The Theology in Calvinism

[praise_yeshua]

Perhaps you could explain something to me.

In John 6:44 the Apostle wrote that Jesus said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Yet, from your 'Calvinism got everything wrong' counter-verses, the TRUTH is "Everyone (all men without exception) MUST and WILL come to me, of their own FREE WILL, and those that choose to persevere in their (man-made) faith will be saved on the Last Day"

So did Jesus mis-speak or did John just get it THAT wrong when he wrote it down? How can Jesus words in John 6:44 and the TRUTH be so diametrically opposed that when I believe the words from Jesus lips I am 100% wrong and when you believe the other words from apostolic pens you are 100% correct and the messages are 100% the opposite of each other?

How did John 6:44 (and John 6:65) get something so fundamental, so wrong?​

I would like to know why you insist in your references establishing the means of "draw".

 

[praise_yeshua]

Can you edit the sources they linked to that included the original press releases from before it sailed? My only point was that even going to WIKI would have gotten anyone interested to the truth of pre-sinking quotes (via links, not via WIKI as the source).

People believe the "unsinkable" story because they WANT to believe that everyone claimed the Titanic was unsinkable and don't WANT to look for the truth.

"FREE WILL" and "a God that saves EVERYBODY" is the same way ... people start out WANTING to believe it and reject any verses or secondary sources that contradict their pre-chosen narrative.

They believe it because someone said it was unsinkable.

You've insisted it had to come from engineers and etc..... You're floundering

 

[civic]

Can you edit the sources they linked to that included the original press releases from before it sailed? My only point was that even going to WIKI would have gotten anyone interested to the truth of pre-sinking quotes (via links, not via WIKI as the source).

People believe the "unsinkable" story because they WANT to believe that everyone claimed the Titanic was unsinkable and don't WANT to look for the truth.

"FREE WILL" and "a God that saves EVERYBODY" is the same way ... people start out WANTING to believe it and reject any verses or secondary sources that contradict their pre-chosen narrative.

I think we are arguing over a mute point. The point being made is that it actually sank in spite of the work that went into the incredible ship.

 

[atpollard]

Those that come to Christ in faith have been drawn to Him by the Father. But we cannot isolate a single verse without the rest of Scripture to form a doctrine. You cannot make a verse say more than it says. It does not say all who are drawn come, or all who are drawn will be raised up. Drawing is necessary to be “able” to come. But the “him” that is raised up is not logically connected to just being drawn or just to being “able” to come, but to the one who actually comes. So according to context, what are some of the prerequisites for being raised up at the last day?

Respectfully, (and I actually mean it this time) ... the grammar of John 6:44 does link the "him" drawn to the "him" raised as the same person. It is a variation of the "I will lose none of those that the Father has given to me" (John 6:39) theme.

These statements seem MEANINGLESS NONSENSE if God draws EVERYONE to the Son and most are not raised (unbelief, wide road). John 6:43-44a seems false if all are drawn. John 6:39 and John 6:44 seem like empty promises if all are drawn to Jesus and most end up in Hell. Jesus lying to people is a MUCH bigger deal than my theology being wrong.

See, this strikes at the heart of "Can the Bible be trusted?"

 

[atpollard]

I think we are arguing over a mute point. The point being made is that it actually sank in spite of the work that went into the incredible ship.

We had a point?
I though people were just Fallen and Fallen people just argue (because we are fallen).

 

[civic]

Respectfully, (and I actually mean it this time) ... the grammar of John 6:44 does link the "him" drawn to the "him" raised as the same person. It is a variation of the "I will lose none of those that the Father has given to me" (John 6:39) theme.

These statements seem MEANINGLESS NONSENSE if God draws EVERYONE to the Son and most are not raised (unbelief, wide road). John 6:43-44a seems false if all are drawn. John 6:39 and John 6:44 seem like empty promises if all are drawn to Jesus and most end up in Hell. Jesus lying to people is a MUCH bigger deal than my theology being wrong.

See, this strikes at the heart of "Can the Bible be trusted?"

Jesus said He draws everyone in John 12:32 and that the gospel is for everyone. Faith is the difference with those who are raised from the dead and saved and those who are not. And faith is mans responsibility. Jesus taught that in several places and He is the authority on salvation, faith, doctrine etc.......

 

[civic]

We had a point?
I though people were just Fallen and Fallen people just argue (because we are fallen).

Thanks for lightening it up a bit.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Respectfully, (and I actually mean it this time) ... the grammar of John 6:44 does link the "him" drawn to the "him" raised as the same person. It is a variation of the "I will lose none of those that the Father has given to me" (John 6:39) theme.

You need to reevaluate your comments here. You're leaving out the Father drawing and the Son raising. Your connection doesn't work. In fact, it establishes the facts of the work of God in the Son being the means of drawing.

These statements seem MEANINGLESS NONSENSE if God draws EVERYONE to the Son and most are not raised (unbelief, wide road). John 6:43-44a seems false if all are drawn. John 6:39 and John 6:44 seem like empty promises if all are drawn to Jesus and most end up in Hell. Jesus lying to people is a MUCH bigger deal than my theology being wrong.

See, this strikes at the heart of "Can the Bible be trusted?"

Some ignore the message. Some do not. The Gospel is indiscriminately preached to all of humanity. I do agree that Arminianism is mistaken in the secure position of those in Christ Jesus. However, your argument does not establish your premise.

 

[praise_yeshua]

We had a point?
I though people were just Fallen and Fallen people just argue (because we are fallen).

Even bad arguments are helpful. It helps us all recognize our own inabilities. Those who refuse to accept the truth make the process "look bad".... It isn't. Foolish argument show forth the fool.... (Not saying anyone is a fool)

 

[atpollard]

Yes like this John 12:32 - its the same exact word draw in your verse.

If we are going to do a word study, then let's really study the word ...

[John 6:44 NASB20] 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws[G1670] him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

• The verse we are looking at to decide ... "draw" = invite or compel? (choice or no choice)

[John 12:32 NASB20] 32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw[G1670] all [people] to Myself."

• Does Jesus "invite or compel" in this verse? Can't tell (begging the question fallacy since it is the exact same context) ... could be either.

[John 18:10 NASB20] 10 Then Simon Peter, since he had a sword, drew[G1670] it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.

• Does the soldier "invite or compel" in this verse? Does the sword have the option to remain in the scabbard and still be "drawn"? No, the sword MUST come and "draw" = compel (no choice)

[John 21:6 NASB20] 6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you will find [the fish.]" So they cast [it,] and then they were not able to haul[G1670] it in because of the great quantity of fish.

• Does the fisherman "invite or compel" in this verse? Does the net have the choice to be "drawn"? No, the net MUST come and "draw" = compel (no choice). In this case the net did not come, so the verse says "not able to haul" ... but it was not by choice.

[John 21:11 NASB20] 11 So Simon Peter went up and hauled[G1670] the net to land, full of large fish, 153; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

• Does the fisherman "invite or compel" in this verse? Does the net have the choice to be "drawn"? No, the net MUST come and "draw" = compel (no choice). In this case the net did come, so the verse says "hauled" ... but it was not by the net's choice.

[Acts 16:19 NASB20] 19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was [suddenly] gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged[G1670] them into the marketplace before the authorities,

• Were Paul and Silas "invited or compelled" in this verse? Did they have the option to decline the invitation to visit the magistrate? No, they MUST come and "draw" = compel (no choice). This case is the closest parallel to the Father drawing men to the Son ... it involves drawing people to a person.

[Acts 21:30 NASB20] 30 Then the whole city was provoked and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged[G1670] him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.

• Was Paul "invited or compelled" in this verse? Did Paul have the option to decline the invitation to leave the temple? No, he MUST come and "draw" = compel (no choice).

[James 2:6 NASB20] 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag[G1670] you into court?

• Were the poor "invited or compelled" in this verse? Did the poor have the option to decline the invitation to go to court? No, they MUST go and "draw" = compel (no choice).

So looking at EVERY use of Strongs G1670, John 6:44 and John 12:32 both reference men drawn to Christ and are the case we are attempting to determine whether "draw" means "an invitation that one can refuse" or "to irresistibly compel". They are parallel and equivalent and simply "beg the question" (both verses could mean either "invite" or "compel"). The other 6 verses (John 18:10; John 21:6; John 21:11; Acts 16:19; Acts 21:30; James 2:6) all contain a version of "draw" that can only mean "to irresistibly compel". Thus from Biblical usage, "draw" in John 6:44 and John 12:32 probably also, both, mean "to irresistibly compel" ... like the sword, the fish in the net, Paul and Silas in the hands of the mob and the poor dragged into court.

In THAT SAME WAY, the Father DRAWS men to the Son (John 6:44) and the Crucifixion draws Jews and Gentiles to Salvation (John 12:32)

 

[praise_yeshua]

So looking at EVERY use of Strongs G1670, John 6:44 and John 12:32 both reference men drawn to Christ and are the case we are attempting to determine whether "draw" means "an invitation that one can refuse" or "to irresistibly compel". They are parallel and equivalent.

Nope. Not even close. You're making the argument for an irresistible force. An completely overpowering force. G1670 does not present such.

However, there is a Greek word that does. I suggest you study katasurō. If you must use Strong's then it is G2694. It is found twice in the Scriptures. Once in the OT. Once in the NT.

 

[praise_yeshua]

[John 21:11 NASB20] 11 So Simon Peter went up and hauled[G1670] the net to land, full of large fish, 153; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

I have to point out the obvious here..... Did any fish get away? The net was torn....

Critical thinking includes any and all evidence.

 

[atpollard]

Jesus said He draws everyone in John 12:32 and that the gospel is for everyone. Faith is the difference with those who are raised from the dead and saved and those who are not. And faith is mans responsibility. Jesus taught that in several places and He is the authority on salvation, faith, doctrine etc.......

Surprisingly, I agree with most of it.

Allow me to get personal (with me) for just a moment. Martin Luther once said something close to "Sin Boldly!" with the point that one needs to believe and trust in a God that forgives GREAT SINS because He is a God of GREAT MERCY (not a "god" that only forgives "little sins" because he has only a "little mercy"). Frankly, even by HUMAN standards, I was someone that SINNED BOLDLY! My one redeeming quality was that I was not a whiner. My sins were MY sins. I made the choices. There was no "Oh, my father left when I was young." or "I ran with a bad group of kids that were a bad influence." Both were true, neither was the reason for anything that I did.

So I loathe "O.S.A.S." in its "say a magic incantation, go about your sinful life, and you have a Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free Card" form. We are responsible for choosing to sin ... we sin because THAT is what our heart desired. We are saved, when God rips out that old heart and places a new heart (desires) in its place. Salvation is a change in the innermost core of who we ARE. That makes us RESPONSIBLE to BE DIFFERENT because we ARE DIFFERENT. All those verses about "old man" and "new man" are not just blowing smoke ... that is REALITY.

So if someone CLAIMS to be "saved" (a new creation), but is exactly like the "old creation", then they are fooling only themselves. NOBODY meets God and walks away unchanged.

So RESPONSIBILITY, I say [Heck] yeah!
However, BEFORE GOD, we are "a hot mess", so one needs to expect a "hot mess" to do what a "hot mess" does. [Running to Jesus is not what a "hot mess" does ... we run away and hide until God drags our sorry-looking self out to clean up the "hot mess"] 'Cause THAT'S what GOD DOES!

 

[praise_yeshua]

[James 2:6 NASB20] 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag[G1670] you into court?

• Were the poor "invited or compelled" in this verse? Did the poor have the option to decline the invitation to go to court? No, they MUST go and "draw" = compel (no choice).

Why not? Compel does not establish overwhelming force. Sure. Force exists. That is not denied. Many a person have "skipped" a court date.

 

[praise_yeshua]

[Acts 16:19 NASB20] 19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was [suddenly] gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged[G1670] them into the marketplace before the authorities,

Paul and Silas willing complied. They did not resist. Dragging requires resistance.

One moment Calvinists insists God drags them to Himself and at other times they insist God makes them willing. It can't be both. You can easily recognize the inconsistencies associated with the claims.

 

[praise_yeshua]

[John 18:10 NASB20] 10 Then Simon Peter, since he had a sword, drew[G1670] it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.

• Does the soldier "invite or compel" in this verse? Does the sword have the option to remain in the scabbard and still be "drawn"? No, the sword MUST come and "draw" = compel (no choice)

I don't believe a "sword" has a rebellious will? Did you have one of those?

 

[dwight92070]

Noticing this.... this brings up a very valid issue in these types of discussions.

I've said this for decades. What matters is if something is true or not. It doesn't matter the source.

Are you trying to rank truth here?

That's ridiculous, it matters who the source is. Satan knows the scripture and at times, he can even quote it, but he has ulterior motives in doing so. Calvin quoted scripture, at the same time he encouraged that those who disagreed with him be executed. It's no wonder he was deceived and misinterpreted the scripture, because his heart was corrupted by lies.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's ridiculous, it matters who the source is. Satan knows the scripture and at times, he can even quote it, but he has ulterior motives in doing so.

So you know Satan's motives... Right? Then why are you afraid when he quotes the Scriptures? or tells the Truth?

The "Truth" makes us free. Truth is referenced in the Scriptures but there is extensive TRUTH that is not found quoted from the Scriptures.

Calvin quoted scripture, at the same time he encouraged that those who disagreed with him be executed. It's no wonder he was deceived and misinterpreted the scripture, because his heart was corrupted by lies.

I don't promote any man. Not ANY man. Calvin was wrong. You are wrong. I am wrong. Truth this NEVER WRONG... Do matter if Calvin said it or not he was NEVER the source of Truth. All good and perfect gifts come DOWN from God. All Truth has its origins in God. Motive are important but you can't cast truth aside because of motives.

I understand your comments but we must deal with the concept of Truth apart from how anyone applies it. If it is True. It is True. Truth is an absolute defense against lies.

 

[dwight92070]

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."
Yes, the Father has drawn all who are currently followers of Jesus to Him.

But He has also drawn ALL men to Jesus.

We see that in John 16:8, where Jesus is speaking of the Holy Spirit: "And He, when He comes, will convict THE WORLD concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: ..." That means ALL MEN.

Romans 2:4 " ... not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" ALL OF MANKIND has experienced His kindness. We ALL breathe air, drink water, eat food and wear clothes that He provides. We ALL benefit from the sunshine and the rain that He gives us. We ALL know His kindness. So God is DRAWING ALL MEN to Himself through His kindness.

But look at verse 5 - But because of YOUR STUBBORNNESS and UNREPENTANT HEART you are storing up WRATH FOR YOURSELF in the day ... of the righteous judgment of God.

So many, probably the majority, have chosen to resist His drawing, which is why not all are saved.

Jeremiah 31:3 To Israel " ... I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have DRAWN you with lovingkindness."
So did Israel come to Him, when He DREW them? MOST of them did NOT - only a remnant came to Him - the majority did not.

So just because the Father draws someone, that does not mean that they will inevitably come to Him. Grace from God is now and has always been resistible. The invention of "irresistible grace" must have come from Augustine, then Calvin adopted it, now Calvinists today have adopted it but it is nowhere to be found in the scripture.

Hosea 11: 3-4, again speaking to Ephraim, which here means Israel: " ... I DREW them with gentle cords, with bands of love ..." So did Israel IRRESISTABLY come to God? Look at verse 7 "My people are bent on BACKSLIDING FROM ME." No, they did not.

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not ... WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

So, contrary to Calvinism, it is NOT GOD'S WILL that ANY should be lost. But we know that MANY are lost.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 "For this is the WILL OF GOD, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; ... " Did they abstain? Well, maybe some did, but certainly not all. Of course today immorality is rampant, even in the church.

So apparently God's will is not always done. Why not? There must be some OTHER WILL involved. Oh yeah - OUR will, man's will - Again, contrary to Calvinism.

Nowhere in scripture do we see that everyone that God wishes to save, gets saved.

"Irresistible grace" (that man cannot resist His grace) is a false invention of man.
"God only draws the 'elect' " is also false.
"God's will is always done" is false.
"Man does not have a free will" is also false.

 

[dwight92070]

So you know Satan's motives... Right? Then why are you afraid when he quotes the Scriptures? or tells the Truth?

The "Truth" makes us free. Truth is referenced in the Scriptures but there is extensive TRUTH that is not found quoted from the Scriptures.



I don't promote any man. Not ANY man. Calvin was wrong. You are wrong. I am wrong. Truth this NEVER WRONG... Do matter if Calvin said it or not he was NEVER the source of Truth. All good and perfect gifts come DOWN from God. All Truth has its origins in God. Motive are important but you can't cast truth aside because of motives.

I understand your comments but we must deal with the concept of Truth apart from how anyone applies it. If it is True. It is True. Truth is an absolute defense against lies.

Yes, I do know his motives. Haven't you read John 10:10 where Jesus says, "The thief comes ONLY to steal and kill and destroy; ..."?

So you know when I'm afraid ... Right? I don't fear Satan - I resist him as Peter told us to, and as Jesus did.

When we agree with scripture, we are NOT wrong. I'm certainly not perfect or sinless, but we are always right when we agree with God's word.

There's nothing wrong with promoting a godly man. God Himself does it. Look how he exalted Job? He also commends those men who have a contrite and broken heart. And we are supposed to imitate Him, are we not? Yes, God has favorites among men - those who fear Him.

Who said anything about "casting truth aside"? I never knowingly do that.

But when Satan speaks truth or a wicked man speaks truth, a good response is to avoid them and warn others of them. If they can't be avoided for some reason, a rebuke is in order, for their hypocrisy. Worst case scenario, if they're possessed, casting out a demon may be what's required.

By the way, surely you know that all cults speak some truth mixed with lies. So would you recommend associating with them because they do have some truth? If you would, that would be a violation of scripture.

If John Calvin were alive today, I would avoid him, warn others about him, and pray for him to be delivered from the lies that he believes, just like I would any other person caught up in a cult.