Notice the comma (,)? In John 1:12-13?

[fltom]

Dude, until you understand the meaning of the word....I can't have a discussion with you about it.

You seem to think drawing is wooing....here kitty, kitty.
For the 3rd example....do you woo a sword from its sheath or physically pull( draw) it from the sheath?

That is rather funny

I just gave you multiple sources of evidence about what the word can mean in such context

which you fail to address

and you post the absurdity

"Dude, until you understand the meaning of the word"

hello

you are begging the question assuming your view and ignoring evidence to the contrary

including how your intended meaning of drag is contrary to your own theology

And it is probably not a good idea to mocjk how god draws

From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written. Helkuo is used in a unique sense as found only in John 6:44 and John 12:32, wherein it is identified in accordance to the act of God’s drawing on moral creatures, as opposed to the dragging or forcibly drawing of an inanimate object (i.e., a net or a sword), or of one man being dragged by another man against his will to a place that he does not want to go. The verses in John 6 and 12, are the only two citations in the N.T. where helkuo is used to demonstrate the initial action of God’s drawing of men, and must be considered with this particular dynamic involved. John 12:32 states, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (halkuo) all men to Myself”. Greek scholar, Marvin Vincent noted, “Suro (the other word for draw) is never used of Christ’s attraction of men. See 6:44; 12:32”. Highly regarded New Testament scholar, A.T. Robertston said, “The other word to drag (Suro; Acts 8:3) is not used of Christ’s drawing power”.



With this understanding in mind, let us examine halkuo as rendered in 6:44 to determine its accurate meaning both from a lexicographical and a philological standpoint by leading authorities in the fields of Greek and New Testament Studies, and Theology Proper. By leveraging insight from leading lexicons and exegetical dictionaries, which independently have come to the same conclusion, this should settle the question and leave us without any doubt as to the exact meaning of the word, as is it is used specifically and contextually, in the passage we are investigating.



W.E. Vine This less violent significance, usually present in helkō, but always absent from surō, is seen in the metaphorical use of helkō, to signify drawing by inward power, by Divine impulse, John 6:44; 12:32. So in the Sept., e.g., S. of S., 1:4, and Jer. 31:3, “with lovingkindness have I drawn thee1

• Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, “Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)” [New Testament Lexical Aids].

• A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature: Helkuo – “to draw or attract a person in the direction of values for inner life” attract J 6:44″ [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker].

• The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament: helkuo is used metaphorically “to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32” [William Mounce].

• Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic” [Kittel, one-vol., abridged)

• The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament: “met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44” [W.J. Hickie].

• The Complete Word Study Dictionary New testament: Helkuo – “To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force… Is used by Jesus of the drawing of souls unto Him (Joh 6:44; 12:32, to draw or induce to come) [Spiros Zodhiates]

• The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: “figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)”. [Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller]

When helkuo is examined by the best attested Greek scholarship, as used in John 6, we find that the consistent rendering does not in any way determine its usage to mean “drag” or “force”, and actually militates against that meaning altogether. Hence, the most accurate meaning of helkuo would be to draw – in the sense of God attracting and enabling people towards Christ. This fits perfectly with both chapter 6, and with 12:32, wherein all of the N.T. Greek lexicons and dictionaries collectively agree, removing any ambiguity or doubt to be considered. Of the theologians who have rendered John 6:44 to exclusively mean drag, they have demonstrated a clear lack of exegetical research and evidence to validate their conclusions. These individuals never appeal to multiple and varied lexical references; wherein, they consistently point to other verses (which we have previously cited) that categorically do not fit the context of John 6 and grossly violate the basic rules of grammar and syntax.

Further examination of the text brings us to the idea of God’s drawing upon men to be understood in the terms of irresistibility. The passage in question does not explicitly address this position, as it only states God’s will and action of drawing, without identifying the possibility of men being able to freely accept or reject God’s loving initiative to bring men unto Himself. A primary way to discover any insight into this investigation will be to see how helkuo is used in the Septuagint (LXX) in regards to YHVH’s past dealings with men in the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T). We find in Nehemiah 9:30, “Many years you lasted (helkuo) with them and repeatedly warned them by Your Spirit by the hand of Your prophets, and they did not give ear…”3 The context of this passage within the LXX reveals that YHVH consistently drew and worked to bring Israel unto Himself, but they willfully resisted the helkuo. This gives us clear precedence that the gracious drawing of God can be and has been resisted by the will and actions of men. God could have made Israel irresistibly accept His drawing grace and force them to come and obey His voice, however Scripture demonstrates that He has sovereignly set His economy up to deal with mankind by their willful cooperation to either receive or reject His drawing and longsuffering patience to bring men to Himself.

The Hebrew word from which helkuo is derived, is “masak.” Like the Greek word for draw, it has many meanings based upon its’ context. However, when it comes to YHVH specifically dealing with men, we find the same pattern which helps us to understand why the Greek lexical renderings, each by consensus, posited a gracious drawing – as opposed to the idea of men being dragged into the kingdom of God. We see it used in a clear representation of YHVH’s grace being poured out in declaring,

“I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn (masak) you with lovingkindness” (Jer. 31:3).

Brian R With Editing and correcting

 

[guest1]

That is rather funny

I just gave you multiple sources of evidence about what the word can mean in such context

which you fail to address

and you post the absurdity

"Dude, until you understand the meaning of the word"

hello

you are begging the question assuming your view and ignoring evidence to the contrary

including how your intended meaning of drag is contrary to your own theology

And it is probably not a good idea to mocjk how god draws

From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written. Helkuo is used in a unique sense as found only in John 6:44 and John 12:32, wherein it is identified in accordance to the act of God’s drawing on moral creatures, as opposed to the dragging or forcibly drawing of an inanimate object (i.e., a net or a sword), or of one man being dragged by another man against his will to a place that he does not want to go. The verses in John 6 and 12, are the only two citations in the N.T. where helkuo is used to demonstrate the initial action of God’s drawing of men, and must be considered with this particular dynamic involved. John 12:32 states, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (halkuo) all men to Myself”. Greek scholar, Marvin Vincent noted, “Suro (the other word for draw) is never used of Christ’s attraction of men. See 6:44; 12:32”. Highly regarded New Testament scholar, A.T. Robertston said, “The other word to drag (Suro; Acts 8:3) is not used of Christ’s drawing power”.



With this understanding in mind, let us examine halkuo as rendered in 6:44 to determine its accurate meaning both from a lexicographical and a philological standpoint by leading authorities in the fields of Greek and New Testament Studies, and Theology Proper. By leveraging insight from leading lexicons and exegetical dictionaries, which independently have come to the same conclusion, this should settle the question and leave us without any doubt as to the exact meaning of the word, as is it is used specifically and contextually, in the passage we are investigating.



W.E. Vine This less violent significance, usually present in helkō, but always absent from surō, is seen in the metaphorical use of helkō, to signify drawing by inward power, by Divine impulse, John 6:44; 12:32. So in the Sept., e.g., S. of S., 1:4, and Jer. 31:3, “with lovingkindness have I drawn thee1

• Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, “Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)” [New Testament Lexical Aids].

• A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature: Helkuo – “to draw or attract a person in the direction of values for inner life” attract J 6:44″ [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker].

• The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament: helkuo is used metaphorically “to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32” [William Mounce].

• Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic” [Kittel, one-vol., abridged)

• The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament: “met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44” [W.J. Hickie].

• The Complete Word Study Dictionary New testament: Helkuo – “To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force… Is used by Jesus of the drawing of souls unto Him (Joh 6:44; 12:32, to draw or induce to come) [Spiros Zodhiates]

• The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: “figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)”. [Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller]

When helkuo is examined by the best attested Greek scholarship, as used in John 6, we find that the consistent rendering does not in any way determine its usage to mean “drag” or “force”, and actually militates against that meaning altogether. Hence, the most accurate meaning of helkuo would be to draw – in the sense of God attracting and enabling people towards Christ. This fits perfectly with both chapter 6, and with 12:32, wherein all of the N.T. Greek lexicons and dictionaries collectively agree, removing any ambiguity or doubt to be considered. Of the theologians who have rendered John 6:44 to exclusively mean drag, they have demonstrated a clear lack of exegetical research and evidence to validate their conclusions. These individuals never appeal to multiple and varied lexical references; wherein, they consistently point to other verses (which we have previously cited) that categorically do not fit the context of John 6 and grossly violate the basic rules of grammar and syntax.

Further examination of the text brings us to the idea of God’s drawing upon men to be understood in the terms of irresistibility. The passage in question does not explicitly address this position, as it only states God’s will and action of drawing, without identifying the possibility of men being able to freely accept or reject God’s loving initiative to bring men unto Himself. A primary way to discover any insight into this investigation will be to see how helkuo is used in the Septuagint (LXX) in regards to YHVH’s past dealings with men in the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T). We find in Nehemiah 9:30, “Many years you lasted (helkuo) with them and repeatedly warned them by Your Spirit by the hand of Your prophets, and they did not give ear…”3 The context of this passage within the LXX reveals that YHVH consistently drew and worked to bring Israel unto Himself, but they willfully resisted the helkuo. This gives us clear precedence that the gracious drawing of God can be and has been resisted by the will and actions of men. God could have made Israel irresistibly accept His drawing grace and force them to come and obey His voice, however Scripture demonstrates that He has sovereignly set His economy up to deal with mankind by their willful cooperation to either receive or reject His drawing and longsuffering patience to bring men to Himself.

The Hebrew word from which helkuo is derived, is “masak.” Like the Greek word for draw, it has many meanings based upon its’ context. However, when it comes to YHVH specifically dealing with men, we find the same pattern which helps us to understand why the Greek lexical renderings, each by consensus, posited a gracious drawing – as opposed to the idea of men being dragged into the kingdom of God. We see it used in a clear representation of YHVH’s grace being poured out in declaring,

“I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn (masak) you with lovingkindness” (Jer. 31:3).

Brian R With Editing and correcting

It will be interesting to see who can give a cognizant response to the above.

 

[fltom]

It will be interesting to see who can give a cognizant response to the above.

Yes

 

[Five Solas]

It will be interesting to see who can give a cognizant response to the above.

Notably and correctly, we're reminded of this from the quoted material: From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written.

Agreed, however the quoted material demonstrably abandons this principle and forfeits the immediate context for John 12, lexicons, and the Septuagint. Presumably, this occurs because the immediate context does not support the conclusion the quoted material desires to establish, as the immediate context, and indeed the expanded context of John 6, establishes an immutable connection between those who are drawn and those who are raised: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. Those drawn are raised.

The remainder of the quoted material with regard to force may be disregarded as irrelevant, as that is not a claim set forth by Reformed Theology.

 

[fltom]

Notably and correctly, we're reminded of this from the quoted material: From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written.

Agreed, however the quoted material demonstrably abandons this principle and forfeits the immediate context for John 12, lexicons, and the Septuagint. Presumably, this occurs because the immediate context does not support the conclusion the quoted material desires to establish, as the immediate context, and indeed the expanded context of John 6, establishes an immutable connection between those who are drawn and those who are raised: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. Those drawn are raised.

The remainder of the quoted material with regard to force may be disregarded as irrelevant, as that is not a claim set forth by Reformed Theology.

You have two problems

The first being we have examples where the word did not secure the compliance of the ones drawn

the second

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 not prove that everyone, just because they drawn will come, nor that they will be raised up just because they were drawn.
Brian wagner

 

[Five Solas]

The first being we have examples where the word did not secure the compliance of the ones drawn

In this context you certainly do not.

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.

This is a difficulty for your side. The "him" is indeed tied to the drawing, just as certainly it is with the raising. Thus, you posit those who are drawn but not raised, which will require you to import meaning not present in this text. Which, for the purposes of the question I was answering, undercuts the quoted material: From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written.

 

[fltom]

In this context you certainly do not.


This is a difficulty for your side. The "him" is indeed tied to the drawing, just as certainly it is with the raising. Thus, you posit those who are drawn but not raised, which will require you to import meaning not present in this text. Which, for the purposes of the question I was answering, undercuts the quoted material: From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written.

In the context of God's drawing I certainly have posted examples

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

It is especially important to note that the LXX uses the same Greek word in Nehemiah in the context of God working to bring Israel back to Him, and Israel resisting that work (drawing),



“And many times You rescued them according to Your compassion,

29 And admonished them in order to turn them back to Your law. Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to Your commandments but sinned against Your ordinances, By which if a man observes them he shall live. And they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck, and would not listen.



30 “However, You bore with them (literally, “drew” them, the same Greek word used in John 6 and 12) for many years, And admonished them by Your Spirit through Your prophets, Yet they would not give ear (which proves that this drawing was not irresistible). Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.

it is clear from this passage that the Greek word for “draw” does not always convey the idea of irresistible drawing or dragging


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.




Except the article I quoted from a greek professor noted


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 not prove that everyone, just because they drawn will come, nor that they will be raised up just because they were drawn.
Brian wagner

God raises the one who comes

 

[Five Solas]

In the context of God's drawing I certainly have posted examples

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.

Exactly as I claimed, you've abandoned the immediate context in search of an outside meaning to import into the text. This is because it's not there in John 6. From the quoted material: From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written.

This is two for two today, both here and in the Timothy thread, where you and civ are unable to maintain a consistent exegesis within context of the text under consideration, whereas I've affirmed the meanings of all words as expressed in direct context. I predict this will be a consistent theme in whatever passage we consider. It's a red flag...

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's the former, but we don't have to quibble about it because the immediate context defines it for us in verses 35-40 in that those who come are those who are given by the Father.

 

[fltom]

Exactly as I claimed, you've abandoned the immediate context in search of an outside meaning to import into the text. This is because it's not there in John 6. From the quoted material: From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written.

First what I did is show the range of the word helko

especially as it relates to God's drawing

If you want to claim all drawn must come

then

John 12:32 (ESV)
32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

you have Christ teaching universalism

Further you employ a double standard as you appealed to a meaning of drag from another source


A source not parallel to John 6:44

However if you reference the quote in full

From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written. Helkuo is used in a unique sense as found only in John 6:44 and John 12:32, wherein it is identified in accordance to the act of God’s drawing on moral creatures, as opposed to the dragging or forcibly drawing of an inanimate object

it appeals to both John 6:44 and john 12:32

and is identified in accordance to the act of God’s drawing on moral creatures, as opposed to the dragging or forcibly drawing of an inanimate object

that same drawing was seen in both examples I quoted

You provided but a partial quote while ignoring the parallel examples of god's drawing

This is two for two today, both here and in the Timothy thread, where you and civ are unable to maintain a consistent exegesis within context of the text under consideration, whereas I've affirmed the meanings of all words as expressed in direct context. I predict this will be a consistent theme in whatever passage we consider. It's a red flag...

It's the former, but we don't have to quibble about it because the immediate context defines it for us in verses 35-40 in that those who come are those who are given by the Father.

Sorry you are merely touting your own opinion

An opinion which appears to favor the idea of dragging which was denied by Greek scholar after Greek Scholar

From the onset, we have to remind ourselves of a fundamental hermeneutical law which declares that – a word must be defined in light of the context that it is written. Helkuo is used in a unique sense as found only in John 6:44 and John 12:32, wherein it is identified in accordance to the act of God’s drawing on moral creatures, as opposed to the dragging or forcibly drawing of an inanimate object (i.e., a net or a sword), or of one man being dragged by another man against his will to a place that he does not want to go. The verses in John 6 and 12, are the only two citations in the N.T. where helkuo is used to demonstrate the initial action of God’s drawing of men, and must be considered with this particular dynamic involved. John 12:32 states, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (halkuo) all men to Myself”. Greek scholar, Marvin Vincent noted, “Suro (the other word for draw) is never used of Christ’s attraction of men. See 6:44; 12:32”. Highly regarded New Testament scholar, A.T. Robertston said, “The other word to drag (Suro; Acts 8:3) is not used of Christ’s drawing power”.



With this understanding in mind, let us examine halkuo as rendered in 6:44 to determine its accurate meaning both from a lexicographical and a philological standpoint by leading authorities in the fields of Greek and New Testament Studies, and Theology Proper. By leveraging insight from leading lexicons and exegetical dictionaries, which independently have come to the same conclusion, this should settle the question and leave us without any doubt as to the exact meaning of the word, as is it is used specifically and contextually, in the passage we are investigating.



W.E. Vine This less violent significance, usually present in helkō, but always absent from surō, is seen in the metaphorical use of helkō, to signify drawing by inward power, by Divine impulse, John 6:44; 12:32. So in the Sept., e.g., S. of S., 1:4, and Jer. 31:3, “with lovingkindness have I drawn thee1

• Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, “Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)” [New Testament Lexical Aids].

• A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature: Helkuo – “to draw or attract a person in the direction of values for inner life” attract J 6:44″ [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker].

• The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament: helkuo is used metaphorically “to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32” [William Mounce].

• Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic” [Kittel, one-vol., abridged)

• The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament: “met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44” [W.J. Hickie].

• The Complete Word Study Dictionary New testament: Helkuo – “To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force… Is used by Jesus of the drawing of souls unto Him (Joh 6:44; 12:32, to draw or induce to come) [Spiros Zodhiates]

• The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: “figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)”. [Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller]

When helkuo is examined by the best attested Greek scholarship, as used in John 6, we find that the consistent rendering does not in any way determine its usage to mean “drag” or “force”, and actually militates against that meaning altogether. Hence, the most accurate meaning of helkuo would be to draw – in the sense of God attracting and enabling people towards Christ. This fits perfectly with both chapter 6, and with 12:32, wherein all of the N.T. Greek lexicons and dictionaries collectively agree, removing any ambiguity or doubt to be considered. Of the theologians who have rendered John 6:44 to exclusively mean drag, they have demonstrated a clear lack of exegetical research and evidence to validate their conclusions. These individuals never appeal to multiple and varied lexical references; wherein, they consistently point to other verses (which we have previously cited) that categorically do not fit the context of John 6 and grossly violate the basic rules of grammar and syntax.

 

[Five Solas]

First what I did is show the range of the word helko

Exactly. That's a common tactic used when immediate context is unacceptable to a systematic template or tradition placed over the text. I know what a semantic domain is, and I also know that proper utilization of semantic domains is dependent on immediate context. Said otherwise, just because something can mean something does not necessitate that it does mean something. First and foremost is immediate context, and it's noted again that you continue to appeal outside of the immediate context.

If you want to claim all drawn must come

then

John 12:32 (ESV)
32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

you have Christ teaching universalism

Your jump out of context to John 12 illustrates precisely what I've been arguing, as the context of John twelve is distinct from John 6, namely the Gentiles present in John 12. Thus, all people, considered in context, does not lead to Universalism. But it is again another instance of you

Sorry you are merely touting your own opinion

An opinion which appears to favor the idea of dragging which was denied by Greek scholar after Greek Scholar abandoning current context and importing meaning from elsewhere.

From the outset, I stipulated that I did not consider any reference to force to be applicable. This includes the notion of dragging. Simply do not need it in John 6, nor does RT rely on it.

 

[fltom]

Exactly. That's a common tactic used when immediate context is unacceptable to a systematic template or tradition placed over the text. I know what a semantic domain is, and I also know that proper utilization of semantic domains is dependent on immediate context. Said otherwise, just because something can mean something does not necessitate that it does mean something. First and foremost is immediate context, and it's noted again that you continue to appeal outside of the immediate context.

Your jump out of context to John 12 illustrates precisely what I've been arguing, as the context of John twelve is distinct from John 6, namely the Gentiles present in John 12. Thus, all people, considered in context, does not lead to Universalism. But it is again another instance of you

From the outset, I stipulated that I did not consider any reference to force to be applicable. This includes the notion of dragging. Simply do not need it in John 6, nor does RT rely on it.

Except you keep failing to realize the subject of God's drawing of moral creature is found not only in the John 6:44 passage but the john 12:32 and the Neh 9:30 and Jeremiah passages

These all have a common context - that of God's drawing of moral creatures

If you assume irresistibility in John 6:44 you must do so in John 12:32

and that leads to unbiblical universalism

and aside from assuming the idea of drawing is distributive and running into universalism you have nothing to counter what was noted by scripture and Greek scholars - many Greek scholars to be exact

 

[Five Solas]

Except you keep failing to realize the subject of God's drawing of moral creature is found not only in the John 6:44 passage but the john 12:32 and the Neh 9:30 and Jeremiah passages

These all have a common context - that of God's drawing of moral creatures

For the record, I understand precisely what your argument is wrt the additional texts. It's just that I also understand that it's a weak argument, because it's an appeal away from the direct context provided for us in John 6: the immediate context defines it for us in verses 35-40 in that those who come are those who are given by the Father.

If you insist on conjoining these passages, you're doing it in the wrong direction, as the Holy Spirit is the infallible interpreter of the OT. As such, we should understand the OT texts in light of Jesus's words in John 6, not interpret Jesus's words by the OT.

If you assume irresistibility in John 6:44 you must do so in John 12:32

Untrue. Once again, why is it that I am able to consistently parse each section on its own? This really is a red flag.

and aside from assuming the idea of drawing is distributive you have nothing to counter what was noted by scripture and Greek scholars - many Greek scholars to be exact

Yes, I do. As stated previously, Jesus's declaration that those who come are given by the Father, in verses 35-40, otherwise known as immediate context.

 

[fltom]

For the record, I understand precisely what your argument is wrt the additional texts. It's just that I also understand that it's a weak argument, because it's an appeal away from the direct context provided for us in John 6: the immediate context defines it for us in verses 35-40 in that those who come are those who are given by the Father.

But they are parallel in that God drawing of moral creatures are discussed in them

and they either shown your idea of irresistibly is false or impossible

Fact is it is a common lexical practice to examine various texts to determine both the meaning and range of any given word

and texts which speaks of parallel ideas are particularly powerful toward determining meaning in a particular context

Further there in nothing in the context of John 6:44 which proves your belief of irresistibility

Scripture, greek expertise and lexical sources rebut your claim

and bottomline you have no evidence to show otherwise

 

[Five Solas]

bottomline you have no evidence to show otherwise

Except the words of Christ, which I'm content with. Hey Tom, good discussion. I think our sides are pretty well defined and staked out, so I'm content with it. Great to able to discuss and disagree amicably. Much obliged, Brother.

 

[fltom]

Except the words of Christ, which I'm content with. Hey Tom, good discussion. I think our sides are pretty well defined and staked out, so I'm content with it. Great to able to discuss and disagree amicably. Much obliged, Brother.

The words of Christ did not speak of irresistibility so all you have is the assumption of the drawing being distributive

that is the assumption drawing results in being raised up as well as in coming which would render Christ comments an affirmation of universalism at John 12:32

irresistibility is also contrary to the lxx text of Neh 9:30 and Jer 31 previously cited and many greek resources as well

But good discussion and it is indeed good to disagree amicably