Freed from : Calvinism-TULIP-5 points Hyper-Calvinism

[Dizerner]

Tripping over semantics.
Believer's Baptism

I would grant those mentioned, the Arnoldists, Waldensians, and Peter of Bruys, were truly in the line of Anabaptists.

However, I am near certain they were not divine determinists.

The whole idea of rejecting infant baptism was based on the fundamental truth that a person can volitionally choose Christ.

Infant baptism makes more sense if there is no free will and Christians are just deterministically saved without choice, which seems why both Martin Luther and John Calvin still embraced this Roman Catholic ritual.

 

[ProDeo]

Does that argument not hold for virtually ALL of the Gospels?
"Jesus was speaking to (believing/unbelieving) Jews and not to us (Gentiles)."
That line of thinking would reduce the Bible to a handy pocket sized book The WORD to the Gentiles (in 100 pages).

Well, it's very true for John 6.

Context :

John 1:11 - He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

2 Cor 3:13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.
2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
2 Cor 3:15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.
2 Cor 3:16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

It's still true for today, Orthodox Jews not accepting Christ, as it was when He was One of us.

We -- raised with the NT -- don't have this veil.

Context of John 6 is the unbelieving Jews.

 

[atpollard]

And most of your words are blurred, probably for a reason?

It was a side comment on being a Baptist not related to the conversation ... I ultimately deleted it.
The blur is an "inline spoiler" from the options below "Bold, Italics and COLOR"

 

[ProDeo]

Do you believe your free will should act independently on the promtings of the Holy Spirit? Define the ego in man for me @ProDeo.

What's so difficult to understand?

J.

Matt 7:11 If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Not difficult at all, Bible 101.

 

[atpollard]

However, I am near certain they were not divine determinists.

I did not claim they were.

If I cared enough, I could probably find an early "divine determinist" group (although likely paedobaptist) and I might even find someone who was both Credobaptist and "divine determinist" if I searched hard enough.

However, it would ultimately prove nothing for me ... Particular Baptists arose from vernacular Bibles read by English laity and a pervasive believe in the idea of Sola Scripturea (God can speak for himself). I am descended from a grass-roots movement starting around 1630.

[although even that means nothing to me, personally, since I was raised ATHEIST and came to the beliefs the same way they did ... I believed that I could just read the Bible and believe that God means what God says].

 

[Johann]

Matt 7:11 If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Not difficult at all, Bible 101.

1) "If ye then, being evil," (ei oun humeis poneroi antes) "Therefore if you all being, existing with being a wicked state in the body," being totally depraved, but having love for your children, Eph_6:1-4; Heb_12:9-11. The worst of fathers among the disciples knew how to give good things to meet his children's needs.

2) "Know how to give good gifts unto your children," (oidate domato agatha didonai tois teknois humon) "You all perceive (how) to give benevolent gifts to your children," good things that meet their needs, in life, by inheritance, or through a will, Gen_24:36; Jacob gave Joseph his son a beautiful coat of many colors in his old age, Gen_37:3; Jos_15:19; 1Sa_2:9.

3) "How much more shall your Father which is in heaven," (poso mallon ho pater humon ho en tois ouranois) "How much more discreetly the Father of you who is in heaven," in love, wisdom, and judgment shall bountifully give, dole out, Luk_11:13.

4) "Give good things," (dosei agatha) "Will dole out or give over good or benevolent things to you," to you all who are objects of His special care, to whom He has pledged His eternal presence, as you live and labor for Him, Mat_28:20; Heb_13:3-5.

5) "To them that ask him?" (tois aitousin auton) "To those repeatedly or continually asking him," as in Mat_7:7, Mar_11:24; Joh_15:7.

Examples of such provisions are:
1) Israel in the wilderness, Deu_2:7.
2) Elijah in the famine, 1Ki_17:6; 1Ki_17:16.
3) The army of three kings, 2Ki_3:20.
4) For the prophet's widow, 2Ki_4:6.
5) For Samaria in time of famine, 2Ki_7:8.
6) For the multitude that followed Christ, Mat_14:20.
7) For all Saints assured, Php_4:19.

Bible 101.

J.

 

[atpollard]

You have to admit scripture is paradoxical.

If SALVATION was simple, we would still be barbecuing Lambs.
God invited us to have a peek at the HARD stuff.

 

[Johann]

If SALVATION was simple, we would still be barbecuing Lambs.
God invited us to have a peek at the HARD stuff.

Have to agree-no such thing as "easy believism"

J.

 

[Johann]

It was a side comment on being a Baptist not related to the conversation ... I ultimately deleted it.
The blur is an "inline spoiler" from the options below "Bold, Italics and COLOR"

It's good to know that you have the exousia to blur or remove others' content-apparently, mine has also been blurred or deleted.

J.

 

[Studyman]

This issue is not peripheral-it is central to the entire Calvinist framework. So I am on topic.

At stake is the meaning of human identity and volition, especially as expressed in the simple but profound phrase: "I am" (ἐγώ εἰμι).

Calvinism asserts that human will, post-Fall, is so corrupted that man cannot will or respond to God unless first regenerated by monergistic grace. In this view, the human "I am" is effectively voided—man is spiritually dead in such a way that he is no longer capable of initiating, seeking, or choosing anything in response to God.

But biblically, the human "I am" (ἐγώ εἰμι) still functions—flawed, yes, but not annihilated. Scripture calls man to seek, to repent, to believe, and to obey—all of which require a real, responsive, moral will. The Gospel addresses people as responsible agents, not passive recipients.

I agree and believe that the Bible as a whole, supports this understanding. It seems to me that the most undeniable Truth about man being created as a responsible agent is the existence of a command in the first place. The moment God said, "Thou shall" or "Thou shall not", HE shows us that the man has a " free will". If a man didn't have free will, then no instruction or command would be necessary to choose between or discern between what a man shall do and what a man shall not do.

Once the Command of God is given, good and evil is defined. In the Story of Eve, "Good" was symbolic of God's Word and "Evil" was symbolic of any other voice in the garden God placed us in. Adam and Eve most certainly were created with the ability to choose the "Good" over the "Evil". This is shown by their punishment. If they didn't have the capacity choose God's Word over the other voice in the garden, then there would be no just cause for rebuke, correction or chastisement.

I like how you put it. "Scripture calls man to seek, to repent, to believe, and to obey—all of which require a real, responsive, moral will. The Gospel addresses people as responsible agents, not passive recipients".

Paul basically says the same thing, in my view, of our Spiritual Exodus from "When in time past we walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

Phil. 3: 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: "but I follow after", if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing "I do", "forgetting those things which are behind", and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark "for the prize" of the high calling of God (Which is) in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

This is why this question goes to the heart of the Calvinist system, and why it cannot be ignored in serious discussion.

I would only argue that this understanding not only goes to the heart of the Calvinist System, but to all the many different religious sects and 501c3's which make up this world's religious system. Calvinism is only one of "many" religious sects that men need to "Come out of" and freed from, in my view.

Great post Johann, good discussion.

 

[Johann]

I agree and believe that the Bible as a whole, supports this understanding. It seems to me that the most undeniable Truth about man being created as a responsible agent is the existence of a command in the first place. The moment God said, "Thou shall" or "Thou shall not", HE shows us that the man has a " free will". If a man didn't have free will, then no instruction or command would be necessary to choose between or discern between what a man shall do and what a man shall not do.

Once the Command of God is given, good and evil is defined. In the Story of Eve, "Good" was symbolic of God's Word and "Evil" was symbolic of any other voice in the garden God placed us in. Adam and Eve most certainly were created with the ability to choose the "Good" over the "Evil". This is shown by their punishment. If they didn't have the capacity choose God's Word over the other voice in the garden, then there would be no just cause for rebuke, correction or chastisement.

I like how you put it. "Scripture calls man to seek, to repent, to believe, and to obey—all of which require a real, responsive, moral will. The Gospel addresses people as responsible agents, not passive recipients".

Paul basically says the same thing, in my view, of our Spiritual Exodus from "When in time past we walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

Phil. 3: 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: "but I follow after", if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing "I do", "forgetting those things which are behind", and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark "for the prize" of the high calling of God (Which is) in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.



I would only argue that this understanding not only goes to the heart of the Calvinist System, but to all the many different religious sects and 501c3's which make up this world's religious system. Calvinism is only one of "many" religious sects that men need to "Come out of" and freed from, in my view.

Great post Johann, good discussion.

Excellent response, brother.
This is what I received when I posted this.

Matthew 7:11 — 'If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!'

This isn't complicated-just basic biblical truth, Bible 101."

God bless.

J.

 

[ProDeo]

Excellent response, brother.
This is what I received when I posted this.

Matthew 7:11 — 'If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!'

This isn't complicated-just basic biblical truth, Bible 101."

God bless.

J.

Truth Johann.

 

[GodsGrace]

OK, let's offer polite conversation and see what happens.

If you will indulge me, I will take your points in reverse order (John 12:32 first) ...


Since I THINK it was clear from just the headings but others have tended to disagree, permit me to elaborate on this matter that was previously asked and answered.

John 12:32 contains a promise from Jesus that he will [in the future] DRAW ALL PEOPLE to himself. Jesus qualifies this with a hint on WHEN by stating "when I am lifted up from the earth". You and I disagree on the meaning of two words ... "DRAW" and "ALL PEOPLE".

• It is ironic that I believe that when Jesus said DRAW he will actually DRAW them while you believe they are something less than drawn and more like INVITED ... yet the translators did not write "when I am lifted up I will invite all people".

The bible was written as it was written by the author of the particular gospel or letter.
We cannot, today, try to fix what they stated, but only accept what they stated.

So, let's look at the word DRAW.

I'm using Strong's.

John 12:32 I WILL DRAW ALL MEN TO MYSELF.
Strong's no. 1670
HELKYSE'

John 6:44 NO ONE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER DRAW HIM
Strong's no. 1670
HELKYSE'

The same word is used in both instances.

If we're going to accept 1670 in John 6:44 ....THE FATHER WILL DRAW,,,EFFICATIOUSLY

Then we also have to accept that John 12:32 ...JESUS WILL DRAW...EFFICATOUSLY
in which case all of humanity will be saved. This is not true....

So..there are other factors at play.

1. The Father draws all men to Himself,,,,by grace.
Romans 1:18-20 God has always made Himself be known through the creation so that no man will be without excuse.

2. God desires that all men be saved.
1 Timothy 2:4 God desires that all men be saved.

Draw means:


vb (draws, drawing, drew, drawn)

1. to cause (a person or thing) to move towards or away by pulling
2. to bring, take, or pull (something) out, as from a drawer, holster, etc
3. (transitive) to extract or pull or take out: to draw teeth, to draw a card from a pack
4. (transitive) often followed by off: to take (liquid) out of a cask, keg, tank, etc, by means of a tap
5. (intransitive) to move, go, or proceed, esp in a specified direction: to draw alongside
6. (transitive) to attract or elicit: to draw a crowd, draw attention
7. (transitive) to cause to flow: to draw blood
8. to depict or sketch (a form, figure, picture, etc) in lines, as with a pencil or pen, esp without the use of colour; delineate
9. (transitive) to make, formulate, or derive: to draw conclusions, comparisons, parallels
10. (transitive) to write (a legal document) in proper form

source: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/draw


I propose, for the above stated reasons, in green, that DRAW in both John 6:44 and John 12:32 means TO ATTRACT.

• In contrast, your proof that DRAW cannot mean DRAW is that "all people" must mean "every human being without exception" and Jesus did not DRAW every human being without exception" (how very 'Calvinist' of an observation). I believe that "all people" simply means "Jews and Gentiles".

John 12:32 states ALL MEN and ALL PEOPLE and EVERYONE

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

New Living Translation
And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”

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

Berean Standard Bible
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to Myself.”

Berean Literal Bible
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself."

King James Bible
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

New King James Version
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

New American Standard Bible
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.”

NASB 1995
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

NASB 1977
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Legacy Standard Bible
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Amplified Bible
And I, if and when I am lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw all people to Myself [Gentiles, as well as Jews].”

Christian Standard Bible
As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to myself.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible
As for Me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to Myself.”

American Standard Version
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Contemporary English Version
If I am lifted up above the earth, I will make everyone want to come to me."

English Revised Version
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
When I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people toward me."

Good News Translation
When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to me." (

International Standard Version
As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself."

NET Bible
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

New Heart English Bible
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to myself."

Webster's Bible Translation
And I, if I shall be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me.

Weymouth New Testament
And I-- if I am lifted up from the earth--will draw all men to me."
Majority Text Translations
Majority Standard Bible
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to Myself.”

World English Bible
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Literal Translations
Literal Standard Version
and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Berean Literal Bible
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself."

Young's Literal Translation
and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'

Smith's Literal Translation
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself.
Catholic Translations
Douay-Rheims Bible
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

Catholic Public Domain Version
And when I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself.”

New American Bible
And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”

New Revised Standard Version
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Translations from Aramaic
Lamsa Bible
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw every man to me.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”
NT Translations
Anderson New Testament
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

Godbey New Testament
And if I may be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men towards me.

Haweis New Testament
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Mace New Testament
as for me, when I shall be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me.

Weymouth New Testament
And I-- if I am lifted up from the earth--will draw all men to me."

Worrell New Testament
and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Worsley New Testament
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, shall draw all men unto me.


I propose that the word is MEN or ALL PEOPLE TO MYSELF for the above stated reasons...in green.

• Rather than argue, I propose that "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting" ... by which I simply mean that Jesus prophetic announcement probably means EXACTLY what ultimately happens in its fulfillment!

"EXECUTION" was a double meaning. I was pointing towards Jesus actual EXECUTION and that the recorded events were the "execution" (aka. fulfillment) of what Jesus had prophesied in John 12:32. So what HAPPENED in the Psalm 22 is what Jesus meant in John 12:32.

• the first underlined verses in Psalm 22, confirm that Jesus was "lifted up" as Jesus predicted in John 12:32. By this we can be certain that Psalm 22 is speaking of the same event as Jesus. Note how great an effort the Gospel writers went to in order to record the details of Psalm 22 being fulfilled. Who cares if men gambled over Jesus clothes considering everything that was happening on that terrible day ... it was an important detail to record in a Gospel because it fulfilled a prophesy of Psalm 22! God SAID it would happen EXACTLY like this, so the rest of Psalm 22 must also be true!

Please post Psalm 22. I don't see the connection.
If we want to use the OT, we can consider
John 3:14-15
14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

• The second underlined part of Psalm 22 is the claim by GOD that the promise of Jesus in John 12:32 was fulfilled ... "DRAW ALL PEOPLE" ... was "ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God". Not all without exception, but "Jews and Gentiles".
• Of course, at the time of the crucifixion, this was still a promise to be fulfilled over time, God did not instantly DRAW all at once. All of ACTS is the unfolding story of that DRAW being fulfilled.

OK. I see your point.
I just cannot agree.
We're discussing the word DRAW.
It's accepted theology that Jesus broke down the wall between Jews and Gentiles.

Reformed theology also believes that THE WORLD means persons of every nation, tribe, etc.
It simply means THE WORLD. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD.

Just as John 6:32 and John 6:44 have specific meanings.

The Father attracts everyone to Himself.
Those that choose to believe, the Father will give to the Savior.
John 20:21
But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Our reward is salvation in Jesus.
The Father gives the sheep to Jesus,,,the Shepherd.
The doorkeeper.

"FULFILLMENT" was a shorthand exegesis. Revelation 5:6-10 speaks of a vision of when that prophesy of John 12:32 will have been truly fulfilled.

• In heaven, they are WORSHIPING GOD (Christ) and singing a song to him. What is it that Christ has done ...
• "for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God" ... that is nothing less than EXACTLY what Jesus promised to do in John 12:32.
• "from every tribe and language and people and nation" and here we have "all people" defined by the results. Jesus said he would do it and the Saints worship Jesus in heaven proclaiming that Jesus did do it.

As stated ... the proof of what Jesus intended in John 12:32 is the final result that was accomplished in Revelation 5:9-10 as described by God in Psalm 22:27-28.

******

Moving on to John 6:44 and the word "DRAW".

Let's start with the offer already made ...


If we are unwilling to look at even the basic meaning of the word and where and how it is used in scripture, then there is no real desire to talk about it.

Done above.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ever studied the account of Samson?

The influential pull of the Holy Spirit is the CAUSE of your salvation.

Yes. I do believe we can refuse God's invitation.

J,,,the above two statements conflict each other.
It cannot be both.
I believe that we have to take the bible in its entirety and come to a conclusion.
ANYTHING can be proven by using the bible.
It's only when it becomes a complete thought that it makes sense.

If the influential pull is the cause of our salvation....
how do we refuse God's invitaion?

IF there is an efficacious pull,,,then we can all become reformed.
But an influential pull is different.

What do you mean by influential pull?

Matthew 22:1–14
1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying,
2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son.
3 And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
4 Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”’
5 But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business,
6 and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.
7 But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.
8 Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9 Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’
10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.
11 But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes,
12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless.
13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

J.

Right.
They were INVITED to the wedding.
They were not forced to attend.
Unwilling denotes free will.

I don't believe you ever replied to my question as to what Free Will means to you.

 

[Johann]

I propose, for the above stated reasons, in green, that DRAW in both John 6:44 and John 12:32 means TO ATTRACT.

One moment--it is not "done"--see how Leighton Flowers twist the word DRAW. Kinda like what you are doing, not being facetious.

So we are still "stuck" on DRAW and it's etymology, trying to MAKE it ATTRACT--INVITE and my advise is to stay clear from Flowers and his flowery speech.


Does God Drag or Invite?

Good morning, Bereans! We'll get back to our study of 1 Peter next week. For our study this morning, I want to look at the question "Does God Drag or Invite?" Within Evangelical Churches there is ongoing debate on the issue of salvation. Is it by a choice of man's free will or of God's sovereign choice?

The Gospel is the Good News about what God has done for His people. It is the good news about Yeshua the Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. Salvation is a gift of God to His people from beginning to end. The resolute will of God is the root of the new birth and the motivating force that gives new life. Salvation is a work of God. Man has no part and can have no part in the miracle of the new birth. This is what we call the Doctrine of Sovereign Election.

This past weekend at the conference, Dr. Jordan Grant gave two great lessons on how to think. I need you to apply what he taught us in our study this morning. In a YouTube video entitled "John 6:44 De-Calvinized," Dr. Leighton Flowers tries to make John 6:44 not say what it says.

This video caught my attention because in my mind, John 6:44 is an "un-get-over-able" verse teaching God's sovereign election. But in the video, Flowers states that he has de-calvinized this verse. Let's look at what he says, and you decide. He starts the video by quoting 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. John 6:44 ESV
Flowers says that "The Calvinist is interpreting the word 'draw' as compel or to irresistibly change one's heart through an effectual work of grace so they will certainly come to Christ. Therefore, the Calvinistic interpretation of verse 44 would read, 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me compels him. And I will raise he who is compelled on the last day.'" I'm okay with this, it's a little weak, but way better than what he comes up with.

To refute translating the word "draw" as compel, Leighton goes on to say, "But Jesus says several chapters later,"

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

Flowers never mentions that this is the same Greek word for "draw" that we see in John 6:44.

He says, "If all are drawn and draw means to compel than that would make this verse to mean that everyone will come. Which is clearly not the intention of Jesus."

This is called poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem where negative information is presented to an audience to discredit whatever the opponent is about to say. By using this verse, he is saying the word "draw" can't mean draw or everybody would be saved. I'll deal with this verse a little later.

Flowers goes on to say (1:22): "A more consistent way to interpret the word 'Draw' is to enable or to grant. Which would help us to understand John 6:44 to mean 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me enables him. And I will raise up he who comes on the last day.'"

So, God does not compel, but he enables. Hang on to that because he's going to weaken it even further in a minute. God definitely enables. But where did this definition come from? He doesn't say.

Flowers goes on to say, ""A more consistent way to interpret the word 'Draw' is to enable or to grant. This is consistent with Jesus' own commentary in," in verse 65.

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:65 ESV
Flowers says (1:50): "This is kind of like saying, 'No one can come to the party unless they have been invited, and those who come will have a great time.' An invitation is required to attend but not everyone who is invited will necessarily choose to come and have a great time at the party."

Do you see what he just did? He just changed the meaning of the word draw to compel and then to invite.

Is there a difference between draw and invite? He never deals with the Greek words in these texts. If he did, he would not come up with this definition of invite. Before we go on, let's look at the word here for granted.

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:65 ESV
Flowers turns "granted" into "invite."

But the word "granted" here is didōmi, which means "to give." It is uses 414 times in the New Testament. So, this is saying that no one can come to Christ unless it has been given to him to come.

"No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father"—do you see the necessary condition in this verse? No one can come unless the Father has granted him the ability to come. A necessary condition is a circumstance in whose absence a given event could not occur or a given thing could not exist. In other words, if a man is not given to Yeshua by the Father, then a man can NOT come to him. Every person who comes to Yeshua can only come if he is given by the Father. That's the necessary condition. We must be given to Christ by the Father. These are the words of Christ, not Augustine or Calvin.

The word translated "draw" here is from the Greek word helkuō. Strong says it means, "to drag (literally or figuratively)." That certainly can't be says the Arminian. Drag and invite are certainly different. The Thayer definitions are: (1) to draw, drag off, (2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel. NASEC says, to drag: — drag (1), dragged (2), draw (1), draws (1), drew (2), haul.

So, Flowers twists the etymology of the word helkuo. He twisted "to drag" to mean "to invite." That is very dishonest. Flowers is a Professor of Theology at Trinity Seminary and has earned a doctorate. One should rightly assume that he knows some Greek.

Does God Drag or Invite? (John 6:44): Berean Bible Church

To me this is an ungetoverable verse on God's sovereign election. But I found a video that claims to De-Calvinize this verse. Does he or is it truly ungetoverable? You decide.

www.bereanbiblechurch.org

Read on, just remember I don't endorse everything from this author.

J.

 

[Johann]

J,,,the above two statements conflict each other.
It cannot be both.
I believe that we have to take the bible in its entirety and come to a conclusion.
ANYTHING can be proven by using the bible.
It's only when it becomes a complete thought that it makes sense.

If the influential pull is the cause of our salvation....
how do we refuse God's invitaion?

IF there is an efficacious pull,,,then we can all become reformed.
But an influential pull is different.

What do you mean by influential pull?

Right.
They were INVITED to the wedding.
They were not forced to attend.
Unwilling denotes free will.

I don't believe you ever replied to my question as to what Free Will means to you.

I don't have to, by your own admission you don't do word studies and since this is a debate, you are complaining I'm "writing books"-so which is it?

You are the one restricting me from giving an exegetical response--see #195

Thanks.

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

One moment--it is not "done"--see how Leighton Flowers twist the word DRAW. Kinda like what you are doing, not being facetious.

So we are still "stuck" on DRAW and it's etymology, trying to MAKE it ATTRACT--INVITE and my advise is to stay clear from Flowers and his flowery speech.


Does God Drag or Invite?

Good morning, Bereans! We'll get back to our study of 1 Peter next week. For our study this morning, I want to look at the question "Does God Drag or Invite?" Within Evangelical Churches there is ongoing debate on the issue of salvation. Is it by a choice of man's free will or of God's sovereign choice?

The Gospel is the Good News about what God has done for His people. It is the good news about Yeshua the Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. Salvation is a gift of God to His people from beginning to end. The resolute will of God is the root of the new birth and the motivating force that gives new life. Salvation is a work of God. Man has no part and can have no part in the miracle of the new birth. This is what we call the Doctrine of Sovereign Election.

This past weekend at the conference, Dr. Jordan Grant gave two great lessons on how to think. I need you to apply what he taught us in our study this morning. In a YouTube video entitled "John 6:44 De-Calvinized," Dr. Leighton Flowers tries to make John 6:44 not say what it says.

This video caught my attention because in my mind, John 6:44 is an "un-get-over-able" verse teaching God's sovereign election. But in the video, Flowers states that he has de-calvinized this verse. Let's look at what he says, and you decide. He starts the video by quoting 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. John 6:44 ESV
Flowers says that "The Calvinist is interpreting the word 'draw' as compel or to irresistibly change one's heart through an effectual work of grace so they will certainly come to Christ. Therefore, the Calvinistic interpretation of verse 44 would read, 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me compels him. And I will raise he who is compelled on the last day.'" I'm okay with this, it's a little weak, but way better than what he comes up with.

To refute translating the word "draw" as compel, Leighton goes on to say, "But Jesus says several chapters later,"

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

Flowers never mentions that this is the same Greek word for "draw" that we see in John 6:44.

He says, "If all are drawn and draw means to compel than that would make this verse to mean that everyone will come. Which is clearly not the intention of Jesus."

This is called poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem where negative information is presented to an audience to discredit whatever the opponent is about to say. By using this verse, he is saying the word "draw" can't mean draw or everybody would be saved. I'll deal with this verse a little later.

Flowers goes on to say (1:22): "A more consistent way to interpret the word 'Draw' is to enable or to grant. Which would help us to understand John 6:44 to mean 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me enables him. And I will raise up he who comes on the last day.'"

So, God does not compel, but he enables. Hang on to that because he's going to weaken it even further in a minute. God definitely enables. But where did this definition come from? He doesn't say.

Flowers goes on to say, ""A more consistent way to interpret the word 'Draw' is to enable or to grant. This is consistent with Jesus' own commentary in," in verse 65.

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:65 ESV
Flowers says (1:50): "This is kind of like saying, 'No one can come to the party unless they have been invited, and those who come will have a great time.' An invitation is required to attend but not everyone who is invited will necessarily choose to come and have a great time at the party."

Do you see what he just did? He just changed the meaning of the word draw to compel and then to invite.

Is there a difference between draw and invite? He never deals with the Greek words in these texts. If he did, he would not come up with this definition of invite. Before we go on, let's look at the word here for granted.

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:65 ESV
Flowers turns "granted" into "invite."

But the word "granted" here is didōmi, which means "to give." It is uses 414 times in the New Testament. So, this is saying that no one can come to Christ unless it has been given to him to come.

"No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father"—do you see the necessary condition in this verse? No one can come unless the Father has granted him the ability to come. A necessary condition is a circumstance in whose absence a given event could not occur or a given thing could not exist. In other words, if a man is not given to Yeshua by the Father, then a man can NOT come to him. Every person who comes to Yeshua can only come if he is given by the Father. That's the necessary condition. We must be given to Christ by the Father. These are the words of Christ, not Augustine or Calvin.

The word translated "draw" here is from the Greek word helkuō. Strong says it means, "to drag (literally or figuratively)." That certainly can't be says the Arminian. Drag and invite are certainly different. The Thayer definitions are: (1) to draw, drag off, (2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel. NASEC says, to drag: — drag (1), dragged (2), draw (1), draws (1), drew (2), haul.

So, Flowers twists the etymology of the word helkuo. He twisted "to drag" to mean "to invite." That is very dishonest. Flowers is a Professor of Theology at Trinity Seminary and has earned a doctorate. One should rightly assume that he knows some Greek.

Does God Drag or Invite? (John 6:44): Berean Bible Church

To me this is an ungetoverable verse on God's sovereign election. But I found a video that claims to De-Calvinize this verse. Does he or is it truly ungetoverable? You decide.

www.bereanbiblechurch.org

J.

You think I spend my time watching L flowers??
That's funny.

Maybe it's just that the truth is the truth.

 

[Johann]

You think I spend my time watching L flowers??
That's funny.

Maybe it's just that the truth is the truth.

Thanks for NOT reading the article, I will rather spend some time with others and be edified on this forum.

J.

 

[Johann]

You think I spend my time watching L flowers??
That's funny.

Maybe it's just that the truth is the truth.

My exegetical challenge to you is this-demonstrate from the eight occurrences of the verb ἕλκω (helkō) in the New Testament and Septuagint (LXX) that its semantic range includes the meanings “invite” or “attract”

Passage Verb Form Meaning Compel or Attract?
John 6:44 ἕλκυσῃ Draw (salvation) Ambiguous (God initiates)
John 12:32 ἑλκύσω Draw (universal) Ambiguous
John 18:10 εἵλκυσεν Draw sword Compel / physical
John 21:6 ἑλκύσαι Haul net Compel / physical
John 21:11 εἵλκυσεν Pull net ashore Compel / physical
Song 1:4 (LXX) εἵλκυσάν Draw (love) Possibly attract
Jer 38:13 (LXX) εἵλκυσαν Pull out of pit Compel / physical
Jer 31:3 (LXX) εἵλκυσα Draw with love Possibly attract

Here are the words for invite--


GREEK FOR "INVITE" / "CALL"
1. καλέω (kaleō)
Lexical gloss: to call, to invite, to summon.

Morphology (present active): καλέω; aorist: ἐκάλεσα; passive: ἐκλήθην.

Primary usage: Volitional or declarative invitation or summons, whether to salvation, a feast, or a relationship.

NT Examples:
Matthew 22:3 – καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους εἰς τοὺς γάμους
“And he sent out his servants to call/invite those who had been invited to the wedding feast.”

1 Corinthians 1:24 – τοῖς δὲ κλητοῖς, Ἰουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησιν...
“But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks…”

Romans 8:30 – οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν
“Those whom He predestined, He also called…”

Note: While Calvinists interpret this “call” as effectual, the Greek verb itself does not imply irresistible action. It simply denotes a summons or invitation, not necessarily a compelled response.

GREEK FOR "ATTRACT" / "APPEAL"
2. πείθω (peithō)
Lexical gloss: to persuade, to appeal, to win over.

Morphology: Present active: πείθω; perfect: πέποιθα.

Used to describe influence or persuasion, often by speech or demeanor.

NT Example:
Galatians 1:10 – ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν;
“Am I now seeking the favor of men or of God? Or am I striving to please/persuade men?”

Acts 18:4 – διελέγετο ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ... καὶ ἔπειθεν Ἰουδαίους καὶ Ἕλληνας.
“He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath and tried to persuade both Jews and Greeks.”

Note: This verb speaks to mental or emotional influence, not physical coercion.

GREEK FOR "WIN" (IMPLYING ATTRACTION)
3. κερδαίνω (kerdainō)
Lexical gloss: to gain, to win over, to profit from (sometimes used relationally).

**Used in the sense of drawing someone through persuasive or exemplary means.

NT Example:
1 Corinthians 9:19 – ἵνα τοὺς πλείονας κερδήσω
“That I might win more [people].”

1 Peter 3:1 – ἵνα καὶ εἰ τινὲς ἀπειθοῦσιν τῷ λόγῳ, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται
“So that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives.”

GREEK FOR "WOO" / "ENTREAT" (RARE, POETIC)
4. παρακαλέω (parakaleō)
Lexical gloss: to urge, to encourage, to entreat, to invite in a pleading way.

While often translated “comfort” or “encourage,” it can carry the connotation of beseeching or wooing.

NT Example:
2 Corinthians 5:20 – ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν... δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ· καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ.
“We are ambassadors for Christ... we plead on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.”

SUMMARY TABLE

Concept Greek Term Definition Notes
Invite καλέω To invite, summon Strongest word for invitation
Persuade πείθω To convince, appeal to Based on rational/emotional pull
Win over κερδαίνω To gain by influence Often relational, moral influence
Entreat/Woo παρακαλέω To urge, invite affectionately Used in pastoral or tender tone

If the Reformed interpretation of ἕλκω as “drag” is correct, it should have been paired with σύρω (used for literal dragging) or βιάζω (to force/compel).

However, the NT contains clear Greek vocabulary for invitation and attraction that never use ἕλκω—suggesting that ἕλκω has more nuance than irresistibility, and invitation is better expressed by καλέω or πείθω, not ἕλκω.

Shalom Sorella.

J.

 

[atpollard]

Romans 8:30 – οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν
“Those whom He predestined, He also called…”

Note: While Calvinists interpret this “call” as effectual, the Greek verb itself does not imply irresistible action. It simply denotes a summons or invitation, not necessarily a compelled response.

I think in Romans 8:30 it is safe to say that THAT “call” must have been effectual since those same “those” who are “called” are ultimately “justified” and “glorified”. If God is “justifying” and “glorifying” people who were NOT EFFECTUALLY “called”, then a LOT of theology and scripture needs to be adjusted.