God draws everyone (not just a select some) to Himself all the time (John 12:32)

[Synergy]

John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” That is absolutely true but the thing is: God is drawing/wooing everyone (not just a subset) to Himself all the time (John 12:32). “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” There are many disagreements as to whether or not John means all people or some people. Let’s ask the Greeks. Below are two Modern Greek NTs and their rendition of John 12:32:

H Αγία Γραφή στη Δημοτική (Filos Pergamos) (FPB):
32 και εγώ, όταν υψωθώ από τη γη, θα τους ελκύσω όλους στον εαυτό μου.

Η Καινή Διαθήκη του Κυρίου και Σωτήρος ημών Ιησού Χριστού κατά νεοελληνικήν απόδοσιν (NTV):
32 Καὶ ὅταν ἐγὼ ὑψωθῶ ἀπὸ τὴν γῆν, θὰ ἑλκύσω ὅλους πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτόν μου».

For those who know Modern Greek, όλους translates to “everyone” in English. Everyone means everyone, no exceptions. So unless anyone wants to say that the entire Greek Nation does not understand its own language, the Greek stands.

As we are all images of God, everyone has been granted enough spiritual insight to where we are all sufficiently and responsibly equipped to make a choice for God or against God, even those who have never even heard of Christianity. Rom 1:20, 2:15 falls perfectly in line with the fact that a person who has not yet been introduced to Christianity (a Gentile) can still follow his conscience and emulate God's laws by loving his family, helping strangers, doing everything to the best of his abilities, etc… In fact, in Rom 2:16 Paul emphasized that their very judgment before Christ will factor in their conscience and hearts. This is most definitely not just a mental ascent unless one wants to start endorsing mental ascent as an eternal-life decider.

Next, is God’s drawing (ειλκυσας) irresistible or not? Nehemiah 9:30 LXX says the following: “Over many years you did draw (ειλκυσας) them, and did warn them by your Spirit through your prophets; yet they would not give ear. Therefore you did give them into the hand of the peoples of the lands." Sounds like many unfortunately did resist God’s drawing. That falls perfectly in line with the fact that we have all been granted enough spiritual insight as images of God to where we are all sufficiently and responsibly equipped to make a choice for God or against God.

 

[Dizerner]

I'm with your conclusion, God obviously wants to save all people, but it's a poor argument to argue from modern Greek I'd say as languages do change over time.

I did think your argument from the LXX was very good because it shows that the Greek word for draw does not necessarily mean a forced response, and it's very clear.

καὶ εἵλκυσας ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἔτη πολλὰ καὶ ἐπεμαρτύρω αὐτοῖς ἐν πνεύματί σου ἐν χειρὶ προφητῶν σου καὶ οὐκ ἠνωτίσαντο καὶ ἔδωκας αὐτοὺς ἐν χειρὶ λαῶν τῆς γῆς (Neh 9:30 BGT)

 

[Theo1689]

John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” That is absolutely true but the thing is: God is drawing/wooing everyone (not just a subset) to Himself all the time (John 12:32). “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

The problem with this rationalizing, and twisting of Scripture, is manifold:

1) John 12:32 doesn't come immediately after John 6:44. If God had wanted it to appear that way, He would have done so. They are DIFFERENT passages in DIFFERENT contexts.

2) John 6:44 refers to the FATHER's drawing, while John 12:32 refers to the SON'S drawing, so they are clearly NOT referring to the same thing.

There are many disagreements as to whether or not John means all people or some people. Let’s ask the Greeks. Below are two Modern Greek NTs and their rendition of John 12:32:

H Αγία Γραφή στη Δημοτική (Filos Pergamos) (FPB):
32 και εγώ, όταν υψωθώ από τη γη, θα τους ελκύσω όλους στον εαυτό μου.

If you want to "ask the Greeks", why don't you quote what the Biblical KOINE Greek says, rather than what "modern Greek" says?

John 12:32 κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

The Koine Greek term "pantas", comes from "pas", meaning "all".

For those who know Modern Greek, όλους translates to “everyone” in English. Everyone means everyone, no exceptions. So unless anyone wants to say that the entire Greek Nation does not understand its own language, the Greek stands.

John ORIGINALLY wrote "pantas", which does NOT necessarily mean, "everyone, no exceptions". So unless anyone wants to say that JOHN does not understand his own language, the Greek stands (and you are wrong).

Btw, if John 12:32 is SUPPOSED to contain "όλους" instead of "πάντας", then why didn't John use that word, as he did in 1 John 5:19?

As we are all images of God, everyone has been granted enough spiritual insight to where we are all sufficiently and responsibly equipped to make a choice for God or against God,

Where does the Bible teach that "image of God" includes being "equipped to make a choice for God or against God"? You seem to be simply ASSUMING that.

Next, is God’s drawing (ειλκυσας) irresistible or not?

By definition, it is irresistible.
Here is how both the Greek term, and the English term, are used. You will notice then they NEVER allow "resisting":


"draw a gun"
"with-drawl"
"draw a sword"
"draw blood"
"draw blinds"
"draw interest"
"draw curtains"
"draw a breath"
"draw a cheque"
"the honey drew flies";
“the light drew moths”;
"the enemy drew fire";
"horse-drawn carriage";
"draw the short straw"
"draw on a bank account";
"draw water from a well"
"amount of power drawn";
"draw a card from a deck”
"draw a bow" (archery);
"the college drew students";
"the performance drew cheers";
"draw-er" (you drag/pull it open);
"draw" (winning ticket) for a 50/50 draw;
"the prisoner was drawn and quartered";
“draw on a cigarette" ("take a draw");


Deut. 21:3 a heifer that...has not pulled <ἑλκύω> in a yoke.
2Sam. 22:17 he drew <ἑλκύω> me out of many waters.
1 Mac 10:82 Then brought <ἑλκύω> Simon forth his host,
3 Mac 5:49 infants drew <ἑλκύω> what seemed their last milk [from the breast].
4 Mac 11:9 the spearbearers bound him, and drew <ἑλκύω> him to the catapelt:
Ps. 10:9 he seizes the poor when he draws <ἑλκύω> him into his net.
Ps. 119:131 I open my mouth and pant <ἑλκύω pneuma>, lit. "draw air"
Eccl. 2:3 how to cheer my body with wine (lit., "draw <ἑλκύω> wine into my body"
Job 20:28 The possessions of his house will be carried away, <ἑλκύω>
Job 39:10 or will he harrow <ἑλκύω> the valleys after you? (lit. "drag your furrows")
Sir. 28:19 who hath not drawn <ἑλκύω> the yoke thereof,
Hab. 1:15 he drags <ἑλκύω> them out with his net;
Isa. 10:15 [shall] the saw magnify itself against him who wields <ἑλκύω> it?
Jer. 14:6 they pant <ἑλκύω> for air (lit. "draw air") like jackals;
Jer. 38:13 Then they drew <ἑλκύω> Jeremiah up with ropes
John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew <ἑλκύω> it
John 21:6 So they cast [the net], and now they were not able to haul <ἑλκύω>it in
John 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled <ἑλκύω> the net ashore
Acts 16:19 they seized Paul and Silas and dragged <ἑλκύω> them into the marketplace
Acts 21:30 They seized Paul and dragged <ἑλκύω> him out of the temple
James 2:6 the ones who drag <ἑλκύω> you into court?

Nehemiah 9:30 LXX says the following: “Over many years you did draw (ειλκυσας) them, and did warn them by your Spirit through your prophets; yet they would not give ear. Therefore you did give them into the hand of the peoples of the lands."

There are a couple of examples with your counterexample. First, you are depending on a translation, so "ελκυω" wasn't the original term, a Hebrew term was.

Secondly, consider this. A horse draws a wagon from Walnut Grove to Sleepy Eye. Then he stops drawing it. Was the drawing ineffectual? Of course not. It simply reached its destination, and then stopped. So cessation of drawing doesn't mean it's ineffectual, or resistible. It simply means that the drawing stopped.

I think you want us to ASSUME that the text said, "Over many years you TRIED to draw them", but that's not what it says.

Sounds like many unfortunately did resist God’s drawing.

You seem to be ASSUMING that.

That falls perfectly in line with the fact that we have all been granted enough spiritual insight as images of God to where we are all sufficiently and responsibly equipped to make a choice for God or against God.

I'm still waiting for you to show us SCRIPTURE that allegedly teaches that.

 

[Theo1689]

I'm with your conclusion, God obviously wants to save all people,

"Obviously"?!
Why do you people constantly use "obviously" (or "clear", or "plain"), when it is anything BUT?! The only reason people puff up their arguments with such words is when they CANNOT demonstrate their position from Scripture, so have to make it SOUND like it's "obvious", so they don't have to prove it.

Further, why does it never occur to anyone that to ague that "God wants to save ALL people", even though not all are saved, is to DENY God's omnipotence?!

You really think God couldn't have saved all people, if that is what He TRULY wanted? So instead you deny God's omnipotence, to try to lift up man's imaginary "free will".

 

[Dizerner]

"Obviously"?!
Why do you people constantly use "obviously" (or "clear", or "plain"), when it is anything BUT?! The only reason people puff up their arguments with such words is when they CANNOT demonstrate their position from Scripture, so have to make it SOUND like it's "obvious", so they don't have to prove it.

So you've never said something seemed "obvious" to you, and ban the use of the word as "puffing up an argument." Or only when the opposition uses it.

Obviously I think it is easily demonstrated, and takes heavy philosophy and elaborate logic to make the words "fit" a certain presupposed paradigm. Just because you DENY I've demonstrated it, has ZERO bearing on whether I actually have. Logic 101.

Further, why does it never occur to anyone that to ague that "God wants to save ALL people", even though not all are saved, is to DENY God's omnipotence?!

Notice how you immediately jump to a complex philosophical and logical objection instead of Scripture. You "connect" dots that are not there.

You really think God couldn't have saved all people, if that is what He TRULY wanted? So instead you deny God's omnipotence, to try to lift up man's imaginary "free will".

It was God's idea, not mine. I would prefer God did not use free will as it feels neater and safer and less offensive. But I'm willing to submit.

 

[Theo1689]

So you've never said something seemed "obvious" to you, and ban the use of the word as "puffing up an argument." Or only when the opposition uses it.

I don't believe I've ever used the term, no. You see, I understand that saying, "It's obvious" is a baseless assertion, and if something is truly "obvious", it should be trivial to point it out.

And guess what? If you actually present evidence, and multiple people disagree with you, then it's not "obvious", by DEFINITION.

As for "banning" the word, I don't recall ever saying that, and I challenge you to QUOTE where I've allegedly ever said any such nonsense. This seems to simply be yet another example of you trying to make others look foolish by claiming they've said things they've never said. No, I'm not "banning" the word (I don't even have that power), but I'm simply pointing out how worthless it is to use. If you want to continue to use worthless words, feel free. No skin off my nose.

Obviously I think it is easily demonstrated,

Then why haven't you?

Just because you DENY I've demonstrated it, has ZERO bearing on whether I actually have. Logic 101.

If you think you've "demonstrated" something, but multiple people disagree with you, then by definition your claim was NOT "obvious". Logic 201.

Notice how you immediately jump to a complex philosophical and logical objection instead of Scripture. You "connect" dots that are not there.

So you think going from "God can't save everyone" to "God must not be omnipotent" is a "jump" and "complex philosophical and logical objection"?

Doesn't seem very "complex" to me...

It was God's idea, not mine.

No, it's NOT "God's idea". That's the POINT.

 

[Synergy]

The problem with this rationalizing, and twisting of Scripture, is manifold:

1) John 12:32 doesn't come immediately after John 6:44. If God had wanted it to appear that way, He would have done so. They are DIFFERENT passages in DIFFERENT contexts.

2) John 6:44 refers to the FATHER's drawing, while John 12:32 refers to the SON'S drawing, so they are clearly NOT referring to the same thing.

John 5:19 says, "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Sounds like you either have a poor understanding of the Holy Trinity or you are anti-Trinitarian. Which is it?

If you want to "ask the Greeks", why don't you quote what the Biblical KOINE Greek says, rather than what "modern Greek" says?

John 12:32 κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

The Koine Greek term "pantas", comes from "pas", meaning "all".

John ORIGINALLY wrote "pantas", which does NOT necessarily mean, "everyone, no exceptions". So unless anyone wants to say that JOHN does not understand his own language, the Greek stands (and you are wrong).

Btw, if John 12:32 is SUPPOSED to contain "όλους" instead of "πάντας", then why didn't John use that word, as he did in 1 John 5:19?

I got 84 hits for the word πάντας in my Koine Greek Bible. I'll take the first 4 hits (Matt 2:4, 2:6, 4:24, 8:16) and examine how each verse uses the word πάντας:

In Koine Greek:
Mat 2:4 καὶ συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ ἐπυνθάνετο παρ᾿ αὐτῶν ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται.
Mat 2:16 Τότε ῾Ηρῴδης ἰδὼν ὅτι ἐνεπαίχθη ὑπὸ τῶν μάγων, ἐθυμώθη λίαν, καὶ ἀποστείλας ἀνεῖλε πάντας τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἐν Βηθλεὲμ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτῆς ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω, κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ὃν ἠκρίβωσε παρὰ τῶν μάγων.
Mat 4:24 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν Συρίαν, καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις καὶ βασάνοις συνεχομένους, καὶ δαιμονιζομένους καὶ σεληνιαζομένους καὶ παραλυτικούς, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς·
Mat 8:16 ᾿Οψίας δὲ γενομένης προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δαιμονιζομένους πολλούς, καὶ ἐξέβαλε τὰ πνεύματα λόγῳ καὶ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ἐθεράπευσεν,

In English:
Mat 2:4: And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
Mat 2:16: Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was greatly enraged. And he sent and killed all the boys in Bethlehem, and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully inquired of the wise men.
Mat 4:24 And His fame went throughout all Syria. And they brought to Him all those being badly ill suffering various diseases and torments, and those who had been possessed with demons, and those who had been moonstruck, and paralytics. And He healed them.
Mat 8:16 And evening coming on, they brought to Him many who had been possessed with demons. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick

My analysis:
So when Mat 2:4 says "all the chiefs" were gathered, does he mean some were gathered? Nope, ALL were gathered.
When Mat 2:16 says "all the boys" under 2 years old were killed, does he mean some were killed or that ALL were killed? Obviously ALL were killed by decree of Herod.
When Mat 4:24 says "all those being badly ill" were brought to Jesus, did the people pick and choose one from each category of illness or did they bring ALL the sick?
When Mat 8:16 says that Jesus "healed all who were sick" did Jesus heal one from each category of sickness or did He heal ALL of them?

Where does the Bible teach that "image of God" includes being "equipped to make a choice for God or against God"? You seem to be simply ASSUMING that.

Rom 1:20, 2:15 falls perfectly in line with the fact that even a person who has not yet been introduced to Christianity (a Gentile) can still follow his conscience and emulate God's laws by loving his family, helping strangers, doing everything to the best of his abilities, etc… In fact, in Rom 2:16 Paul emphasized that their very judgment before Christ will factor in their conscience and hearts.

By definition, it is irresistible.
Here is how both the Greek term, and the English term, are used. You will notice then they NEVER allow "resisting":

"draw a gun"
"with-drawl"
"draw a sword"
"draw blood"
"draw blinds"
"draw interest"
"draw curtains"
"draw a breath"
"draw a cheque"
"the honey drew flies";
“the light drew moths”;
"the enemy drew fire";
"horse-drawn carriage";
"draw the short straw"
"draw on a bank account";
"draw water from a well"
"amount of power drawn";
"draw a card from a deck”
"draw a bow" (archery);
"the college drew students";
"the performance drew cheers";
"draw-er" (you drag/pull it open);
"draw" (winning ticket) for a 50/50 draw;
"the prisoner was drawn and quartered";
“draw on a cigarette" ("take a draw");


Deut. 21:3 a heifer that...has not pulled <ἑλκύω> in a yoke.
2Sam. 22:17 he drew <ἑλκύω> me out of many waters.
1 Mac 10:82 Then brought <ἑλκύω> Simon forth his host,
3 Mac 5:49 infants drew <ἑλκύω> what seemed their last milk [from the breast].
4 Mac 11:9 the spearbearers bound him, and drew <ἑλκύω> him to the catapelt:
Ps. 10:9 he seizes the poor when he draws <ἑλκύω> him into his net.
Ps. 119:131 I open my mouth and pant <ἑλκύω pneuma>, lit. "draw air"
Eccl. 2:3 how to cheer my body with wine (lit., "draw <ἑλκύω> wine into my body"
Job 20:28 The possessions of his house will be carried away, <ἑλκύω>
Job 39:10 or will he harrow <ἑλκύω> the valleys after you? (lit. "drag your furrows")
Sir. 28:19 who hath not drawn <ἑλκύω> the yoke thereof,
Hab. 1:15 he drags <ἑλκύω> them out with his net;
Isa. 10:15 [shall] the saw magnify itself against him who wields <ἑλκύω> it?
Jer. 14:6 they pant <ἑλκύω> for air (lit. "draw air") like jackals;
Jer. 38:13 Then they drew <ἑλκύω> Jeremiah up with ropes
John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew <ἑλκύω> it
John 21:6 So they cast [the net], and now they were not able to haul <ἑλκύω>it in
John 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled <ἑλκύω> the net ashore
Acts 16:19 they seized Paul and Silas and dragged <ἑλκύω> them into the marketplace
Acts 21:30 They seized Paul and dragged <ἑλκύω> him out of the temple
James 2:6 the ones who drag <ἑλκύω> you into court?

In Greek, when ἑλκύσῃ is associated with inanimate objects then ἑλκύσῃ means to physically drag. There is no other way to draw an inanimate object than to be physical and forceful about it such as dragging it. Here I was talking about humans with God-given minds and hearts so we are a little above inanimate objects wouldn't you think? That's why, in Greek, a person who is ἑλκύστικος is said to be attractive or winsome, not a dictator.

There are a couple of examples with your counterexample. First, you are depending on a translation, so "ελκυω" wasn't the original term, a Hebrew term was.

What do you have against the LXX OT? We have a saying in the South: If it's good enough for Paul then it's good enough for me.

Secondly, consider this. A horse draws a wagon from Walnut Grove to Sleepy Eye. Then he stops drawing it. Was the drawing ineffectual? Of course not. It simply reached its destination, and then stopped. So cessation of drawing doesn't mean it's ineffectual, or resistible. It simply means that the drawing stopped.

Again, you are referencing inanimate objects. We are not inanimate objects. Get that straight.

I think you want us to ASSUME that the text said, "Over many years you TRIED to draw them", but that's not what it says.

Stop adding your own words into the text. The Koine and Modern Greek text stands by itself.

You seem to be ASSUMING that.
I'm still waiting for you to show us SCRIPTURE that allegedly teaches that.

Rom 1:20, 2:15 falls perfectly in line with the fact that even a person who has not yet been introduced to Christianity (a Gentile) can still follow his conscience and emulate God's laws by loving his family, helping strangers, doing everything to the best of his abilities, etc… In fact, in Rom 2:16 Paul emphasized that their very judgment before Christ will factor in their conscience and hearts.

CONCLUSION: The more Greek one knows, the more he is appalled by the zero-sum attitude and Biblical distortion that prevails in Reformed theology.

 

[Theo1689]

John 5:19 says, "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Sounds like you either have a poor understanding of the Holy Trinity or you are anti-Trinitarian. Which is it?

You're the one who denies the Trinity with your modalistic understanding that Jesus drawing and the Father drawing are referring to the same thing.

In English:
Mat 2:16: Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was greatly enraged. And he sent and killed all the boys in Bethlehem, and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully inquired of the wise men.

You are comparing apples and oranges. A "boy" is referring to an individual", but the term "men" is referring to an individual, but to a GROUP. Anti-Calvinists always do this, they try to argue that we are denying the meaning of "all", when in fact the issue is what is meant by "men".

Mat 8:16 And evening coming on, they brought to Him many who had been possessed with demons. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick

You didn't even bother to read your own proof-text. The "all" here is NOT universal, it is ONLY referring to those "brought to Him".

Rom 1:20, 2:15 falls perfectly in line with the fact that even a person who has not yet been introduced to Christianity (a Gentile) can still follow his conscience and emulate God's laws by loving his family, helping strangers, doing everything to the best of his abilities, etc…

Rom. 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

Rom. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

In Greek, when ἑλκύσῃ is associated with inanimate objects then ἑλκύσῃ means to physically drag.

So "draw a breath", "draw a sword", "draw a net", are all wrong, according to you?

There is no other way to draw an inanimate object than to be physical and forceful about it such as dragging it. Here I was talking about humans with God-given minds and hearts so we are a little above inanimate objects wouldn't you think?

Um, you are ASSUMING a distinction that's not in the language.

That's why, in Greek, a person who is ἑλκύστικος is said to be attractive or winsome, not a dictator.

Well yes, because if you're "attracted" to something, you GO to it.
That's why by definition, if you don't go to it, it means you WEREN'T "attracted".

As for "dictator", you seem to be engaging in petty ad hominem, and trying to label views you don't agree with, with derogatory terms. That's only something someone does when they DON'T have a valid argument.

Btw, maybe you should study the Greek term, "δεσποτης".

What do you have against the LXX OT? We have a saying in the South: If it's good enough for Paul then it's good enough for me.

If you're studying the meaning of terms, you rely primarily on texts which were originally written in that language. When you translate something into another language, there is something called "semantic range", where different terms have a number of different denotations and connotations. And when you translate, your original term and the gloss you choose are not going to match perfectly. The original term will have connotations that the gloss doesn't have, and the gloss may have connotations that the original term doesn't have.

As an example, I believe Coca Cola used to have a slogan, "It refreshes your spirit!". It got translated into an Asian language, and when it was translated back, it ended up as, "It brings your ancestors back from the dead!"

Again, you are referencing inanimate objects. We are not inanimate objects. Get that straight.

"Get that straight"?!
Maybe you should lose the attitude?

You are making a distinction without a difference.
You are looking for an arbitrary reason to redefine a term to match your false theology.
So YOU get THAT straight.

Stop adding your own words into the text. The Koine and Modern Greek text stands by itself.

I understand, only YOU get to do that.
Got it.

Rom 1:20, 2:15 falls perfectly in line with the fact that even a person who has not yet been introduced to Christianity (a Gentile) can still follow his conscience and emulate God's laws by loving his family, helping strangers, doing everything to the best of his abilities, etc…

Sorry, NEITHER verse teaches that. Here they are again:

Rom. 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

Rom. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

CONCLUSION: The more Greek one knows, the more he is appalled by the zero-sum attitude and Biblical distortion that prevails in Reformed theology.

<Chuckle>
Condescending and baseless claim.

 

[Theo1689]

In Greek, when ἑλκύσῃ is associated with inanimate objects then ἑλκύσῃ means to physically drag. There is no other way to draw an inanimate object than to be physical and forceful about it such as dragging it. Here I was talking about humans with God-given minds and hearts so we are a little above inanimate objects wouldn't you think?

Again, you are referencing inanimate objects. We are not inanimate objects. Get that straight.

I see...

So that must mean you deny the following Scriptures:

Hab. 1:15 he drags <ἑλκύω> them out with his net;
Acts 16:19 they seized Paul and Silas and dragged <ἑλκύω> them into the marketplace
Acts 21:30 They seized Paul and dragged <ἑλκύω> him out of the temple
James 2:6 the ones who drag <ἑλκύω> you into court?


How can Scripture use "drag" of "animate objects"?!
Oh my!

<gasp!>

 

[Synergy]

You're the one who denies the Trinity with your modalistic understanding that Jesus drawing and the Father drawing are referring to the same thing.

You wrote off John 5:19 like it didn't even exist. This is a typical Reformist response. No surprise here.

Here is John 5:19 again: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Sounds like you either have a poor understanding of the Holy Trinity or you are anti-Trinitarian. Which is it?

You are comparing apples and oranges. A "boy" is referring to an individual", but the term "men" is referring to an individual, but to a GROUP. Anti-Calvinists always do this, they try to argue that we are denying the meaning of "all", when in fact the issue is what is meant by "men".

Mat 2:16 is referring to all the boys. Stop trying to rewrite the verse to suit Reformism.

You didn't even bother to read your own proof-text. The "all" here is NOT universal, it is ONLY referring to those "brought to Him".

My point is that ALL the sick brought to him were healed. πάντας means all again.

Rom. 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

Rom. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

Rom 2:15-16 shows that even non-Christians can do good works and be judged accordingly by Jesus Christ. Rom 2:15-16 explodes the Total Depravity theory.

So "draw a breath", "draw a sword", "draw a net", are all wrong, according to you?

No, but I'm talking about humans here. Humans are not inanimate objects.

Um, you are ASSUMING a distinction that's not in the language.

You're still denying that humans are a little bit above inanimate objects? When will you consider that fact?

Well yes, because if you're "attracted" to something, you GO to it.
That's why by definition, if you don't go to it, it means you WEREN'T "attracted".

There you go! Synergy! The work done is not one sided (Monergism). The work done is by both parties (Synergy). Welcome to the Bible side of things.

As for "dictator", you seem to be engaging in petty ad hominem, and trying to label views you don't agree with, with derogatory terms. That's only something someone does when they DON'T have a valid argument.

Btw, maybe you should study the Greek term, "δεσποτης"

Δεσπότης was a Byzantine court title that was bestowed on the heir-apparent of the Byzantine Emperor. That is another topic altogether.

If you're studying the meaning of terms, you rely primarily on texts which were originally written in that language. When you translate something into another language, there is something called "semantic range", where different terms have a number of different denotations and connotations. And when you translate, your original term and the gloss you choose are not going to match perfectly. The original term will have connotations that the gloss doesn't have, and the gloss may have connotations that the original term doesn't have.

As an example, I believe Coca Cola used to have a slogan, "It refreshes your spirit!". It got translated into an Asian language, and when it was translated back, it ended up as, "It brings your ancestors back from the dead!"

I'm not against listening to Hebrew OT Scholars. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if the LXX OT is good enough for Apostle Paul then it's good enough for me.

"Get that straight"?!
Maybe you should lose the attitude?

You are making a distinction without a difference.
You are looking for an arbitrary reason to redefine a term to match your false theology.
So YOU get THAT straight.

Again, you are referencing inanimate objects. We are not inanimate objects.

I understand, only YOU get to do that.
Got it.

You're the one who entered the word "TRIED" into the sentence. Stop doing that.

Sorry, NEITHER verse teaches that. Here they are again:

Rom. 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

Rom. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Doesn't say, "able to do good".

Rom 2:15-16 shows that even non-Christians can do good works and be judged accordingly by Jesus Christ. Rom 2:15-16 explodes the Total Depravity theory.

<Chuckle>
Condescending and baseless claim.

There was an attempt in the 17th century to reform the Greek Orthodox Church with Patriarch Cyril Lucaris spearheading the reform movement but it quickly crashed and burned because Greeks know Greek. The Koine Greek OT & NT rails against Reformist theories.

 

[Synergy]

I see...

So that must mean you deny the following Scriptures:

Hab. 1:15 he drags <ἑλκύω> them out with his net;
Acts 16:19 they seized Paul and Silas and dragged <ἑλκύω> them into the marketplace
Acts 21:30 They seized Paul and dragged <ἑλκύω> him out of the temple
James 2:6 the ones who drag <ἑλκύω> you into court?


How can Scripture use "drag" of "animate objects"?!
Oh my!

<gasp!>

So, the Reformist Church thinks that we are all civil law violators and must be treated as such? If that's the case then there's no way I'm going inside a Reformist Church because you just might drag me into court for no valid reason whatsoever!

 

[Theo1689]

You wrote off John 5:19 like it didn't even exist. This is a typical Reformist response. No surprise here.

Here is John 5:19 again: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Sounds like you either have a poor understanding of the Holy Trinity or you are anti-Trinitarian. Which is it?

Let's see.... When you can demonstrate an ability to be respectful, and stop bringing up red herrings, maybe I'll consider responding.

My point is that ALL the sick brought to him were healed. πάντας means all again.

Nobody's ever denied that.
You don't even understand what the issue is.

Rom 2:15-16 shows that even non-Christians can do good works and be judged accordingly by Jesus Christ. Rom 2:15-16 explodes the Total Depravity theory.

No, it doesn't.
I quoted it (twice) and it doesn't say any such thing.
Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't make it true.

Please QUOTE where Rom. 2:15-16 allegedly teaches, "non-Christians can do good works".
It's simply not in the text.

No, but I'm talking about humans here. Humans are not inanimate objects.

So what?
You're still making a distinction without a difference.

You're still denying that humans are a little bit above inanimate objects? When will you consider that fact?

I'm not denying any such thing.
I'm denying your bogus and unsubstantiated ASSUMPTION that the meaning of "draw" changes depending on whether the object is animate or inanimate.

I'm not against listening to Hebrew OT Scholars. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if the LXX OT is good enough for Apostle Paul then it's good enough for me.

Goodie for you...

Again, you are referencing inanimate objects. We are not inanimate objects.

Again, the meaning of "ελκυω" doesn't change dependent on "animate" or "inanimate" objects.

Rom 2:15-16 shows that even non-Christians can do good works and be judged accordingly by Jesus Christ. Rom 2:15-16 explodes the Total Depravity theory.

Nope, it still doesn't say that.
Please QUOTE the part of Rom. 2:15-16 that allegedly teaches, "non-Christians can do good works".

Rom. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, 16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

I'll wait.

You see, you never quote the actual TEXT. You merely give the citation. You know that if people can actually see and read the text, they can see for themselves that it doesn't say any such thing.

 

[Theo1689]

So, the Reformist Church thinks that ....

So you think that a Church is an animate object, that can "think"?

 

[brightfame52]

synergy

God draws everyone (not just a select some) to Himself all the time (John 12:32)​

This is a false statement nowhere taught in scripture. God draws all the elect, sheep to Christ !

 

[newheart78]

synergy



This is a false statement nowhere taught in scripture. God draws all the elect, sheep to Christ !

Absolutely my Brother !

 

[Joe]

You really think God couldn't have saved all people, if that is what He TRULY wanted? So instead you deny God's omnipotence, to try to lift up man's imaginary "free will".

It was God's idea, not mine. I would prefer God did not use free will as it feels neater and safer and less offensive. But I'm willing to submit.

Dizerner, I'm intrigued by your response to Theo's comment about God's ability to save all people if that was His will.

Are you thinking God cannot overcome the will/unbelief of every man and save them if He wanted?

It is not about the will of man. That is made known many times over in the bible. It is about God's will and His making all things conform to His purpose. it is well known, and yet not well received by many that God chooses those whom He showns mercy and compassion, and will even harden those who are the objects of His wrath.

I submit the case of Saul of Tarsus. We know about his unbelief and murderous persecution of the saints, but God at His timing, made Saul a believer, whom He chose before birth and called him by His grace/mercy.

I submit the case of Judas Iscariot. Judas was chosen to be an object of God's wrath. Jesus chose him and yet gave Satan authority to enter Judas to fulfill prophecy/God's will.

God's will is not dependent upon mankind's will. God does as He pleases.

God bless

 

[Dizerner]

Dizerner, I'm intrigued by your response to Theo's comment about God's ability to save all people if that was His will.

Are you thinking God cannot overcome the will/unbelief of every man and save them if He wanted?

No.

It is not about the will of man. That is made known many times over in the bible. It is about God's will and His making all things conform to His purpose. it is well known, and yet not well received by many that God chooses those whom He showns mercy and compassion, and will even harden those who are the objects of His wrath.

The Bible is everywhere infused with the idea of free will. Here is my defense of Biblical free will:

Thoughts on Free Will — why I believe it, practical application, misunderstandings

I have come to realize there are Bible verses I simply cannot take “literally.” I have to interpret verses like “Whatsoever you ask in my name that you shall receive” in balance with other verses like “You ask and do not receive because you ask amiss.” But what this means is that no one can...

forums.carm.org

Here is an exegesis of Genesis 20 proving free will:

The incoherency of libertarian free will

Compatibilist freedom is in the WCF. You are misreading the document to force a contradiction. Even the people who wrote, "Why I'm Not A Calvinist" understand the WCF properly. At least he is reading it. There is hope

forums.carm.org

No one has given me good reasons to believe otherwise.

I submit the case of Saul of Tarsus. We know about his unbelief and murderous persecution of the saints, but God at His timing, made Saul a believer, whom He chose before birth and called him by His grace/mercy.

Saul kicked against the goads and later said he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.
Clearly Saul thought he could have disobeyed.

I submit the case of Judas Iscariot. Judas was chosen to be an object of God's wrath. Jesus chose him and yet gave Satan authority to enter Judas to fulfill prophecy/God's will.

False. Judas chose his path, and Jesus said there was a throne for him and his name was in the book of life.

God's will is not dependent upon mankind's will. God does as He pleases.

Unbiblical. Nowhere is God responsible for sinful choices.

God bless

God bless.

 

[SovereignGrace]

John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” That is absolutely true but the thing is: God is drawing/wooing everyone (not just a subset) to Himself all the time (John 12:32). “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” There are many disagreements as to whether or not John means all people or some people. Let’s ask the Greeks. Below are two Modern Greek NTs and their rendition of John 12:32:

H Αγία Γραφή στη Δημοτική (Filos Pergamos) (FPB):
32 και εγώ, όταν υψωθώ από τη γη, θα τους ελκύσω όλους στον εαυτό μου.

Η Καινή Διαθήκη του Κυρίου και Σωτήρος ημών Ιησού Χριστού κατά νεοελληνικήν απόδοσιν (NTV):
32 Καὶ ὅταν ἐγὼ ὑψωθῶ ἀπὸ τὴν γῆν, θὰ ἑλκύσω ὅλους πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτόν μου».

For those who know Modern Greek, όλους translates to “everyone” in English. Everyone means everyone, no exceptions. So unless anyone wants to say that the entire Greek Nation does not understand its own language, the Greek stands.

As we are all images of God, everyone has been granted enough spiritual insight to where we are all sufficiently and responsibly equipped to make a choice for God or against God, even those who have never even heard of Christianity. Rom 1:20, 2:15 falls perfectly in line with the fact that a person who has not yet been introduced to Christianity (a Gentile) can still follow his conscience and emulate God's laws by loving his family, helping strangers, doing everything to the best of his abilities, etc… In fact, in Rom 2:16 Paul emphasized that their very judgment before Christ will factor in their conscience and hearts. This is most definitely not just a mental ascent unless one wants to start endorsing mental ascent as an eternal-life decider.

Next, is God’s drawing (ειλκυσας) irresistible or not? Nehemiah 9:30 LXX says the following: “Over many years you did draw (ειλκυσας) them, and did warn them by your Spirit through your prophets; yet they would not give ear. Therefore you did give them into the hand of the peoples of the lands." Sounds like many unfortunately did resist God’s drawing. That falls perfectly in line with the fact that we have all been granted enough spiritual insight as images of God to where we are all sufficiently and responsibly equipped to make a choice for God or against God.

κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.[John 12:32]


This word ἑλκύσω is also found in John 6:44 as ἑλκύσῃ, in John 18:10 as εἵλκυσεν when Peter drew his sword from its scabbard. It (εἵλκυσεν) is also found in John 21:11 when Peter drew the net to shore. However, it (εἵλκυσαν) is also found in Acts of the Apostles 16:19 and Acts of the Apostles 21:30(εἷλκον) and some translations use dragged. Paul and Silas were dragged out to the market place in Acts of the Apostles 16:19 and Paul was dragged out of the synagogue in Acts of the Apostles 21:30.

ἑλκύσῃ means to literally drag off, lead, impel, draw by an inward power.


So if God is doing ἑλκύσῃ to everybody w/o exception, then everybody w/o exception is saved, seeing He saves them He draws. Seeing that when Peter drew his sword it came, and also dragged the net full of fish to shore, its shows that ἑλκύσῃ is effectual.

 

[SovereignGrace]

@Synergy take my Greek with a grain of salt, as I have only dabbled in it and am far from an expert. @Theo1689 is much better at it than I.

 

[Dizerner]

So if God is doing ἑλκύσῃ to everybody w/o exception, then everybody w/o exception is saved, seeing He saves them He draws. Seeing that when Peter drew his sword it came, and also dragged the net full of fish to shore, its shows that ἑλκύσῃ is effectual.

Except the word is used in the Greek OT in a sense that is not forcing in Neh. 9:30.

"You drew them for many years and warned them by your Spirit and the hand of your prophets, but they did not listen and you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the land."

So much for that theory.