify a person with their name, subsequent references can be made with a pronoun, which refers to the person previously referenced:

"Peter went to the store. After that, he spent some time at the park. Then he went to get a coffee. Finally he went home."

Every mention of "he" is referring back to the same person, namely Peter. Subsequent pronouns always have the same referent, unless there is something in the text to indicate a new individual/subject is being referenced.

"Peter came to the presentation.
He is from Boston.
("He" refers to Peter.)
Peter was listening to Bill, who was speaking of investments.
He suggested a diverse investment plan."
("He" is now referring to Bill.)

Now, let's look at the verse in question:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him(1). And I will raise him(2) up on the last day.

There are two instances of the pronoun here ("him", objective pronoun). They are both referring to the same person (namely the one Jesus is discussing whether they can come or not).


There is NOTHING in the text between the first "him" and the second "him" to warrant claiming a different referent, or that there are people who are allegedly "drawn" yet are not raised up at the last day (because they allegedly do not "come"). The only reason for ASSUMING a different referent is to try to smuggle in the false teaching of "free will" to try to claim man gets to decide whether he "comes" or not, to try to defend God and place the blame on man.

You appear to not understand the issue

there is no change of referent the whom comes is raised up

The second clause “Except the Father draws him” ties the “him” in that clause automatically to the unstated one who does come, assumed in the plea of the first clause, though stated in the negative.

Those who disagree are just going to have to find a scholar they respect who is good with the rules of logic and then ask him if the drawing is a distributed term in this verse that makes it mean everyone who is drawn will come and will be raised up… or is it an undistributed term… meaning those that come will be first drawn and then after coming be raised up… It does no prove that everyone, just because they drawn will come, nor that they will be raised up just because they were drawn.

brianwagner




Further, the Arminian misinterpretation denies the meaning of the term, "draw" ("ελκυω"). I have previously posted a word study on "draw" in English and "ελκυω" in Greek (link). There is ZERO usage of the term where somene is "drawn" but does not "come". It means "impel" or "compel".

You can't say a flame "draws" moths, unless they COME.
You can't say you "drew" the blinds, unless they were drawn.
You can't say the band "drew" a crowd, unless the crowd came.
You can't say the musketeer "drew" his sword, unless it came out of the sheath.

So not only does the Arminian interpretation DENY the meaning of the term, "draw", but there is ZERO evidence in the Bible of someone who was "drawn" but did not "come".



We don't have to "make" the verse say that, because it's what it NATURALLY means.

Lets see if there in any truth to that claim

The same Greek word for “drawn” is used in the LXX in Neh 9:30… (esdras 19:30) and that group of Israelites, though drawn by God to the opportunity to obey Him, did not do it.



Nehemiah 9:30 (YLT)

30 `And Thou drawest over them many years, and testifiest against them by Thy Spirit, by the hand of Thy prophets, and they have not given ear, and Thou dost give them into the hand of peoples of the lands,



The Hebrew word for “drawn” used in Neh 9:30 is also used in Hos 11:4-5, which again is showing that Israel was “drawn” by God with love to Himself, but they refused Him. Brian Wagner


also



Jeremiah 31:3–4 (KJV 1900)

3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying,

Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love:

Therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel:

Thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets,

And shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.



Helko is also used at 4Macc 14:13; 15:11(8) meaning influence
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
To come = being drawn.

You just equated the two.
Which means the same group who is drawn is the SAME group who comes.
There is no subgroup of "drawn but do not come".

To be raised = being drawn and coming.

Yet you said "come = being drawn".

So

"to be raised = "being drawn" and "being drawn".
So all who are drawn come (your first postulate), and will all be raised up (your second postulate).
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
The second clause “Except the Father draws him” ties the “him” in that clause automatically to the unstated one who does come, assumed in the plea of the first clause, though stated in the negative.

Those who disagree are just going to have to find a scholar they respect who is good with the rules of logic and then ask him if the drawing is a distributed term in this verse that makes it mean everyone who is drawn will come and will be raised up… or is it an undistributed term… meaning those that come will be first drawn and then after coming be raised up… It does no prove that everyone, just because they drawn will come, nor that they will be raised up just because they were drawn.

brianwagner

Once again, Arminians are unable to think for themselves, and all they're seemingly able to do is run away to Soteriology101 (a garbage website) and cut-and-paste worthless rhetoric. Your buddy Johnny says he refuses to read cut-and-pastes, so why should I be bothered?

And who is "brian wagner", that I should give a rat's behind about his worthless opinion? Especially since the quote doesn't even ADDRESS what I posted. (This is why cut-and-pastes aren't allowed, since they can't address the specifics of what people post.)
 

fltom

Well-known member
Of course we can!

First of all, the natural meaning of "draw" REQUIRES it.

Secondly, the "him" who is drawn refers to the SAME "him" who is raised up at the last day.
So all that were drawn WILL BE raised up.
And unless you want to argue that they can be raised up without "coming", then they are drawn, then come, and finally raised up.
No actually it does not

there are verses in the greek Septuagint and apocrypha were it lacks such

The same Greek word for “drawn” is used in the LXX in Neh 9:30… (esdras 19:30) and that group of Israelites, though drawn by God to the opportunity to obey Him, did not do it.



Nehemiah 9:30 (YLT)

30 `And Thou drawest over them many years, and testifiest against them by Thy Spirit, by the hand of Thy prophets, and they have not given ear, and Thou dost give them into the hand of peoples of the lands,



The Hebrew word for “drawn” used in Neh 9:30 is also used in Hos 11:4-5, which again is showing that Israel was “drawn” by God with love to Himself, but they refused Him. Brian Wagner

Jeremiah 31:3–4 (KJV 1900)

3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying,

Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love:

Therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel:

Thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets,

And shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.

Song of solomon also

Song of Solomon 1:4 (KJV 1900) — 4 Draw me, we will run after thee: The king hath brought me into his chambers: We will be glad and rejoice in thee, We will remember thy love more than wine: The upright love thee.


if the drawing move them why would they have to run after the king




Helko is also used at 4Macc 14:13; 15:11(8) to denote influence
 
Top